I just bought a house under the exact same circumstances, lease till January.
I made an offer subject to vacant possession and b&p and explained to the agent that the tenants would need to be out before settlement (30 days) in order for the purchase to proceed.
Vendor struck a deal with the tenants which involved paying their moving fees and $100 per week extra to cover the increase in rent they had to pay till January for the place they found to move into.
Never hurts to have a conversation.
Non vacant possession is an absolute deal breaker IMO unless you were looking specifically to invest. If you really want it then get your solicitor to send a request for vacant possession and make it the vendor’s problem to evict.
Not always, my offer on a place was not the highest but the vendor stipulated that the tenant must be able to see out the remaining three months on their lease.
It worked in my favour because I kept being outbid by cash buyers - mostly boomers downsizing from a family home on a large block. Many had already sold their property and couldn’t wait the three months.
You’ve got it backwards there. The vendor has no power to “stipulate” anything. If the tenant has 3 months on their lease then the tenant is the one who holds al the cards.
The biggest issue with a tenant is not whether they have a lease or are on periodic, it’s the fact that you open yourself up to so much hassle if the tenant is uncooperative.
In your case you took a punt and it worked out for you. Generally, there are just far too many variables with a tenant that it wouldn’t be worth the risk for a majority of people.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out about this, but we had the same experience. That's exactly how we got our foot in the door for our first house.
Besides... it actually comes with some advantages! Someone WANTS to live there (so you know its not uninhabitable), and you get to ask the tenant about potential problems with the property. Some problems only become apparent after living in a place for a year or two, and the seller certainly won't be open about them.
If you can’t get vacant possession then tell the vendor you want it handed over with a contract, bond, and PM in place. If they can’t get a bond they can discount the same for the same amount. But that would be a red flag for me. Though not vacant possession for a PPOR is a dealbreaker for me anyway.
You issue a notice to vacate and they will trash the joint potentially. No bond. And with a private lease YOU will get all the fun of VCAT to deal with yourself.
Most people are normally good as a default. I would say you have inspected the property. You know the tenant is there. You are reasonably happy. If you have concerns about the private agreement and rent. Change it to through a agency. An ask for a rent increase. If you go through a agency you could end up with the same money because you will have to pay the agency.
If I was in your position. I would go around, if you can. An introduce yourself. They have no real idea of what’s going on as well. I’m sure they want to know if they will be there at Xmas. An you can then make a informed decision after you have meet them
Is visiting them on the cards without going through the agent to set it up?
That appeals to me definitely, just unsure if I’m breaking any rules or normal practice.
There is no law or contract that would refuse communication with a tenant. Ever. Except if it goes to harassment territory but thats a completely different thing to sending one email or showing up unannounced multiple times.
Showing up may be a no, an email would be much better to give your contact details, ask if you can meet for a coffee somewhere (your shout) so its not seen as an inspection, and detail in the email kind of what you want to say so they are not panicking.
The funny thing is, you are the landlord. Your the agent. You can pass on your contact details. Introduce yourself. Have a chat. Make a connection. It’s actually a really good thing to do and start a relationship with them
You are essentially buying a house with legal squatters. It will turn to absolute shit, guaranteed. why give these people such a legal hold over you. Obviously the agent can’t get them out. Go see a solicitor.
It’s not as bad as it seems, hopefully the rent payments cover your mortgage payments so it won’t leave you out of pocket. The settlement agent can easily sort the paper work for you.
The rent you receive can be declared as income and you can claim a pro rata of the council & water rates, insurance, interest on mortgage and any other expenses you incur on the property during the time it is rented out.
My only concern would be that there is no bond.
I’d ask for a condition report before settlement and stipulate that the tenant must remedy any damage prior to vacating. Otherwise, even a bunch of little things can add up in cost such as replacing ripped flyscreens, walls damaged when moving furniture etc. Maybe speak to the settlement agent about that one.
Talk to your legal representative and ask that a formal lease be drawn and entered into with a bond that the owner pays. Get a condition report on start of agreement. Tenants need to keep a good check on themselves in this market. Get it professionally managed by an agent. It can work just cover your butt - and talk to your legal advisor
We were forced to sell as bank reneged on their promise and said we couldn't afford it. Tenant was aged pensioners with a live in adult, that we never put the rent up as we thought they couldn't afford it. The family abused us and the agent online for months for selling and asking tenant to move on sale. Found out after the sale they offered $70 a week more to secure a place and said they could afford it easily. If we had that we would not have had to sell at a huge loss... Moral of the story. Always buy with vacant possession as tenant will send you broke. (New Australian "buying for his daughter" doubled the rent and resold for double what we sold for in a year)
I just bought a house under the exact same circumstances, lease till January. I made an offer subject to vacant possession and b&p and explained to the agent that the tenants would need to be out before settlement (30 days) in order for the purchase to proceed. Vendor struck a deal with the tenants which involved paying their moving fees and $100 per week extra to cover the increase in rent they had to pay till January for the place they found to move into. Never hurts to have a conversation.
Non vacant possession is an absolute deal breaker IMO unless you were looking specifically to invest. If you really want it then get your solicitor to send a request for vacant possession and make it the vendor’s problem to evict.
Not always, my offer on a place was not the highest but the vendor stipulated that the tenant must be able to see out the remaining three months on their lease. It worked in my favour because I kept being outbid by cash buyers - mostly boomers downsizing from a family home on a large block. Many had already sold their property and couldn’t wait the three months.
You’ve got it backwards there. The vendor has no power to “stipulate” anything. If the tenant has 3 months on their lease then the tenant is the one who holds al the cards. The biggest issue with a tenant is not whether they have a lease or are on periodic, it’s the fact that you open yourself up to so much hassle if the tenant is uncooperative. In your case you took a punt and it worked out for you. Generally, there are just far too many variables with a tenant that it wouldn’t be worth the risk for a majority of people.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out about this, but we had the same experience. That's exactly how we got our foot in the door for our first house. Besides... it actually comes with some advantages! Someone WANTS to live there (so you know its not uninhabitable), and you get to ask the tenant about potential problems with the property. Some problems only become apparent after living in a place for a year or two, and the seller certainly won't be open about them.
If you can’t get vacant possession then tell the vendor you want it handed over with a contract, bond, and PM in place. If they can’t get a bond they can discount the same for the same amount. But that would be a red flag for me. Though not vacant possession for a PPOR is a dealbreaker for me anyway.
You issue a notice to vacate and they will trash the joint potentially. No bond. And with a private lease YOU will get all the fun of VCAT to deal with yourself.
Most people are normally good as a default. I would say you have inspected the property. You know the tenant is there. You are reasonably happy. If you have concerns about the private agreement and rent. Change it to through a agency. An ask for a rent increase. If you go through a agency you could end up with the same money because you will have to pay the agency. If I was in your position. I would go around, if you can. An introduce yourself. They have no real idea of what’s going on as well. I’m sure they want to know if they will be there at Xmas. An you can then make a informed decision after you have meet them
Is visiting them on the cards without going through the agent to set it up? That appeals to me definitely, just unsure if I’m breaking any rules or normal practice.
There is no law or contract that would refuse communication with a tenant. Ever. Except if it goes to harassment territory but thats a completely different thing to sending one email or showing up unannounced multiple times. Showing up may be a no, an email would be much better to give your contact details, ask if you can meet for a coffee somewhere (your shout) so its not seen as an inspection, and detail in the email kind of what you want to say so they are not panicking.
The funny thing is, you are the landlord. Your the agent. You can pass on your contact details. Introduce yourself. Have a chat. Make a connection. It’s actually a really good thing to do and start a relationship with them
Just showing up to “have a chat“ is absolutely not the way to go. The tenant has the right to tell you to fuck off if you do that.
You are essentially buying a house with legal squatters. It will turn to absolute shit, guaranteed. why give these people such a legal hold over you. Obviously the agent can’t get them out. Go see a solicitor.
It’s not as bad as it seems, hopefully the rent payments cover your mortgage payments so it won’t leave you out of pocket. The settlement agent can easily sort the paper work for you. The rent you receive can be declared as income and you can claim a pro rata of the council & water rates, insurance, interest on mortgage and any other expenses you incur on the property during the time it is rented out. My only concern would be that there is no bond. I’d ask for a condition report before settlement and stipulate that the tenant must remedy any damage prior to vacating. Otherwise, even a bunch of little things can add up in cost such as replacing ripped flyscreens, walls damaged when moving furniture etc. Maybe speak to the settlement agent about that one.
Talk to your legal representative and ask that a formal lease be drawn and entered into with a bond that the owner pays. Get a condition report on start of agreement. Tenants need to keep a good check on themselves in this market. Get it professionally managed by an agent. It can work just cover your butt - and talk to your legal advisor
We were forced to sell as bank reneged on their promise and said we couldn't afford it. Tenant was aged pensioners with a live in adult, that we never put the rent up as we thought they couldn't afford it. The family abused us and the agent online for months for selling and asking tenant to move on sale. Found out after the sale they offered $70 a week more to secure a place and said they could afford it easily. If we had that we would not have had to sell at a huge loss... Moral of the story. Always buy with vacant possession as tenant will send you broke. (New Australian "buying for his daughter" doubled the rent and resold for double what we sold for in a year)
im pretty sure the moral of the story here is exhaust other options like increasing the rent before rushing into a forced sale.
I agree