Very sticky situation

[WGN ex-property manager]

Indeed.

First priority is to verify the story (and with a suitable degree of scepticism until evidence emerges).

[TheLiberalLeft]

On that we agree, but you both avoided my question.

[Wayne]

Its not about being hardarsed. Its about following due process to protect your interests. We would assume your house is worth a considerable sum of money. You need to protect it and if insurance is involved in any way they will expect you to do so. So may a mortgagor.

If the property was owned by a Trust would the trustees have an obligation to be hardarsed to protect the interests of the trust benificiaries?

[TheLiberalLeft]

Bit of a hiding tactic / politician's reply though. At the end of the day, it's people.

Saying "I'm sorry for your situtation but The Trust demands we follow the letter of the law and claw back every red cent from you" is just as callous as if it were owned in a private individual's name.

You don't like it when councils follow rules and cite those rules (regardless of how crazy/inhumane/ridiculous they may be) without any human common-sense when the shoe's on the other foot.

[eri]

where did all this "human" stuff come from?

are people who vote other than you nonhuman?

why does the left always seem to try and claim a monopoly on humanity?

like religion, history's most inhumane acts have happened under it's watch

personally i find the left criminally short-sighted in continually leading humanity down blind rat holes like communism

the left needs to learn to budget it's promises based on what people actually do

like rort the system if it's at all possible

and flee the country if taxes become too high

not wail on about some utopia that we can all reach together if we will all do just what they say and send them all our money

the worst kind of pyramid scheme

imho

[TheLiberalLeft]

OK. So answer my question, eri.

[TheLiberalLeft]

I'm not sure the left does claim a monopoly. But if they do it's probably because the right says things like the above - where clawing back every cent from this tenant is acceptable because "The Trust demands it".

"like religion, history's most inhumane acts have happened under it's watch" Now that's a good'un.

[Wayne]

Bit of a hiding tactic / politician's reply though. At the end of the day, it's people.

Saying "I'm sorry for your situtation but The Trust demands we follow the letter of the law and claw back every red cent from you" is just as callous as if it were owned in a private individual's name.

You don't like it when councils follow rules and cite those rules (regardless of how crazy/inhumane/ridiculous they may be) without any human common-sense when the shoe's on the other foot.

not sure if this was in response to my post but my post was wondering out loud if Trustees had as much discretion as a regular landlord when it came to enforcemetn of the contracts on the grounds that the beneficiaries could go them for the loss incured as a result of their inaction? Wondering what people thought - not saying that I felt it was the case.

[WGN ex-property manager]

Robin, your car-on-HP analogy is completely at odds with the OP's story. In your scenario the car is owned by the person, albeit on HP.

To compare apples with apples, the car would be a hire car or at most, leased.

To continue the apples with apples comparison, assuming the break-in involved violent men and the person's children were home at the time, and threatened, this car-jacking scenario would be a gunpoint style threaten-to-drive-away-with-kids-in-the-car situation. In other words, a terrifying experience not dissimilar to someone breaking into your home.

Given that, I'd assume most companies would respect the person's wish to return the car in question and swap it for a different car/model/whatever at no penalty, because that would be the human thing to do.

It's nothing personal against the Landlord in this case, and I'd assume that if the LL was able to offer similar accommodation at a different address, the tenant would gladly take it.

However cars are not houses and the chances of that occuring are slim to say the least. In this instance, you people seem to be retaining that chip on your shoulders and assuming the tenant is out to stiff you.

The above assumes the story is correct and verified by a police report.

My question to you would be this: If it was verified and the tenants children were involved, would you still hound the tenant for the full $'s? If so, I repeat, shame on you.

It's no wonder the word that so often preceeds "landlord" is "greedy".

If it story was true I would:

1. Talk to the owner about improving security.
2. Get a signature from the tenant verifying that they really have moved out and don;t want to live there any more.
3. Get it re-let as fasts as possible (releasing the tenant from their obligation)
4. NOT charge the old tenant letting fees for re-tenanting the property (as I normally would)
5. NOT charge the tenant $1000 for abandonment of a fixed term tenancy (as I could if I really wanted to)
6. If it did't let fast I'd talk to the tenant about dropping the rent, with them making up the difference to get it done fast ("Is your families safety worth $20 a week to you?").

Human enough for you?

[TheLiberalLeft]

Yes, that's what I'd consider a very human response. Common-sense shown. You sound like a reasonable and responsible person & LL. So, the question now becomes... are you showing your sensitive side and are not the "greedy landlord"-type shown in this thread by others, or is the hard-arsedness of some of the opinions just bluster?

[TheLiberalLeft]

Apologies, Wayne. I read your post in a way you didn't intend.

[speights boy]

TLL

Keep this up and it way well turn out to be .. ' Deus ex Machina '

[TheLiberalLeft]

I know what ending I'm hoping for.

[Wayne]

Apologies, Wayne. I read your post in a way you didn't intend.

I figured you had - the question remains though. Do Trustees have less scope for 'humanness' (showing a humane side) and need to be more hardarse and 'letter of the law' like to ensure they are not found to be mismanaging their charge (the trust being their charge) and the assests in it?

[spaceman]

Wouldn't the trustees "out" be simply to ask if they could let it slide???

If yes then all well and good.

If no then they would surely have to do as they were told

If they didn't ask the question and just assumed that the answer would be a "no" then IMHO they would be guilty of being quite dicky although perhaps correct under the law.

Cheers
Spaceman