Compensation for no hot water?

[rupert]

The LL is accepting responsibilty, and following the RTA.
All repairs are being done as quickly as possible.
That is all that is required from the LL

I often wonder about these scenarios. For all those who take the point of view that no compensation is needed because the Landlord is doing everything reasonably required of him/her/it - that's a fair statement of principle to follow.

How about this scenario - and this might be an extreme example - but what would you do if you were booked into a hotel/motel on a tropical island for a week and either the airconditioning or the hot water wasn't working for the duration of your stay and they had no alternative rooms or there are no alternative hotels/motels around. They are madly attempting to repair but there's a major component that needs to be flown in from a major city in New Zealand and that will take some time.

What would you do in this situation? Pay full room rate and say "C'est la vie. They tried their best. I still enjoyed the sand between my toes"?

No right or wrong, just wonder about what people consider reasonable and not reasonable.

 

[travelbug]

how is this different to if you owned the place? It's like a rainy day... doesn't make you happy but that's life. i like the attitude of the earlier post - tell them to ring Rheem.

perhaps you could say "your request for compensaton has been forwarded to Rheem for their due consideration and i will advise the outcome"

The difference is that they are paying you to rent a house that had hot water when they agreed on a price. If it didn't have hot water they wouldn't have paid that amount.

When you buy a house your mortgage pays for the money you borrowed, not for the house. Whether you have hot water (or even a house) or not you owe the money to the bank.

 

[Amadio]

That is all that is required from the LL

No, it's more than that. In QLD, Vic and NSW (the only ones I looked up) the lack of hot water is considered an emergency. If it's not fixed within 24 hours and the tenant decides to move to a motel until it's fixed, the tribunals have been known to order compensation to the tenants not only for a rent deduction but for the cost of a motel.

Travelbug's, Rupert's and Goofy's comments are spot on.

 

[craigb]

you did every thing in your capacity to fix the issue , so they get nothing , too bad so sad!
they are not likly to move out about it . so f/em . cheeky tennents .

 

[kathryn d]

No, it's more than that. In QLD, Vic and NSW (the only ones I looked up) the lack of hot water is considered an emergency. If it's not fixed within 24 hours and the tenant decides to move to a motel until it's fixed, the tribunals have been known to order compensation to the tenants not only for a rent deduction but for the cost of a motel.

Travelbug's, Rupert's and Goofy's comments are spot on.

Can you show us where it states this?
I scanned the NSW RTA 2010 and it refers to urgent repairs, which hot water is one.All I could see is that it is to be fixed asap.

The LL did have it fixed once, and then it broke down again. He has organised for it to be replaced.

I think the tribunal will look favorably to the LL, as I have also read these types of decisions before too.

 

[kathryn d]

I often wonder about these scenarios. For all those who take the point of view that no compensation is needed because the Landlord is doing everything reasonably required of him/her/it - that's a fair statement of principle to follow.

How about this scenario - and this might be an extreme example - but what would you do if you were booked into a hotel/motel on a tropical island for a week and either the airconditioning or the hot water wasn't working for the duration of your stay and they had no alternative rooms or there are no alternative hotels/motels around. They are madly attempting to repair but there's a major component that needs to be flown in from a major city in New Zealand and that will take some time.

What would you do in this situation? Pay full room rate and say "C'est la vie. They tried their best. I still enjoyed the sand between my toes"?

No right or wrong, just wonder about what people consider reasonable and not reasonable.

These types of establishments do not fall under the RTA.
So it would be irrevelent.

If I took travel insurance...and I suppose you are going to tell me there isn't such a thing in Australia?...I would check and see if this was a covered event.

 

[csc2]

you obviously have a tenant who has been made aware of his/her rights...

two weeks no hot water, if i was a tenant id be furious!

i think use some common sense no matter who is legally in the right...cut them some slack in this instance.... offer them $50 bucks for the two weeks discount...

they may well appreciate it and look after your rental..if you dont they could make things nasty at some point, they will be ticked off the whole rental period.

lastly: get a decent agency to handle things..sounds to me they are duds!

 

[csc2]

you did every thing in your capacity to fix the issue , so they get nothing , too bad so sad!
they are not likly to move out about it . so f/em . cheeky tennents .

for me thats the wrong attitude a landlord should have....

for sure treat it like a business but treat others in business like you would like to be treated

keep the peace or pay the price with rentals..

they may get ticked off and trash the joint, you just never know!

if a person can afford to own a rental then they can afford to cut some slack once in a blue moon...........

peace of mind in life far outweighs money for me...

 

[Leghorn]

How long have they been tenants? What has there payment history been like? If they are upto date and have been there a while you would be crazy not to offer them something. If they move out you are going to blow a couple of weeks rent anyway.

 

[Amadio]

Can you show us where it states this?
I scanned the NSW RTA 2010 and it refers to urgent repairs, which hot water is one.All I could see is that it is to be fixed asap.

The LL did have it fixed once, and then it broke down again. He has organised for it to be replaced.

I think the tribunal will look favorably to the LL, as I have also read these types of decisions before too.

Here are a couple which deal with hot water, among other things, where the tribunal made clear that the LL has a pretty serious responsibility for a hot water service in good repair. But these cases are complicated by other issues so it's not clear cut.

Yes, the LL in the subject of this thread is trying to get it repaired, but an emergency is an emergency and he needs to pay up and get the company there faster. All these services have procedures for dealing with emergencies. It just costs heaps $$.

And whatever the rules say, it's just the decent thing to do to compensate people for a basic service for which they've contracted and isn't forthcoming.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2010/191.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2010/376.html

Taken from here:
http://www.reinsw.com.au/default.aspx?ArticleID=6135

 

[kathryn d]

for me thats the wrong attitude a landlord should have....

for sure treat it like a business but treat others in business like you would like to be treated

keep the peace or pay the price with rentals..

they may get ticked off and trash the joint, you just never know!

if a person can afford to own a rental then they can afford to cut some slack once in a blue moon...........

peace of mind in life far outweighs money for me...

You must be a new Landlord?
I was like that once, but the longer I've been doing this, the more I distrust tenants.
To me, it is a business...nothing else.

 

[kathryn d]

Here are a couple which deal with hot water, among other things, where the tribunal made clear that the LL has a pretty serious responsibility for a hot water service in good repair. But these cases are complicated by other issues so it's not clear cut.

Yes, the LL in the subject of this thread is trying to get it repaired, but an emergency is an emergency and he needs to pay up and get the company there faster. All these services have procedures for dealing with emergencies. It just costs heaps $$.

And whatever the rules say, it's just the decent thing to do to compensate people for a basic service for which they've contracted and isn't forthcoming.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2010/191.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2010/376.html

Taken from here:
http://www.reinsw.com.au/default.aspx?ArticleID=6135

I have just read the 2 examples you gave, and they do not corroborate the LL needing to compensate the tenant.
Sorry.

 

[csc2]

You must be a new Landlord?
I was like that once, but the longer I've been doing this, the more I distrust tenants.
To me, it is a business...nothing else.

are you kidding..........im 50 yrs old, bought my first place at 19....been going ever since..yep im a newbie in investing, pfft! im always learning///how ridiculous people can be in life...


yeah rentals are a business but empathy for people should be something you should develop within your business plan...it may well increase your revenue stream! you never know...

 

[kathryn d]

are you kidding..........im 50 yrs old, bought my first place at 19....been going ever since..yep im a newbie in investing, pfft! im always learning///how ridiculous people can be in life...


yeah rentals are a business but empathy for people should be something you should develop within your business plan...it may well increase your revenue stream! you never know...

Well, maybe ....
I'm also 50, newly retired and living solely on rental income.
Started investing in IP's 6 years ago.
We have 39 income streams..so I think we will continue doing what we are doing.

I also think every investor will treat tenants differently, depending on their history.
We have some wonderful tenants, who I would bend over backwards for...some others that can fall off the Earth if they want.

I guess the OP will need to determine what type of tenant this one is.

 

[Luv2Travel]

I also think every investor will treat tenants differently, depending on their history.

And same with tenant re landlord. I know if I was a tenant of a property where the HWS was having problems and I had a landlord who was a good landlord i.e. kept the property maintained and attended to maintenance issues when they occurred promptly without being stingy, then I wouldn't be going for compensation in this situation IF the landlord was doing everything he possibly could to get it fixed ASAP.

I guess there are those (tenants and landlords) out to get all they can/save and then those who are fair. On the other hand, if I had a tight@rse landlord and I thought he was delaying the repair in order to save money, I would be going for compensation if a claim could potentially be made.

 

[Ace in the Hole]

It's a bit like, treat others how you would like to be treated.
Personally, I'd put myself in the tenants shoes to see their side of the situation.

You can be generous to your tenants/customers, and still make plenty of profit/money.

A bit like giving to charity.
The more you give, the more you seem to receive in return.

Comes down to personality really.

 

[Ausprop]

You can be generous to your tenants/customers, and still make plenty of profit/money.

A bit like giving to charity.
The more you give, the more you seem to receive in return.

how? if they are losing money and you lose more money how can you make plenty of profit/money?

most Australian resi IP is a form of charity already - landlords and taxpayers subsidise the lifestyles of renters

 

[Amadio]

I have just read the 2 examples you gave, and they do not corroborate the LL needing to compensate the tenant.
Sorry.

Guess we read things differently.

 

[neil100]

Be interested to know how this ended up, did they get compensation or not? Thanks! - Duckie

Well, its certainly been interesting reading the various opinions!

For what its worth, I also couldn't find anything that said it had to be fixed within 24 hours, just that the LL should be given every chance to get it fixed, and this is what I have tried to do.

It is Rheem that have dragged their heels. Had it not been a new HWS, I would have had options (albeit expensive ones) other than just waiting for Rheem to fix under warranty.

Anyway, from a personal perspective, I was prepared to offer some reduction, but let the PM come back with what she felt reasonable. She proposed an amount which was less than I had considered (I'm obviously too soft) so I agreed. It worked out at about a 16% reduction for the week.

Cheers all,
Neil

 

[kathryn d]

Neill,
It is good it has all worked out for you.
Out of curiouslity, what % were you thinking of?
..and has it changed your opinion of what you may consider to be reasonable in the future? (should you voluntarily decide to compensate)