demanding tenants.

[startled...]

Thank you to everyone that has responded.

 

[f4j]

Thank you to everyone that has responded.

So finish the story.

 

[Firsthomelooker]

The information you need is easy to discover. legislation.vic.gov.au has the residential tenancies act 1997.

Residential Tenancies Act 1997
No. 109 of 1997

74 Application to Director to investigate need for
non-urgent repairs
(1) A tenant may apply to the Director to investigate
whether the landlord is in breach of a duty to
ensure that the premises are maintained in good
repair if—
(a) the tenant has given the landlord written
notice advising the landlord that repairs
(other than urgent repairs) are required to the
rented premises; and
(b) the landlord has not carried out the repairs
within 14 days after being given the notice.
(2) An application under subsection (1) must be in
writing.
(3) On an application under subsection (1), the
Director—
(a) must investigate; and
(b) may negotiate arrangements for the carrying
out of repairs if the Director is satisfied that
the landlord is in breach of the duty to
maintain the rented premises in good repair;
and
(c) must give a written report to the tenant.

75 Application to Tribunal for non-urgent repairs
(1) A tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order
requiring the landlord to carry out specified
repairs if—
(a) the tenant has received the report of the
Director under section 74; and
(b) the tenant is still of the view that satisfactory
arrangements have not been made for the
carrying out of the repairs.
(2) An application under subsection (1) must be made
within 60 days of receiving the report of the
Director under section 74.

(3) repealed


(4) repealed


(5) A tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order
requiring the landlord to carry out specified
repairs without the report of the Director under
section 74 if the tenant has not received that report
within 90 days after the tenant applied for that
report.

76 What can the Tribunal order?
(1) The Tribunal may make an order requiring the
landlord to carry out specified repairs if it is
satisfied that the landlord is in breach of the duty
to maintain the rented premises in good repair.
(2) The order must specify the repairs and the time
within which they must be carried out.

All they can do if you refuse to fix the light is take you to the tribunal to get an order to have the light fixed, after much time and effort on their behalf.

I personally wouldn't serve them a notice to vacate as it seems pretty clear to me that the tribunal would find that notice is in response to them exercising their rights (see 74(1)(b) above), and would order that the notice to vacate has no effect.

I would also be wary of using bogus excuses on a notice to vacate:

229 Offence to obtain possession etc. of premises
(1) A landlord or a person acting on behalf of a
landlord must not, except in accordance with
this Act—
(a) require or compel or attempt to compel the
tenant under the tenancy agreement to vacate
the rented premises; or
(b) obtain or attempt to obtain possession of the
rented premises by entering them, whether
the entry is peaceable or not.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.

A penalty unit is $110 in NSW last time I checked, so probably similar in Vic. and then the tribunal can order you to pay compensation to the tenant:

215 What powers does a court have to award
compensation?
If a party to a tenancy agreement is convicted of
an offence against this Act, the court before which
that person is convicted may, on application by
the other party to the tenancy agreement, order the
first party to pay to the applicant compensation for
loss or damage suffered by the applicant because
of the commission of that offence.

and a warning for all of you on here recommending it

503 Offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure commission
of offence
A person must not in relation to a tenancy
agreement, a proposed tenancy agreement or a
residency right, aid, abet, counsel or procure the
commission of an offence against this Act.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.

I think reading the RTA cover to cover is a must for any landlord.

 

[s_t]

Gee firsthomelooker. At least put things in perspective. From what you've posted 229 would be referring to compelling the tenant to leave unlwfully! It has nothing to do with asking a tenant to leave, and giving proper notice etc (and any reason why you might do so).......... Given that, the rest of your post is irrelevant as well.....

Talk about using nonsense to scare someone who is already scared enough......

 

[Raddles]

Hi there
I think you might be better off getting a PM who is supportive of you and gets your tenants under control. If there was a no nonsense attitude with the tenants you may not be feeling the way you do.
thanks

 

[Firsthomelooker]

Gee firsthomelooker. At least put things in perspective. From what you've posted 229 would be referring to compelling the tenant to leave unlwfully! It has nothing to do with asking a tenant to leave, and giving proper notice etc (and any reason why you might do so).......... Given that, the rest of your post is irrelevant as well.....

Talk about using nonsense to scare someone who is already scared enough......

I guess without legal advice all we can do is form our own opinions about how the act operates, you've chosen not to agree with mine and that's fine, it's your IP after all.

At the very least though I would have thought that the process in section 74, which the tenant is obviously following, wouldn't be 'irrelevant'. I guess I am young enough to still think I know everything, and four and a half years of law school doesn't help that

 

[s_t]

Hey, I'm young and know everything too

Regardless though, it is silly to say that a landlord is unable to remove a tenant from their premises when they have given sufficient notice!! Many on this forum have done it many times! The tribunal backs them up too when necessary...... Sure, the landlord doesn't come and remove the tenants themselves (which is what the section you quote is about), the cops come and do it for you if it gets that far.... and if you have a decent pm, they talk for you and you can keep totally out of it.

edit: see 219 if you want confirmation it can be done legally.......

I guess without legal advice all we can do is form our own opinions about how the act operates, you've chosen not to agree with mine and that's fine, it's your IP after all.

At the very least though I would have thought that the process in section 74, which the tenant is obviously following, wouldn't be 'irrelevant'. I guess I am young enough to still think I know everything, and four and a half years of law school doesn't help that

 

[Firsthomelooker]

Hey, I'm young and know everything too

It's great isn't it, I'm going to miss this feeling when I get older...

Regardless though, it is silly to say that a landlord is unable to remove a tenant from their premises when they have given sufficient notice!! Many on this forum have done it many times! The tribunal backs them up too when necessary...... Sure, the landlord doesn't come and remove the tenants themselves (which is what the section you quote is about), the cops come and do it for you if it gets that far.... and if you have a decent pm, they talk for you and you can keep totally out of it.

edit: see 219 if you want confirmation it can be done legally.......

I wasn't saying a landlord can't legitimately give notice to vacate. I was saying that there are consequences to illegitimately giving a notice to vacate.

But lets just agree to disagree and I promise I won't try to 'help' next time

 

[The Y-man]

I went around to stick the tiles down and was asked about the light when I was there.....I said I wasnt prepared to pay an electrician for one light, the NEXT day I had a written form from consumer affairs ( the tenants had filed out) saying I had 14 days to fix it.

Note for future: do not say you are the owner. Tell them you are the general handyperson sent by the agent/owner.

In fact, I never personally visit my IP's unless the PM is seriously worried about something and wants me to be there.

BTW, will your PM represent you at the tribunal? We've "gone" there a few times in the past, but never personally - our PM's represent us (and our side of the argument)

Cheers,

The Y-man

 

[startled...]

Unfortunately I had a bad PM to begin with, and in hindsight the PM off loaded them from a landlord who used the reno excuse to evict them. They have been good in that they usually pay the rent on time , but have been and will continue to be demanding, ( both times the rent has gone up I have had 'requests' for things to be done).

I have learnt lots from the experience ( other rental properties we have are too far away for us to do our own maintenance) and in future we wont be doing anything ourselves for this one ....the closest I hope to come with the next tenants is the signatures on the lease....

Just have to get these ones to move first....