Sydney tenant placement proposals: what should the scope cover after 37 days?

A

alba.oak

Homeowner
I’m comparing tenant placement proposals for a Sydney townhouse valued around A$1,991,000, and after 37 days I still don’t have a clean like-for-like comparison. The cheapest proposal appears to cover little beyond an introduction, leaving negotiation, document coordination and follow-up outside the fee.

My decision is whether to accept that limited scope and arrange the rest separately, or pay more for one party to remain accountable through the process. What should the written scope include—response times, fee exclusions, local knowledge, negotiation, tenancy paperwork and handover? I’m also unclear why some proposals refer to responsibility between “offer and closing,” which sounds more like a purchase service than tenant placement.
 
Don’t choose until each provider maps its work from enquiry to signed tenancy and handover. I’d want named responsibility for applicant communication, negotiation, document coordination, deadlines, failed applications and status updates. Every extra charge and stopping point should be written down. For a Sydney property at that value, vague references to local expertise aren’t enough; ask what neighbourhood and property-type knowledge actually changes their process.
 
The “offer and closing” language is the missing fact here. Are you buying the townhouse and then seeking a tenant, or do you already control it and only need placement? Those are different engagements, and the purchase price is not necessarily relevant to a placement fee. I would ask each provider to define the exact event that ends its responsibility.
 
Agreed—that wording needs correcting before fees can be compared. A tenant-placement proposal should say whether it ends at introduction, accepted application, signed tenancy, payment of required funds or handover. If purchase negotiations are also involved, they should be separated into another scope with separate accountability. Otherwise a provider can appear comprehensive while responsibility disappears precisely when documents start moving.
 
I wouldn’t automatically reject the cheapest option. An introduction-only service can be reasonable if the owner already has suitable property management, legal or conveyancing support and can coordinate everyone. The real cash downside is paying twice for gaps or losing time while parties argue over responsibility. Ask for one written fee table showing included work, optional work, cancellation costs and what happens if the first applicant does not proceed.
 
After 37 days, I’d stop discussing this in broad terms and send every provider the same one-page list. Require written answers on: response deadline, named contact, negotiation authority, tenancy-document responsibility, handover point, extra fees and fallback if no suitable tenant proceeds. Also request independently verifiable evidence of recent Sydney townhouse work without relying only on sales claims. Have any NSW-specific paperwork or regulatory assumptions confirmed separately before signing. If a provider still cannot define its scope clearly, that is useful information in itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top