Tenant Trashed Rental Property and Has Done a Runner - Tips

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

• • • 

      p1 ama on 07/05/2023 - 13:37

      +2

      But I still don't get the idea of why bad tenants should be tolerable by the society, and blindly accepted by property investors?

      I never said that bad tenants should be tolerated by society, I'm simply saying that all investors need to make risk/reward decisions. The risk associated with investing in property is that sometimes you get bad tenants.

      However, isn't this risk a bit more comparable to the likes of people that say, steal items from a small shop (theft), or insider trading / false accounting that cause the share price of a company to drop? And in this case, wouldn't the investors in the small business / shares also expect some sort of actions against the perpetrators?

      No, because theft and insider trading are both illegal - being a "bad tenant" isn't illegal. In other words, this is a civil matter between OP and the tenant, not a criminal matter.

      • 

        richrichie on 07/05/2023 - 16:14

        But should it stay "not illegal"? Destroying someone else property doesn't sound like a legal thing to do to me. Both consumer victoria and legal aid have sections specifically about when renters break the law and when damaging property is a crime, but if investors are to complain to VCAT about these, they are now "wasting everyone's time"?

        I'm no expert in finance / shares, but I would guess events like insider trading & some clever accounting were at some point also not illegal, before someone put in the law?

        Having said that, I agree in general with the view bad tenants are part of the risk of property investment. I just think the current law doesn't punish bad tenants enough, and that makes the other "good" and "okay" tenants to be just yet another tenant that is unnecessarily become part of this overall risk.

        • 

          p1 ama on 07/05/2023 - 17:05

          +3

          @richrichie:

          But should it stay "not illegal"? Destroying someone else property doesn't sound like a legal thing to do to me.

          There is a difference between "destroying someone else's property", and causing damage non-maliciously. If I were to take a sledgehammer and hit your car, that is obviously illegal. If I accidentally hit your car, even negligently, that is not illegal.

          Even OP themselves accept that the damage was not malicious:

          not 'malicious' as such

          Hence, the renters are not "breaking the law".

          Having said that, I agree in general with the view bad tenants are part of the risk of property investment. I just think the current law doesn't punish bad tenants enough, and that makes the other "good" and "okay" tenants to be just yet another tenant that is unnecessarily become part of this overall risk.

          This is what I mean when I said that property investors are the only ones who demand protection from the government / law / broader society in a way that investors in other asset classes simply do not have.

          It is the only asset class where every and all risk is expected to be hedged and mitigated at the government / societal level. You want a situation where you eliminate all risks from bad tenants, all risks from new developments (through lobbying for zoning laws that only benefit investors), legislated tax breaks that are now almost impossible to remove (again, through lobbying).

          I'm obviously not saying that big business has it hard, but you can't deny that there are a plethora of safety, competition…etc. regulations that need to be followed which is not the case in property investment. You would know this if you've ever run a small business, for instance. The safety regulations required for a small retail store is 1,000x more onerous than for a property investor renting out to tenants (as an example).

          • 

            ThithLord on 08/05/2023 - 08:30

            @p1 ama: Always love to read your input, P1 ama.

          • 

            tomfool on 09/05/2023 - 07:45

            +1

            @p1 ama:

            This is what I mean when I said that property investors are the only ones who demand protection from the government / law / broader society in a way that investors in other asset classes simply do not have.

            Common pretty much every business, except landlords, got bailed out during Covid by the government. The construction sector is always getting stimulated by government handouts.. The banks would be bailed out by the government. The motor industry was subsidised for years. Even the fossil fuel industry is subsidised.

  • 

    nujee on 07/05/2023 - 07:31

    +4

    How is this person highlighting malicious damage to the property whinging and asking for government handouts?? Is protection only for renters?? Wtf this entitled attitude oh it’s part of the business is such bs. Go to Woolies or a restaurant and trash the place and tell them ahh that’s the risk of doing business and see what happens. Someone trying to set themselves up or maybe he is overseas and wants to return one day so doesn’t want to sell his house and everything you are talking about is by using legal means that the government has provided.

    Yet he gets abused and bullied by this so called community and is treated like less than a human and in the same vein they have the irony to talk about human rights!? Is the investor less of a human?

    • 

      p1 ama on 07/05/2023 - 13:43

      +3

      How is this person highlighting malicious damage to the property whinging and asking for government handouts??

      Not this particular person, but property investors in general. They are the only group of investors who consistently receive government protection and handouts, have extremely favourable tax policies, and whose asset prices are factored into monetary and fiscal policy in a way that other asset prices are not.

      Is protection only for renters??

      Yes, the protection for landlords is insurance - OP chose to not be insured. OP's loss.

      This is exactly what we would say to any other idiot who gets into a car accident and makes a post about being uninsured. If someone crashes into my car, I'm uninsured and I come here whinging, everyone here would say "too bad, should have been insured".

      I'm saying the same thing - OP just has to accept the risks of his investment, or take alternative measures to hedge that risk in whatever way he wishes.

  • 

    coffeeinmyveins on 07/05/2023 - 22:06

    +1

    I'm sure you've been propped up by a decade of consistently strong returns that being knocked down a peg won't hurt too much.

    But I was told I'd make $50k a year forever on this property, pure profit! Gah!

  • 

    greatlamp on 08/05/2023 - 17:26

    +4

    Would you have the same attitude if a group of guys caused 12k damage to a bottle shop or a convenience store? How does malicious damage equate to market risk in your mind?

    And before you say I'm some scummy landlord, I'm often calling for policy changes to end the ridiculous price of real estate.

    • 

      p1 ama on 08/05/2023 - 22:26

      Would you have the same attitude if a group of guys caused 12k damage to a bottle shop or a convenience store?

      You do know that if you run a retail company with physical stores, you will have insurance for property damage and you will have provisions on the books for things like stock loss (as a % of your inventory, which is estimated).

      When someone, let's say, steals $12K worth of inventory, it will be taken as a hit to that provision and, hence, will appear as a P&L item which will influence the share price of whatever company runs those stores. The impact will be super marginal because this will be a negligible EBIT impact, but the idea is all the same.

      Theft and property damage are risks of running a retail store, just like bad tenants are a risk of being a landlord, and accidents are risks of driving a car…etc.

      Ultimately, your example is bogus, because OP himself said that the damage was not malicious, so it's not "a group of guys caused $12k damage to a bottle shop", but rather "a bottle shop sustained $12k or wear and tear over a period of X years". I don't get why we keep talking about "malicious damage" when the post itself says that the damage is not malicious. Don't be a hack.

      • 

        greatlamp on 08/05/2023 - 23:24

        Reading the OP again I can see your point, they include lost rent in the damage estimate too.

        However I disagree with the idea that theft from a retail store is all just folded into the share price. You seem to be thinking of something like a large supermarket. I've worked for many years in a small retail business, 10k would be several months of rent, it's not insignificant.

      • 

        tomfool on 09/05/2023 - 08:00

        I think the point is just because its factored in, does not make it right, the community as a whole pays more for the "shrinkage" in business. Obviously we have in our society people that do the wrong think, and most of us factor that into our decisions be it via insurance etc. But it does not make it right that willful damage is done to a property and it should just be accepted with no consequences.

  • 

    MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 00:01

    +1

    I wasn't whining, just asking for experiences and advice.

    The way you put it into perspective is helpful, thank you.

    House is circa $600-650k, humble 3 bedder in the lower-socio economic burbs.

• 

  Bafranz on 06/05/2023 - 04:01

  +2

  If you're insured, you're insured.. claim claim claim

• 

  AndyC1 on 06/05/2023 - 06:55

  +8

  Did the REA do any inspections? If they did, then where the real inspections and what was in them., If they did not then read the contract you signed with the REA and if 6 or 12 month inspections were in there then ask the RA for copies of the inspection report and if they cannot give you any then request a refund of the REA payments you have effectively paid to the REA as they have breached the contract that was agreed to. It's worth a try as it will cost you nothing and cause them to be annoyed.

  Move to a different REA ASAP.

  • 

    taradavey on 06/05/2023 - 08:16

    +2

    This is really good advice, just to try and get a little bit back when the REA let OP down!!

• tabitha731 on 06/05/2023 - 07:45 Comment score below threshold.
  • 

    Motek Benzona on 06/05/2023 - 08:00

    +8

    My god your attitude is disgusting. I cannot print what i think should happen to you but i promise you…..Its not nice

    Nasty nasty nasty

  • 

    ThithLord on 08/05/2023 - 08:31

    Joe Hockey … is that you?

• 

  WreckTangle on 06/05/2023 - 07:52

  +1

  Claim it on your landlord insurance.

  • 

    Bronnie on 06/05/2023 - 12:26

    Like I said in my other post here - I doubt that the OP will be able to claim from insurance, even if it was paid up to date. They will not pay for "bad housekeeping", as they like to call it. Likewise, the PM will have a way out of taking any responsibility as well.

• 

  JIMB0 on 06/05/2023 - 08:00

  +9

  Shares never give any issues like this.

  • 

    tonka on 06/05/2023 - 08:24

    +1

    Yes, seems like it. And I genuinely don't understand why property investors get vilified by press and The Greens (and Ozbargain) but shareholders don't. Shareholders probably get more tax breaks, can negatively gear, get CGT discounts plus franking & no land taxes/stamp duty . It could easily be argued property investors provide an essential social service and if they were removed would need to be replaced by big business with bigger tax breaks that would squeeze the market probably more and we'd all end up owned by Black Rock and Vanguard. Or government housing that would cost a fortune with inefficiency.

    • 

      parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 08:29

      +4

      If shareholders get such a good deal compared to the “mistreated” property investors then there is nothing stopping them selling their investment property and buying shares

      Plus we rarely see shareholders crying poor and hard done by when their shares dip

      Strangely property investors seem to think they should not have to accept any risk with their investments

      • 

        tonka on 06/05/2023 - 08:38

        +1

        I reckon it's coming. It's what I'm going to be doing, wish I figured it out years ago. I'm putting off as long as I can as my tenant is begging me not to and I feel bad they will have no home.

        • 

          parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 08:44

          +4

          @tonka: Lol, if you are so concerned with your tenants home status here’s a suggestion

          Sign a long term lease with them…

          Then sell, the new owner will have to honour the lease and your tenants home status will be secure

          • 

            tonka on 06/05/2023 - 09:06

            +1

            @parsimonious one: Are you suggesting I just sell to another investor, how does that help your world view? And I lock them into the $200 a week under market that I charge which would cost me anyway in price anyway. You reckon I should subsidize my tenants lifestyle for years after they are no longer my tenant?

            • 

              parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 09:13

              +1

              @tonka: I don’t understand, a minute ago you were concerned about your poor tenant who was begging not to sell, now apparently you aren’t willing to do anything to help your tenant that conflicts with maximising your profit!? 🤷‍♂️

              • 

                tonka on 06/05/2023 - 09:17

                @parsimonious one: What would you do then, and please answer not just find another point to try and argue on. And by the way if you read my comment a minute ago it says right there 'I'm putting off as long as I can'. And you haven't answered my question on whether you rent or own and who you vote for?

          • 

            echelon6 on 06/05/2023 - 23:07

            @parsimonious one: nah tenants disrupt the sale process, inspections are hard to organise, dirty tenants scare away buyers with their grubbiness, etc. Best kick them out, paint the place, stage it. Proper sale campaign, do it right.

        • 

          MITM on 06/05/2023 - 11:54

          +4

          @tonka: Took me years to figure it out too. Result is the same Property +12%pa - Shares +12%PA average. Property has the human factor (tenant & PM/REA VCAT) to take into consideration. Whereas Shares you just leave it up to GOOD business managers/fund managers. Though property allows for 5X leverage (80%LVR), depreciation, income via rent but with stamp duty and slow liquidity (via sale or equity/LOC loan). Shares have instant full or partial liquidity. CGT concessions are the same for both. My 2c.

          • 

            tonka on 06/05/2023 - 13:01

            @MITM: Oh my, an actual merit based conversation. Cheers.
            I was studying high school economics when the '87 stock market crash hit. So that 30%, 2 day plunge and all the horror stories was my first exposure to stockmarkets and I really never saw it as a viable option after that. Even now I'm half convinced it will crash the day after I invest. But I never considered the dividend returns. So I recently realized, for me, it doesn't really matter if the stock price dips as long as the dividend return stays reasonably consistent and I'm not after short term capital gain. So maybe not a good idea if you need the capital back for a home deposit. Not sure if it will work, but I'm thinking of selling my residence, buying shares to generate some cashflow, then using that cashflow to pay a new mortgage on a downsized residence. I'm working so franked dividends seems like the best way to pump up my income. Extra work income doesn't do much as it just goes to tax.

            • 

              Ghost47 on 06/05/2023 - 13:25

              -1

              @tonka: I genuinely feel sorry for you. The education system failed you if you think that an economic crash means that a recovery can't happen.

              I suggest you read widely about investing in shares, how they work, how dividends work, tax liability etc. before selling or doing anything.

              Also, franking credits reduce the amount of income tax you are liable to pay.

              Good luck on your investing journey.

              • 

                tonka on 06/05/2023 - 13:36

                @Ghost47: I feel sorry for you mate, Illiteracy is a real problem.

          • 

            Ghost47 on 06/05/2023 - 13:15

            @MITM:

            income via rent

            Unless the property is paid off and owned outright it's not really income, because it goes to the bank anyway to pay off the mortgage. After 20-30 years it'll be income but by then the property will need to be renovated or knocked-down and rebuilt anyway. If at that time the owner chooses to sell, they no longer own the property and land and would've made a profit (minus all the expenses over the decades like property management, taxes, insurance etc.), if they choose to build, there goes thousands of dollars to renovate or tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars build a new house.

            Sounds like not fun to me.

            • 

              MITM on 07/05/2023 - 19:14

              +1

              @Ghost47: Sounds like nonsense to me.
              Property income is rent. Share income is dividends.
              And who knocks down a 30yo house ?

              • 

                Ghost47 on 07/05/2023 - 19:17

                @MITM:

                Property income is rent. Share income is dividends.

                I don't think you understood what I said. When you buy a property, you need to pay it off. That means the rental income goes to the bank. When you buy shares, the dividends go into your pocket (minus any tax payable).

                And who knocks down a 30yo house ?

                I didn't say people who buy investment properties buy brand new properties.

          • 

            nujee on 07/05/2023 - 07:34

            @MITM: I think it comes down to individual risk profile. Shares can go to 0…you’d imagine that even if the property value fell it would still generate an income through rent. I’d do both but you do make some good points and people have to consider everything before they dive in.

            • 

              MITM on 07/05/2023 - 19:26

              @nujee: Companies/funds that go bust go to $0 that’s why I capitalised GOOD. Luckily if the value falls because of external influences (macro) it provides an opportunity to buy in and reduce your average cost. Dividends continue unaffected regardless of the share price.
              Agreed. Do your own research.

      • 

        tomfool on 09/05/2023 - 08:05

        +1

        Plus we rarely see shareholders crying poor and hard done by when their shares dip

        What?

        However, shareholder class actions have only been regularly commenced in the courts since approximately 2004. Prominent examples of the shareholder class action are the proceedings commenced against GIO, Telstra, Concept Sports, Harris Scarfe, HIH, the Australian Wheat Board, Multiplex, Aristocrat Leisure, Village Life and Centro Property Group. If claims against insolvent corporations by shareholders are included, then the Sons of Gwalia, Ion and Media World actions may be added.

    • 

      markathome on 06/05/2023 - 08:30

      +2

      It could easily be argued property investors provide an essential social service…

      I'm listening. Let's see how many downvotes you get.

      • 

        tonka on 06/05/2023 - 08:33

        +1

        Yep, and not a single one will be prepared to actually answer with an alternative viable solution to how we provide rental housing.

        • 

          parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 08:38

          +11

          @tonka: If little landlords were actually concerned with providing housing and not maximising profit they’d be happy to accept rent caps, removal of no grounds evictions etc and wouldn’t force tenants to divulge reams of personal details

          The little landlords aren’t in it for community service they are in it for themselves

          Maybe add that to the reasons why shareholders aren’t criticised like “property investors”… cos they don’t pretend they are doing gods work. They admit they are investing for profit

          • 

            tonka on 06/05/2023 - 08:55

            +1

            @parsimonious one: Little? Ok do you rent or own? Do you vote for a political party that promotes a free market to provide essential needs? I'm sure you believe someone would be an idiot to take a tenant with no background check. No grounds evictions (where?). Rent caps, I expect that will be needed if all the landlords bugger off like you want? And of course nobody's completely altruistic, are you here to state the obvious?

            • 

              parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 09:01

              +4

              @tonka: No I’m here to point out the gaping inconsistencies in the suggestion that little landlords own investment properties to help renters

              • 

                tonka on 06/05/2023 - 09:13

                +1

                @parsimonious one: What's with the 'little' are you trying to be demeaning? Property Investors hold a property as an investment. It's right there in the description. Some landlords may rent out for different reasons, being posted for worked etc. But let's talk about bees as an example, essential to everyone's survival,they do what they do to survive not help the world. But take them away and we're stuffed. No inconsistency there just life.

                • 

                  parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 09:20

                  +4

                  @tonka: We are going in circles now

                  1) little landlord “property investors” aren’t doing it to help renters

                  2) little landlord “property investors” - like the OP- seem to forget that all investments carry a degree of risk and are quick to cry foul when their investment doesn’t work out like they thought

                  Hope that helps

                  • 

                    tonka on 06/05/2023 - 09:22

                    @parsimonious one: Those points aren't even in question?

                    So why do you call them little, is it to be mean?

                    • 

                      FlyingMiffy on 06/05/2023 - 23:02

                      @tonka: @tonka derogatory on purpose for sure. Though i get his point… an investment's purpose is to get a return so no real need to hide behind a pitch for "social service". I would have more respect for the OP for calling it as it is… "i'm staring at an investment lost because of an idiot tenant and an idiot property manager - what do i do next?"

                      • 

                        tonka on 06/05/2023 - 23:16

                        -1

                        @FlyingMiffy: I agree but it was my observation that it's fulfills a social service while receiving less advantage than other investment type. Not by any intent by an individual. But as gov't mechanism to fill a need, sometimes directly with gov't. For example why are property investors so vilified here when say investors in Coles and Woolies and their pokies and Tabcorp etc get a free pass. Op is is getting threatened in some comments.

            • 

              cobknob on 07/05/2023 - 19:14

              +1

              @tonka: Kill interest only loans. If you own more than 2 properties over x amount excluding your home. You can't borrow any more money from any bank till that 2nd house is paid off. People are borrowing against and that's a problem.

              • 

                tonka on 07/05/2023 - 20:17

                @cobknob: That could work.

              • 

                coffeeinmyveins on 07/05/2023 - 22:11

                @cobknob: This will never work because either the politicians in charge of making that happen would be directly affected or their mates would be

          • 

            cheapaschips on 07/05/2023 - 08:08

            +1

            @parsimonious one: Sounds like you have "little" money saved and are a "little" jealous.

            You just need to make a "little" more sacrifices and "little* more good financial decisions and maybe you can buy a "little" place of your own. ;)

    • 

      serpserpserp on 07/05/2023 - 17:53

      +2

      . It could easily be argued property investors provide an essential social service

      No. They OWN an essential asset and profit (or try to) from it. None of them got into property thinking about the tenant who is going to rent off them. Your pizza hut mate surely isn't renting his property below market rates to do the socially right thing and help the poor renters out.

      • 

        tonka on 08/05/2023 - 15:08

        -1

        I am, about 60% of market rates and have been for 7 years. But you'll still tell me I'm evil and then that I'm incompetent for charging less. And you know what, my tenant still abused me when it took a week to source a new stove.

      • 

        tomfool on 09/05/2023 - 08:13

        +1

        No. They OWN an essential asset and profit (or try to) from it.

        There are many privately owned companies that own essential services.

    • 

      coffeeinmyveins on 07/05/2023 - 22:11

      +2

      It could easily be argued property investors provide an essential social service

      Found the boomer investor

      • 

        Protractor on 09/05/2023 - 09:57

        -3

        Boomers biggest failure was the quality of their offspring.And the generations since

        • 

          coffeeinmyveins on 09/05/2023 - 11:09

          @Protractor: lol ok mate.

          Not like we are picking up the pieces from that generation where they pretty much said "screw you, got mine"

          • 

            Protractor on 09/05/2023 - 11:13

            @coffeeinmyveins: You must be living in faery land if you think any of the post boomer generations are generous,altruistic,team playing and charitable. This very site is forensic proof of the opposite being true.

            Picking up the pieces? Yeah right.
            Try benefiting from the situation (see above)

            • 

              coffeeinmyveins on 09/05/2023 - 11:19

              @Protractor:

              if you think any of the post boomer generations are generous,altruistic,team playing and charitable.

              and boomers are?

              LOL

              Have a nice day in your fairy* land.

              • 

                Protractor on 09/05/2023 - 12:24

                -1

                @coffeeinmyveins: Shall do.Dittto,to you petal.
                You're talking about inter-generational greed as if it was just one cohort.

                If you're looking for proof the boomer BS is boomer BS, look to David Koch. He's Australia's economic guru for ppl with no idea. Fancy him protecting his own profit margins and rancid media org, dressed up as 'expert,fact based historically accurate economical advice.

                Google>
                poor advice from david koch

    • 

      MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 00:04

      +2

      Agree - it's an strange one.

      Any Greenie/OzBargain/Antifa care to comment?

      Is providing accommodation to those who prefer to rent worse than owning the ASX200 index (25% of which is 'evil' bank shares)?

  • 

    TilacVIP on 06/05/2023 - 09:45

    +1

    That all depends how well you sleep when your portfolio drop 30% over the course of 12 months, for some at least

    GFC / Covid lockdowns come to mind

    • 

      Ghost47 on 06/05/2023 - 10:38

      +5

      Yeah if you're a lizard brain who can't see two weeks ahead then you'd be sleeping poorly. Investing is a long-term game, not a short term instant gratification sugar hit like property investing is.

• 

  iCandy on 06/05/2023 - 08:07

  +2

  Did the tenant move out a month ago or more, when you noticed the damage and renewed your insurance?

• 

  Geoffreys on 06/05/2023 - 08:23

  +7

  Sounds a bit like negligence on the REA’s behalf. Perhaps time to seek financial redress from them.

• 

  deme on 06/05/2023 - 09:35

  +5

  I only renewed the policy a month ago after having it expire for 1-2 years previously
  I forgot to pay the renewal from time to time but it has been mostly insured

  Just sell the place if you can't handle renting it.

• 

  Bargainitis on 06/05/2023 - 10:04

  i'm surprised no one has said this yet but….bikies?

  jokes aside, not much you can do. If the insurance has lapsed - you can always try but I suspect they will match your claim with support, i.e. when agent told you, etc. and if its during the lapsed period, you wont be covered.

  Feels like a live and learn type of scenario. You can also try VCAT but it'll be time consuming, costly, and you may not get the results either. You should really ask why your agents allow the bond to go back despite the condition? That was your last leverage on the tenant….your agent failed there, you should have a strong word IMO.

  otherwise, find where she lives and you know…..bikies? :D

• 

  Ocker on 06/05/2023 - 10:44

  +3

  Good luck going through VCAT. Even if you win the case you will likely never see the money

  • 

    MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 00:07

    Anyone know how this works?

    I assume this debt/claim will still live on against tenant as an administrative pain in the neck forever? (even if they don't pay or do anything). Does it affect their credit rating?

• 

  Brainwhacker on 06/05/2023 - 11:16

  The REA needs to supply you with the inspection reports as indicated above- hard to imagine Harcourts would do it.

• 

  MITM on 06/05/2023 - 12:21

  +18

  VCAT is not expensive - less than $100 to file a claim. Before you sack Harcourts - express your concerns and disappointment to the principal and instruct them as your property manager to take the tenant to VCAT for damages to your property (you'll need commercial quotes). It's part of their contract with you if the tenant absconds owing you. Hopefully they will have the forwarding address or can locate the tenant through a property search if they recently bought a house (Harcourts has the tools to do this as "they're in the business") or they have their car rego number or employers address - it's not hard to find someone. You have to serve a copy of the claim to the tenant for them to defend themselves. If they don't turn up to the hearing, you win automatically. If VCAT awards you an amount (probably over and above the bond amount of 4 weeks rent), it will be deducted from the bond and the excess will be made a debt to the tenant which can be paid off (probably set at $5 per week forever). A win will then give you all the ammunition you need to then take Harcourts to Small Claims Court for failure to provide the services they were contracted and paid. This is apparent because there is no bond to claim your VCAT win from. You then claim the VCAT amount from Harcourts. I'd do this for $10 - $12k of damages. Harcourts need to return your property to you in the same condition when they took on the management agreement. This onus is usually passed on to the tenant through the rental agreement and documented with Entry and Exit reports and periodic inspections backed up with a monetary bond. Quite simple really.

  • 

    kaleidoscope on 06/05/2023 - 22:54

    +2

    ^ this is good advice.

    —-

    Also how ignorant was OP as a landlord for insurance matters 🤷‍♂️.

    • 

      pinchies on 07/05/2023 - 20:18

      Hey, no sneaky sledging! /jk

  • 

    MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 00:08

    Thank you MITM, very helpful

• 

  MITM on 06/05/2023 - 12:28

  Forget the insurance - you let it lapse - but you should ask anyway.

• 

  Bronnie on 06/05/2023 - 12:47

  +1

  We had a tenant that trashed the place and did a runner. Actually it wasn't the tenant, it was his young punk relatives that moved in when he went to hospital (unbeknown to us). PM wasn't aware either. We were fully insured, but the trashing and garbage/junk buildup and vandalising was considered to be just "bad housekeeping", by the insurance company. Therefore not claimable. We were out thousands$ getting the place back to a liveable state. In the end we sold it as we really only had one rental property management agency in the area and they had proven themselves useless.

  Very rare to find a good property manager. If they are good at PM, they won't last long as they will get themselves a better, more highly paid job.

  • 

    tonka on 06/05/2023 - 13:07

    So far I've also found it impossible to get a good agent. But I want to note, I don't blame the PM themselves. The ones I've seen are doing a crap job as they have too much to get done and working like crazy, while the Salepeople in charge (and getting the good dosh) cruise around drinking coffee and and having pow wows.

• 

  Noy on 06/05/2023 - 13:05

  +7

  Here we get a genuine question and a load of crappy answers. Ozbargain should delete them and just leave the topic open.

  Now, I have a good agency with changing PM from time to time but the process remains the same for the agency. They manage the landlord insurance, do three monthly inspections with around 50 photos, and contact me with maintenance issues. Over 10 years I have not had issues or problems and never met a tenant. It does cost around 8% of the rent. Oh, also get an annual statement for tax return so makes that easy. I expect that after 10 years period of time I will need to spend money to paint, update…..say $10k.
  My point is get a good local real estate agency rather than focus on the PM or the franchise company. Many of the comments here explain why landlords don’t trust the tenants and make us feel sorry for good ones who do the right thing. There are also some crooked landlords who usually do their own renting out and exploit usually poor tenants or those without the skills to look after themselves.

  • 

    parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 13:26

    +6

    Here we get a genuine question

    Lol

    This question is the little landlord equivalent of

    “I don’t have insurance and I was in a car accident with an uninsured driver”

    Except the OP here has pocketed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to cover the costs of not having insurance

    • 

      tonka on 06/05/2023 - 13:41

      +1

      Again with the 'little'. In any context it is derogatory and an inappropriate way to continue to refer to members of the community.

      • 

        CocaKoala on 06/05/2023 - 19:59

        While I agree with the "little" reference, the rest of everything pointed out in the message is accurate.

      • 

        CommuterPolluter on 06/05/2023 - 22:48

        -1

        Why are you arcing up so much over it? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

        • 

          tonka on 06/05/2023 - 23:23

          +1

          @CommuterPolluter: Shouldn't we all object to poor behavior and try and build a better community? I try and speak up whenever I see something that tears us down instead of makes us better. It's not always fun and I wish others would to, but this is the way a community defines itself.

          And how could I protest too much, nothing to hide, I own a property so yes it is a direct insult to me.

      • 

        Protractor on 09/05/2023 - 09:59

        Agree. Petty is more fitting for this OP.

    • 

      MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 00:10

      Except the part about how I actually paid in excess of $15k on the insurance over the years (80% of the period) AND it was also insured at the time of the move out?

      If you buy car insurance on Monday and crash the car on Tuesday you are covered.

  • 

    Bronnie on 06/05/2023 - 13:36

    +1

    @Noy You are lucky to have had a good PM for a long time. We had a great one for a little while and it did make the whole landlord/rental business so much easier- particularly when you trusted the agent. She even dealt with insurance claims for us. Unfortunately she moved on to bigger and better things. Her replacement within that same real estate agency, only did the barest minimum. It seems that 8 to 8.5% is the going rate whether it is good or average service.

• 

  User465900 on 06/05/2023 - 17:28

  This is clearly a criminal matter. Did you call the police and report the criminal damage?

  • 

    smartazz104 on 08/05/2023 - 09:48

    +2

    Haha the police.

• 

  fozzie on 06/05/2023 - 19:33

  +3

  Op sorry this happened to you! I don’t get some of the comments, why are you so angry at landlords? I don’t rent out any properties (only live in my own and mortgage). I was one briefly when I relocated from the Uk to Australia. People still rent, there is a need for properties to be let.
  Op the only thing I would say don’t let the insurance run out. As it sound very dodgy you didn’t have insurance for 1 or 2 years.

  • 

    smartazz104 on 08/05/2023 - 09:49

    +7

    Everyone thinks that if there are no landlords they’ll get a house for $50K.

    • 

      dogboy on 08/05/2023 - 09:55

      Exactly. They don't differentialte between a landlord with 1 or 2 properties versus one with 10+.

    • 

      tonka on 08/05/2023 - 12:26

      +1

      Wonder how many of them would even actually purchase at $50K and take on the responsibility, maintenance, rates, stamp duty etc and a condition they can only sell for same price as paid. There's gonna be people on this thread were that would still cost more than what they are paying rent now with subsidies.

      • 

        Drpepper666 on 08/05/2023 - 17:31

        +6

        They don't know what half that stuff is. Too busy watching TikTok and buying $30 burgers on Uber eats.

        • 

          [Deactivated] on 13/05/2023 - 02:38

          @Drpepper666: The fact that you think $30 burgers are a common thing while people are looking for cheaper alternatives to mcdonalds right now shows how deep in the toilet your head is and how out of touch you are. Then again, we need people like you to provoke youngsters into rioting on the streets. There are going to be mass layoff as a scale we've never seen with upcoming Ai developments. There are companies laying off even outsourced staff right now because they can't afford them, the ones that haven't gone bust atleast. Things are about to get grim and change will need to happen. The only other alternatives are rioting on the streets and higher crime rates. Enjoy your rental 'investment' while it lasts.

          • 

            tonka on 13/05/2023 - 13:12

            @[Deactivated]: Can you elaborate on these imminent AI projects, I'm genuinely curious. Every single time I come across any kind of process improvement project, it's that badly planned and implemented it actually creates jobs.

  • 

    Drpepper666 on 08/05/2023 - 17:30

    -1

    They're called rentoids. They are mentally deficient. Ignore them.

• 

  DrRalph on 06/05/2023 - 20:00

  Make the insurance claim. Why would you even hesitate???

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4