VB
Vanessa B
1 reviews | Active since May 2015
11 Jun 2015, 11:28
Deduction of monies - rental deposit
Just Letting imposed a fine for working from home due to a complaint by the body corporate of our previous complex where we resided. During that time, we asked for proof and requested a meeting with the body corporate. This never occurred after requests from ourselves and the owner of our unit as well. Just Letting were aware of all this. We advised that we would take legal action and were asked by Just Letting not to be hasty and it seemed that this would be sorted. We later moved out and the fine has now been deducted from our rental deposit. This according to me is *******.
Helpful (0)
Replies (1)0
Replies (1)
Letting People's replyOfficial
24 Jun 2015, 10:57Hello vanessamaria,
Just Letting DID NOT impose a fine - the Body Corporate (which has nothing to do with Just Letting) imposed the fine. The tenant admitted to carrying out work in the complex. The fine is still under investigation by SAIL Properties and the Body Corporate of Murrayfield Complex. The tenant was advised that pending the outcome of the investigation, the fine needed to be paid (the fine appears on the owners account and the owner had been handed over to attorneys as the fine had not been paid). To my knowledge they tenant was not told to take legal action and in light of a report from the tenant that a security company is being run from a unit in the complex (information the body corporate was interested to receive), we would recommend they take legal action against Body Corporate. The tenant was informed that if the body corporate found that the tenants complaint about the security company had merit and the fines was reversed, the tenant would be refunded the money. The tenant did not move out of their own violation as is imp**** in the 2nd last sentence, there was material breach of contract by the tenant and the lease cancelled.
Carolynne Parsons
Financial Director
Just Letting DID NOT impose a fine - the Body Corporate (which has nothing to do with Just Letting) imposed the fine. The tenant admitted to carrying out work in the complex. The fine is still under investigation by SAIL Properties and the Body Corporate of Murrayfield Complex. The tenant was advised that pending the outcome of the investigation, the fine needed to be paid (the fine appears on the owners account and the owner had been handed over to attorneys as the fine had not been paid). To my knowledge they tenant was not told to take legal action and in light of a report from the tenant that a security company is being run from a unit in the complex (information the body corporate was interested to receive), we would recommend they take legal action against Body Corporate. The tenant was informed that if the body corporate found that the tenants complaint about the security company had merit and the fines was reversed, the tenant would be refunded the money. The tenant did not move out of their own violation as is imp**** in the 2nd last sentence, there was material breach of contract by the tenant and the lease cancelled.
Carolynne Parsons
Financial Director
Letting People's reply24 Jun 2015, 10:57
Official
Hello vanessamaria,
Just Letting DID NOT impose a fine - the Body Corporate (which has nothing to do with Just Letting) imposed the fine. The tenant admitted to carrying out work in the complex. The fine is still under investigation by SAIL Properties and the Body Corporate of Murrayfield Complex. The tenant was advised that pending the outcome of the investigation, the fine needed to be paid (the fine appears on the owners account and the owner had been handed over to attorneys as the fine had not been paid). To my knowledge they tenant was not told to take legal action and in light of a report from the tenant that a security company is being run from a unit in the complex (information the body corporate was interested to receive), we would recommend they take legal action against Body Corporate. The tenant was informed that if the body corporate found that the tenants complaint about the security company had merit and the fines was reversed, the tenant would be refunded the money. The tenant did not move out of their own violation as is imp**** in the 2nd last sentence, there was material breach of contract by the tenant and the lease cancelled.
Carolynne Parsons
Financial Director
Just Letting DID NOT impose a fine - the Body Corporate (which has nothing to do with Just Letting) imposed the fine. The tenant admitted to carrying out work in the complex. The fine is still under investigation by SAIL Properties and the Body Corporate of Murrayfield Complex. The tenant was advised that pending the outcome of the investigation, the fine needed to be paid (the fine appears on the owners account and the owner had been handed over to attorneys as the fine had not been paid). To my knowledge they tenant was not told to take legal action and in light of a report from the tenant that a security company is being run from a unit in the complex (information the body corporate was interested to receive), we would recommend they take legal action against Body Corporate. The tenant was informed that if the body corporate found that the tenants complaint about the security company had merit and the fines was reversed, the tenant would be refunded the money. The tenant did not move out of their own violation as is imp**** in the 2nd last sentence, there was material breach of contract by the tenant and the lease cancelled.
Carolynne Parsons
Financial Director