Tenant gave notice, and now wont move out!!

I would serve them the required termination notice, get an order for vacant possession from tribunal for failure to comply with end of lease procedure - charge rent up to the day they leave, and then sue them at magistrates court for any losses that occurred due to sabotaging the new lease.

Deal with it logically and legally.

 

Well legally its not a breach of a tenancy agreement for a tenant to overstay, so that would be a waste of time and money.

 

Most of my PMs have managed this all pretty well, if they communicate with the new tenant, it should avoid most problems.

I tend to think the OP is onto something in not starting a new tenant the wrong way, when that happens, it seems to always be a problem, some may forget, some do not.

 

In an ideal world the lease wouldn’t be signed until the tenant had vacated but this isn’t practical. Very few tenants would wait until the day they were promised and plan their entire move around the possibility they might not be allowed in. You can imagine how many tenants would agree to only signing the lease on move-in day! Advertising may as well not commence until vacate.

Of course, in the above scenario this might happen anyway, but not signing a lease until it’s vacant is almost guaranteed to give the landlord weeks of (usually) unnecessary vacancy. It’s attempting to mitigate risk for the 1 in 1000 times this happens, and creating vacancy for the rest of the 999 landlords where it doesn’t.

Best practice is about mitigating risk for the majority and the majority of the time.

 

I agree if I was going to be the new tenant I wouldn't want to organise my life on 'hope' that I get offered the lease on the day the tenant moves out, what would stop the LL from finding another tenant who is going to pay more? I have no leg to stand on as I didn't have a lease/agreement in place.

I would only organise moving once I had secured us a property unless I was planning something else (e.g. 12 month holiday).

 

Or the LL realise that the new tenant may accept something else on the day.

 

My leases are on the REINSW contract dated Jan 2011, and clause 51 requires the tenant to "deliver up vacant possession of the premises" upon termination of the rental agreement.

I would have considered the tenant's "giving notice" as causing the rental agreement to terminate on they date they said that they would vacate.

Is this not enforceable?

 

No a residential tenancy only terminates once a notice of termination is given AND the tenant gives up vacant possession.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rta2010207/s81.html

Clause 51 sounds like its completely redundant, which is common for terms in REI drafted residential leases I find.

 

There is only one person to blame in all this, and that's your PM!

Tenants over staying is common... why would a tenant move out prior to the vacate date and pay overlapping rent? I always over stayed and found a rental after my vacate date, regardless of whether the vacate notice was given by myself or the landlord.

 

So sorry yr going through this !Its not a nice time .It could be yr PM being slack but some tenants just know their rights!(its much worse in the USA btw!!)
I would still sign up the new tenant before the old has left other wise you may be stuck for long periods without tenants
deal with it quickly through the PM

 

Exact same thing happened to a friend here in Qld but the tenant was awarded 4 weeks free rent due to financial hardship. It really makes me wonder how some of these tenants get any good references after a lot of things I've seen over the years.

 

Because PMs rely on them too, and are more inclined to say nothing. Unless it is a really bad tenant.

 

So you always overstayed yet its definitely the PMs fault?

 

You said what I wanted to say but I want to get other investors thinking. I know what goes on they move them from house to house and collect 2 weeks rent each time while LL has to foot the bill for the damage that's left behind.

 

What's the price of tea in China got to do with the original post?

PM has signed a legal document without knowing if they can meet the obligations of it...

 

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your post?

 

Where is the hypocrisy mate? There's a set of rules to be played by. Exploiting loopholes is all part of the system... it's no different to someone buying a negatively geared property and claiming tax deductions - it's all within the rules.

I am merely providing information to the original poster that lets them know that perhaps signing a new lease before tenancy has ended is not the best idea as the tenant has no incentive to move out on time.