Today Tonight, the tenants from hell!

Did anyone see the program last night (15th July) with the tenants from hell? One family moved into a riverside mansion and started selling of the expensive parts, like the boat pontoon. When the locks were changed they just broke back in.

It seems there is a new scam perpetuating whereby prospective buyers offer to buy the place but want to rent for a few months first until they can get the funds approved to complete the purchase. Then, once in, they don't complete and don't pay any rent.
 
Did anyone see the program last night (15th July) with the tenants from hell? One family moved into a riverside mansion and started selling of the expensive parts, like the boat pontoon. When the locks were changed they just broke back in.

It seems there is a new scam perpetuating whereby prospective buyers offer to buy the place but want to rent for a few months first until they can get the funds approved to complete the purchase. Then, once in, they don't complete and don't pay any rent.
Yes i had a quick look at the TT sideshow,i pity the poor property manager when those Ladies started on him,my only question is once you change the locks and you take back phsysical possession with the intention to have total control of the propertywhen can you have the tenants regarded as a trespasser, after the smashed their way back in and started to sell off everything bar the kitchen sink or maybe the also sold that off on E bay?i think you will see a lot more of this type of renter mindset..imho willair..
 
Yeah, I watched it as well. I just don't understand why the law is so **** weak when it comes to stuff like this.
When the locks were changed they just broke back in.
How it this not your typical break and enter. Where are the police and courts? Crazy. Were run by a bunch of lefty civil libertarian pansies.

Looks like seller beware.

But I also think some of these may have been rushed/forced sales?
buyers offer to buy the place but want to rent for a few months first until they can get the funds approved to complete the purchase.
Should be a warning sign there already.
 
it was on both today tonight and current affair tonight. The daughter wanted to tell her side of the story on a current affair to get some sympathy votes.

we had an offer where they would rent from us first, we rejected. we also had an offer where they wanted early possession before settlement!! errr no way !!
 
it was on both today tonight and current affair tonight. The daughter wanted to tell her side of the story on a current affair to get some sympathy votes.

we had an offer where they would rent from us first, we rejected. we also had an offer where they wanted early possession before settlement!! errr no way !!

Fair enough, what do you think if the new buyer asked for early access to a property (assuming its vacant) to clean it, or paint it.

surely, then the intentions are good and they obviously aren't going to spend effort on something they intend not to buy???
 
it's not worth taking that risk. The quicker they settle then quicker they can have the place.

they actually wanted the keys a week prior to settlement. Our solicitor advised us against it and ofcourse I thought no way. However, the agent pleaded their case with me (gosh, who's paying this guy? me or them??) and reluctantly, we agreed that they could move the furniture into the garage over the weekend. On teh condition that the agent supervised the whole thing and locked up after them.

It's because they had to move out of their rental place by the weekend and they were staying with friends until settlement but they had now here to store their stuff and they didn't want to have to hire removalists twice etc.

Today tonight shamed them and they deserved it. ACA was too nice to them. These ppl are despicable, bond bounced, paid no rent, broke in after getting locked out, sold property that was not even theirs...I feel sorry for the owners.
 
Just watched it. ACA should be ashamed. 6mths in the place, and ACA made them out to be the hard done by ones, and Today Tonight, the agent, and the owner as the villians.

No doubt the family will get some sympathy from all the losers out there. This family deserve nothing more that being tossed out on the street, and forced to pay back for all the damage and sold property that wasn't theirs.
 
we had an offer where they would rent from us first, we rejected. we also had an offer where they wanted early possession before settlement!! errr no way !!
Fair enough, what do you think if the new buyer asked for early access to a property (assuming its vacant) to clean it, or paint it.

surely, then the intentions are good and they obviously aren't going to spend effort on something they intend not to buy???
What if that's just a story, though? What if you give them the keys and they immediately move in rather than paint or clean? You're going to have trouble getting them out.

What if they do renovate, and perform renovations that are illegal (no builders' licence - commonly done), shoddily done, or both, and then fail to settle due to lack of finance (or whatever)? And you're left with crappy renovations that you have to pay to fix before you can re-sell...
it's not worth taking that risk. The quicker they settle then quicker they can have the place.
I'm with you on this one, sue78!
 
conveyancers have always advised me to never allow prior possession and it's something I have stuck by

these ferals are amazing - their steadfast belief that they had a right to be there just boggles the mind.
 
these ferals are amazing - their steadfast belief that they had a right to be there just boggles the mind.

Considering one of them mentioned that they had been to Dept of Housing to enquire about a home, how on earth did they even imagine they could ever have the one they are in.
 
conveyancers have always advised me to never allow prior possession and it's something I have stuck by

these ferals are amazing - their steadfast belief that they had a right to be there just boggles the mind.

My parents always negotiate early entry but it's getting harder and harder these days - you can see why!

They've got extra forms to sign these days (in SA anyway) for those who want access prior to settlement. Not sure if they would have helped in the above mentioned situation though. :eek:
 
They are criminals, period! They're drama queens and that reporter from ACA is really an idoit! I can't believe someone will side with this family just to rival the other channel. What's wrong with the media these days? There's no integrity and it's all about competition even when everyone sees what this family has done is blatantly wrong!

I can't understand why the police cannot touch them. There's really something wrong with Australian laws. They're trespassing and they should be jailed and pay for damages! Grrrrr.......
 
I think we are only getting half the story.

Where has the father has been all this time. And what about the owner, you would think he would have something choice to say about the RE agent for letting them in in the first place. And what happened to the deposit, it's a $3M home, surely the RE agent would have wanted the 10% deposit when signing the sales contract.

I wonder if the RE agent will still want his commission for selling the place, after all, he did get a signed contract. :D
 
There's a lot here that doesn't add up, but on balance I'd say they're squatters and should be evicted.

It does concern me that the first news crew entered the house without any permission, especially when there were no adults present. Perhaps this is a complete fabrication from the second interview, but I can see this whole thing going very badly as a result.
 
It does concern me that the first news crew entered the house without any permission, especially when there were no adults present.
Ummm... I understood that the adult children, 21 and older, were present. They may have been the younger generation living in the home, but they're hardly "children". :rolleyes:
 
I kind of figured that too Tracey, but a tribunal or mediator may not see it that way. Never let the facts get in the way of shoving it to the man (in this case the wealthy investor).

Bad karma all round I'd say.
 
Ummm... I understood that the adult children, 21 and older, were present. They may have been the younger generation living in the home, but they're hardly "children". :rolleyes:

It scares me to think that these adults still refer to themselves as children.
 
From watching the show and reading in between the lines I can see how this mess happened.

The Purchaser/tenant entered into a contract to purchase the property which was vacant, both parties with the help:confused: of the agent and solicitors came to an agreement to move into the property under licence (pay rent) until settlement, the purchaser paid 10% deposit by cheque - signed the documents and took possession. The cheque was dishonoured.

The agent/solicitors/vendor should never have allowed access until the deposit had cleared.

No the purchase/tenant/rort-er has possession ans the vendor/agent is trying to get possession back.

From what I saw on the show the tenant are scum but they have only gotten away with what the agent/solicitor/vendor allowed them to.


I do feel that the agent and solicitor have a lot to answer for.
 
Back
Top