WA leaving a lease early

Hi

I have some friends that have brought a new property - settling early august.

They have been in there rental property 3 years and there lease expires early October

they pay $500 per week which in my opinion is prob $50-75 more than market value.

They obviously asked if they could leave 2months early when they move into there PPOR but the landlord has said they must pay rent until there lease expires unless she finds someone else,

well A I don’t think she will get $500 per week for it and B I thought that was a pretty rough attitude considering the they have been there 3 years, always paid on time and kept the place tidy, a bit of grace might have been nice - even though she won’t get $500 per week, given the tight rental market currently I think if she advertised it at say $430 it would get snapped up in a few weeks..

Do they have any options to available to save them paying rent for a few months while they are in there PPOR - if the landlord is unwilling to advertise the property at market value when I doubt people would move in at the above market rent of $500, what happens them.

Any advice would be appreciated

cheers

 

I used to hate that about WA, NSW is far better in that regard.

Basically (unless something has changed since I was there) the landlord is correct.
The ideal outcome would be to get a new tenant in at a reduced rent and have your friends pay the difference. Of course, getting a landlord to accept that rents have declined can be like trying to covert a flat earther.

From memory the landlord must make 'a reasonable attempt' to find a new tenant, but given how little time there is until the lease expires I wouldnt bother fighting that, and Im sure the landlord knows that too.

The less ethical move would be to just up sticks, forfiet the bond, and move into thier PPOR. Sure they could persued for the difference, but I'd put money on that not happening here.

 

They could potentially use the covid legislation to terminate with 3 week's notice.

Or even if in a break lease situation, if the landlord doesn't take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss, they might not need to pay much at all anyway in break lease fees.

 

You guys have nailed it.

Also, just for a different perspective- regardless of whether these people have been good tenants for three year or not, why do you think that entitles them to $2000 of charity from the Landlord?

@thatbum how does your tribunal tend to define "Reasonable steps" over there? In QLD we're expected to have a VERY good reason for not finding someone if it's taken more than a month. In OP's case, they could advertise in July for an August move-in, surely tribunal would find it unreasonable if the house was still empty three months later?

 

My understanding is that you cant raise the rent if someone else takes over a lease.

is the owner legally required to advertise at the (possibly lower) rent instead of at the rent of the current lease?

 

They're legally required to make reasonable efforts to mitigate the tenants loss. If the tenant can mount a compelling argument that the rent needed to be reduced to do so, then I believe they would be considered to be legally required to do so.

 

Yep. I belive both @thatbum and @Tom Rivera have given a good outline. I would get that info and call tenants WA for detailed info. While I understand that the landlord wouldn’t want to lose the money, no one wants to take a financial hit. I don’t believe it’s reasonable to say a flat NO.

 

Yeh definitely that the landlord shouldn’t be expected to just let the tenants go early. I would of thought a bit of compassion could be made though for the fact they have lived there 3 years and have been paying a decent rent.

I might suggest they try some sort of compromise eg pay 3 weeks from when they vacate in august and leave it at that

otherwise I guess they will just have to bite the bullet because I don’t think they are the type of people to not uphold the rental agreement.

I will suggest they Call tenants WA aswell, I haven’t heard of them before - so they assist tenants in these types of situations?

 

That was always my gripe with the the WA tenancy rules in that regard.

How does one define 'reasonable steps'?. I never had to go down that path but I like what Tom Rivera alludes to in that if the existing tenants have given notice, and after over a month the landlord has not found a new tenant then 'reasonable steps' have not been taken.

It sounds like they are trying to do the right thing, it's a shame the landlords stubbornly refusing to cooperate in the hope that fighting it for the sake of a couple of months gets too hard and they merely capitulate and pay anyway

 

There are so many grey areas in tenancy legislation. The word "reasonable" gives me nightmares

The best part is when Adjudicators have all come together to define what they feel is reasonable in the majority of cases, and we're all expected to just "know" through the grapevine.

 

Varies a lot by Magistrate unfortunately, but overall I don't think they are as strict on lessors. Technically in a legal sense the time it takes to rent out should only be one factor, and its primarily what the actions lessor/REA actually does take, and not the results that are conclusive.

There's actually no express prohibition on raising the rent, or strict rules on what the rent should be in reference to the former rent. It generally should be market rent that is a reasonable step to mitigate loss, whatever it is at the relevant time.

Yes or a local tenancy advocacy service. List of which is on the Tenancy WA website. But Tenancy WA is perfectly fine for phone advice for this sort of thing.

 

SPOT ON. The tenants have a lease and they should honour it or break the lease in the proper way.

How would they feel if they were the owner???

 

And how would the owner feel if they were the tennant here???

It sounds as though the tenants ARE trying to break the lease in the correct way, unfortunately in WA there is no easy and transparent way to do so.

Worse yet, the owner in this case is not even attempting to uphold thier obligations so I'm lacking sympathy for them based on what's been written here.

 

..and herein lies the real problem...

 

Another fun fact is that the landlord in the case above has got it wrong - contrary to belief the tenant is not required to "pay rent until the end of the lease". What actually happens is that the tenancy agreement is broken, and there are grounds for compensation to be due for actual losses, which can include an amount equal to the rent to the date the original agreement was to end, and absent an agreement between the parties it is not technically owed until a CAT has ruled that it's owed (in most states - NSW has a new way of calculating break lease fees that shortcuts this process). The CAT can also reduce or set aside in entirety that amount, which is usually good incentive for the lessor or agent to try and come to a mutually crappy (I mean agreeable) outcome.