The last year we have been repairing as much as possible, because it is a current year deduction. It doesn't cost much, and a lot less hassle than getting another.
For us, it is usually washers and dryers.
Air Con - Is it again a landlord's responsibility?
- Thread starter mumbai
- Start date
The last year we have been repairing as much as possible, because it is a current year deduction. It doesn't cost much, and a lot less hassle than getting another.
For us, it is usually washers and dryers.
Because the lease doesn't exclude the air-con. The lease specifies a rent which all will assume includes a functioning air-conditioner, as an air-conditioner exists and was not excluded.
You mention $4K in an offset later in this thread...
Do NOT do this. If it goes to Tribunal you'll be eaten alive for trying it.
I find the first para of your landlord's experience at Tribunal unsurprising, yet your subsequent advice of trying to up the rent as a result of fulfilling a legal obligation to repair quite startling.
Let me reiterate: do not listen to this terrible advice.
Two tribunal stories. Several people telling you that you're obligated to repair - and you are. I hope you're reading that.
With regard to the offset, as the loan is against your PPOR I can't see that tax deductibility on the interest is going to be achievable, but ask your accountant. On a $500 repair @ 6% interest, you're talking about a $30 pa interest deduction and so, perhaps, a $10 refund per year. I can't imagine you could possibly set up the paperwork to establish deductibility for < a few hundred $, so even if it's possible, I doubt it's practical.
The cost of the repair, though, is immediately deductible as an expense.
If it can be accounted as a repair. If the whole unit needs replacing then it might count as capital works and not a repair, which makes it a depreciable item and not wholly deductible in the current year (but the interest would be).
Thanks, Dazz. If it's not a better one I'll be right p***ed!
Why would this advice startle you? If the air conditioner was not specifically included on the lease, nor specifically excluded - then it really becomes the agent's word against the tenant. If indeed the agent did tell verbally that the air-con was not included, and it was not listed on the entry condition report as 'working' - then the landlord does not have any obligation to fix it.
The purpose of my example was to convey that the tribunal (in QLD at least) is moderated by members of the public with 'experience in the field' in place of a formal qualification, and will consider the tenant's forgetfulness and disappointment as good enough reason to shift the burden to the landlord.
I am paid by my clients to fight for their best advantage, and attempting to increase the rent in exchange for an air-con repair in this example would be perfectly legal and ethical (assuming what the OP has told us is correct).
Matt
Why would this advice startle you? If the air conditioner was not specifically included on the lease, nor specifically excluded - then it really becomes the agent's word against the tenant. If indeed the agent did tell verbally that the air-con was not included, and it was not listed on the entry condition report as 'working' - then the landlord does not have any obligation to fix it.
The purpose of my example was to convey that the tribunal (in QLD at least) is moderated by members of the public with 'experience in the field' in place of a formal qualification, and will consider the tenant's forgetfulness and disappointment as good enough reason to shift the burden to the landlord.
I am paid by my clients to fight for their best advantage, and attempting to increase the rent in exchange for an air-con repair in this example would be perfectly legal and ethical (assuming what the OP has told us is correct).
Matt
Give it a try, afterall the tenants were told.
What's the worse that can happen?
- you need to give a rent rebate and fix the unit, until their lease expires.
When does their lease expire?
I don't think that your interpretation of the legislation is consistent with QCAT's. (I'm also in QLD, have had dozens to hundreds of tenants for more than a decade.)
In the absence of a written exclusion as a special condition of the lease, the presence of an air-con entitles the tenant to assume that it's working, and that its operation is included in the rent presently being paid. In fact, the tenant would almost certainly be successful in requesting a retrospective rent discount for any periods when it's not been working, if it was more than a few days.
I don't think so. But if you want to try it on at QCAT, please let me know - I'll bring some popcorn.
I don't think so. But if you want to try it on at QCAT, please let me know - I'll bring some popcorn.
I think you misunderstand me. I do not think the OP would get away with it if the tenants do a Form 16 and/or if it does get to QCAT. Some adjudicators at QCAT tend to favour tenants, some landlords. It depends on the arguments on the day.
Merely pointing out that just because the lease doesn't specifically exclude air conditioning (which is an oversight by the agent) - the tenant is not automatically entitled to AC. There are other ways that it could be demonstrated that the tenant was aware that the AC was not working (any email correspondence or advertising spiel that mentions that the Air Conditioner is not included, for example)
The tenants might be happy to pay an extra $10pw for the landlord to fix it.
Any good PM's first course of action would be to try to reach a compromise with the tenant. It may well be that the compromise is a $5 rent increase, or the tenants contribute $50 to the cost of the repairs etc.
I wouldn't want someone managing my property if they were prepared to lie down and 'take it' as soon as a situation became difficult and/or ambiguous.
Would be an entirely different story if the property was advertised as "Air Conditioned Unit" and the tenants were expecting air con, but from the testimony of the OP and their agent, it seems pretty clear that it's unclear.
The only relevant facts are clear:
- There's an air-conditioner in the property.
- The air-conditioner isn't working.
- The lease does not specifically exclude the air-conditioner.
- The tenant requested repair more than two months ago, less than two weeks after moving in. (Why would they do this, if it was clear to them that they weren't entitled to air-conditioning?)
- The repair manager has advised that the landlord is legally required to repair (and this is supported by many knowledgeable contributors).
- It is well-established that if it went to QCAT, they would uphold the obligation to repair, and likely compensate the tenants for loss of amenity retrospectively.
Next...
Rhetorical question !
Is there a rule against those?
If that was too obtuse...
(remembering why I rarely post on SS these days)A person who requests repair of an air-conditioning unit two weeks into a lease obviously does not have a clear understanding that they're not entitled to an air-conditioner.
If they do have that clear understanding but requested repair anyway, they've realised there's been an oversight and what the rules are, and hold all the cards. In such a case, you must make sure that if you end up in QCAT that you go there with clean hands.
This chat between Matt and Perp goers to the very heart of the matter, but I fear almost every point has gone completely over the head of rajnhets.....he or she is like a deer in the headlights - hasn't got a clue what they are on about.
They simply asked the A/C which wasn't working to not be included and the Agent typically forgot...and that was that.
It's amazing how technical a simple like that can blow out to all sorts of things.....now we are into "clean hands". Bet you didn't think you'd need to know about that rajnhets when you started this thread.
The above "head knocking" between Matt and Perp over the very finer points, who both obviously are experts on the subject in Qld, remind me of a political ding-dong, where Labor and Liberal politicians belt it out over some fine point, and the vast majority of the population (probs ~ 99%) have got no clue what they are banging on about and henceforth conclude they are both off their trolley.
It's been instructive for me reading the about last few posts. Cheers for that.
They simply asked the A/C which wasn't working to not be included and the Agent typically forgot...and that was that.
It's amazing how technical a simple like that can blow out to all sorts of things.....now we are into "clean hands". Bet you didn't think you'd need to know about that rajnhets when you started this thread.
The above "head knocking" between Matt and Perp over the very finer points, who both obviously are experts on the subject in Qld, remind me of a political ding-dong, where Labor and Liberal politicians belt it out over some fine point, and the vast majority of the population (probs ~ 99%) have got no clue what they are banging on about and henceforth conclude they are both off their trolley.
It's been instructive for me reading the about last few posts. Cheers for that.
Well, almost over my head. Though, my question was answered and I agreed to get the aircon fixed based on the answers here, checking with fair trading and also reading more about it.
There was a fair argument going on between Matt and Perp. I did not 'wash my hands' off the original question, but was learning from the debate. Each had a valid reasoning behind every point they made.
Thanks all
PS: I am a HE !!
Last edited:
Get the air conditioner fixed and then sought out with the agent how pays for it.
Good afternoon.
Sunshine. Can I please ask what or when or how can you claim insurance on the Air-Cond? I have called and checked with my insurance company (RAA – Building Insurance) and they told me that I can only make a claim on the Air-cond is when the unit motor is burnt out???
The ducted air-conditioning unit in one of my IP is not working probably, the unit itself is still running but there is no hot or cold air coming out. The agent has already called an aircond person to see what wrong and upon his inspection and here is his report:
“I have been out to the property at XXX to find out why the air conditioner wasn’t working properly. I have found that the duct work was incorrectly installed and the unit is too small for the house. The new duct has been joined to old duct with still up to two metres of old duct left on, the zone's are too close to the outlets instead of being on the Y pieces. Overall the duct just hasn't been installed to any sort of descent standard. Unfortunately I can see no easy way to fix this. I think the whole job needs to be replaced.”
Now this unit was only installed 4 years ago and the unit itself still under warranty. I have tried to chase up the guy who has installed it for me original via email, sms, call but he did not answer my call and only SMS me back to say that “I get what I paid for” (ie. $7000) and it is not his problem anymore because his installation and part was only warranty for 1 year?
And the worst yet to come that the tenant has got enough because the air-cond has not been fixed and they want to break their lease which I have no choice but let’s them go without any break fee because they might take me to the tribunal for the aircond issue.
We can’t afford $8-10K for a new system now so any advice of what I can/should do?
1. Should the agent tell the new tenant that the aircond is not working probably (include a clause/condition in the contract) and reduce the rent?
2. Can I take the aircond guy to Consumer Affair / Court?
Thank you for reading.
Sunshine. Can I please ask what or when or how can you claim insurance on the Air-Cond? I have called and checked with my insurance company (RAA – Building Insurance) and they told me that I can only make a claim on the Air-cond is when the unit motor is burnt out???
The ducted air-conditioning unit in one of my IP is not working probably, the unit itself is still running but there is no hot or cold air coming out. The agent has already called an aircond person to see what wrong and upon his inspection and here is his report:
“I have been out to the property at XXX to find out why the air conditioner wasn’t working properly. I have found that the duct work was incorrectly installed and the unit is too small for the house. The new duct has been joined to old duct with still up to two metres of old duct left on, the zone's are too close to the outlets instead of being on the Y pieces. Overall the duct just hasn't been installed to any sort of descent standard. Unfortunately I can see no easy way to fix this. I think the whole job needs to be replaced.”
Now this unit was only installed 4 years ago and the unit itself still under warranty. I have tried to chase up the guy who has installed it for me original via email, sms, call but he did not answer my call and only SMS me back to say that “I get what I paid for” (ie. $7000) and it is not his problem anymore because his installation and part was only warranty for 1 year?
And the worst yet to come that the tenant has got enough because the air-cond has not been fixed and they want to break their lease which I have no choice but let’s them go without any break fee because they might take me to the tribunal for the aircond issue.
We can’t afford $8-10K for a new system now so any advice of what I can/should do?
1. Should the agent tell the new tenant that the aircond is not working probably (include a clause/condition in the contract) and reduce the rent?
2. Can I take the aircond guy to Consumer Affair / Court?
Thank you for reading.
