Renting while looking to buy

L1011

Augeo wrote: »

It has already been provided by another poster. I suggest you read it, carefully and thoroughly.

You clearly haven't read it as you've managed to convince yourself of contents that don't exist.

The_Morrigan

Augeo; this is a dangerous thing you're spouting here and I'm going to ask you to stop posting.
I've already put a mod warning in this thread that people should only post correct advice & you are not.

Please do not post in this thread again.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

You clearly haven't read it as you've managed to convince yourself of contents that don't exist.

Chaps, a fixed term contract not including the legal notice period does not negate the tenants right to those periods.

The_Morrigan

OP - the PRTB have some information on terminating a fixed term lease; it can be found here.
The acquirement of Part IV rights run alongside the lease, so that when the lease expires you have already clocked up your Part IV rights for 6 months - therefore you do not at that stage need to execute another fixed term lease and you can follow the rules for Part IV.

You could talk to your landlord and explain the situation to them about your plans, they may be willing to negotiate the contract with you.

L1011

Augeo wrote: »

Chaps, a fixed term contract not including the legal notice period does not negate the tenants right to those periods.

The fixed term itself does. You misunderstand this horribly and are spouting dangerous nonsense as a result. Please go actually read the sources you've attempted to cite.

quadrifoglio verde

To the op, might be an idea offering to pay slightly higher rent, if you can avoid having a 12 month lease. When you meet the landlord explain that you're currently house hunting and willing to offer 10% more. In the current market I can't see many landlords objecting to that. They get the rent they'll probably get next year this year.

It is my understanding that If you break a 12 month lease you're liable for the outstanding rent, however this is only applicable if the landlord can't replace you with new tenants at the same market rate. However the landlord has to be able to show that he made as much effort as reasonably possible to get new tenants. Also I think it's a prtb decision if the tenant is liable or not.

Happy to be proven wrong but that was my understanding of it.

The_Morrigan

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

To the op, might be an idea offering to pay slightly higher rent, if you can avoid having a 12 month lease. When you meet the landlord explain that you're currently house hunting and willing to offer 10% more. In the current market I can't see many landlords objecting to that. They get the rent they'll probably get next year this year.

It is my understanding that If you break a 12 month lease you're liable for the outstanding rent, however this is only applicable if the landlord can't replace you with new tenants at the same market rate. However the landlord has to be able to show that he made as much effort as reasonably possible to get new tenants. Also I think it's a prtb decision if the tenant is liable or not.

Happy to be proven wrong but that was my understanding of it.

It's usual to see them both take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss.
For instance, the tenants may find a replacement tenant and the landlord may veto them - the original tenants are free to walk away in that instance.

The original tenants may pay any rent that is due while the landlord is looking for a new tenant, but once a new tenant is found they are removed from their obligations under the lease.

Also worth noting that both parties may be happy to rescind the agreement at any point and not hold the other person liable under it. It's all about being reasonable towards the other party.

quadrifoglio verde

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It's usual to see them both take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss.
For instance, the tenants may find a replacement tenant and the landlord may veto them - the original tenants are free to walk away in that instance.

The original tenants may pay any rent that is due while the landlord is looking for a new tenant, but once a new tenant is found they are removed from their obligations under the lease.

Also worth noting that both parties may be happy to rescind the agreement at any point and not hold the other person liable under it. It's all about being reasonable towards the other party.

So if a tenant signs a lease and walks away 6 months later and the rent in the area is now 20% less, the previous tenant isn't liable for the difference? Bit unfair on the landlord.

I agree with you on your last point, although if it was me, I'd rather ask the landlord at the outset and come to an agreement where both were happy.

The_Morrigan

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

So if a tenant signs a lease and walks away 6 months later and the rent in the area is now 20% less, the previous tenant isn't liable for the difference? Bit unfair on the landlord.

It would depend on whether they sublet (and make up the difference), re-assign the lease, or it the landlord has the new tenants sign a new lease.

quadrifoglio verde

The_Morrigan wrote: »

It would depend on whether they sublet (and make up the difference), re-assign the lease, or it the landlord has the new tenants sign a new lease.

But what happens say old tenant who upped and left 6 months in was paying 1k and landlord can only get new tenants willing to pay 800.
I take it in this case the deposit can be used to cover the loss of rent to the landlord, but it wouldn't fully?

The_Morrigan

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

But what happens say old tenant who upped and left 6 months in was paying 1k and landlord can only get new tenants willing to pay 800.
I take it in this case the deposit can be used to cover the loss of rent to the landlord, but it wouldn't fully?

Depends whats in the lease or agreed between everyone.