Issuing ‘No-Fault’ Evictions as a Landlord to Tenants in WA

Kawaii on 03/03/2024 - 00:32
Last edited 06/03/2024 - 20:59 by 2 other users

I have two properties and due to my work reasons the current one I am living in, is an hour from work and it’s been torturing me for a long time.

The second property which I wanna move in, has a fixed term lease till November 2024 (signed by the previous owner).

As much as I want to solve this in a polite and civil way.

  1. I offered $1,500 cash for tenants to move if they were able to move out before Jan 2024. As a compensation for their troubles.

  2. I offered they can break the lease after Jan 2024 if they give me two weeks notice and I really need the house back for myself.

Now I’ve seen in WA I can potentially do ‘no fault’ evictions, I am just wondering if that’s really the way I should go.

It cuts down my travel from maximum 1 hr and 10 minutes to 7 minutes -13 minutes to when it comes to traffic.

I have 12 hour shift normally, I also need to do everything by myself as family is far away and I’m currently single. this stresses me out since last year.

OP Edit: Resolved . No more questions. Thanks.
Comments not helpful

Home & Garden

Comments

          • samyall on 03/03/2024 - 14:44
            +19

            @Kawaii: Took it lightly? It's your property but it's their home.

            I'm sure they are paying you rent so it's not like you are doing them a favour by them living there - you entered into a contract when you purchased the place and now you want to break the contract.

            You either need to negotiate with them to come to a mutually agreeable position or wait out the lease.

              • cheesecactus on 03/03/2024 - 15:33
                +16

                @Kawaii: "No ground eviction is allowed"

                You keep saying this, but you are misinformed.

                If they have a fixed term lease, you cannot evict them until their lease contract period is over.

                You need to research what 'No ground eviction' means here in WA.

                "In WA a tenant can be evicted without any reason under what is known as “no fault” or “no grounds” evictions. This happens at the end of a fixed-term lease or at any time during a periodic lease".

                You do not fit either of those situations.

                  • cheesecactus on 03/03/2024 - 16:00
                    +2

                    @Kawaii: No worries, chatting to your agent is your best bet.

                    If you want them out before November, you'll need the tenants to agree. And they have no obligation to. You can either make it worth their while (the $1,500 you offered before is far too low. And as you've seen, they won't agree) or wait until November.

              • dizzle on 03/03/2024 - 21:38

                @Kawaii:

                I offered $1,500 cash for tenants to move if they were able to move out before Jan 2024. As a compensation for their troubles.

                At the end of a lease or on a periodic lease maybe, not in the middle of a fixed lease

          • pinchies on 03/03/2024 - 21:37
            +4

            @Kawaii: Come one, don't fool yourself. You haven't given them anything! — You have simply requested, and they have declined, preferring to uphold the existing agreement — a house over their head in exchange for money into your pocket, for the agreed length of time.

          • uNoWhO on 04/03/2024 - 23:25

            @Kawaii: "as quick as possible" is when the LEGAL CONTRACT has run its course, if you want to break that contract it is going to cost you

  • bamzero on 03/03/2024 - 13:49

    No suggestions for your situation but just a reminder to check your rental agreement with the property managers. If you're still in a fixed term agreement with them you might be on the hook for management fees (usually 50%) for the remainder of your agreement.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/03/2024 - 15:10
        +5

        Happy to pay "that", yet all you can offer the tenant is $1,500?

        Outing yourself even further.

        • ThithLord on 05/03/2024 - 09:36
          +2

          I love a good ol-fashioned pile-on

  • 2esc on 03/03/2024 - 13:50
    +14

    Obviously you live in la la land no concept of the difficulties these days in finding another place. In some areas even with 12 months notice tenants cant find a new.

    Be a decent human being and stick to the agreement. You purchased the proposed with this lease in place.

    No concept of the stress you will put them under if you manage to kick them out.

    So your happy to potentially put a family on the street homeless?

    I am so lucky to own my house i would hate to be a tenant.

      • justwii on 03/03/2024 - 15:51
        -2

        Of course not.

      • wordplay on 03/03/2024 - 17:10
        -8

        sounds like a great idea!! I would get a plumber friend to go out there and find the leaking pipes in your walls and floors that will require immediate attention and currently make the house unsafe for habitation. if there are any of course. Safety of the residents must come first at all costs.
        enjoy your close to work home.

    • abcdefg5 on 03/03/2024 - 16:19
      +5

      Don't give OP ideas!!

        • MrFrugalSpend on 03/03/2024 - 20:50
          +13

          That's not a loophole, its illegal… and in this case, given the history of correspondence it is blatantly obvious that the OP wants them out, they would be open season for suing if they clearly lied and moved straight in

          • justwii on 04/03/2024 - 01:13
            -7

            @MrFrugalSpend: Presumed much? Who suggested lying? What's stopping any house to have issue at any time?

            • justwii on 04/03/2024 - 14:56
              -2

              @justwii: Some crazy negging totalitarianism trying to suppress people from telling the truth LOL

    • parsimonious one on 03/03/2024 - 17:22
      +3

      According to tenants union of NSW

      “ The landlord does not decide what ‘uninhabitability’ means and how it applies to your tenancy; only the Tribunal can do that”

      It seems the tenant would be within their rights to ignore any eviction until the tribunal decides, which may be awkward for OP given the paper trail showing he was trying to end the lease early

      I realise OP is in WA but typically similar rules apply

      • justwii on 03/03/2024 - 17:46
        -1

        Don't take it out of context. That saying you quoted came from a page talking about uninhabitability caused by natural disaster. In that case it may be determined by the authority.

        But then in my friend's case, it's also not just what the landlord said. Landlord did send someone to the house to do an inspection during my friend's stay.

        So probably there is always some level of authority other than just the landlord to declare the unit is not fit for living.

        • parsimonious one on 03/03/2024 - 17:52

          Yeah, the page was related to disasters, it’s all I could find on uninhabitability

          But it indicates, that even in a natural disaster, a landlord can’t unilaterally deem a place “uninhabitable” and it’s up to the tribunal

          YMMV

            • parsimonious one on 03/03/2024 - 18:00

              @justwii: Cheers, I’ll have look

            • parsimonious one on 03/03/2024 - 18:07

              @justwii: Thanks

              The smh one is a bit vague, and only gives examples of people who were evicted after claiming the property needed significant repairs then was deemed uninhabitable by the LL

              The daily mail one suggests that if tenants feel the eviction on the grounds of being deemed uninhabitable is spurious they should stay in the premises and let the tribunal decide

              Imho, it still seems like it would be unlikely to successfully evict the tenant by unilaterally declaring the premises uninhabitable

              • justwii on 03/03/2024 - 18:17

                @parsimonious one: I believe so, otherwise there is no case or even hearing at all. But at least unless the tenants are willing to go through the trouble in bringing it up to the tribunal for a case, otherwise agents are siding with landlords, so you can see how easy it is to exploit this rule.

                • parsimonious one on 03/03/2024 - 18:26

                  @justwii: Yeah, in the cases the SMH used you could definitely see how it’s a risk for tenants; on one hand you complain significant repairs are needed, but not so much that the place uninhabitable… its a fine line to tread

                  In OPs case not so much, I think OP would have a hard time proving it’s legitimately uninhabitable in light of a paper trail showing they want to move in themselves

                  • justwii on 03/03/2024 - 18:33
                    -1

                    @parsimonious one: Surely not by faking it. OP can hope for real shit happening to his unit and actually pay big money to fix it in order to get his unit back.

      • USER DC on 05/03/2024 - 20:35

        I realise OP is in WA but typically similar rules apply

        No, rules are generally different in each state, (especially VIC)

    • tomfool on 04/03/2024 - 11:12
      +3

      That sounds like BS, you saying you can just make some crap up with no proof? Pretty sure if the tenant had taken this to the tribunal the landlord would have had to show proof. Add to this its likley the RE would not have gone with this lie.

      • justwii on 04/03/2024 - 14:39

        Again, don't presume too much, no one said anyone was lying.
        But exactly as you said, the tenants shouldn't be required to bring the case to the tribunal in order to see "proofs", so a loophole for sure.

  • mj always rules on 03/03/2024 - 15:33
    +30

    I can't believe you're even suggesting doing this, you are a horrible person and represent everything that is wrong with the rental market

      • Deals For Days on 03/03/2024 - 15:47
        +13

        Immigration has nothing to do with OP being an ***hole

        • us3rnam3tak3n on 03/03/2024 - 20:02
          +10

          This is Ozbargain, we spell it ****hole.

  • MondaySleeper on 03/03/2024 - 15:59
    +8

    What a joke of offering $1500. Lease agreement is valid for the landlord as well. Just because you own the house, you cant do whatever you want. Tenant alao have dignity and they cant be kicked around like football. Learn to respect them They signed the contract thinking that they can live there for the next 12 months.

    Once its near the expiry of the current lease give a notice with enough time saying you are planning to live there. Or offer $4-5K compensation for their inconvenience caused by yiur chasing of your convenience of moving to closer to work

    I would not be doing this to my tenants.

  • mitt on 03/03/2024 - 16:38
    +3

    You signed a fixed term lease. That fixes the term for both the Tennant AND you.

    Breaking that contract would, & should cost you a whole hell of a lot more than $1500. You would have to take on ALL additional costs incurred by the tenants as a consequence of you breaking your contractual obligations.

    • cheesecactus on 03/03/2024 - 18:52
      +2

      Technically he didn't sign a fixed term lease. He only inherited a fixed term lease.

      However he bought the property knowing that.

      • USER DC on 05/03/2024 - 20:40

        land/lease contact rights are handelled differently than a traditional contract. the specific terms of agreement, length, prior knowledge, reliance of facts etc. all play a role.

        You should see your own local state laws, for it, each state can be different in treating such matters.

  • motion2082 on 03/03/2024 - 16:43
    +2

    My landlord kicked me out after 9 months to sell her property for $1.1 million

    Reason: "Personal Reasons"

    Think the laws here have change though since her money grab.
    Can't blame landlords for cashing in on the Ponzi Scheme that's Australian housing

    • bargaino on 03/03/2024 - 17:19
      +1

      Selling a property is one of the few exceptions allowed.

      • parsimonious one on 03/03/2024 - 17:26
        +1

        OP may have a hard time selling that to the tribunal given they only just bought it and they have already indicated they want to move in themselves

        Plus it appears that doesn’t apply to WA, a quick Google search from realestate.com.au says in article about ending a lease to sell a tenanted property

        For WA “Neither the new or old landlord can evict the tenant if a fixed agreement is in place, unless the tenant violates the terms of the lease, or the two parties reach an agreement by mutual consent.”

        https://www.realestate.com.au/advice/renters-rights-home-sal…

        OP is SOOL

      • elcap on 04/03/2024 - 21:46

        In what state can you end a fixed term agreement before the end date for a house sale??

        • bargaino on 04/03/2024 - 22:32
          +1

          My mistake. Either bad memory, or they changed the rules ages ago.

          • elcap on 05/03/2024 - 05:48

            @bargaino: I was suprised when I found it out too. I thought selling a house would be a big enough change in circumstances that would allow for a break in lease - even make it a long notice period like 4 months and have restrictions on change of mind so it's not used as a way to evict the tenant (I know there will always be people who try to game the system).

            I can see it from the tenants side too, you just want a stable place to live and at least a fixed term lease should give you that period of time.

            NSW RE agents were trying to offer 6 month fixed term leases as a way of combating some of the recent rental changes.

            • Jolakot on 05/03/2024 - 19:37

              @elcap: What's the point of a lease if the landlord can just break it? Should only be able to break a lease if the place is uninhabitable, and the tenant should be put up in a hotel until it's either fixed or they find a new place.

              • elcap on 05/03/2024 - 20:02

                @Jolakot: A landlord is not just breaking a lease for trivial reasons if they have to sell the property.
                I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any penalties or decent notice period so that the tenant can find another place.

                • Jolakot on 05/03/2024 - 20:31

                  @elcap: It's absolutely a trivial reason, how can it not be?

                  The property can easily be sold with a lease, plenty are. Either to another investor who will keep it leased regardless, or to a family who are happy to wait it out.

                  It might require a discount, but that's the financial penalty you're talking about.

                  If the discount is larger than the amount the tenants would accept to leave, then everybody wins. Otherwise, the landlord just has to cop the discount.

                  Either way, every single person involved has made a concious decision, with ample room for good-faith negotiation. Just as any other contract breaking should be.

                  You're saying that a landlord should be allowed to break a lease to make more money. Why not then allow landlords to break a lease so they can increase rent early, or because a tenant is costing them too much in repair requests?

                  It's trivial because it's completely unnecessary.

                  • elcap on 05/03/2024 - 21:02

                    @Jolakot: I can understand your view but I don't consider it a trivial reason. From my limited knowledge of talking to a few RE agents in my area, not many properties were sold with leases in place and the ones that were, sold for considerably less. I can accept that this might not be the case for other types of properties or other areas.

                    Either way, every single person involved has made a concious decision, with ample room for good-faith negotiation. Just as any other contract breaking should be.

                    Fair point

                    You're saying that a landlord should be allowed to break a lease to make more money. Why not then allow landlords to break a lease so they can increase rent early, or because a tenant is costing them too much in repair requests?

                    I don't think that's a fair comparison. You only sell a property once and then you're out of the rental property market. I wouldn't think that many people would be selling and buying investment properties frequently either.

                    • Jolakot on 06/03/2024 - 13:10
                      +1

                      @elcap:

                      From my limited knowledge of talking to a few RE agents in my area, not many properties were sold with leases in place and the ones that were, sold for considerably less. I can accept that this might not be the case for other types of properties or other areas.

                      Fair point, my experience is with the North-West of Melbourne, mostly residential houses.

                      For an investor, having the house leased means day 1 cashflow, with no initial costs for renovations or agent fees. We've bought and sold houses with leases, the discount is usually ~3% depending on other fundamentals. The discount is usually largest for big family homes, and smallest for apartments.

                      So for a standard $600k house, you might have to shave off $18k. On the other end of the spectrum, for a $2m mansion in Keilor you'd need to shave off closer to $60k.

                      If the tenant is happy to take $9k/$30k to break the lease early, then everyone wins. If not, then maybe the landlord should have planned ahead better and not signed a lease for a property they want to sell.

                      I don't think that's a fair comparison. You only sell a property once and then you're out of the rental property market. I wouldn't think that many people would be selling and buying investment properties frequently either.

                      Plenty of people will sell an investment property to buy another, listen to something like The Property Couch. Especially house flippers, granted these are less common now than they used to be with the current cost of materials and labour.

  • JIMB0 on 03/03/2024 - 17:56
    +7

    Will you be deactivating your account since you didn't get the answer you were after?

    • parsimonious one on 03/03/2024 - 18:07

      Lol

    • Clear on 03/03/2024 - 20:06

      Only new users do that.

    • pegaxs on 03/03/2024 - 21:59
      +2

      Came for OzConfirmationBias.com.au, accidentally got routed to OzOwnGoals.com.au…

    • parsimonious one on 06/03/2024 - 19:35

      Well he deleted the content/ details of the initial post, changed the title and tried to shutdown the discussion

      Does that count?

  • monky on 03/03/2024 - 18:26
    +5

    I personally feel you should honor your contract both out of legal and morale obligation.

    You are fortunate to be in a position where you can own both personal and investment property, so perhaps the best option is to practice humility? Up to you really, but I hear karma doesn't play nice with those who disenfranchise, even when it's in legal limits.

    Why not sell the first house, and then use a small portion of the profits to rent close to your work? You could cut your commute down to a short walk or bike ride, on top of great exercise and cutting down on your carbon footprint. You'll have no issues getting finding a nice place since again, you're in such a fortunate situation.

      • us3rnam3tak3n on 03/03/2024 - 20:07
        +2

        Yep, I think finding a rental yourself is the most decent approach.

        Otherwise maybe ask the tenants what compensation they would consider reasonable to break the contract. As others have commented $1500 isn't going to cover the cost of moving, let alone the difficulty of finding another rental in this market.

      • USER DC on 05/03/2024 - 20:42

        There could be some rules regading you giving a no fault notice, you should just read and follow them if you like to move into the property.

  • El cheepo on 03/03/2024 - 21:04
    +10

    Imagine trying to kick out a perfectly fine tenant and potentially leaving them homeless just to cut your commute down…

    Thats low man.

    Edit: guess that doesn’t matter to you, after reading your replies, you are clearly a selfish scumlord.

    Your happy to pay REAs and fees but not even offer the cost of moving to the tenants you are potentially leaving homeless during the housing crisis in Perth.

      • pinchies on 03/03/2024 - 21:40
        +6

        You offered $1500, and they still declined — that's how bad the rental market is! Are you beginning to get it?

        I bet they would still decline if you offered them $5000. Moving costs alone are likely around $3k, and the stress and hassle is worth more than $2k to me…

        • boirganz on 03/03/2024 - 21:45
          +2

          tumbleweeds

      • El cheepo on 03/03/2024 - 23:00
        +3

        Ah yes, my mistake… how generous! $1500 is not too bad considering they wont have to pay a removal company much to dump their stuff on the street when they are homeless.

        Does the fact that they haven’t taken your $1500 (lol) offer and moved out not tell you that there is a lack of options?

        And you are looking to renege on a contract early and potentially leave people who thought they had a home out on the street just to save yourself a drive?

        Just man up and do the drive until the contract is up like a decent human.

      • rumblytangara on 03/03/2024 - 23:11
        +8

        When 100% of the thread respondants are against you, perhaps it's time to look in the mirror and wonder if you're the problem.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/03/2024 - 15:21
        +1

        You stupidly bought a place you wanted to occupy with 9+ months of fixed term lease in place.

        We think we want, MATE

      • xylarr on 04/03/2024 - 18:42
        +1

        I recon if you paid out the value of the remaining lease - which is basically number of weeks times the rental per week. So if nine months at $500, that's $19500.

        If you offered closer to $20k to move out, you might have a more willing tenant.

          • rumblytangara on 04/03/2024 - 19:08

            @Kawaii: Rent increases happen during a tenancy renewal. You would have been entirely within your rights to decline the renewal.

            Maybe you need a GoFundMe. I am sure the audience would chip in with huge enthusiasm.

    • USER DC on 05/03/2024 - 20:46

      To say tenant is not entitled to his signed agreement of full 12 month stay is also immoral

      and just as equally

      it is also immoral to say land owner doesnt own or cannot own or use their property at their own wish after paying/buying it (ever or within a reasonable time after purchase).

      • El cheepo on 06/03/2024 - 12:28
        +1

        it is also immoral to say land owner doesnt own or cannot own or use their property at their own wish after paying/buying it (ever or within a reasonable time after purchase).

        No, it is not…
        Ignoring your statement about not owning the property (no one said that the land owner doesn’t own his house), the fact remains that he is doing what he wanted to do with the house - rent it out to someone for a fixed term.

        Not sure where you are getting the idea people think he doesn’t own his home or that a lease agreement he agreed to isn’t a reasonable time frame.

  • iknowtj on 03/03/2024 - 22:26
    +4

    $1500.

    Lol.

  • Emcaljoe on 04/03/2024 - 00:06
    +1

    I agree OP is in the wrong here.

    But bigger picture, all levels of government have abrogated their responsibility to provide sufficient, livable social housing. To then try and dictate what people do with their private property? Kinda counterintuitive to the 'market knows best' mantra that's been shoved down our throats for 40 odd years. It's on government. And it's a disgrace.

    • Eeples on 04/03/2024 - 01:04
      +2

      The government supporting and providing benefits that encourage houses as an investment is a problem.

      Not fixing that is the disgrace.

      • Emcaljoe on 04/03/2024 - 15:10

        This definitely doesn't help

    • Jolakot on 05/03/2024 - 19:41

      Even worse, the government funnels hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to private landlords through rent assist and other payments. Absolute rort.

  • ChickenAdobo on 04/03/2024 - 01:34
    -3

    How big is your backyard at that place. Maybe put a granny flat at the back as a temporary measure. Tough luck if the renter complains.

  • christopher8827 on 04/03/2024 - 01:45

    What a dick move by OP. Reminds me of the landlord who demanded her tenant to move out for the weekend into a hotel so her friends could "borrow" the house for a while.

    Its all over Tiktok btw: https://www.tiktok.com/@itsgoneviral/video/73206461363169395…

  • Aerith-Waifu on 04/03/2024 - 02:43
    +2

    I recently need to have our IP back for 6 months, after negation with the current tenant, I have to offer 6 weeks free rent plus $500 cost of moving and they finally agreed. Your $1500 seems low in the current state of housing, I am also in Perth.

    In total the cost to me is: $500pw rent x 6 +$500 moving fees + agent charges (dont know yet) = $4000+ at least i think it will cost me in the end.

    So you need to up your offer or they have every rights not to move until the end of the lease.

    • Kawaii on 04/03/2024 - 04:04
      +2

      Okay thanks.
      That’s very helpful comments

    • Gina Rinehart on 04/03/2024 - 10:35
      +3

      So you need to up your offer or they have every rights not to move until the end of the lease.

      To clarify, even if OP ups their offer, they still have every right to not move until the end of the lease. There is no offer that they must accept.

  • Davo1111 on 04/03/2024 - 06:01
    +2

    They can't find a place even if they wanted to

    • Kawaii on 04/03/2024 - 14:51
      -6

      If you know you have to move anyways and have been given 5 months.
      I do understand it’s hard, but in the end, they still have to move.

      • Davo1111 on 04/03/2024 - 16:26
        +2

        Yeah they can start looking in 5 months time

  • arkanis50 on 04/03/2024 - 08:33
    +1

    I wouldn't take $1500 for the inconvenience or walking to my back shed, let alone moving house.

    • El cheepo on 04/03/2024 - 17:48
      +4

      There is no issue with landlords in general. Just this one…

      If you want to get an investment property and expect your tenants to respect your property, you need to respect them too.

      Reneging on a contract in the middle of a housing crisis is a scummy thing to do.

      Even if he could do it legally kick them out, its a terrible thing to do to people that have been paying off your mortgage and respecting your property.

      Again… theres nothing wrong with him letting the lease run its course then moving them on.
      But mid contract to save a little bit of driving? Thats a scumlord move.

    • Davo1111 on 05/03/2024 - 13:21
      +2

      The issue here isn't OPs right to move back, it's their expectation that the tenants will move out on their command.

      Both signed a contract, both should hold up their end of the agreement….until the end of the agreement.

    • stickingly on 05/03/2024 - 16:05

      Wow, seems my comment was completely misunderstood.

      I am not saying he can kick them out now.

      I am saying if he wants them to move out he needs to offer them something they are happy with and agree to, they have no obligation to accept anything. But if they know they are going to be kicked our at the end of the lease anyway it may be worth their while to start looking for something else sooner when they have time on their side.

  • kalithreaver on 04/03/2024 - 10:11
    +3

    $1500? lmao. that may just cover the cost of the moving if lucky. if you are wanting them to leave this many months early you need to pay them to leave. i would expect $5000.

    • Beef jerky time on 05/03/2024 - 09:33
      +2

      $5k is way too generous. Landlords have no problem forcing tenants to continue paying rent until their lease is up or until they find a new tenant, why should this be any different? Fair would be OP paying them the remainder of their lease, so more like $18-19k. Or not be a prick in the first place and just honour the contract that's in place.

  • shaybisc on 04/03/2024 - 10:47
    -2

    This is outrageous. Are you telling me that in Australia, with tenant protection among the weakest in the developed word, an owner can't boot a tenant out during a lease whenever they feel like it? This is what you get for not voting Liberal.

    • MondaySleeper on 04/03/2024 - 13:06

      This why exactly you should vote for Liberal… NOT.

      Renters are also humans mate. Landlord exists because of renters. They help you to payoff the mortgage. If you don't appreciate them, its OK but just don't insult them.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/03/2024 - 15:17
        +4

        Maybe it's too late in the day but I can't tell which post is missing '/s'

  • Morphio25 on 04/03/2024 - 11:05
    +3

    The rental market is really tough right now for people. Count yourself lucky that you even have an investment property, suck it up for another 8 months and keep up your commute until the lease is finished and then ask them to leave. Don't be a d*** and try and evict them just because it makes life easier for you. A 1-hour commute isn't even that long really, I do it every day myself.

      • Alley Cat on 04/03/2024 - 15:04
        -8

        I wouldn’t take these to heart. People like the underdog, and in this case you are the landlord who holds more power, that’s what it is about. I think it’s better for you to rent a room/granny flat close to work and let your current residence, the downside is you have to pay tax on the rental income but it’s better than commuting. The best part about being single is you get to move whenever you want, utilise that :)

          • Alley Cat on 04/03/2024 - 15:26
            -1

            @Kawaii: I had that too, since I lived most of my life by myself in the same property, took a few months to get rid of most things I once thought hold value. You’d be amazed how little you actually need and how much better it feels when all your belongings can fit in a car. Once you have done that, you’ll find there are plenty of rooms for you to choose, and you get to observe different cultures through your housemates, if that is of any interest. In your case, consider moving expensive furniture and electronics into a container pod like taxibox, they cost a lot less than renting extra room. You can then move them into the house once it’s vacated.

            I was also sort of paying someone to keep me on track to do the packing because I had no one to help me. It can be very valuable.

          • rumblytangara on 05/03/2024 - 09:44
            +3

            @Kawaii:

            Thanks! It sounds horrible but.. I can’t find a place that will give me such exact term of rental and my stuff is a bit too much for a single person. A big project to move home

            Who'd have thought that looking for a new place is stressful, hard and a big project?

            Yet that's exactly what you are asking the tenants to do 9 months early, for a laughably token amount of 'compensation.'

            Sure, they have to move at some stage anyway. We all have to die and pay taxes too- do you feel like doing either 9 months early?

            People like the underdog, and in this case you are the landlord who holds more power, that’s what it is about.

            There's nothing about people liking the underdog in this thread- plenty of us are also landlords. The total lack of self-awareness with the OP is amazing.

            • Alley Cat on 05/03/2024 - 15:28
              -4

              @rumblytangara:

              plenty of us are also landlords. The total lack of self-awareness with the OP is amazing.

              Just because you are a landlord, doesn’t mean you have the same internal make up as the op. For starters, it’s a completely different experience when you have no support in your life, hence the use of this forum. And guess what, support is hard to come by here too.

              Is it really so hard to have compassion towards the person who is right here seeking help? The tenants are not here asking for help, the op is, and there is not necessarily a dichotomy between the two, other than the one you have imposed. Op is trying to find a win-win solution, that is so much more than what I can say about your comment. Who is the one truly lacking self-awareness?

              • rumblytangara on 05/03/2024 - 15:48
                +6

                @Alley Cat:

                doesn’t mean you have the same internal make up as the op.

                Of which I am very, very glad.

                Is it really so hard to have compassion towards the person who is right here seeking help?

                In this case, it sure is. Because he's trying to boot people out of the home that they are paying for, almost a year ahead of the contracted date, all to save himself a bit of travelling time.

                Every single comment he's made in this thread just reinforces how reprehensible he is.

        • banana365 on 05/03/2024 - 14:20
          +1

          People like the underdog, and in this case you are the landlord who holds more power, that’s what it is about.

          Both hold the power granted to them in the contract that both tenant and LL signed. LL has no power to break it unilaterally, thankfully.

      • chichi on 04/03/2024 - 15:26
        +5

        I love that you still think your offer was reasonable. May you get the result you deserve.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join