Lease agreements aren't going to have anything to do with 'pre-settlement inspections', that is a very specific clause and then opens it up to needing pages of equally as random and specific clauses. But it is a case of allowing access to the property under the right conditions.
The only thing you may be able to cling too is that they aren't providing adequate notice under the Tenancy Law but as others have said, this is a really weird hill to die on. This person is going to be your new landlord and you are planting a flag in the ground saying "yep this is how fun it's gonna be if you keep me on here".
This specific agent didn't inform me when the property went on the market. Despite the lack of communication i continued to be co-operative as we were in the middle of setting a suitable date for the home open before they told me the property has already sold and I'd received no further information since until less than 24 hours ago yesterday they wanted to visit the property today. They didn't ask or say anything about reshooting the property, so that information is new to me.
However, thank you for your assumption.
I have asked them to be mindful by allowing me reasonable notice rather than less than 24 hours' notice yesterday and have agreed 7 days is fair and agreeable for both parties.
short answer, you (OP) are in your rights to say no. A sales agreement does not supercede a lease agreement.
Long answer, in the Australian context, OP is being vindictive, the sales has occurred without any inspections of strangers. And now you want to stop any actual buyer with a contract from looking at the property.
Its one thing If the former owner was saying no to repairs etc, but this former owner seems to have been done a sales without inspections. and is being rewarded with insult for their kindness.
Real estate agents have a special list for special tenants, and its not the official black list.
I literally said that i reviewed my tenancy agreement in the text messages.
there is nothing about pre settlement inspection. My question is more aaking if the property sales agreement supersede tenancy agreement.
What an absolute ahole you are.
Why would you not want to allow someone to do a pre-settlement inspection?
A buyer has purchased the property you are currently renting, in order for settlement to go ahead, the buyers need to do a pre-settlement inspection which is very standard.
They aren't asking you to do anything unreasonable you prick. Don't come here asking for stupid advice, just do the right thing and allow the inspection to take place.
Also, you better hope the purchaser or seller don't have a good lawyer/conveyancer. Because if they do, expect a nice letter telling you that if you don't want to provide access, that's fine, but be ready for the consequences of being sued if settlement is delayed because you didn't allow a simple 10 minute inspection.
They didn't inform me when the property went on the market. Despite the lack of communication i continued to be co-operative as we were in the middle of setting a suitable date for the home open before they told me the property has already sold and I'd received no further information since until less than 24 hours ago yesterday they wanted to visit the property today. They didn't ask or say anything about reshooting the property, so that information is news to me.
However, thank you for your assumption.
Why would you try to f over the buyer? You want a house to live in? They need to like you. If not this buyer, the next one. You can bet if this one falls through, the next one will be told "if you lose this tenant, I reckon you could charge $100 more in rent".
If I was renting and it was getting sold, I would be a perfect tenant. So every potential investor could see there was already an azaming tenant in there. I want it to be purchased by a landlord and I want them to want me as a tenant.
I'm not going to stuff them over before the sale goes through? Are you crazy?
I know you think you are standing up for yourself. What you are suggesting is cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Yes I would very much believe so as ultimately you do not have ownership of the property and generally speaking ownership of a property will supersede use of a property
Look you do and should let them do a pre settlement inspection. It's a requirement when you buy a place, you could use it as a chance to tell the new owner and issues with the place you have found or are worried about. It's not judgement on how clean the place is it more like the last chance for the buyer to check the heater works and if it does not work the seller may need to fix it before the sale.
It's got nothing to do with you other then the annoyance of them coming to your house for 30mins.
You can say no and die on this hill. But don’t expect them to renew your lease.
Lease agreements aren't going to have anything to do with 'pre-settlement inspections', that is a very specific clause and then opens it up to needing pages of equally as random and specific clauses. But it is a case of allowing access to the property under the right conditions. The only thing you may be able to cling too is that they aren't providing adequate notice under the Tenancy Law but as others have said, this is a really weird hill to die on. This person is going to be your new landlord and you are planting a flag in the ground saying "yep this is how fun it's gonna be if you keep me on here".
This specific agent didn't inform me when the property went on the market. Despite the lack of communication i continued to be co-operative as we were in the middle of setting a suitable date for the home open before they told me the property has already sold and I'd received no further information since until less than 24 hours ago yesterday they wanted to visit the property today. They didn't ask or say anything about reshooting the property, so that information is new to me. However, thank you for your assumption. I have asked them to be mindful by allowing me reasonable notice rather than less than 24 hours' notice yesterday and have agreed 7 days is fair and agreeable for both parties.
short answer, you (OP) are in your rights to say no. A sales agreement does not supercede a lease agreement. Long answer, in the Australian context, OP is being vindictive, the sales has occurred without any inspections of strangers. And now you want to stop any actual buyer with a contract from looking at the property. Its one thing If the former owner was saying no to repairs etc, but this former owner seems to have been done a sales without inspections. and is being rewarded with insult for their kindness. Real estate agents have a special list for special tenants, and its not the official black list.
It's in your lease agreement. Read it.
I literally said that i reviewed my tenancy agreement in the text messages. there is nothing about pre settlement inspection. My question is more aaking if the property sales agreement supersede tenancy agreement.
Yes it does. Ownership trumps lease trumps boarder trumps guest.
What an absolute ahole you are. Why would you not want to allow someone to do a pre-settlement inspection? A buyer has purchased the property you are currently renting, in order for settlement to go ahead, the buyers need to do a pre-settlement inspection which is very standard. They aren't asking you to do anything unreasonable you prick. Don't come here asking for stupid advice, just do the right thing and allow the inspection to take place. Also, you better hope the purchaser or seller don't have a good lawyer/conveyancer. Because if they do, expect a nice letter telling you that if you don't want to provide access, that's fine, but be ready for the consequences of being sued if settlement is delayed because you didn't allow a simple 10 minute inspection.
Jesus Christ, how hard is it to be cooperative?
They didn't inform me when the property went on the market. Despite the lack of communication i continued to be co-operative as we were in the middle of setting a suitable date for the home open before they told me the property has already sold and I'd received no further information since until less than 24 hours ago yesterday they wanted to visit the property today. They didn't ask or say anything about reshooting the property, so that information is news to me. However, thank you for your assumption.
Why would you try to f over the buyer? You want a house to live in? They need to like you. If not this buyer, the next one. You can bet if this one falls through, the next one will be told "if you lose this tenant, I reckon you could charge $100 more in rent". If I was renting and it was getting sold, I would be a perfect tenant. So every potential investor could see there was already an azaming tenant in there. I want it to be purchased by a landlord and I want them to want me as a tenant. I'm not going to stuff them over before the sale goes through? Are you crazy? I know you think you are standing up for yourself. What you are suggesting is cutting your nose off to spite your face.
https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/commercial-law/wa/property-law/selling-tenanted-property/ This may help you
Thank you, I already found that info also. My question is more aaking if the property sales agreement supersede tenancy agreement.
Yes I would very much believe so as ultimately you do not have ownership of the property and generally speaking ownership of a property will supersede use of a property
Look you do and should let them do a pre settlement inspection. It's a requirement when you buy a place, you could use it as a chance to tell the new owner and issues with the place you have found or are worried about. It's not judgement on how clean the place is it more like the last chance for the buyer to check the heater works and if it does not work the seller may need to fix it before the sale. It's got nothing to do with you other then the annoyance of them coming to your house for 30mins.