Tenants Breaking Lease

Have in 1000% of my cases

Exiting tenant pays the difference. Similarly when we've listed for higher we credit exiting tenant the difference towards the other costs.

Tribunals dont have a magistrate

In short, let me know if you have further questions, happy to educate newbies all day.

 

The claim tenants don't have to pay is nonsense of course. Others tenants would break lease all the time. They don't. It's very obvious why.

 

Of course, otherwise the definition of contract would be meaningless in this country

 

Break lease
Mitigate losses and claim against bond and tenant for incurred expenses.
Similar to breaking any contract

 

I think your saying the same thing.

No one is saying a LL can act unreasonably, i.e keep place empty on purpose.

But your on another planet if you think tenant can just do as they like with zero impact to them including money wise.

 

Judge and jury in my world.....jury must consist of 80% seasoned PC members......it is win win win.....

 

The key word there is "may". May be liable is not the same as is liable.

 

They have members - the people I've seen have worked as magistrates. But that's a trifling matter.

Do you have links to your cases before a tribunal to provide? If they've ruled in your favor 1000% then you'd have proof.

So many people keep posting links and missing the key word "may".

The tenant may be liable. But that's up for argument at the tribunal. If a tenant broke lease and two weeks went by then sure, the member might rule they pay. But when you look up cases you see members not ruling that when the gap between tenants is to long. Because then questions arise about whether the agent/landlord was doing their best to re-let the property.

Oh, I won in Vcat on a lease break about fourteen years ago. So I'm not a newbie and your "education" is just wrong.

The only link that matters is to the actual act itself. Not a third party page. The act determines the rules and the lease is meaningless if it imposes greater costs than the act allows.

But agents still try it on...

 

No one said zero money impact.

But the core idea that a tenant must pay rent until a new one is found is a lie. It is not upheld in tribunals in the majority of cases. Yes, a week or two the member may grant. But any delay, including failing to list the property for even a week looks really bad.

I won 14 years ago on this exact point. They didn't list online for eight days. That meant they lost a weekend they could show property. They also kept rent up when prices had dropped in local area.

I won at tribunal and paid a pro-rata leasing fee which was my original offer to them.

 

Who said they don't pay? No one. Strawman again huh.

Tenants do break leases all the time and then do not pay the rent gap. For the ones that end up in tribunal the agent has to prove they relisted quickly and at the market rate. Any delay is looked down on.

Members do not rule that tenants must pay rent gap in 100% of cases or anything like it.

In fact, the longer a property is empty is more proof it is mispriced. Which then means the tenant doesn't pay the gap.

May be liable. Not is liable. Some costs are charged but the burden to minimise costs is a real one that members take seriously.

 

I do not think anyone is saying that LL unecessary delays will fall on the tenant.

No one is saying every case is the same, or black and white.....

At the end of the day.....people make decision in tribunals, I can cite cases that were very unfair too tenant as well as ones unfair to LL IMO.......

I think the core point is though, that neither side can just walk away with no responibility via money usually.

 

So you didn't just terminate the lease and walk away? How about that then...

Cheers,
Inertia

 

No one said zero costs.. Can't people read?

I terminated because they kept dragging feet on repairs. Then I found black mould.

I offered Pro rata lease fee.

Then they delayed relisting. Then it was too high a price as prices had dropped.

Between that and the fifteen or so emails requesting repairs the member ripped into them. It was glorious. They wanted six weeks rent. They got zero. They only got what I'd offered - the pro rata relet fee.

 

What you wrote is very clear

The tenants do not have to pay more rent. Not exactly open to interpretaion.

Tenants Union Victoria states clearly that a tenant breaking a lease may be liable for rent until new tenants move in or until the end of the fixed term (whichever happens first).

That directly contradicts your claim that "Break lease literally means the lease is broken. The tenants do not have to pay more rent."

 

Here is the link to the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act.

Here's what you're not going to find in there: a tenant must pay rent until a new tenant is found. Nor will you find anything like it.

The only thing covered in the act is that compensation may be applied for. That's it.

So, in essence, it's utter bs to believe nonsense such as the tenant must pay rent until a new tenant is found. That's not how the act is interpreted and that's not the outcomes at VCAT. Other state tribunals are similar.

The Tenant Union lists the various costs that *may* apply because they are the various things landlords ask compensation for.

But this dumb belief that tenants must pay rent until a new tenant is found... no, that's not in the act. Re-letting fees aren't in the act either.

The term is just "compensation". Whatever people feel they are owed money for. And the way the act is interpreted is that owners have an obligation to minimise costs.

So, read the damn Act. It's right there. Stop reading third-party sites. They aren't the authority on the subject.

And learn what "may" means.

 

So not the point.

The point is that nowhere in any tenancy act in any state does it have anything about a tenant being obligated to pay rent until a new tenant is found.

The extent of the language is that landlords can ask for compensation.

How this plays out in reality is that they need to list fast, price correctly and do their utmost to minimise costs. A failure on any point can significantly reduce or wipe out any compensation they're asking for.

This is why agents put lease break clauses in their leases. They'd rather the tenant pay a fixed fee and go away because then they know how much they're getting. Rolling the dice at a tribunal doesn't guarantee a win.

I've linked the Victorian Residential Tenancy Act now. Perhaps people who are so certain of their position should take a read and learn something.

 

Yes I take your point that its not quite as straightforward as some landlords would suggest.

But its also a fair statement to say that compensation in a break lease situation would typically include the rent payable under the lease until a new tenant is found, assuming reasonable steps to mitigate the loss by the landlord.

Also, linking the RTA doesn't prove anything either way, since break lease liability is a common law concept.

 

Any updates since 1997?

 

No, it's not a fair statement to say at all.

It's a bad idea that landlords wish was true and agents try to lie about all the time.

If a tenant breaks a lease, they stop paying rent immediately (or on the date the say is the final day). That's it for rent.

If the landlord wants compensation they can go for it. They have their agent attend VCAT to apply for compensation.

The member looks at how quickly the place was leased. They look at when the advertising started.

They want to see invoices from the agent showing costs.

They usually pro-rata advertising costs and re-letting fees if they're granted.

But if there was a delay in advertising or the place sat empty for a month, the member usually has something to say about that, particularly in regard to making efforts to minimise costs.

I never said zero dollars are paid. But there is nothing in the act that says rent must be paid until a new tenant is found.

Some compensation might be won but it's not rent nor is it until a new tenant is found. That's not how it works.