Since I'm a PR as well..
I'd have to say there are some Australians who are very unbusinesslike.
Help - Tenant in Need
Since I'm a PR as well..
I'd have to say there are some Australians who are very unbusinesslike.
Would it be appropriate for the landlord to put in an insurance claim and let the insurance company determine whose fault it is?
The landlord is not responsible for your loss.
The landlolrd did not place a heater in a richard-cranium position
The tenant is responsible for the landlord's loss and damages.
I would breach you immediately, sue for all costs and damages, blacklist you, hit your credit history,
If your landlord, or the landlord's insurance company, doesn't make your life hell, count yourself lucky.
this is a business, like a farm,
if the cattle cause problems, put them down.
The landlolrd did not place a heater in a richard-cranium position
The tenant is responsible for the landlord's loss and damages.
I would breach you immediately, sue for all costs and damages, blacklist you, hit your credit history,
If your landlord, or the landlord's insurance company, doesn't make your life hell, count yourself lucky.
this is a business, like a farm,
if the cattle cause problems, put them down.
That would be my thought to at least get the ball rolling.
Giving them all the details of course.
Jaycee you degenerate into racism, pitiful
No offense, but you guys are scary. !Landlord insurance has accidental damage and malicious damage cover. (That is if the landlord has landlord insurance).
As someone already stated, the tenants contents would be the tenants problem, any damage to the property will be claimed under landlords and building insurance.
If it's LL insurance, that you take out because you have tenants in there that may damage the building (like 'people' can), then the insurance company pays for it.
In this case, why would you chase the money from the tenant
The thing you could do, is take them to the tribunal and make them pay the excess, and argue that you don't reduce the rent (if they push for it), if you can prove it was negligence or a malicious act.
I doubt you would legally get anything more from the tenant when the building is insured.
It's not like it was a malicious act, in which case the insurance company would chase them, not the landlord.
In this case, why would you chase the money from the tenant
The thing you could do, is take them to the tribunal and make them pay the excess, and argue that you don't reduce the rent (if they push for it), if you can prove it was negligence or a malicious act.
I doubt you would legally get anything more from the tenant when the building is insured.
It's not like it was a malicious act, in which case the insurance company would chase them, not the landlord.
There is no such thing as 'race' - what was probably meant was 'nationalistic bigotry'.
How many here actually make any money from their rental investments?
If CG is your goal, that's one thing. If it is CF, I'd bet with the attitude shown on this thread, it is very few.
Here is a tenant, with an electric heater, who has admitted to the damage.
The tenant ruins the landlords bedroom carpet, and soils the walls with soot.
A decent tenant would have contacted their insurance company, and while this damage was reapired, they would have been put up in temporary accommodation. That is what the tenant pays their insurance for. Their insurance covers their personal belongings and liability.
If the landlord decides to use his insurance:The landlord would be required to pay an excess, lose what may be a "no claim discount" or at the very least, have another claim added to their policy.
Tenant here instead, is annoyed at the slow process, and thinks he deserves compensation.
The PM has taken the easy route, as always.
The landlord knows no different, as many others seem not to,as shown by the attitude demonstrated here.
If CG is your goal, that's one thing. If it is CF, I'd bet with the attitude shown on this thread, it is very few.
Here is a tenant, with an electric heater, who has admitted to the damage.
The tenant ruins the landlords bedroom carpet, and soils the walls with soot.
A decent tenant would have contacted their insurance company, and while this damage was reapired, they would have been put up in temporary accommodation. That is what the tenant pays their insurance for. Their insurance covers their personal belongings and liability.
If the landlord decides to use his insurance:The landlord would be required to pay an excess, lose what may be a "no claim discount" or at the very least, have another claim added to their policy.
Tenant here instead, is annoyed at the slow process, and thinks he deserves compensation.
The PM has taken the easy route, as always.
The landlord knows no different, as many others seem not to,as shown by the attitude demonstrated here.
Okay let me understand this, you own the heater, which was in your bedroom, left on whilst you slept, and your pillow fell on and caused a fire.
It is unfortunate that you are in this position, but to serve a breach of duty and seek compensation would not sit well with me if it was my property.
Having gone down the road of insurance and compensation through the Tribunal last year I would be digging my heels in with this one. My excess is $800 and then with a claim pushes my premium up at least 10% pa. So your heater incident would cost me minimum $1000, on top of the compensation you seek. Wrong on many levels in my eyes.
I know that my Landlord's Insurance policy does NOT cover accidental damage caused by tenants, only malicious damage. This would come under the Landlord's Building Insurance. As you are in a unit (which I have no experience with), I expect between the Body Corp and the PM and, and, this is very messy indeed.
I do agree however, that your PM has been extremely slack in assisting you.
Sunshine
Last edited:
Just reread the OP and it appears that the tenant has not caused major building damage AND he caused the fire through negligence.
I would also recoup money from the tenant in this case (but would still go through insurance for major damage).
If he didn't agree with this I would let it procede to tribunal.
Yes, I think asking for compensation in this case is not justified.
I would also recoup money from the tenant in this case (but would still go through insurance for major damage).
If he didn't agree with this I would let it procede to tribunal.
Yes, I think asking for compensation in this case is not justified.
less pm fees, burned down rooms, recarpeting, repainting, increased premiums,
the sort of response expected,
your "hobby" has the potential to make or cost more than your "job"
Our business pays more than both
___________edit marker _________
our business makes moreIdeo(t)-some time in the future said:
retired living on rent 40 Capital gains positive cashflow positive properties in 7 years,
we dont buy 1 apartment to rent, we buy or build apartment buildings to rent.
one side of this discussion seems to be doing better at the subject of the discussion forum, than the other side of this discussion . . .
Last edited:
The problem I have with this situation is that due to whatever cause, the room is not able to be lived in. If the insurer has been brought into this, then it must be more than just cleaning soot.
If it was just a case of giving the place a good clean, I would expect the tenant to do that, but it is not clear from the initial post whether the damage is extensive, or just the poster being unwilling to clean the soot. I assumed it was more extensive damage seeing that an insurer has been brought in.
If this was my tenant, I would be handing it to my insurer and let them try to get what they need from the tenant, if appropriate.
My premium probably will rise, but it will rise each year anyway. I see it as a cost of business.
For those who suggest the tenant needs to either pay for all the repair himself to avoid the landlord claiming on insurance, where does this end. What if the tenant left the bath running over and it caused $100K of damage to the place, and the unit underneath it too? Would you expect the tenant to pay it?
My understanding is that if my IP is uninhabitable, then the tenant has rights. I'm sure the PM would help decide what is considered "uninhabitable" and not just the tenant deciding to sleep on the couch because he doesn't want to clean the soot. Whether he caused the problem wouldn't even occur to me, because I would guess all costs involved would be covered by insurance.
Of course, there is also the excess that I must pay. I would certainly look at asking the tenant for this if it was the tenant's lack of care that caused the problem. If something in my IP caused a fire, there is no way I would even ask the tenant to contribute to the excess. In the situation described with the careless placement of a pillow, I probably would ask the tenant to cover the excess.
If the whole house had burnt down, would you still want the tenant to pay for it. What if they don't have insurance (many don't)?
I don't see my position as being "weak" or "lacking in business sense". I pay insurance to cover these things, regardless of cause. Who pays the excess is something to be decided, depending on each situation.
If it was just a case of giving the place a good clean, I would expect the tenant to do that, but it is not clear from the initial post whether the damage is extensive, or just the poster being unwilling to clean the soot. I assumed it was more extensive damage seeing that an insurer has been brought in.
If this was my tenant, I would be handing it to my insurer and let them try to get what they need from the tenant, if appropriate.
My premium probably will rise, but it will rise each year anyway. I see it as a cost of business.
For those who suggest the tenant needs to either pay for all the repair himself to avoid the landlord claiming on insurance, where does this end. What if the tenant left the bath running over and it caused $100K of damage to the place, and the unit underneath it too? Would you expect the tenant to pay it?
My understanding is that if my IP is uninhabitable, then the tenant has rights. I'm sure the PM would help decide what is considered "uninhabitable" and not just the tenant deciding to sleep on the couch because he doesn't want to clean the soot. Whether he caused the problem wouldn't even occur to me, because I would guess all costs involved would be covered by insurance.
Of course, there is also the excess that I must pay. I would certainly look at asking the tenant for this if it was the tenant's lack of care that caused the problem. If something in my IP caused a fire, there is no way I would even ask the tenant to contribute to the excess. In the situation described with the careless placement of a pillow, I probably would ask the tenant to cover the excess.
If the whole house had burnt down, would you still want the tenant to pay for it. What if they don't have insurance (many don't)?
I don't see my position as being "weak" or "lacking in business sense". I pay insurance to cover these things, regardless of cause. Who pays the excess is something to be decided, depending on each situation.
I do. But I am also understanding. I understand accidents happen. It wasn't the Ops intent to start a fire. How was he/she to know the heater had a faulty thermostat. I certainly wouldn't be black listing them or defaulting their credit record. How am I going to be making any financial gain from that?
While we're laying blame why not also sue the maker of the heater as that's was what malfunctioned.
At most I would expect them to cover my insurance excess, even then I probably wouldn't ask.
We are understanding too.
We understand accidents do happen.
We are also not prepared to pay for the tenants damages, whether by accident or if it is malicious.
At what point does anywhere here require their tenants to pay for anything?
Just when an insurance claim has been denied because it is a messy tenant?
Wylie,
If they overflow their tub, yes they would be held liable.
That is why our leases require a tenant to obtain tenant insurance on their property and liability.
As a last resort we would put thru our insurance, and chase the tenant for excess.That would be our considered cost of doing business.
Sunshine at least understands, or in the least, is unwilling to allow himself/herself to be an ATM, to the damage a tenant causes.
If it is a faulty heater, that is up to the tenant to seek compensation from that manufacturer.
This is all I will comment on the matter.
It is your premiums that will increase even further than the amount they normally do each year.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then .
Do you actually insure your IPs or just hope the tenant has insurance?
When would you claim on your insurance policy?
What happens if your tenant forgets to pay his premium?
I pay insurance for my own peace of mind. If I have to claim, I have to claim. Simple.
I'd be interested to know if a tenant's policy actually would cover $100K or let's make it really interesting... $700K to rebuild a house that is totally burnt down on his piddly little contents and liability cover?
Anybody know? (Anybody with knowledge of Australian cover for this type of thing?)
.Do you actually insure your IPs or just hope the tenant has insurance?
When would you claim on your insurance policy?
What happens if your tenant forgets to pay his premium?
I pay insurance for my own peace of mind. If I have to claim, I have to claim. Simple.
I'd be interested to know if a tenant's policy actually would cover $100K or let's make it really interesting... $700K to rebuild a house that is totally burnt down on his piddly little contents and liability cover?
Anybody know? (Anybody with knowledge of Australian cover for this type of thing?)
Similar threads
