Obstructive tenants

So you threatened him. Nice. I'm starting to get a very clear picture of how this tenant suddenly became cooperative with these methods. I wonder what I would think if I was looking at buying a house and the agent or owner told me that the tenant was terrible. I don't think it would make me pay more. Still think I will stick to my strategy.

 

As I explained, he was initially uncooperative but became cooperative after it was explained that the lease permitted us to sell and required him to do certain things. He advised that he wanted to stay in the property after the sale and also renew the lease, so it was pointed out to him that if he had a very untidy house during home opens, the new owner may take this into consideration when deciding if they would renew the lease. Accordingly, he changed his behaviour from uncooperative prior to the campaign to cooperative during the campaign and sale. I trust this clarifies the situation for you. With a better understanding of what actually happened, it is easy to see that I didn't have any need to "compensate" the tenant. The tenant made a good impression on the new owner, which will be a consideration when the new owner decides whether to renew the tenant's lease.

At no time did I threaten my tenant. I find it interesting that you would assume that.

 

Haha you can't even stand by your own comments. Sounds like a situation I would be avoiding

 

My 2c on this is - I love buying tenanted properties... especially when the tenant is uncooperative.
I believe this allows me to pay fair market value as opposed emotionally inflated value.
Its hard to "fall in love" with a house when you
1. You can't get access to it
2. See dirty/smelly clothes around the place
3. See tenants in their underwear on the couch.

@Bran, I would have had my broker do a "free" walk in valuation on the place. (By free, I mean the broker has that much goodwill with the lender they give them free valuations).

The valuers report would then determine whether i would sell or not.

Its all in or nothing for me - you can't have your cake and eat it too - not if you want the best results.

The only legal card i play is - "here's your notice to vacate".

While I haven't sold a property with a tenant (and have no intention to), I have constructed a granny flat at the back while a tenant was in there. I kept the tenant completely in the dark until approvals were complete.

Once i decided i was going ahead, I had my game plan mapped out
1. Tenant either agrees (and i would drop rent to make it win/win situation)
2. Tenant disagrees and I hand them a notice to vacate - there was 60 days until end of lease so I was prepared to wait.

 

Me

me too, love buying these properties. Just never sell them like this

 

I personally don't see any reason why I should bother playing nice and offering "incentives" when the tenant wasn't nice to begin with - A leopard doesn't change it's spots.

However if there was a way to structure a win/win, I would do it, however it would also mean that i didn't consider enough variables before coming to a decision - a lesson I would analyse over to minimise the likelihood it would be repeated it in the future.

I don't know what the market in Cairns is like, but I would be considering the following:
1. If you don't sell, does the tenant think they have won
2. Does that mean the tenant will think you're a push over and walk all over you in the future.

Should that be the case,
3. Should you bite the bullet and kick them out - which gives you a chance to give it a fresh makeover (paint, new carpet, etc - cheap cosmetic stuff)
4. If it doesn't sell, you can rent it again - consider the costs a tuition fee.

 

You would have to check the market but you could possibly get higher rent post makeover. It could be worth the investment. I incresed the rent of my properties significantly by repainting, replacing the carpet and replacing the kitchen.

 

Wtf? How is anything perthguy did a threat. He explained the tenants legal obligations and made an educated guess to the tenant about what might occur when the new owner took possession.

 

Depends on the tone that it was delivered in. That said, it's still a negative message and when delivered by some one who has a vested interest, it is likely construed as a threat, even if delivered politely.

If I cop came up to me and said "did you I could fine you for doing x", no matter how nicely they said it, I would still perceive it to be a threat. I would be on my best behaviour, doesn't mean I like it.

 

I'm sorry but that's a load of crap. Has society really sunk so low that we call pointing out the bloody obvious as a threat? did poor widdle tenant get his feelings hurt for being told his pigsty and mistreatment of a house he doesn't own might not endear him to a new owner.

 

"We did raise with him that if he was uncooperative during the inspection process that this may reflect negatively on him when it comes time for the new owner to renew lease" This implies to me that if the tenant doesn't fully cooperate that they would put a bad word in to the new owner. This is a threat. Perthguy has since clarified that this was actually his cryptic way of explaining that really he meant that he should keep the house clean to impress the new owner. Whatever. You two think your tenants are so privileged to be allowed to live in your house when really the opposite is true. You might have a different approach one day.

 

No, it implies that a new owner would see the bloody mess the tenant has left his new house in and might not act in the interests of the tenant. That's bloody obvious advice.

The opposite is true? how is it true? They pay us for the privilege of living in our house. That's a mutually beneficial arrangement. They are bound by laws same as us and I would expect every single tenant ever to abide by the laws same as I do.

 

Yes. We live in a nanny state. People get offended easily. People get punched over a glance.

 

It doesn't mention mess. It refers to cooperation. I must be slow because is wasn't "bloody obvious".

I would love to see you struggle to find a tenant and face financial difficulty in the process. A tenant/landlord relationship is a mutually beneficial relationship and should be treated as such. You are not above your tenants and you seriously don't deserve good tenants.

 

You have read a threat into a situation where no threat existed. I was thinking more from the new landlords point of view of inspecting a messy and dirty house. If the house is clean and neat, the new owner will notice and take this into consideration when my tenant seeks to renew his lease.

Not sure why you are being so hostile. There's really no need to take my comments personally or to assume I think my tenant is privileged to be allowed to live in your house. That comment is very far from the truth.

 

He mentioned it there.

Who said I was above my tenants. I already pointed out to you the arrangement is mutually beneficial, and that both parties need to follow the law. Simple.

 

No hostility here- actually laughing out loud at the ridiculousness of you and your boyfriend's mentality. I don't care if you did threaten or didn't, just taking your literal comments- which should clearly be disregarded. Good day

 

Oh right he mentioned three pages ago and it in no way relates to the statement in question. Well done.
You said that you were above your tenants- in every single comment you made in every way possible. enjoy your night

 

Another perspective is that my original post was not a clear as it could have been and was misunderstood. However, when I clarified the situation to clear up the misunderstanding, you could not accept that for some reason. Reading back to what you implied from my comment, I can see how my post could be misunderstood, which is why I clarified. What I don't understand is your reaction to the additional information that I provided. Exactly what are you trying to "win" or "prove" here?

 

@Inov8ive one option is for us to agree that I am glad you are not my tenant and you are glad I am not your landlord and leave it at that. How does that sound?