Well, OK, it’s just an idiom.
Let me try again. In response to:
What we usually see are renters afraid to report or try negotiating anything for fear of becoming homeless.
If reporting or negotiating anything leads to a concern that you will become homeless then taking legal action is even more likely to make you become homeless.
It looks like it is already happening!
Despite what is going on with QCAT, it is appropriate that we seek out alternate accommodation that is suitable and affordable, and we actually found a property that is even better than the current one.
The only option to apply was through that disgusting 2Apply outfit where we had to provide all our personal information along with photographic evidence.
The application was refused by the PM for the property, because we were told it had already been leased.
So I had a friend of mine to show interest for it, and he requested an inspection.
This was part of the response:
In response to your enquiry, we are finalising arrangements to show this property and we will contact you as soon as an inspection time becomes available.
We then got back to the PM by email, about it still being advertised and if she had received our 2Apply application, and whether it was still available.
We received the following in the email reply:
No sorry, I will ask again the advertising team to take it down asap.
Am I pissed off… YOU BET!!!
So what is one supposed to do? Suck up and toady to a PM scumbag?
Depends whether “one” is you personally or the generic tenant.
For the generic tenant, my advice would be: discuss (negotiate) before it gets to the toxic stage.
For you personally, my advice would be: you’ve set your course, so probably stay the course, but it is very likely that you will need new accommodation regardless of the outcome, so plan for that. And also, there is a risk that the finding is against you i.e. that the landlord’s conditions are legally OK as the law stands today, in which case my advice would be that you need to lobby your government for changes, probably in concert with organisations that represent tenants’ rights.
Yeah ditto, I will make sure I do all that and more from our tent down the local park.
The upside though, we will be saving $800.00 per week in rent. 
I seem to recall reading about the changes to the QLD tenancy law that came into force in 2022. There are other changes coming this year in July and Sept.
Particularly on the Gold and Sunshine coast, it seemed that PMs were advising owners to not allow a fixed term rental to roll over into a periodic rental as the ‘no reason’ notice to vacate was gone. And heavy penalties applied if a false reason was given. Ie, owner wants to occupy, and then just rents it out again. Also rent increases could only by done once a year.
So ‘take it or leave it’ new rental agreements were sent to the tenants before the fixed term lease was up. Of course, jack the rent up. Put whatever conditions allowed by law one wants into it. If no agreement, then issue the ‘notice 12’ to vacate. The only reason required was end of lease. Much easier than the reasons required to move a tenant out under a periodic rental.
Unconscionable? Absolutely.
Sounds familiar Gregr, this is the exact wording we received:
Please read your new tenancy agreement and ensure it is signed and returned within 7 days from the date of this offer, as a periodic lease is not an option. Failure to sign the new Tenancy Agreement within the time frame will result in a form 12 Notice to Leave being issued which will require you to vacate on the expiry of your current tenancy agreement.
In Qld there is a Tenants support service that those having difficulty may find useful
I don’t know if similar organisations exist in other States and Territories.
That is correct. The law changes mean that the property managers who don’t include a notice to vacate wording risk being sued by property owners if they let to tenant roll over to a periodic lease.
The “credit” for the grief that this causes belongs with the Queensland Government.
The notice to vacate warning typically accompanies a lease renewal proposal. This indicates that the owner is happy for the tenants to stay on for a further term.
As has occurred in Gordon’s case, the lease renewal will usually provide the tenants with options of renewing the lease as proposed, requesting changes to the proposal and not renewing the lease.
Vic:
NSW:
SA:
WA:
https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/find-legal-answers/homes-and-neighbours/residential-tenants
TAS:
NT:
And in his case, he tried in good faith the option of requesting changes to the new offer, and requesting repairs, and I see he has a very good case in QCAT that the law has been breached because a notice 12 has been issued during discussions. It is illegal to do that, and will be seen as obvious retaliation by the PM and/or owner.
Putting aside your specific circumstances, let’s be honest. A periodic lease may not be a reasonable option for the tenant. A periodic lease may not be a reasonable option for the landlord. However if both parties want a periodic lease (and ignoring the recent law change in Qld) then it’s fine.
This would fall squarely into the “unintended consequences” bucket - although I’m sure it would have been pointed out to the Queensland government that this would be a consequence.
I didn’t get that from the sole quoted paragraph. (Maybe it is evident from the full 49 page catastrophe?)
The way I read it: the property manager was pointing out that failing to conclude negotiations for a new lease before the end of the current lease would result in … the end of the lease.
It is. Catastrophe?
For those contemplating going to a tribunal or a court, that is the level of detail of documentation that may well be required to succeed in your action.
Not new and how offers at end of leases have been for some time (2-4 years) according to our family members who rent in QLD. Relates to elsewhere in the state and not to the GC or SCC. The agents have used the tactic of approaching the tenant more than one month prior to end of lease. The basis of the new lease is accompanied with a request to accept within a short time period (7-14 days) the new offer. If not the tenants lease is considered to end per the current lease agreement and the tenant has agreed to vacate by that date.
Typically the date to respond by is at least one month prior to the end of lease. This appears to remove any doubt about prior knowledge the current lease will roll over and the tenant has agreed to move out. Some agents indicate that they need at least one month to enable the property vacancy to be promoted, and new tenants found to take up the property without loss of income to the owner.
My take on this practice is it’s not necessarily about a tactic for moving certain tenants on, or even demonstrating to owners that the rental rate has been maximised. It’s an agent tactic that maximises their income. Typical agents fees for finding a new tenant and passed onto the owner are based on x-weeks of rent. 2-4 weeks, plus some costs. This is in addition to the income derived from the routine weekly management fee. In times of high demand the agents effort required - minimal.
As a counterpoint and from past experience. As a landlord when new tenants were harder to come by our agents were extra keen to talk us into extending the leases of existing tenants. Sweeteners, minimal increases etc were all options. Anything to avoid the agent having to ‘bust a gut’ finding a new tenant. Worse for every week the property sat vacant the agent derived zero income as a management fee.
Consider agents may also derive further income from the added management fee for any maintenance repairs carried out as a claim against the departing tenants bond. Paid out of the bond, hence no cost to the owner!
I’ve said before there are good agents and not so good. Property Managers (PM) as others have referred to may be the letting agent. They can also be an independently appointed business or person to manage day to day needs of a Body Corporate - Strata Title property (for those on the other side of the maroon divide).
Nine News tonight had an item on this issue in Qld
I sent them a link to this topic.
While the REIQ Standards of Business Practice requires that a member must not participate in any harsh or unconscionable conduct…
One problem with suing a real estate agent in QCAT is this:
Weedon and Roberts v Place 57 Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 365
[11] The finding that a real estate agent is excluded from the definition of Trader was confirmed in the QCAT Appeal decision of Grommen v Hawes,7 where the Tribunal held that the provision of real estate services was a professional discipline as it was an intellectual activity for reward involving training, accreditation and adherence to professional standards.
professional discipline … intellectual activity ???
Any thoughts…
I guess I can see what QCAT are driving at. A real estate agent is acting as an agent but not actually buying or selling anything. In particular, they aren’t selling you anything. They are not trading with you.
Thoughts?
Yes. Neil Jenman has for many years written books about the antics real estate agents get up to.
But the case cited was dismissed on the basis of it being outside the juristiction of the tribunal. The complainants tried on a case that was always going to fail.
This is QCAT’s strange interpretation of what the definition of a “Trader” is under the QCAT Act.
I actually forgot last night (my 74 year old grey stuff), that I am suing for unconscionable conduct under the ACL, which has no strange interpretations.
