The tenant who was previously on month to month requested a 2 year lease. I agreed in principle at the start and then had some issues with the property manager so chose not to sign it when it arrived. I just found out a couple of months later they assumed I signed it because I had agreed initially the process it. Is this the case? They just sent me a copy signed my the tenant only saying that is sufficient? Seems crazy to me....
In any tenancy issues, you need to specify which state the property is in so peoples can give you appropriate advice. Eg here on SA leases, owners dont even have a spot to sign.
Sorry I’m in Victoria. So who or where do I go to find out if it is valid? Consumer affairs? Tenancy act?
No real substitute for proper legal advice for something like this. You'll have to see a lawyer for a reliable answer. I wouldn't trust an opinion from consumer affairs even. I'd say there's at least a significant risk its binding if: 1. You've given them a fixed term written lease agreement to sign (offer on certain terms); and 2. They've signed it and returned it to you before you revoked the offer (acceptance and communication of acceptance to you). Often a countersignature from a LL/REA is superfluous and has no additional legal effect.
Your PM is generally authorised to carry stuff out for you, if you agreed, they have produced a result.....
Not a lawyer, so dont sue me, but you said yes, without specifically retracting this in writing ...... then of course tenant has a lease.......you duke it out now with your PM.....or run the place yourself if you cant see where the breakdown is....
happened to me with tenant not returning paperwork for an additional year when it was agreed with the agent, no returned signed paperwork so technically they were on month to month. The tenant has been there longer than when the lease should have run out and are maintaining the place pretty well so haven;t chased them up
Yeah, but there are reasons to have a valid periodic lease....and so many PMs are not across it.....so I woul be happy if PM got a new lease signed......most are too lazy or not on top of things....
Here in Brisbane, Agent is fully authorised to sign the Lease, so long as the Owners have agreed. In fact there is only one spot for signature, either PM or Owners to sign. IMHO, since you have not retracted your consent, and the Tenants have been told, the Lease should be valid.
Were the issues with the actual lease, or with the PM? If the issues were with the lease, what were they?
Nor is there an obligation on the tenant to enter into a new lease as existing lease has holding over provisions.
Yes....have some like that now, that is ok, they can leave, or pay an increased rent ...... Thing is, I am happy with long or short periodic....so no good reason to deny, most tenants are ok if ll is flexible, some do not want to say they want to leave as if there will be some sort of back lash.
Getting back to the original question, in NSW the Act states: @Becky - check the Victorian Legislation whether it has similar provisions to the NSW Act. - RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 2010 - SECT 17 Certain unexecuted residential tenancy agreements enforceable
Note that the NSW provisions are actually just a legislation codification of what happens at common law with contract law formation already though.
Vic - lease doesn't have to be in writing and technically if a party has signed it's legal. (By VCAT standards) Also standard REIV contract and most authorities will allow the agent to sign on your behalf, so if you agree initially it's sent, signed by tenant and then signed by agent on your behalf.
And...so does the OP have tenant ??? And why do you not want them ? Or have you dissapeared letting us debate things ad nauseum ?
