I have recently bought a property which was vacant when I signed the contract and I settled on it with the assumption that it was still vacant as I was told it was. My PM thought it was vacant as that is what the sales agent told her (both work for the same real estate company and branch). Myself and my PM spoke about a week ago and decided on the rent, the advertisement details and some repairs which I wanted done ASAP. Yesterday I got an 'update' on the properties (it went to all owners as they were purchased at the same time and are managed by the same agent as we got a good deal). My property wasn't listed as one that was advertised for rent nd indeed was not on there website, so I emailed back to ask why. The email that I received today said that my property was already rented and this occured just before hand over. The PM was not told that this had occurred I have as yet no details of why this occurred, how long the tenancy is or exactly how much the rent is. I assume that it was $190pw as this is what it was previously rented for. Other identical units receive $230pw which is what I was going to advertise mine at. Was the agent allowed to rent the property even thoughit was supposed to be a vacant possession? If the property has been rented for $190pw what is the minimum notice that I can give the tenant for a rental increase assuming they're on a periodic lease. What are the laws regarding rental increases if the tenant has signed a 12 month lease agreement? The property is in QLD.
If the tenant has signed for 12 months, then you can't increase the rent until the end of the fixed term ie you can serve notice of the increase 90 days prior to expiry of the lease (just need to check Qld legislation).
By the way, it sounds like the left side of this agency doesn't know what the right side is doing (is the place leased or vacant?, at what price? what is the term? There should be a copy of the lease on file at the agency and if necessary a copy made available to you if requested).
Sounds very weird.
If the contract states vacant possession then that's how it should be upon settlement.
Cheers
Jamie
Jamie Moore | Pass Go Home Loans Pty Ltd
http://www.passgo.com.au
Email Me | Phone MeMortgage Broker assisting clients Australia wide Email: [email protected]
Tell me about it Scott no mates and Jamie. I went with this agency because it was recommended by people that already use it. The story is potentially more complicated than I've stated though. The property was originally rented by another agency. This agency has been sold (somewhere between me signing the contract and today – as it says they've sold up on their website). I suspect the first agency did a shifty, rented out the property below market value and did not tell anyone (not sure how no-one noticed someone living there?). Perhaps its rented to a friend or employee of the first agency hence the cheap rent?? Therefore the sales agent told the new PM it was vacant. I already thought it was vacant (as all the paperwork stated it was). I'm not sure when my PM found out that it wasn't vacant but I am really angry that she neglected to tell me. If it is rented for a year have I got any legal recourse? I'm $2000 out of pocket for the year if it has been. Can I just not make any non-urgent repairs for the year or am I legally responsible to do this?
So you bought a property that had vacant possession on the contract and you neglected to do a pre settlement inspection the day before settlement and you are blaming the agent? Didn't your solicitor ask you if you had done the pre settlement inspection? You would have seen there was someone living there then and would have been able to do something about it. .
Who owned it previously?They must have given permission for it to be rented. Can't understand why they would when they would risk settlement not going ahead. Or did they know you wouldn't be doing the inspection?? Weird. I think there is more to your story. You went to all owners as they were purchased at the same time?? Through a buyers group????
or is it a new unit that the agents sold and managed?
So now you want to save money by not doing repairs? Depends what they are as to whether you are obligated to do them.
Catalyst. Actually I don't want to save money (I can afford the place whether it has a tenant or not) I want to make money by getting rid of the tenant and putting the rent up to fair market rent as I believe it is not at this level (I need more accurate information from the PM which when I speak to her tomorrow until I know exactly what the rent is). There was a pre-settlement inspection hence my comment about not sure why no-one noticed it was being lived in (it is fully furnished though). I don't understand you're question: "You went to all owners as they were purchased at the same time?" It wasn't bought though a buyers group, it was a group of people that got together and bought it effectively meaning that the vendor could sell all units quickly and we got a great price (he needed to sell all of them due to high debt levels). The PM was suggested by 2 buyers who use them already and there was no obligation to use them. The units are not new. I would really appreciate any comments about whether I have any legal recourse. The previous agency who signed the lease has sold his business and the vendor sold with huge debts so I doubt monetary compensation would be possible from the latter.
I just re-read my PMs email and she has said that she apologises but the previous PM put a tenant in as of settlement date (prior to hand-over time). Now I understand why the pre-settlement inspection showed no-one living there.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
