I remember when I was renting either RAC or SGIO told me I needed window locks. Yokine WA, approx 1996.
Petty paticular on the lock type, are deadlocks the only secure locks ?
What's it cost to get one installed anyway ?
How does it work?
- Thread starter Goldigger
- Start date
I remember when I was renting either RAC or SGIO told me I needed window locks. Yokine WA, approx 1996.
Petty paticular on the lock type, are deadlocks the only secure locks ?
What's it cost to get one installed anyway ?
Already proposed that, as they wanted a security door too.
Then just came back with this tribunal threat recently.
Can we be forced to go to tribunal.
Hopefully it won't get that far.
Ask them to renegotiate the rent, and you pay for it?
Personally, I would tell the tenants no (but I'm a meanie).
Do you think their possessions are more than 100k...doesn't matter anyways.
Let them take you to the tribunal, but also take a quote with you for how much it will cost you to comply with request.
Also take with you some info from other insurance companies stating that deadlocks are not required to obtain insurance.
Do not be afraid to go to tribunal.
If the tenant lodges an application at the tribunal and you don't go an order will be made in your absence (most likely in favour of the tenant). If you have a PM they will attend on your behalf, however check your agreement with them as there will most likely be an hourly charge.
In my experience CTTT has deemed 'reasonable security' to be based on what is normal in that area. If most homes have deadlocks they will likely order a deadlock be installed.
If I were you I would install the deadlock but say no to the security door.
In our last home all the windows except two were painted shut. The only windows that opened were two at the front of the house and there were no flyscreens or window locks (not even locks that didn't work). The back door was flimsy and did not have a deadlock, there was no front security screen and the front door was also not deadlocked and had plastic panels that could be punched in with ease.
As parents of young children, when we moved in we remembered to check if there was an electrical safety switch, a lock on the side gate, adequate fencing and smoke alarms but we did not think to check every single window and the doors - let alone a TV arial, we just expected that there would be some reasonable level of security and general access to technology.
We are good tenants, pay our rent early and look after our rentals but thanks to this forum educating us on how ruthless and heartless some landlords can be, rather than risk being labelled a "bad tenant" we never bought up the issue of security and when my husband worked away - as he very often does - my young children and I slept with all the lights and TV on and barricaded ourselves in one bedroom because we felt unsafe.
We are also professionally employed and not low income. We just find it easier to rent due to the amount of work we do interstate and overseas. We choose to live this way but by doing so we are treated like "cattle" (as was stated in another earlier thread).
Your tenants are not second class citizens - surely some security and television is not too much to ask - just because you lived happily without it doesn't mean everyone else should!
In our last home all the windows except two were painted shut. The only windows that opened were two at the front of the house and there were no flyscreens or window locks (not even locks that didn't work). The back door was flimsy and did not have a deadlock, there was no front security screen and the front door was also not deadlocked and had plastic panels that could be punched in with ease.
As parents of young children, when we moved in we remembered to check if there was an electrical safety switch, a lock on the side gate, adequate fencing and smoke alarms but we did not think to check every single window and the doors - let alone a TV arial, we just expected that there would be some reasonable level of security and general access to technology.
We are good tenants, pay our rent early and look after our rentals but thanks to this forum educating us on how ruthless and heartless some landlords can be, rather than risk being labelled a "bad tenant" we never bought up the issue of security and when my husband worked away - as he very often does - my young children and I slept with all the lights and TV on and barricaded ourselves in one bedroom because we felt unsafe.
We are also professionally employed and not low income. We just find it easier to rent due to the amount of work we do interstate and overseas. We choose to live this way but by doing so we are treated like "cattle" (as was stated in another earlier thread).
Your tenants are not second class citizens - surely some security and television is not too much to ask - just because you lived happily without it doesn't mean everyone else should!
When you inspected the property prior to renting it, you would have known about these issues, but still accepted the asking price for rent at the time.
Since you are not on a low income, why didn't you rent a property which was more secure and in better condition?
Exactly !!
Shaleejam,
And if you are referring to the thread I think you are, I said "livestock".
You seem to think it is fair, to accept a rental property which is probably at a lower rent, than if you had rented a place with the items you describe as making you feel safe.
If you are so concerned about it, why don't you ask the LL if you can install these features,at your expense?
You think keeping lights on, or any deadbolt will keep you safe?
If someone wants to get inside, nothing will stop them.
We are not heartless or ruthless..we are business people.
A property that needs painting inside will most likely charge less rent than a recently painted property.
You seem to have no idea how expensive things are to have installed or replaced. If your landlord decided to rectify these problems for you, be prepared to have your rent increased.
As previously stated, we checked the issues relevant to having young children, not knowing at the time that it would be necessary to check every window and door, naturally it was lesson learnt by us and we are more thorough in the future..
The rent was actually very high. It was in a new city for us and naively we assumed that if we picked a house in an affluent suburb the standard of the rental would be higher...another lesson learnt
We would happily have paid more rent for more security and if we didn't move every 12 months or so we would have considered paying for some security ourself but my issue is more about the attitude of landlords who have tenants that ask for something most people take for granted...safety.
The oven in this property didn't work either, we never asked for it to be fixed but we mentioned at each inspection that it didn't work presuming the landlord would fix it anyway...he never did. But was that our fault too? Should we have asked the agent to sit around and wait for us to bake a cake so we could check that it worked before signing onto the lease? As landlords, how far do you expect a tenant to go to ensure everything is right before they sign a lease and then you decide it's their own fault for not being thorough?
Oh and naturally I don't believe the lights and TV made our home safer, they just helped us not feel so vulnerable and I also apologise for the cattle remark.....I am a city girl and I thought livestock and cattle were one and the same
The rent was actually very high. It was in a new city for us and naively we assumed that if we picked a house in an affluent suburb the standard of the rental would be higher...another lesson learnt
We would happily have paid more rent for more security and if we didn't move every 12 months or so we would have considered paying for some security ourself but my issue is more about the attitude of landlords who have tenants that ask for something most people take for granted...safety.
The oven in this property didn't work either, we never asked for it to be fixed but we mentioned at each inspection that it didn't work presuming the landlord would fix it anyway...he never did. But was that our fault too? Should we have asked the agent to sit around and wait for us to bake a cake so we could check that it worked before signing onto the lease? As landlords, how far do you expect a tenant to go to ensure everything is right before they sign a lease and then you decide it's their own fault for not being thorough?
Oh and naturally I don't believe the lights and TV made our home safer, they just helped us not feel so vulnerable and I also apologise for the cattle remark.....I am a city girl and I thought livestock and cattle were one and the same
Shaleejam,
You should have expected you oven to work. Your LL probably never even knew it didn't work.
I would suggest if anything like this happens, concerning maintenance and repairs, you put everything in writing. This provides a paper trail.
On our website we have a "Maintenance Request" section. This provides our tenants easy access to notifying us with a problem. Soemtimes it may not sound like it, but we do want happy tenants.
Just don't threaten a LL to fix something, without going thru "proper Procedure" first. (not suggesting you would)
You should have expected you oven to work. Your LL probably never even knew it didn't work.
I would suggest if anything like this happens, concerning maintenance and repairs, you put everything in writing. This provides a paper trail.
On our website we have a "Maintenance Request" section. This provides our tenants easy access to notifying us with a problem. Soemtimes it may not sound like it, but we do want happy tenants.
Just don't threaten a LL to fix something, without going thru "proper Procedure" first. (not suggesting you would)
I am actually quite offended by the post by Shaleejam. If we rented a house and the windows didn't close securely (we don't have window locks) then I would be over there fixing it quick smart. If a tenant told us the aerial or oven didn't work, we would get them fixed.
If a tenant asked for window locks, I would say no. But we have installed some security grills on lower windows so they can be left open through summer. We don't have window locks in our own home.
Our IPs are pretty much the same level of security that we live with.
Shaleejam, if your oven didn't work, you needed to do more than "mention it". If it was not dealt with, you have rights and if it was not repaired within a reasonable time, you could have gone ahead with a repair and been reimbursed. Same with plumbing and electrical issues.
We self-manage and I also object to the idea that if a tenant raises a maintenance issue that we might somehow place a black mark against your name. It is not that simple. And we are NOT all the same.
Just as you object to tenants being labelled as "trouble", many landlords also dislike being lumped in together as baddies.
If a tenant asked for window locks, I would say no. But we have installed some security grills on lower windows so they can be left open through summer. We don't have window locks in our own home.
Our IPs are pretty much the same level of security that we live with.
Shaleejam, if your oven didn't work, you needed to do more than "mention it". If it was not dealt with, you have rights and if it was not repaired within a reasonable time, you could have gone ahead with a repair and been reimbursed. Same with plumbing and electrical issues.
We self-manage and I also object to the idea that if a tenant raises a maintenance issue that we might somehow place a black mark against your name. It is not that simple. And we are NOT all the same.
Just as you object to tenants being labelled as "trouble", many landlords also dislike being lumped in together as baddies.
Wylie, your right, I am upset with the way tenants appear to be negatively generalised in this forum but in commenting I also generalised landlords in a negative manner.
I do apologise for offending you.
We may seem to be negative at times when we refer to tenants, but it usually with frustration.
We generally do not mention the good ones..and we do have them.They are overshadowed by the ones who stop paying rent, and to add insult they destroy our property, costing us even more money. Try paying the mortgage, and all the other costs in owning a property. The profit margin, when there is any, goes out the window.
Do you have any properties, or are you trying to gain information here on SS for when you buy an IP?
Like priscilla, I suspect there's a reasonable likelihood that the CTTT will agree that a deadlock is required. Rather than have to pay for a deadlock and a Tribunal visit, I'd choose to just spend the $100 for a deadlock, save the expense of a Tribunal visit, and enjoy having a happier tenant and an improved property.
I have decided to install the deadlock.
I have also decided to increase the rent to the maximum tolerable level the tenants can bear (taking into consideration moving/relocating expenses), at the next opportunity.
If a deadlock was not existant when the tenant agreed to rent the property and is not required to obtain insurance, why should I have to pay for it?
Some things, like air-conditioning, or a dishwasher, are part of the level of amenity of a property, and the landlord has no obligation to provide amenity above what was in existence at the beginning of the contract.
There are, however, some items - security being the most notable one - where there is a minimum level which landlords have to provide and aren't able to negotiate out. For example, let's say you have a low-end property without a locking front door. You find a young guy who moves in, and doesn't care because he doesn't own anything valuable and never locks doors anyway. Then his girlfriend moves in, and insists it's ridiculous, and the tenant now asks for a locking front door. You have to provide it, even if the guy was originally happy not to have one, because the law holds that there's a basic level of security that every tenant is entitled to have.
Whether a deadlock falls into that category or not is admittedly a grey area. But given that the tenant's insurer insists on it, and that deadlocks aren't that expensive and are reasonably widespread, I imagine that a tenant-friendly Tribunal would err on the side of ordering a deadlock to be installed. And probably be annoyed with the landlord for wasting their time and order the landlord to pay the tenant's filing fees.
Your desire to want to get vindictive over this is a classic example of how things frequently go sour when landlords and tenants don't assume that the other party is a reasonable person. If their regular insurer has said they have to have a deadbolt to maintain coverage, then surely it's not unreasonable to put to the landlord as a request. They probably assume that future tenants are likely to have the same issue, anyway, so you're going to have to upgrade the lock at some point. (And $100K isn't a lot for contents coverage for a family; most people are way under-insured.) The tenants aren't making this up to try and screw you over; they're simply trying to protect their insurance. And while there may be insurers who would insure them without a deadbolt, there is a night and day difference between different insurers in terms of paying claims, and I can understand why they'd want to stick with the insurer that they're happy with.
be very very careful, there are provisions to protect the tenant in the event of a retaliatory action by the LL.
Ok, I probably wouldn't put it up to an unreasonable level.
However, will definitely add $5/week when possible, to make up for this situation.
The deadlock will probably cost $200 as it's not an easy fit.
If the tenants were nice about it and not so demanding and threatening from the start, my attitude towards them would have been different.
However, will definitely add $5/week when possible, to make up for this situation.
The deadlock will probably cost $200 as it's not an easy fit.
If the tenants were nice about it and not so demanding and threatening from the start, my attitude towards them would have been different.
That's fair, if that's the case. I just wonder how much of the landlord-tenant issues are caused by having the PM as intermediary. I know of many instances where one party has though the other party was a "nightmare", only to discover that it was a breakdown in communication. This is the biggest drawback of having a PM, in my view, but can be ameliorated if you are aware of it, and try to view the other party's actions in the most favourable light.
