Brisbane agency fined for using special terms...

[wylie]

Just got this in an email from the RTA.

Makes you wonder how an agency can get it wrong, be fined, and keep getting it wrong...

http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/Resources...3/Brisbane agency fined illegal special terms

Makes me wonder about some of the special terms people have suggested to put on leases (including me) and whether they are risky... (mine aren't risky - not like in this case - flea treatment at end of tenancy if animal in the house - carpets to be cleaned at end of tenancy)

These ones in this link are clearly against what is written in the legislation.

 

[BeYourOwnAgent]

Just got this in an email from the RTA.

Makes you wonder how an agency can get it wrong, be fined, and keep getting it wrong...

http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/Resources...3/Brisbane agency fined illegal special terms

Makes me wonder about some of the special terms people have suggested to put on leases (including me) and whether they are risky... (mine aren't risky - not like in this case - flea treatment at end of tenancy if animal in the house - carpets to be cleaned at end of tenancy)

These ones in this link are clearly against what is written in the legislation.

Wow. I am really surprised any principal would put some of those terms into an agreement!

Suggesting a tenant needs to pay for all maintenance?

Surprised the fine wasn't more to be honest.

 

[fisherman]

It is difficult to imagine that a REA office would go out of its way to offend, or would continue to offend where the faults had been pointed out to the REA by the regulator. I imagined that there would be some notification, mediation and time to improve. That is what applies in other jurisdictions, for example building complaints. Accepting that the REA in this case has been charged before, of course. But then a builder has numerous warnings, correction advice and time to make good.

Not defending any shabby performance and we all want professionalism. It is what we are paying for from PMs

Just looking at some of the offences that are said to be 'self-evident', at least in hindsight, it crossed my mind that there could be traps for the unwary. I would like to see more specific examples from the government regulators, especially where changes are mooted to the regulations. No-one wants to inadvertently trip a landmine and we cannot all have a barrister in our back pocket to check what the PM does.

There is a lot of complexity in the regulations and the decisions made by tribunal members. Perhaps some simplification of the regulations and streamlining of appeals are in order? Or does property management have to become a more comprehensive accredited course at an academic institution? PMs do control millions of dollars worth of assets.

Asking for discussion of the processes involved in proceedings against a peoperty manager and where to for the future to ensure compliance. I think all recognise that the REAs in this case have erred and that been said already.

 

[melliemellie]

I find that when applied correctly, the standard legislation + REIQ approved Special Terms cover almost everything required in a tenancy agreement. The more special terms added, the more liability an agency opens themselves up to. I cringe when I see Special Terms added which are already covered by the tenancy agreement as it's just unnecessary & can potentially create more 'grey areas'.

 

[beachside]

I don't know what all the hooha is about, if a tenant does not like it ...don't rent the property. Easily fixed. The property would remain empty except for times when vacancy was close to 0, so works against owner - self penalising. But hey, us LL do have to provide a service by government rules, can't make too much money can we. After all, everyone who owns an IP must be rich ...forget the mortgage and holding costs and everything else. The only time when a tenant has no option to accept special clauses is when there is a shortage of rentals ...then some LL may take unfair advantage.

What were they fined for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The illegal terms included requiring the tenant agree to:

the agent holding open houses in the rented property. What if owner wanted to sell?
the agent entering the property without notice at the end of a tenancy. The house would either be empty or tenants there when they shouldn't. Perhaps they meant near end of tenancy.
have carpets shampooed every 6 months. OK, this one is pushing it.
pay for repairs and maintenance which could generally be considered fair wear and tear. This would deter tenants and be self penalising.
give 6 weeks notice of their intention to end the tenancy, instead of the required 2 weeks notice. Sounds fair to me This can be addressed other ways like I do which results in 4 weeks notice.
All these terms are an offence under Queensland tenancy laws.

The agency also included terms in the rental contracts which allowed rent to be increased during a fixed term tenancy at the discretion of the lessor. OK, this is not on, but why would anyone enter any sort of contract with such terms - self penalising

They also imposed set fees on tenants for re-letting and adverting costs. Agent might have problems with the sort of tenant in this area, trying to deter them from leaving before end of lease. I will admit though that the laws do cover this adequately I think.

The illegal terms reduced lessors’ obligations to mitigate their loss if a tenant ended a fixed term tenancy early and they reduced the lessors’ maintenance obligations.

In 2011, the same company directors were each fined $3,000 after pleading guilty to similar charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a fine line though. My PM has about 3 pages of standard additional conditions/clauses which covers my backside quite good, and I add a few more which are not covered. I would not like to be a tenant and have to read through and try and remember them, but they are there to protect me as it is my investment and backside on the line.

 

[mattysavager]

I read this with great interest when the RTA sent it out in a newsletter, and actually sent it to a few of my owners.

I wonder if the agency had added these terms to all leases, or just one? I can't imagine a PM putting these stupid terms into all their contracts. My office has 4 pages of terms and conditions that are in addition to the standard RTA lease in QLD. These terms are extremely important as the Act in QLD is full of holes and subject to interpretation.

All of our terms and conditions have been refined with years of experience, and comply with legislation. Either the offending business was a startup with no idea, or they may have simply been humouring one particular owner.

We used to have one owner with multiple properties. To be honest, he was a ****head.

He typed up his own terms and conditions, and then kept adding to them until we refused to manage his properties any more. They included such terms as

Tenant may not use air conditioner. If tenant uses air conditioner and it breaks, tenant must replace it. Same applied to dishwasher, garage door opener, water fountain etc.

Tenant must have carpets and curtains dry-cleaned every 6 months and provide a receipt.

Every 3 months the tenant must polish chrome fittings with Enjo cloth left in top drawer with vaseline. Agent must supervise this event at routine inspections.

We dumped all those managements, firstly because he wasn't worth our time, and secondly because we didn't want to be fined.

Silly agents, but honestly, nobody forced their tenants to sign at knife point. Most tenants shouldn't be allowed near a legal contract without a responsible adult.

Matt

 

[beachside]

I wonder if the agency had added these terms to all leases, or just one? I can't imagine a PM putting these stupid terms into all their contracts. Matt

It crossed my mind that the agent may have been the owner, otherwise why stick their neck out!!!

They included such terms as

Tenant may not use air conditioner. If tenant uses air conditioner and it breaks, tenant must replace it. Same applied to dishwasher, garage door opener, water fountain etc.
Matt

I can see the possible reason - old and likely to break and owner does not want to fix, but not charging for benefit in rent anyway. I once rented my unit out when overseas for 3 months and left washing machine for tenant to use as too much hassle to remove and store, but if it broke I was not fixing it - nor charging more rent for it.

Every 3 months the tenant must polish chrome fittings with Enjo cloth left in top drawer with vaseline. Agent must supervise this event at routine inspections. Matt

Wacko!

Silly agents, but honestly, nobody forced their tenants to sign at knife point. Most tenants shouldn't be allowed near a legal contract without a responsible adult.

Matt

Yep, nobody forced them to sign lease, but I suspect most tenants don't bother to read them anyway. I asked my PM to highlight a few of my special conditions which were most likely to broken and point out to tenant, but I doubt if they did and tenant has already done something blatantly contrary to one of the conditions.

 

[mattysavager]

I can see the possible reason - old and likely to break and owner does not want to fix, but not charging for benefit in rent anyway. I once rented my unit out when overseas for 3 months and left washing machine for tenant to use as too much hassle to remove and store, but if it broke I was not fixing it - nor charging more rent for it.

In the situation you have described above, you could be forced to replace the washing machine. We had one owner who had old window box air conditioners that didn't work, and even though we told people at inspections, and made the tenants sign that they were aware that the air-con units weren't working - they later claimed a rent reduction via QCAT and were successful.

Apparently as the advertising photos showed the air conditioners (but not the text), the tenants had a right to expect they worked, and the document that they signed was not 'valid' because by the time we asked them to sign it, they had no other options for accommodation.

Yep, nobody forced them to sign lease, but I suspect most tenants don't bother to read them anyway. I asked my PM to highlight a few of my special conditions which were most likely to broken and point out to tenant, but I doubt if they did and tenant has already done something blatantly contrary to one of the conditions.

We read our terms and conditions to the tenants at sign-ups. We make them sit there for 30 minutes and listen to us. I know them back to front and could repeat the document word for word. Every tenant gets the terms explained to them, so it makes it easier when they later claim that they weren't aware. "I know you were made aware, as I read the damn document aloud to you".

But no, that doesn't stop them from coming up with crazy excuses as to why they should be allowed to breach the terms of their contract.

Matt