Hi There
Got a real curly one that some of you may have been in a similar situation and some feedback would be much appreciated.
I have a rental just vacated early that needs a good lick inside as the tenants have purchased a property, they have paid up until the end of May and the real estate agents have already found a new tennant that can move in at the end of May (same rent as before by law). Perfect, but should I spend the month on the property painting, carpets etc to try and yield a better dollar in 12 months or do I just let it be and get it done when they go but lose on rent income while it is empty.
I would have to rush to get this done and probably mainly use tradesman and also do my head in at the same time. After all this I may be able to get an additional $15 a week after their first 12 months.
Would love some ideas to toss around on this one, this is my first post so please excuse my ignorance.
Regards,
Springfield
You've sort of missed the boat on this one . The renos should have been organised to start as soon as the current tenant moves out, then re-advertise for the new tenant with the rent increase so you can start recouping the reno costs immediately.
The incoming tenants have signed the lease with the property in its current condition, so they are probably not expecting to have it renoed before they move in.
Most, if not all of the rent increase will be eaten up by the renos costs initially. They are tax deductible which will offset the cost to a degree.
I would only be doing it now if the rent was going to increase with the incoming tenant in May.
Long term it is the right thing to do, but it may be better to wait until the current tenant moves out, or at the end of their lease when you can increase the rent.
Hi Marc
Yes I am thinking along the same lines, I am a little green on this but the REA told me that when a tennant moves out proir to the agreement ending (still paying of coarse) that by law it has to be re-let at the price that they were paying so I would have found myself in the same predicament. Now the new tennants want a 12 month agreement and they have already seen the place and are not under any assumption that I will be doing any work so I think that your comments are spot on, thanks again
Regards,
Springfield
I thought the law was only if you were going to make current tenants (the ones breaking their lease) continue to pay rent until a new tenant is found. If you are willing to let them out of their lease then I think it is a different story….someone correct me if i'm wrong.
yes are are spot on, they have vacated but are still paying for 4 more months, so it has to be advertised at their current price unless I cut them lose and start fresh
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
