Agent using VCAT for all tenants?

[Jonathon]

Hi all

I'm interested to hear if this is a one-off case or if it's quite common.

Some friends of mine were recently renting a house in the Hawthorn/Kew area through one of the well known Melbourne agencies, one of the ones with a double barrel name. (But not HS, BP, BA, MW or NJ)

At the end of their 2-3 year tenancy, they were astonished to receive a VCAT notice (summons) from the agent, for a session date a few days after the end of their tenancy.

When my friend questioned it, he was told that they always book in VCAT dates in case there are any issues with the end of the tenancy, and that they could ignore the notice, assuming there were indeed no issues and they moved out on time, etc.

My friends are a professional couple, who both happen to be landlords in their own right, and there were absolutely no issues throughout their tenancy with paying bills, causing damage, etc.

Incidentally, when the final rent notice came in, they were undercharged a few hundred dollars, due to a mistake that the agent made in calculating the rent due. They're the type of people who would normally say straightaway that there was a mistake, particularly being landlords themselves, but because they were so annoyed at receiving the VCAT notice, they decided to pocket the unpaid rent. Not good for the landlord, but I can't blame them.

Anybody else heard of similar stories?

Cheers
Jonathon

 

[kathryn d]

We've done it a few times, when we were not sure the tenants were going to leave.It saves time, which can be money.

 

[Melbournian]

it's very normal - majority of tenants get these letters from VCAT when they're about to end the tenancy.

they are trying to ensure the tenant does not overstay and the agency would normally cancel the hearing once you have moved out.

 

[Jonathon]

I'm quite surprised by this, although it's some years since I've been a tenant myself.

Doesn't this create a burden for VCAT, if they're scheduling all of these sessions, which subsequently get cancelled at fairly short notice?

 

[kathryn d]

I;m sure they don't mind the extra money they collect

 

[Jonathon]

It's rather aggressive - taking formal legal action (and that's exactly what it is) in advance of any wrong doing, just in case the tenant does somethng wrong?

Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever in thowing every legal charge possible at a tenant if they mess me about, but until they do, I consider them innocent of any crime.

 

[Melbournian]

unfortunately that is how the game is played.

just have to live with it

VCAT is currently backlogged with a lot of these issues so it's just their end on planning in advance.

 

[Jonathon]

unfortunately that is how the game is played.

just have to live with it

Not sure I agree with that. Agents act for us, landlords. We set the rules of the game.

I have no problem with my agent using the VCAT approach if one of my tenants has been a little sloppy with rent payments, or if they have some other reason for expecting trouble.

But if a tenant has been a good tenant for a number of years, then it's just an aggressive and unnecessary approach.

VCAT is currently backlogged with a lot of these issues so it's just their end on planning in advance.

Perhaps if agents didn't abuse the system, it would be a lot easier to get genuine cases heard more quickly?

 

[kathryn d]

It's rather aggressive - taking formal legal action (and that's exactly what it is) in advance of any wrong doing, just in case the tenant does somethng wrong?

Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever in thowing every legal charge possible at a tenant if they mess me about, but until they do, I consider them innocent of any crime.

You may be right.
But the VCAT (in our case Tenancy Board, in NS) make the rules which need to be followed. If they would allow the landlord to actually remove the overstaying tenant, and treat them as trespassers, this wouldn't be necessary.
All a landlord can do is try to mitigate losses.

 

[Melbournian]

Not sure I agree with that. Agents act for us, landlords. We set the rules of the game.

I have no problem with my agent using the VCAT approach if one of my tenants has been a little sloppy with rent payments, or if they have some other reason for expecting trouble.

But if a tenant has been a good tenant for a number of years, then it's just an aggressive and unnecessary approach.

Perhaps if agents didn't abuse the system, it would be a lot easier to get genuine cases heard more quickly?

well -not really. i had many tenants before and i just let the agent do what is required in terms of collection of rent and VCAT etc. there is no personal relationship btw me and the tenant as everything was run through the agent.

let them do their job and if you friend vacates the VCAT hearing would be cancelled. it's nothing major but just protocol on making sure everything runs smoothly. normally every tenant vacates on the nominated date however there are ones that either had a job loss, relationship breakup or something happenned and they just stay on resulting in loss rent, malicious damage and also waiting on the VCAT hearing and getting the sheriffs in to evict them all takes time which is loss revenue to the landlord

 

[Jonathon]

I guess where I'm coming from is the presumption of wrong doing, before it has happened.

However, I guess it depends on your outlook...

Whenever I go to a major sporting event, say footy at the G, or the Grand Prix this weekend , I have no problem showing the security guards on the gate what's in my bag.

On the other hand, whenever I walk out of a shop, if asked, I flatly refuse to show the security guard what's in my bag. I haven't committed any crime, so I'm certainly not going to let him search me.

Perhaps it's because I know I won't get into the sporting event without them looking in my bag, whereas I know I'm going to leave the shop whether they want me to or not.

I don't know why, but I do look at it in very different ways. Perhaps because in the case of a major sporting event, the security checks are there for everybody's safety, and my compliance is helping them to safeguard the event for everybody.

Just incidentally, I've worked in retail a lot in my teenage years, in some fairly dodgy suburbs, so I fully understand how much of a problem shoplifting can be.

 

[Lil Skater]

I don't think it's normal. I've never done it and never met another agent (that I know of) who has. I've heard of it, but it's not normal.

What did the agency apply to VCAT for? I am quite curious as they must put all the case details to VCAT on the application.

If it's for possession, then perhaps. Bond, surely not. However you get to know a tenant over the years and you know before the vacate whether you'll have issues or not.

FYI - VCAT doesn't charge for bond and compensation hearings.

 

[Scott No Mates]

It seems a little OTT and makes a big assumption on the part of the agent. Is the owner aware of these tactics/do they endorse them?

The only reason I could see using this method with a good tenant is if there was a massive upside for the owner with a new incoming tenant.

 

[mattysavager]

I don't agree with this approach.

My philosophy - and the philosophy of our agency - is that by understanding how tenants think, and learning the best method of negotiation we can avoid disputes that go to QCAT (the QLD version of VCAT).

I have never heard of this happening in QLD. Do these agents charge the owners for the application fee? In QLD it costs $92.50 to lodge an application for a court hearing, AND unless you have already completed an RTA mediation, they do not accept court documents.

So basically if a tenant does not complete their lease properly (rent owing, not vacating, bond claim dispute etc) you must lodge a dispute with the RTA (tenancy authority) and only when this process fails can you apply to QCAT for a formal hearing.

Seems like a HUGE waste of VCAT time and energy, and this is the reason that an "urgent" hearing can take 6 weeks to schedule. If the PMs were good at their jobs and pro-active, they would avoid the need for this, not to mention the fact that it WOULD no doubt annoy tenants and possibly cause further problems.

Just my opinion.

 

[Deltaberry]

If the governments want to impose a mirage of unnecessary laws on landlords, then I'm more than happy to play the game and help create a backlog of cases at the expense of hard working Aussies paying their taxes.

 

[kathryn d]

For us, another reason we do it at times, is because sometimes when a tenant leaves, we cannot find him to serve him.
Here we need to do it in person. We can do it by registered mail, but first they need to sign for it. If someone else picks up their mail..it isn't valid.


I would like to see a streamline system.
Tenants register at Tribunals ( or some other central system) and receive a customer number.
This number is theirs for life.
Whenever there are maintenace requests etc, it is thru this system.
When a landlord or tenant needs to lodge for a hearing, both parties are emailed the details, followed up by letter in the mail.

Access to their account is by their landlord/tenant number.
Tenants and landlords would each pay a yearly fee to maintain registered.

 

[Aaron_C]

That has happened to me as well kathryn. Simple solution is to take their bond - not try and impose more bureaucracy.

 

[kathryn d]

That has happened to me as well kathryn. Simple solution is to take their bond - not try and impose more bureaucracy.

We do take the bond,but that is not enough.
When we know we have a chance of collecting, we continue.

A couple of months ago, after a particularly difficult situation, I emailed our Provincial Premier and asked for help, on behalf of landlords in NS.
He replied and we (NS) are just now waiting for it to be enacted, so landlords can quickly remove nonpaying tenants.
It is a start, and hopefully they will remove some barriers.
Of course, being me , I also included some practical soltutions, which would be interesteing to see if that ever happens in the future.

I'm still waiting for the person who deals with welfare, to answer my question. The premier had forwarded my letter to them.

 

[PM Inner City]

I have been a property manager for 12 years and I have never heard anyone doing that either! I think it’s ridiculous. If PM’s are doing that it will explain why the delays are so long to get a hearing! Meanwhile a landlord can keep charging a daily rent if the tenant are late in moving out. That usually gets them shifted if they are slow in returning keys.

 

[Player]

Never heard of this as a matter of protocol.

I see merit if there are continuing and ongoing yellow flags during the tenant's stay; hedges the landlord to be in the system.............just in case, however as a matter of routine with all tenancies, I also reckon it's a little over the top.