Vendor wishes to rent back post settlement: house unfit to occupy

Hypothetical for you all...

I went to a few open homes today and there was one that was in quite poor condition with water damage to the ceiling, there was a damp smell and there was mould on the roof. Anyways, I found this particularly interesting because one of the vendors (separation) is currently living in the house (yuck) and the agent said they are interested in renting it back.

In practicality though the house is unfit for rental in the current condition. I would be curious to know how Consumer Affairs/Fair Trading would view this when the vendor has requested to stay? Although, I guess it would only be raised in the case of a dispute. Not possible to fix damage whilst someone is living there, but she doesn't want to leave if possible.

I am not in a position to buy and would want vacant possession to avoid complications... But quite curious about this scenario, since the occupant has already been living in the poor conditions for so long.

 

I would always refuse this request in this situation because the tenant clearly would not look after a house well. Additionally, you would need to remediate the property and/ or demo. Vacant possession or nothing for me.

 

Agreed! Although, I was also thinking, could they even do more damage

 

I would bet on it!

 

I don't think many PMs would want to manage a property that is deemed unfit for occupation. After purchase, the tenant may ask the new landlord to have things fixed. You would need to have a very tight agreement stating the condition of the house and having them agree that they are occupying the house in that condition.
Sticky situation with potential (legal) headaches down the track.

 

There are certain basic requirements that cannot be contracted out of under the rest tenancy act. What if he complains about the mould and takes you to the tribunal for example.

 

Whoever keeps her on is asking for a world of trouble.

 

I would suspect this person will somehow fail to pay the rent too.

 

No, don't rent it to anyone.

No matter what the previous owners say, as a landlord you have legal responsibilities to your tenants.

As a worst outcome, when they finally leave the tenants could take you to the tribunal and be awarded ALL the rent they have paid you on the grounds that the property was not fit for habitation.
Marg

 

Lousy ones would. I have looked at two places that were rented out sub $200 agencies decided to try and let out. One had a "funny smell" which I discovered was due to black mould and a window minus glass, and no floor in the bathroom. Another was riddled with mould they did not clean off properly...

 

No. If they dont look after the house when they own it how do you think they will look after it when they are renting it.

Vacant possession, renovate, rent for market rate.

 

I also suspect the agent suggesting that the vendor wishes to rent it back is probably only fluff anyway. I never believe anything the agent says. That is what a solicitor is for.

 

Not to mention when the tenant decides to erect a big sign in the front yard that says "Car Body Storage! Only $10/Year" and fill the back and front yards with car bodies.

And then move out...