Unreasonable rent increase

If it's not really about the money then this whole thread is not valid?
As a landlord I'd be upset at my tenants up and leaving with zero notice. Different story when the shoe is on the other foot though. . . .

 

But would you have managed it different so it didn't get to that stage?
And as they're week to week they dont need to give notice

 

@Sonamic Who said anything about leaving with zero notice? I will be providing as much notice as possible, and I certainly will not be just walking out without at least satisfying the minimum notice period. If I could guarantee that my apartment was going to settle in 12 weeks time, I'd gladly inform the PM of my intentions. Problem is, I don't know when completion will be. Am I to just take a guess and risk being homeless if the apartment isn't completed?

The fact that the dollar amount is minimal does not mean the thread is invalid. If a tenant just decided to not pay $200 in rent would you accept that? Would you not feel like the tenant wronged you?

 

Rent increase has now been cancelled indefinitely. I'm going to take that as confirmation the original letter never existed. Still cannot believe they tried to pull that one though, some dodgy operators out there.

And now I await the move out notice!

 

I'm sorry I misunderstood your "delight to inform PM of vacating" as zero notice. In a week to week situation does the LL not have the right to increase rent? I understand your not wishing to sign a proper Lease to avoid being signed in for $450 for any longer than needs be.

I'm going through a similar thing at the moment with one of my tenants, so trying to understand both sides and whose rights are whose. Lease is up mid January (12 month). PM has spoken to both parties midway through last month. Tenant is awaiting news from a Broker to see if she can proceed with a purchase of her own. Find out in the next week or two. I personally wouldn't let a Lease get to week to week. Too much uncertainty. For both parties.

 

It's month to month, not week to week. The LL has to give 60-90 days notice depending on the State. The tenant has to give next to nothing. Yes, you can give rent increases during this time.

There's no more uncertainty than a fixed lease. If a tenant wants to move during a fixed period, they still can & do. A fixed lease is more a deterrent, than anything. Probably about a third of our tenants are on month to month, and they are all long term. So long as they like where they are living, can afford it, and the rents are at market, there's no incentive for them to move out on a whim, and as long as they are decent tenants, there's no fear that the LL will want them gone. Moving is inconvenient & expensive.

 

Thanks for explaining.

OP does state week to week, so it's not month to month by their own reckoning.

And you're right moving is expensive. Just have to keep the rent increases less than the cost of moving, and be punctual with repairs.

 

Not necessarily! We keep rents at market (or higher). If the market moves $5, then they get a $5 increase. If the market moves more, then they get that as well. If the market drops back, we don't move our rents UNLESS a property becomes vacant. If they are happy where they are, they don't bother looking elsewhere. For instance, we have one in Western Sydney with a long term tenant. She's not the greatest tenant, but really hasn't done anything that we would move her along for.....but would be glad if she did move. Her rent is well above market rates. If she annoys me, she gets an increase. If she stays, I'm happy because I'm compensated for the annoyance factor, if she moves I'm also happy because I can reno the place & get a better tenant.

This property is dated & needs a reno. We wouldn't keep her if the place was nicely reno'ed, but it's not. She doesn't do any damage to the property, it's just not kept as nice as it should be, and she's regularly late with the rent....but pays up as soon as the PM gets on her case. The property was bought to reno, more than 10 years ago & we were a little busy at the time, so thought we'd put in a tenant temporarily....she's still there. In it's current state, it's the worst property in our portfolio. It's kept well maintained, but is very dated.

 

Haha! Yes same scenario here. I'll normally go $10 a week at each 12 month renewal. Have a tenant that I've had in my worst one for 3 years. Needs paint and carpets, but she has 3 teenagers,2 dogs, and tanked reptiles. But she's always on time with her rent. I don't want her to go, but if she's happy to wear an increase every 12 months I'm happy for her to stay and put the cashflow aside for vacating freshen up.

 

The problems with month to month tenancies are :

The tenant can move without consequence at a really inconvenient time of year. Eg winter in an area where property leading is more popular in the warmer months, or outside of the peak demand seasons near universities.

If there is an insurance claim for rental default, the insurers tend to cap it at a payout for for 2 weeks worth of rent (compared to 16 for fixed term tenancies). Some insurers won't pay out at all for rental default on a month to month tenancy.

 

This has happened to me... twice. It can be expensive.

 

My area has a downturn in winter. Last vacancy was 12 weeks at a very competitively low rental price. December - February are the best times to find tenants where we are.