Landlord Wants Me to Move out or to Increase Rent Because "They Can Not Afford My Current Agreed Rent" - Is This Allowed in NSW?

Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 18:05

So this email just shook my world out of nowhere and is really making me mad about the whole situation.

My fixed term contract ends at 19 July 2021, which I thought would allow me to feel safe and not to worry about rent increases or whatever for a while. We agreed on a fair market price that we were both happy with. So today, 17 May 2021, I got an email from a landlord saying they:

"can't sustain the initially agreed weekly rental price and we will have to return it to the owner and vacate the place unless you agree to one of the two options:"

  • You can continue rent the place with the same fixed term contract but with a 60% rental price increase, starting from next week
  • If you don't agree to the weekly rental price increase, unfortunately you will have to vacate the property as we need to find new tenants.

"Please let us know your thoughts and consider this as official 2 weeks notice to vacate the premises if you decide for option 2. (last day will fall 28.05.2021)"

I looked into my contract and there is a section that reads:

17.3 LANDLORD reserves the right to give the tenant a minimum of 14 day notice to vacate the property with no early termination charges.

Are there any NSW laws/help/support that can cover me or am I stuffed because I signed a contract and gave my rights away?

Thanks for reading…

Home & Garden

Comments

  • screensaver on 17/05/2021 - 18:10
    +62

    there is a tenants help website, give them a call in the morning. There is a tribunal, and such a high rent increase is not allowed. You will have to get expert advice as he may be bound by the residential tenancies act. I dont think he can evict without an order from the tribunal if you cant leave by then

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 18:15
      +38

      tenants help website, give them a call in the morning.

      Already in the plans to do it as early as possible tomorrow. This ruins a lot of plans I had for the next 2 months so I am fuming. I don't want lower rent or to extend my stay here, just want to stay the agreed duration on the agreed amount and get the hell out of here after these shenanigans!

      • stumo on 18/05/2021 - 11:41
        +51

        Your fixed term lease trumps everything.

        The only way they can alter that deal is to go to a tribunal and their hardship (due to not being able to charge 60% more rent) would have to outweigh your hardship (due to being kicked out into the street).

        In other words, any tribunal would laugh them out of court.

        Stand your ground. Your fixed term lease simply cannot be changed.

        • bman20 on 18/05/2021 - 15:32
          -8

          Your fixed term lease trumps everything.

          Yes

          The only way they can alter that deal is to go to a tribunal and their hardship

          Untrue. Until you have seen OP's lease, you have no idea what the termination conditions are.

          • stumo on 18/05/2021 - 16:11
            +21

            @bman20: If they are non-standard and favour the LL, like the clause quoted by OP, then they are void.

            • bman20 on 18/05/2021 - 16:17
              -4

              @stumo: No, they are not. OP has not provided anywhere near enough detail around their agreement for anyone to pass a judgement. It could be as simple as a subtenancy arrangement which is not subject to the same provisions as the lease you are thinking of.

      • Chchnu on 18/05/2021 - 18:47
        +13

        just want to stay the agreed duration on the agreed amount and get the hell out of here 

        You have 2 months left. Just ignore email and pretend u didnt get it. Drag/ignore phone calls. By the time they do anything 2 months would of passed and u got what you want.

        • garage sale on 18/05/2021 - 22:12
          +1

          not sure about NSW, in victoria it’s 60 days notice from landlord agent if they want you out before lease date, or they need to go to tribunal which itself has lead time to get a hearing also ….. in vic i was on month by month after lease expired, they wanted to sell, had to give me 60 days notice …..

      • aboogee on 19/05/2021 - 00:00
        +9

        rental market has probably improved and landlord wants out from the losing end
        quite a d*ck move really. its 2 months away should have just suck it up
        no one is guaranteed to always to be on the winning end

  • Quantumcat on 17/05/2021 - 18:12
    +101

    I don't think that 17.3 section in your contract would be legal

    • tomsco on 18/05/2021 - 07:22
      +27

      Bingo. Any contract terms contradicting legal requirements would be non-binding.

      • ozbjunkie on 18/05/2021 - 13:06
        +15

        Came here looking for this.

        My understanding is that you can't make a contract that violates some other piece of legislation. Renters right trump tenancy agreements.

  • ozhunter on 17/05/2021 - 18:15
    +51

    Doesn't sound legal at all, even if the LL put it in the contract. I'm surprised he couldn't even wait until the current contract is over.

    The landlord/agent must give you 60 days written notice of a rent increase.

    If you do not get 60 days notice and/or notice is not given in writing, you do not have to pay the increased rent

    https://www.tenants.org.au/factsheet-04-rent-increases

    https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/rent…

    • Tech5 on 17/05/2021 - 20:27
      +22

      The 60 days refers to a periodic agreement, or after a fixed term agreement has ended (or there is a clause for a way to calculate rent increases). They are still not allowed to do it during a fixed term agreement unless it is an agreement of 2+ years. (Once yearly)

  • screensaver on 17/05/2021 - 18:15
    +33

    Any tribunal worth its salt would let you stay until the end of the fixed term as its only a few weeks Rent increases require 60 days notice

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 18:19
      +13

      Ironically the price I am currently paying, the landlord offered first himself when we were negotiating price and I just said "yes" because I thought it was fair.

      Suddenly, they are not happy with it now. Wow…

      Rent increases require 60 days notice

      That's what I thought too, I will find out soon enough!

      • dizzle on 17/05/2021 - 19:24
        +9

        Suddenly, they are not happy with it now. Wow…

        A lot has changed in the last 12 months. It could be the landlord has had work hours/wages cut, or had to change jobs and can't afford the mortgage payments (or other things) anymore.

        Not justifying how they've gone about it as I also think they need to give more notice, but there could be plenty of reasons.

        I also think they know that, and have timed it so that if you pull out the correct information they will change it to two months notice (which would put it at around the and of your lease).

        • Mechz on 17/05/2021 - 20:46
          +12

          Yeah except money has generally become cheaper to borrow.

        • markathome on 17/05/2021 - 21:48
          +7

          …and landlords can sell with a tenant in-place. And in this market that shouldn't be too hard.

        • Intoxicoligist on 18/05/2021 - 11:10
          +18

          Wont someone think of the poor landlords!

          • [Deactivated] on 18/05/2021 - 18:34
            +6

            @Intoxicoligist: The stupid prices of properties means there’s probably a lot of landlords poorer than their renters, busy renting elsewhere and subsidizing their tenants. That’s their tough luck and not the usual case, but it will happen, especially with newer owners.

            It’s absolutely bat shit insane that people think it’s a good idea to negatively gear property with record low interest rates.

          • MrFunSocks on 19/05/2021 - 12:20

            @Intoxicoligist: I hate this sentiment that has popped up a lot during COVID especially.

            I bought my house 15 years ago. I'm still paying it off but have worked hard and saved hard to have it paid off in the next 5 years. I'm going to keep it and rent it out when I buy a new house to live in. What's wrong with that? Should I not be able to keep it and provide a house to someone in exchange for money? Or in your opinion do I need to sell it for dirt cheap to someone that can't otherwise afford a house?

            It all just seems like jealousy and sour grapes.

            • Intoxicoligist on 19/05/2021 - 13:12
              +5

              @MrFunSocks: My point is you're in a better financial position than someone who's renting from you. Congratulations at doing better at capitalism than others.

              If you were to suddenly increase the rent by 60% because you lost your job for whatever reason or had financial hardship of your own, you would be using your position of power to put your personal hardship onto someone else. Thats not ok. If you did it at the end of the lease you'd be a jerk, but at least acting legally. You're using your assets to make money which is ok, but don't expect me to cry for you because you had a hard time in life and used your assets to overcome it.

              The whole reason you own investments/assets is to be able to use them to get through the hard times. If you have to sell the house "dirt cheap" (oh no, only a 412% increase in the past 25 years, what a terrible investment along with your rental returns) to get by then that's what you have to do. You're still going to be in a MUCH better position than someone who's renting and has the same hardship. So again, no tears shed here.

              • MrFunSocks on 19/05/2021 - 16:05
                -2

                @Intoxicoligist:

                but don't expect me to cry for you because you had a hard time in life and used your assets to overcome it.

                This works both ways though - don't expect me to cry for you because you can't afford a house and can't afford an increase in rent to what the landlord wants.

                The whole reason you own investments/assets is to be able to use them to get through the hard times.

                That's not the reason for owning investments, like at all lol. The point of investments is to generate wealth. Owning an investment property with passive income coming in will hopefully help me to retire much earlier than I otherwise would be able to.

                I think this line says all anyone needs to know about where you're at on the subject:

                Congratulations at doing better at capitalism than others.

                Just blame capitalism as the reason why you are struggling, don't ever take any personal responsibility or anything.

                • Intoxicoligist on 19/05/2021 - 17:09
                  -1

                  @MrFunSocks: If you don't have empathy for those with less than you that's on you.

                  • markathome on 19/05/2021 - 22:22

                    @Intoxicoligist:

                    I'm glad that you don't have any assets or investments because it's clear you have no clue about the most basic fundamentals of property investments, free markets and capitalism. All I saw was emotional dribble. No one on the internet cares about your moral virtue.

                    I care intoxicoligist. And not just because you are absolutely right in relation to this matter. ❤️❤️❤️

                  • MrFunSocks on 20/05/2021 - 09:46
                    +2

                    @Intoxicoligist: Just because someone has less than you doesn't mean you have to have empathy for them lol.

                    • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 09:57
                      -1

                      @MrFunSocks: I mean really you should have empathy for all your fellow humans, but I find that pretty hard when (profanity) like you go around spouting how great it is not to have empathy for those than less than you.

                      What a fantastic human being you are.

                      • Charmoffensive on 20/05/2021 - 13:40
                        +6

                        @Intoxicoligist:

                        I mean really you should have empathy for all your fellow humans

                        you say that, but then you also say:

                        You're using your assets to make money which is ok, but don't expect me to cry for you because you had a hard time in life and used your assets to overcome it.

                        The whole point of investment assets is to make money. Imagine spending years of your life building an investment asset and in one fell swoop, have 1000's of hours of sweat and tears get ripped from under you. If you can't have empathy for that, just because someone is marginally better off than you, you're not exactly practicing what you preach. People who own investment properties aren't Warren Buffett or anything, they're usually just your average while collar mums and dads who squirreled most of their nest egg from their day jobs into real estate instead of starting their own business or buying stock.

                        I'm not sure why you think people buy investment assets to act as some sort of safety net, but I can assure you that's absolutely not the case and the entire economic system we have hinges on investments going into "productive" assets. Investment properties being used as rentals absolutely serve a purpose in society and it's not the "owner is a inhuman capitalist fatcat vs the honest, downtrodden tenant" relationship you're trying to make it out to be. Using your productive assets to generate wealth isn't immoral and in fact our entire economy relies specifically on this in order to function the way it does. Don't blame the landlord for seeking opportunities for wealth: we all do that. Blame the government for not appropriately taxing the rich and then using that to fund affordable housing.

                        Your callous disregard for the upper middle class (as if they're the upper class, which they aren't) in favour of the lower middle class may come from a good place, but it very much comes off as a form of tall poppy syndrome. You're squeezing the relatively poor in favour of the slightly more poor, all the while the actual rich sit back and laugh. I don't agree with the other two guys you're arguing with, but you can't both simultaneously take the moral high ground and then judgmentally deride others for how they spend their money.

                        • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 14:05
                          -1

                          @Charmoffensive: I mean I did say it was hard to be empathetic?

                          My larger point is that homes have been turned from a place to live into an investment vessel, and that in turn has lead to disadvantaged people being taken advantage of.

                          I have a callous disregard for the upper middle class when their actions come at the expense of those with less than them.

                          All that said I get your point, the government has caused this through their support of turning houses into investments, which has caused the greater issue.

                          • Charmoffensive on 20/05/2021 - 15:33
                            +1

                            @Intoxicoligist:

                            My larger point is that homes have been turned from a place to live into an investment vessel

                            While as widespread as it is in Australia is probably a dangerous overinflation of the market, on the whole this is not a necessarily a bad practice. People will always need to rent houses (there are a plethora of scenarios in which this is reasonable: uni students or temporary employment relocation for instance) and unless people were stimulating the building sector by buying investment properties, rentals would be a darn side more expensive and even harder to find.

                            the government has caused this through their support of turning houses into investments, which has caused the greater issue.

                            I feel like you're still trying to frame this like private investors are doing something immoral. It's not the role of private citizens to use their investments to supply welfare. If they do, god bless them, they are an excellent human being, but it is by no means expected nor should it be. the role of the government is to tax profits and use that to fund programs to help those who are disadvantaged and housing is no different. If you want affordable housing, leverage the state government to push for a greater level of social housing, don't harangue individuals with investment properties. It's up to them to do things like, say, buy up inner city properties, demolish them and then develop high-density housing at affordable rates. This not only helps those who will probably never have the means to own a house by directly giving them one, but it also has the added benefit of flooding the market and driving down the prices for those who can't afford the currently massive costs associated with housing.

              • spiff on 19/05/2021 - 18:50
                -5

                @Intoxicoligist: I'm glad that you don't have any assets or investments because it's clear you have no clue about the most basic fundamentals of property investments, free markets and capitalism. All I saw was emotional dribble. No one on the internet cares about your moral virtue.

                • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 07:29

                  @spiff: Lol I never said that. I make 100k and am pretty well off financially to be honest. Privileged white boy life and all that.

                  I've just got a lot of empathy for those with less.

                  • spiff on 20/05/2021 - 08:34
                    -6

                    @Intoxicoligist: So you're a sjw. So glad you denounce your privelege and pair it with so much empathy otherwise how would you live with yourself. Slow clap.

                    • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 08:35

                      @spiff: Oh no, I give a (profanity) about people! Call me a sjw and dismiss everything I say quickly before you have to think about your own actions!

                      • spiff on 20/05/2021 - 09:57

                        @Intoxicoligist: I read, and then dismissed everything you said because it displayed no understanding of anything you were attempting to talk about. The sjw was the predictable cherry on top. Also who brags about earning 100k? Lol

                        • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 10:01

                          @spiff: Would you like to debate my point further or are you good to just call me names?

                          • spiff on 20/05/2021 - 11:12

                            @Intoxicoligist: I understand your point. To look at everything through the lens of pointless and ultimately meaningless "empathy" which is just limited to empty words typed on the internet to make you feel better about yourself. Don't pretend to know anything about real world market forces. You don't need a debate, you need an education.

                            • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 11:17

                              @spiff: Ok friend, if you think empathy is meaningless we've got nothing to debate here. You've proved that you're a terrible human being through that alone.

                              • spiff on 20/05/2021 - 11:46
                                +1

                                @Intoxicoligist: No, "friend", empathy isn't meaningless, but your idea of empathy is meaningless. You couldn't debate actual topics if you tried because you'd always fall back on the same argument. Logic, basic knowledge of highschool level economics and common sense take a back seat while you preach nonsense from a narcistically derived moral high ground. People like you are driving civilisation into the ground. Please don't procreate.

                                • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 12:05

                                  @spiff: So you're taking back what you said? Because thats what that sounds like.

                                  You want to talk Logic? You've started with a straw man, moved onto an ad hominem attack, and now you're just digging yourself a hold by holding onto you false superiority. You've not once tried to engage with me on the merits of the case (that landlords have it better than tenants) and constantly berate me for trying to be empathetic to people with less. You're insistent that I'm uneducated despite showing a shocking lack of any knowledge of your own. You've basically come in, called me some names, and insisted you're right without any sort of logical point, and pissed all over the floor like a messy little puppy.

                                  Either engage me on the actual point, or go away.

                                  • spiff on 20/05/2021 - 12:19

                                    @Intoxicoligist: Can you read? Actually don't answer that. I'm not surprised your comprehension sucks. Not backtracking at all. Empathy is fine as a concept in itself. But what you think empathy is and how you choose to show it is nothing but empty words with the blinders on, failing to seek context around the subject you're speaking.

                                    My argument is superior to yours because I base my argument on logic and not feelings. You think arguing based on feelings makes you a better human being which it might in your social circles, but zoom out and you'll see otherwise. But you can't do that because you don't have the education or experience to broaden your horizon.

                                    You need to know the individual circumstances of the landlord and the tenant to determine who is better off. It's impossible to determine otherwise. If you don't understand why, then you're even more of a lost cause than I thought.

                                    I'll go away now and leave you to your safe space.

                                    • Intoxicoligist on 20/05/2021 - 13:35
                                      +2

                                      @spiff: 'ultimately meaningless "empathy"' does not equal 'empathy is fine as a concept in itself' - perhaps its your comprehension that sucks?

                                      "I base my argument on logic and not feelings " - this isn't a logical argument though is it? Failed again. At least try to offer some sort of justification for your viewpoint if you're trying to debate me.

                                      "You need to know the individual circumstances of the landlord and the tenant to determine who is better off." - whoa, what an incredible insight! I've already explained why he's better off above, with logic. If we're talking generalities I'd make the case that landlords are generally better off than tenants and I dont think thats a contentious point. But again you're swapping context between specific and generality without any context, again, do better.

                                      You've failed to offer any logical explanation to back up your argument, you've resorted to personal attacks when called out about it, and you seem to need to insult me whenever possible. You're terrible at debating, terrible at making and backing up your point, and terrible at convincing others of your viewpoints. You're also just a pretty terrible person if you dont care about those with less than you. I hope you enjoy your material successes because you're going to live a long, unhappy life. I'll be with my chosen family in my "safe space" enjoying friendship and love.

                                    • markathome on 20/05/2021 - 14:13

                                      @spiff: Can we all just sit back for a moment and appreciate spiff's masterclass in empathy here?

                                      • gawky on 20/05/2021 - 16:58
                                        +1

                                        @markathome: Meh, I wonder if they saw each other face to face whether this keyboard warrior business would translate better.

                                      • spiff on 21/05/2021 - 14:41

                                        @markathome: Stay at home Mark, for your own safety

                                    • [Deactivated] on 21/05/2021 - 14:10

                                      @spiff:

                                      I'll go away now and leave you to your safe space.

                                      More like you've run away to your safe space

                                      • spiff on 21/05/2021 - 14:39

                                        @[Deactivated]: Nah

                                        • [Deactivated] on 21/05/2021 - 15:10
                                          +1

                                          @spiff: I think pretty much everyone here would agree you have some superiority complex with absolutely nothing to back it up with since basically everything you said has been horse shit.

  • raptormesh on 17/05/2021 - 18:20
    +28

    60% is insane when you already have a lease in place.

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 18:24
      +11

      Yes it is insane, I don't know where he is getting the numbers from! Also, what is the point of having a signed lease, which doesn't allow me to leave whenever I want, but allows them to kick me out on a 2 week notice?

      • Chandler on 17/05/2021 - 22:56
        +8

        Anecdotally, rental places are few and far between at the moment (depending where you are). It could be that what you're paying now is almost 50% less than what they could currently rent it for, and they want that sweet rent money.

        Could also be as others have suggested - that the landlords situation has drastically changed and they can't afford that rate any more.

      • tomsco on 18/05/2021 - 07:25
        +4

        Not knowing your property, but if you check for similar rentals in your area, are the advertised prices closer to your current price, or the increased price?

        I mean, if it's the former, the LL will have to pay fees to the agent, missed rent due to a vacancy period and who knows if it will rent out at that price.

      • robbyjones on 18/05/2021 - 17:43

        I agree, 100%, so why would you sign a lease with this clause in it?

      • MrFunSocks on 19/05/2021 - 12:21
        +1

        Yes it is insane, I don't know where he is getting the numbers from!

        They can ask for whatever they want rent wise, it's their property. They don't have to "get the numbers from" anywhere. If someone will pay it then that's what it's worth.

        • derrida derider on 20/05/2021 - 13:30

          Oh they can ASK. Whether an existing tenant is obliged to give it is quite another matter.

        • jatyap on 25/05/2021 - 02:40

          Not if they signed a fixed term contract for the lease. While I don't know the details of the entire situation, I'm willing to bet it's just plain greed and FOMO.

  • screensaver on 17/05/2021 - 18:21
    +16

    I would stall and say I need to get legal advice, just keep paying the current rent and eventually tell him to take it to the tribunal

    • tonsta on 20/05/2021 - 16:48

      Landlord is already signaling "you're out", there is nothing to really argue about, 60% is a dream.

      I would start looking for another place you can afford and wait for the eviction notice, they dont need a reason to evict, they just have to give you the appropriate time and follow the rules.

      Rent increase requires 90 days, you HAVE to pay if you want to stay beyond this time otherwise its tribunal for all and as a tenant you have nothing to fight back with other than move or pay up.

      Prolonging the inevitable I'm afraid. This is not a moral argument, just a legal one and unfortunately you dont have a right to live there once they give you notice.

      Use the 90 days to setup your next place, otherwise you're fighting a losing battle and end up paying the higher rents regardless if you accept or not, the landlord can then take you to tribunal for unpaid rent, make a court order to collect or bankrupt you, this can hang over you for next 7 years.

      Good luck

  • ozhunter on 17/05/2021 - 18:24
    +28

    Huge increase and thinks he can kick you out within two weeks if you don't agree? He sounds like a horrible LL.

    • TilacVIP on 18/05/2021 - 08:10
      +16

      Just another **** [fill in the blank with whatever you like] Landlord.

      • ThithLord on 18/05/2021 - 08:44
        +23

        Just another typical Landlord

        There ya go just to rile yous up

  • thatonethere on 17/05/2021 - 18:46
    +9

    Sounds like you signed a non standard residential tenancy lease. However it may not be legal in NSW.

    Prepare for a bumpy ride though.

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 18:59

      Prepare for a bumpy ride though.

      I am ready, or like i said previously, I might just leave after the 2 weeks notice to avoid any further possible drama.

      • markathome on 17/05/2021 - 21:41
        +20

        There should be no dramas. I advised people to go to the tribunal with less clear-cut cases than this and they were happy. There are two documents from Fair Trading to help you:

        https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/rent…
        https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/rent…

        The landlord can evict you at the end of a fixed-term tenancy with 30 days notice. So be prepared for that. The landlord can only increase the rent during a fixed-term tenancy only if they "[in the lease agreement] spell out the amount of the increase or the exact method of calculating the increase (e.g. a dollar amount or %). It cannot be unclear, for example statements 'in line with the market' or 'by the rate of inflation'."

        Good luck. Chill. Whatever you do don't agree to either of their proposals. Maybe check-out other places in case you have to leave at the end of the tenancy.

      • morse on 18/05/2021 - 00:53
        +14

        Don’t just leave until after the two weeks. Get onto it straight away. Two weeks will fly by. Also start thinking about where you’ll live after 19 July - it’s not far away. I think you’ll be successful with the tribunal but not beyond the current agreement.

  • Drakesy on 17/05/2021 - 18:46
    +8

    They shouldn't of agreed to it if they couldn't afford it. Really it's on the Landlord not you. Counter claim for psychological stress. But yeah as previously stated the state's Rental laws would protect you. If the shoe was on the other foot the tenant wouldn't be allowed to give 14 days notice with no recourse.

    Plus 60% rise is ridiculous, no rents in Australia have increased by 60%.

    I'd start collecting evidence of similar properties in your area and their rent vs your rent in preparation for the tribunal.

    • Quantumcat on 17/05/2021 - 18:49
      +9

      Even if the rent the OP is paying is much below market, they can't increase the rent without a 60 day notice period

    • trilby on 18/05/2021 - 10:03
      +4

      Rents have gone down, especially in Sydney or places that international students etc used to come to.

      • derrida derider on 20/05/2021 - 13:39

        Inner city apartments, yes, rents have dropped, often sharply. Detached houses in outer suburbs and inner regional, no - they've soared.

        The housing markets in Sydney and Melbourne have gone really weird - gangbusters in some places, crashed in others.

    • Ti-au on 19/05/2021 - 18:50
      -2

      Claim for psychological stress on the basis of them attempting to remove your legal rights.

      Also claim for the time taken and showing up at the Tribunal.

      You probably won't win, but the Tribunal member might be so incensed at the contract attempting to remove your legal rights, they just might award you $.

  • holdenmg on 17/05/2021 - 18:47
    +9

    Orders NCAT can make
    NCAT can make a wide range of orders in tenancy cases. These include:

    that a rent increase is excessive
    https://www.ncat.nsw.gov.au/ncat/case-types/housing-and-prop…

    44(1)(a) An order that a rent increase is excessive
    Application to be made within 30 days after
    the notice of increase is given

    To be sought by: Tenant
    Provide evidence about market level of rents
    for the same kind of premises in a similar
    area, the state of the premises or work you
    have done to the premises.

    Also, consider seeking an Urgent Hearing.
    Urgent hearings
    NCAT aims to list most tenancy applications within
    4-6 weeks. An urgent hearing may be held if there a
    threat to personal safety or to property, or where
    there is significant hardship.
    To apply for an urgent hearing you must provide
    evidence to NCAT proving that an urgent hearing is
    needed. If NCAT agrees to the urgent hearing, the
    matter will be listed within 7 days

    I'd submit by their increasing the Rent from next week it causes significant and unanticipated hardship.

    • pndl on 20/05/2021 - 17:43

      Wouldn't even bother.
      Their rent increase notice doesn't have the requisite notice period + you're still in a fixed term so it's not valid.
      Just ignore all their communication, keep paying your usual rent and serve your notice saying you're terminating at the end of the fixed term.

  • mja65 on 17/05/2021 - 18:49
    +7

    OPs comment:

    I got an email from a landlord saying they:

    "can't sustain the initially agreed weekly rental price and we will have to return it to the owner and vacate the place unless you agree to one of the two options:"

    Email from "a Landlord"? "we will have to return it to the owner" - maybe it's just language but is this a sub-letting arrangement? If this is the case, I imagine the rules would be different…..

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 18:59

      I am omitting private details and changing words in a hurry. Honestly now I realize how the whole contract is dodgy and I will find the truth tomorrow on what the hell I have signed…

      I will see that maybe vacating in 2 weeks might be the best solution possible in this scenario!

      • salmon123 on 17/05/2021 - 20:11
        +6

        Honestly now I realize how the whole contract is dodgy and I will find the truth tomorrow on what the hell I have signed…

        I don't get it. In NSW, the residential tenancy agreement is a standard document available on the NSW Fair trading website. I haven't encountered any real-estate agents that deviate from it.

        Seems like there's lots more to the story that's missing.

      • surg3on on 18/05/2021 - 10:31
        +1

        Just go to the tribunal.

      • Lord Fart Bucket on 18/05/2021 - 13:50
        +5

        what the hell I have signed…

        Well… there's a lesson.

      • Ti-au on 19/05/2021 - 18:56
        +1

        It doesn't matter what the lease says.

        The only thing that matters is what the Legislation says.

        Legislation takes priority over a lease.

        You have a fixed lease.

        Fixed-term agreements of less than 2 years:
        The landlord/agent can only increase the rent if your agreement sets out the amount of the increase or the method of calculating it.

        If there is No clause then the rent cannot change.

        Additionally -

        The landlord/agent must give you 60 days written notice of a rent increase. The notice must specify:
        — the increased rent
        — the day from which the increased rent applies
        If the landlord/agent posts the notice, they must allow an extra 7 working days for delivery.

        Completely irrelevant about his fiscal/financial situation.

        My guess is that you will stay during the fixed term, and then the landlord will ask you to leave, so you have your 2 months.

  • brendanm on 17/05/2021 - 19:03
    +12

    Yeah they can't do that. 60% lol.

  • ihbh on 17/05/2021 - 19:12
    +2

    We agreed on a fair market price that we were both happy with

    What was the term of the market rent you agreed to? That is, is your new lease fixed or periodic?

    If periodic, you have no recourse.

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 19:17

      The wording is confusing but the contract contains a lot of "After the fixed term period", "during the fixed term period" etc.

      Is this enough to confirm it is a fixed term or could it still be periodic? They allow me to extend the contract when the "fixed term period" ends but they say the rent will be renegotiated to reflect the current market price.

        • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 19:29

          Thanks for the article, I am sure my contract is considered fixed term now.

          • dizzle on 17/05/2021 - 19:46
            +2

            @Blue Cat: "Fixed term" means you signed up for X months. At the end of the term (as long as you don't sign another agreement or give/receive a notice to vacate) it switches over to a "periodic" or month by month lease.

            Depending on what you have determines on notice periods (and other rights) you have.

    • Cheapskate Paul on 17/05/2021 - 19:33
      -6

      No recourse? So you think a tenant can be evicted with 2 weeks notice? My recourse would be to immediately stop paying all rent as no doubt they will attempt to keep the OP's bond. And I would stay until the end of the fixed term.

      • ihbh on 17/05/2021 - 19:42
        +1

        Of course not the 2 weeks, etc. I assume he knows his rental rights. But the increasing rent after agreeing on a market rent depends on whether it's a fixed or periodic lease.

      • Miel on 18/05/2021 - 11:48
        +3

        Never ever stop paying rent, otherwise, you'd lose your base in any arguments later.

        • derrida derider on 20/05/2021 - 13:43

          Certainly. But do not pay the rent INCREASE - just pay it at the old rate.

  • dylanando on 17/05/2021 - 19:12
    +1

    Wow

  • Trance N Dance on 17/05/2021 - 19:13
    +14

    None of that is legal.
    Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean it's legal or can be enforced. Even their 2 weeks notice is wrong, 14 days from 17th of May is 31st of May not 28th.

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 19:20

      Turns out their first email was sent at 14/05/2021, 4:10 pm.
      I just don't check my email that often so I didn't see it at first. I only saw their new email that they sent today at 5:32pm now. Does the notice start from when they send it to me or from when I acknowledge it? They made no attempts to reach me on the phone.

      • dizzle on 17/05/2021 - 19:38
        +1

        Did you agree to receiving notices by e-mail (probably also in your contract)?.

        If so, then I would think the first notice as they have it dated. If not, then they need to officially inform you by another method (in person to you, in person to someone at your residence, to your letterbox, or by post. Post adds a week to the notice).

        • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 19:44

          I gave it a read, doesn't say how they deliver the notices to me, only that my request to move out must be sent to their email.

        • Jolakot on 17/05/2021 - 20:52

          Not valid: https://www.reinsw.com.au/web/Posts/Latest_News/201707/You_c…

          All notices can be via email. Doesn't mean that the notice is valid, just that they can and it isn't an arguable point.

          • dizzle on 18/05/2021 - 00:11
            +1

            @Jolakot: Yes they can serve them, but it still needs the tenants prior approval that they will accept email documents.

            The below link is from the same site a month later (I assume clarifying what people may have misunderstood) stating:

            This change means that written notice for putting up the rent, notifying access for an inspection, or to terminate a tenancy agreement can be served by email, provided that the relevant party has given written consent to service by email.

            (https://www.reinsw.com.au/web/Posts/Latest_News/201708/Advic…)

            The official notice for rent increase even has the check boxes for how the notice can be served to make it legal.
            (https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00…)

  • pegaxs on 17/05/2021 - 19:20
    +15

    60% increase!!!, Did the balloon payment come up on their Porsche Macan ?? Jeesus.

    Just tell them you will see them at NCAT and stay until your lease expires.

    • Blue Cat on 17/05/2021 - 19:30
      +20

      lmao they took care of everything!

      19.4 You will also be liable for any legal charges incurred in the case we would need to attend any Tribunal hearing. We will be charging $33 for every 15
      minutes of our time.

      • Quantumcat on 17/05/2021 - 20:24
        +20

        They need a punch in the face, seriously.

      • pegaxs on 17/05/2021 - 21:12
        +42

        Also, not enforceable. They cant make stipulations in a contract that erode your legal rights. Under contract laws, there is lots of stuff about making clauses like this and how, if they unfairly affect one party, they can just be scrubbed off.

        There is no way at NCAT would they let these arseholes charge you $132/h for "our time". If that was even remotely possibly, I would write this into all my contracts and then just sit around claiming hours upon hours for "stapling" and "filing". You cant "pre-charge" someone for mounting a defence. You can only keep a track of what you have spent and ask the tribunal (if you win) to award costs (which, from what I understand at NCAT, is almost never.)

        This is just them trying to bully people. It catches some out who are scared and have no ideas, but then there are the ones who laugh it off and say "yeah, good luck with that."

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join