It is interesting because by itself when you hear:-
-The property agent had an opportunity to confirm with the tenant that the eviction notice was no longer valid but didn't give "sufficient notice"
-Our property agent still pursued the shortfall in rent (cost of lawn mowing paid by the tenant) after the tenants payment had already been received,
The tenant therefore, had no option but to feel moving out was her only option
I can understand the magistrates' decision. But then when you advise the tenant was having a meeting to discuss the issues for me I think it changes the situation. The tenant was meeting to resolve the eviction notice and knew she hadn't broken the Act and didn't have to comply. If I had been the tenant and had paid I would have been on the phone straight away fighting my case.
I understand the issues at hand needs to be based on law rather than issues based on fact (and common sense sometimes). Once the breach has been rectified do you have to give notice of the same and if you do not the breach still stands (thus your tenant has rightfully complied with the breach)? This reason I wonder this is I had to issue a breach notice under Residential Tenancy for the condition of the lawn. As the tenants were moving out (after the 14 day breach notice period expired) I didn't advise on whether the breach had been rectified or not. At the court from what I understand I should have. Something else to research?
Although I still don't understand why you had to cover the loss of rent? I thought this was a given for a broken tenancy and was the tenant's cost.
I think, like it is so common in Perth at the moment, rents 7 months ago are high in today's markets. Tenants are looking for a way to move on by the sounds of it I think your tenant took advantage of the eviction notice. It was a hell of a gamble. An interesting "loop hole/option" for a tenant to take advantage of? The defence "I was just doing as I was required by law"....
I was wondering if I could ask a favour? Would it be at all possible to speak to your agent to see why the matter was reheard. I am really trying to balance the practicalities against principles (like suggested above) and feel the need to research it fully and then decide on the path of pursuing it. You could message me privately with the details. I would really appreciate it if possible. Thanks
-The property agent had an opportunity to confirm with the tenant that the eviction notice was no longer valid but didn't give "sufficient notice"
-Our property agent still pursued the shortfall in rent (cost of lawn mowing paid by the tenant) after the tenants payment had already been received,
The tenant therefore, had no option but to feel moving out was her only option
I can understand the magistrates' decision. But then when you advise the tenant was having a meeting to discuss the issues for me I think it changes the situation. The tenant was meeting to resolve the eviction notice and knew she hadn't broken the Act and didn't have to comply. If I had been the tenant and had paid I would have been on the phone straight away fighting my case.
I understand the issues at hand needs to be based on law rather than issues based on fact (and common sense sometimes). Once the breach has been rectified do you have to give notice of the same and if you do not the breach still stands (thus your tenant has rightfully complied with the breach)? This reason I wonder this is I had to issue a breach notice under Residential Tenancy for the condition of the lawn. As the tenants were moving out (after the 14 day breach notice period expired) I didn't advise on whether the breach had been rectified or not. At the court from what I understand I should have. Something else to research?
Although I still don't understand why you had to cover the loss of rent? I thought this was a given for a broken tenancy and was the tenant's cost.
I think, like it is so common in Perth at the moment, rents 7 months ago are high in today's markets. Tenants are looking for a way to move on by the sounds of it I think your tenant took advantage of the eviction notice. It was a hell of a gamble. An interesting "loop hole/option" for a tenant to take advantage of? The defence "I was just doing as I was required by law"....
I was wondering if I could ask a favour? Would it be at all possible to speak to your agent to see why the matter was reheard. I am really trying to balance the practicalities against principles (like suggested above) and feel the need to research it fully and then decide on the path of pursuing it. You could message me privately with the details. I would really appreciate it if possible. Thanks
