I so wish this was a part of the QLD Act……….. please someone make my day and point it out to me too.    Good luck Keira

How can we added this to the QLD Act?? This would help with tenants doing nothing and just handing back keys in a total mess (Which we find doesn’t happen often -thank goodness) When it does happen you can easily lose a week or two with clean up and the poor owner loses money with a vacant property that can’t be marketed for rent.

Margaret www.dmrealty.com.au

I hate to admit it but i dont think thats actually in the act. My understanding is that the tenants can only be charged rent whilst in possession of the property or in a current lease. I know that a lot of landlord’s insurance policies will cover up until the property is in a lettable state but Im pretty sure you cant charge the tenants.

Sorry!

Of course the tenant would be responsible for any costs in bringing the property back up to standard.

This topic came up in the RED training I attended today. Simon Cox stated that we can’t charge rent after a tenant has vacated at end of lease or periodic. Simon said,however if the cleanup or damage makes the property unrentable for an extended period of time the landlord can seek compensation through QCAT for loss of income.

Margaret www.dmrealty.com.au

Afer asking quite a few Tafe teachers and people in the industry, as well as the OFT NSW, if the owner can prove that they are losing income due to the property not having been recitfied then they can apply to Tribunal to be reimbursed or compensated by the tenant.

This leads me to ask – WHY is there not a section in the act which states that the tenant MUST continue to pay rent unitl the property is returned in the required state? is this not something that should be standard? It clearly states in the Act that they must leave the property in as close to the same condition as when they moved in, but why does it not cover the owner and agent for when this does not happen, or takes an extended period of time to be implemented?

Seems like a pretty large oversight to me..

Keira, although this is not spelt out in the legislation, one of the reasons for the tribunal system is for landlords to be able to seek reimbursement for financial loss caused by a tenant or tenancy.  Sounds to me like you have a good argument for this.  If you have the evidance to support an application of this nature, why not include it in your application for compensation.  It’s worth a try. 

Keira, I’ve had this one tested in the Tribunal on quite a few occasions.  Generally if the length of time is reasonable, given the circumstances, then members really haven’t balked at accepting rent until re-lettable.  It’s only when that time frame starts to stretch out that it has been a problem.

Yep,

I have tested this one a few times too – but essentially rent is only able to be charged until the day of handover. In the event it takes an undue time to return the property to lettable condition, the only avenue I am aware of is to re-apply for an order that compensation be payable. Sometimes they may be awarded at a rate equivalent to the weekly rent, but it is not “rent” per se.

Hi Keira,

Yes, essentially the tenant can only be charged to the date of handover. I had an unusual situation where a tenant returned possession several days late but argued they shouldn’t be charged for the extra days simply because they didn’t physically sleep at the property for those extra nights, even though they had not yet fully vacated. It got to the point where I contacted the Department of Fair Trading whilst the tenant was arguing with me in the office expecting they would back me up (as per the Residential Tenancies ACT) but unfortunately they sided with her and advised me to settle the matter or go to the CTTT. Not wanting to go to the CTTT for something so silly, we came to a compromise and although I was seething I had to let it go! In hindsight, I probably should have taken it to the CTTT just to prove my point…