True Story - Even Good Tenants Can Go Bad

I have, but judging by your critique it appears you might have missed some of the more pertinent points.

 

If tomorrow, I sign a Contract and buy a property for $600K less than what the vendor paid for the property 10 years ago, what will you think of me?

If, prior to settlement or even after it, I find out that the vendor was a 'little old lady going into a retirement home' and this property is the only asset she had, should I go back to her and offer her $600,000 more than the agreed price. Maybe, I should offer $1M, just to clear my conscience?

If I don't, would you consider me 'harsh', 'distributed', ...? Would you be 'shocked'? Should I 'give myself an uppercut'?

In other words, is it OK to 'rip off' an old lady to the tune of $600,000 but unacceptable to have one's PM represent you at QCAT, to seek reimbursement of the break lease costs from the tenant, from the tenant's bond and from one's landlord insurance.

I'm sure the conscience police will give me their guidance. Sounds like I need it.

 

Personally I'd just make a deal with her if possible. Take some of the bond and avoid going to the tribunal and insurance. I did this a couple of weeks ago for a break lease single mum who had spilt stuff on the carpets.

If there's no malice in the tenants actions I don't see the point in wasting time for maybe a few hundred bucks.

 

I better list my definitions of tenants:

1. Good Tenant - one who looks after my property (inside and out), pay their rent on time, tell the PM of any maintenance issues, ...
2. Bad Tenant - one who don't pay their rent, breaks lease, skips through and refuses to meet their legal obligations, ...
3. Criminal Tenant - thrashes/vandalise the property, conducts activities such as drug labs, ...

We aim to only have the ones in 1. above.

We aim to never to have ones from 2. above but, if we do, we would seek costs from the tenant (if possible), from their rental bond, claim on insurance, ...

We aim and trust never to have any one from 3. above. In 25 years of being a landlord, we haven't and 'touch wood', I hope it remains that way. If we did, we would be handing the matter over to the police.

So, in this case, we had a good tenant/an ideal tenant go bad.

Obviously, others have different definitions that I wasn't aware of. My apologies for not listing the definitions in my in initial post.

 

I will say it just one more time:- The tenant is going to QCAT (not us but I have asked our PM to represent us if the hearing is held), the tenant has not left any forwarding information (we have her mobile number but I expect her to ignore our PM's phone calls (given what happened last week), ...

Yes, we will take the costs out of the bond refund (assuming QCAT rules that way) and yes, we are claiming on our insurance.

This was an example of a long-time very good/ideal tenant going bad in a short time (based on my definitions I have now posted).

 

Ah righto my bad, well you're doing exactly what I'd do then. You're being forced into it.

 

Please forgive me if I've misread the OP but wasn't there just one week to go until the end of the lease?
Why did she make the decision to go to QCAT? Was she being harrassed about signing the next lease?
Did she really go into the office and tell your lovely PM to stick it? Or, more likely, was it done over the phone?
Why didn't your lovely PM try to talk some sense into you?
Why do mature men try to set themselves up as everyman's mentor?

 

You aren't the first and I assume you won't be the last. Although, I must say, I am a little surprised at the reading/comprehension skills of some of my fellow posters .

In the OP, I said:

"7. Last December, she signed a third 12 months lease renewal."

That was her choice (no harassment from us) and, given her rental history with us (re-read OP), we agreed and our PM countersigned. Then, about one week before the end of the previous lease/start of new lease, she phoned to advise that she was vacating, etc, etc. This took us by surprise.

I can only assume she wants to go to QCAT to prove hardship. Otherwise, I assume the insurance company will blacklist her, etc. I have never been in this situation before.

My PM said she called the tenant to come into their office (which I can understand) and events occurred as I described. That is what the PM advised and I have no reason not to believe her.

Most importantly, I understand that our PM tried to talk a lot of sense into the tenant. When the PM rang me, we discussed and agreed that they should represent us at QCAT (if that is where we end up), that they should organise for someone to remove the tenant's personal items left behind, that they should organise a bond clean, that we should advertise the property immediately at the same rate, ... That all made perfect sense to me; I didn't have to be talked into it.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I thought PC was a place where one could post real experiences (good or bad) for fellow investors to learn from. Did I mis-understand something?

 

I guess you were unlucky she didnt pay 12 months in advance on the 3rd time.

 

Should have done this in the original post
Most people won't have 'break lease' due to such circumstances you mentioned under the definition of a "bad tenant".
And thats what the whole fuss is about.

 

I think the butler did it.

Come on, a guy shared HIS story and there are suspicions?

We are all here to learn something.

Who cares if Kieran's tenant really go into the office, what impact does that have on your life?

Honestly who cares! Why the interrogation? Not your rental property, not your tenant.

Thanks Kieran for sharing, you will be able to claim break lease costs regardless.

 

Not suspicious, just don't understand why anyone wouldn't let it go when th enew lease hasn't even started yet.
But yes, he's welcome to share whatever .... not saying he can't. Glad I gave you the chance to be indignant today.

 

Or one could say that the tenant is lucky that she didn't as the PM would have taken their cut and passed the remainder onto me and I would have spent it

 

Initially, I thought PC was a forum of mature, civilised property investors who were here to share and learn. I didn't think I needed to list my definitions to such an audience as they were reasonably obvious (or so I thought). From some of the subsequent posts, it became obvious that I had to and I did. My apologies.

For future threads/posts, I will try to lower my level of posting (i.e. dumb them down) so that such confusion doesn't happen again. If anyone was confused, I would have thought that they would have requested my definition or some sort of clarification (once again, my mistake). None did but I posted my definition to keep the thread on-track. It doesn't seem to have worked. Probably got something to do with some of the posters.

Well, I am not going to leave her in the Good category. Two months ago, she signed a legal document committing herself to over $23,000 of expenditure (a serious purchase in my book). One week before the new lease starts, she wants to break it. I am sure the PM and the insurance company are with me on this one and wouldn't call her a Good tenant.

By the same token, I am not going to put her in the Criminal category and call the police.

We will have to disagree on this one and I am fine with that.

No fuss but a lot of fun. Plus I have learnt a lot about some PC members, some of it good and some of it bad (by my definitions )

 

So it seems I haven't misunderstood you - just hoping that I had.
Most of us dumbies (not all) are a bit shocked by your post. What does that tell you?
Will be interested to hear how the tribunal goes - considering that after the 1st, the tenant is not required to sign further leases.

 

Gotta love that. It made me laugh.

Exactly my thoughts. Does PC have a double Like button?

And I will continue to post openingly and honestly. If some can't handle that, then I graciously ask that they don't read my posts. No skin off my nose. But if they do post replies and I believe they are incorrect, I will respond in that matter.

@Xenia, as a property manager you might witness similar situations of break lease on a regular basis and some probably a lot worse. In nearly, 25 years as a landlord, this is a first for me.

I appreciate your voice of experience, not only in this thread but others as well. Thank-you.

That process is well underway as I stated earlier. I think some here took my OP as a request for their approval. I can tell you I am not exposing my financial future to the members of PC, no matter how much or little I respect them.

I assume everyone would agreed with me on that (as Tony Jones says on Q&A, 'take that as a comment' ).

 

Birds of a feather flock together.

 

I am glad we have cleared that up for you.

What's are dumbies? It's not a word that I know. Just seeking some clarification or maybe a definition? So, it doesn't tell me anything because I can find a meaning for that word 'dumbies'.

Yeah, I have been shocked by some posts too. It has been a shocking night.

That is news to me. All of our PMs for all of our properties in Qld have always gotten the tenant to sign a new lease whenever they are renewed. That is their process and I don't think I can get them to change it, for me or for you.

Given that all our PMs are Qld PM and by the looks of it, you are from NSW - you are probably right.

 

That was so deep and meaning. And it added so much to this thread. Thanks for that.

 

Now I know you are joking.