How does it work?

[kathryn d]

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.

I still wouldn't be installing a deadlock, as I don't like to be pushed by tenants. If it is just because of insurance reasons, check on whether insurance is available without deadbolts.Provide this info to the tenant and also inform them should it proceed to Tribunal you will also be submitting this information. Tell them you have no problem installing the deadbolts, if they wish to negotiate their lease.

You are not being "vindictive" by deciding to increase rent either. You have "improved" the property and need compensation, PLUS you need to increase rent to keep in line with market conditions.

 

[Fizzy]

Seriously guys you are all over thinking thinking this.

Note this is for Victoria, you all have been at this long enough to know that the Legislation varies from state to state.

You do not have to install window locks unless the current latches and or lock mechanisms do not work and then they only have to be fixed or replaced with equivelent locks.

If there is no phone socket, arial socket etc then you do not have to supply one. If the sockets are there for arial and there is not one connect then you must install - remember whatever is there must be in working order.

With the windows being painted shut - these must be released regardless of how many other windows in the room open - if it went to VCAT they would order this.

AS ALWAYS STATED IN THE LEGISLATION IF IT IS THERE IS MUST BE IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.

Doesnt get much more simpler than that!

 

[jaycee]

Fizzy, So shoudl he install a deadlock or not ?

I missed the answer in your reply !

 

[Perp]

You do not have to install window locks unless the current latches and or lock mechanisms do not work and then they only have to be fixed or replaced with equivelent locks.

Could you please quote your source for this information?

S70(1) of the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act 1997 states that "A landlord must provide locks to secure all external doors and windows of the rented premises."

There is no reference to only repairing with equivalent locks, and whilst I can't find any relevant cases, the Tenants Union of Victoria argues that locks which are not deadlocks arguably may not adequately "secure" the premises, which would give rise to a breach and allow the tenant to apply for a compliance order. (See last para of reference.) If a tenant turned up at Tribunal with evidence that an insurer - any insurer - refused to insure them, I'd be willing to bet the Tribunal would issue the order for installation of deadlocks.

On the issue of a phone line, I'm surprised to note that you're correct that the landlord isn't obliged to provide one in either Queensland or Victoria. Having said that, I maintain that you'd limit your tenant pool, and property value, quite significantly by not having one, so I still think it'd be wise to try and get the infrastructure in place.

 

[kathryn d]

Perp,
Here , you and I will differ again.
As you pointed out, you state it is the Tenants Union of Victoria saying anything other than a deadbolt isn't secure.

Doesn't matter what a Union says, the RTA says you only need it to be "secure". If it meant a deadbolt, it would state a deadbolt.

 

[Perp]

As you pointed out, you state it is the Tenants Union of Victoria saying anything other than a deadbolt isn't secure.

If you'd read what I wrote, and what the Tenant's Union article says, it doesn't say that anything other than a deadbolt isn't secure. It says that it's a grey area and the onus would be on the tenant to argue that security isn't adequate, and that it may be possible to mount an argument that anything other than a deadbolt isn't adequate.

Doesn't matter what a Union says, the RTA says you only need it to be "secure". If it meant a deadbolt, it would state a deadbolt.

I'm sure you're aware that legislation doesn't get solution-specific about any matter; it leaves the specifics open to interpretation to allow for the wide variety of circumstances, changing technology, etc, so your statement is simply untrue.

It doesn't define what an adequate roof is, or the temperature of hot water, either, but I assume no landlord has tried to argue that a tarpaulin is an adequate roof, or that 25 degree water is "hot". (Or have you? )

 

[kathryn d]

Perp,
I guess, in a round about way, you were agreeing with me then?
I misunderstood your clarification in the last post.Apologises.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the OP needs to contact a couple of insurance companies and get proof that a deadbolt is not required.....just a lock that works.Actually I wouldn't even ask about a deadbolt, I would let the insurance company give me info, and see if it directly mentions a deadbolt.

Usually a plumber has guidelines as to how hot water should be in a residential property.An adequate roof is one that doesnt leak. Making a roof pretty I would bet is not a requirement.

Areas are left grey often.
My point exactly. Why should the LL always feel they need to be the one to compromise? Unless the LL can do the work themselves, everything can be quite costly.

The OP has an easy way of obtaining this info without a lot of fuss. They can drop in a see a few insurance brokers (you do have them here ?) and ask in person for the information.

Then I would get rid or increase the rent on these tenants whenever legally possible. They are going to be trouble whether they decide to stay or leave.

Edit:
I'd be willing to bet, a tribunal would rules in the favor of the OP if they could show 3-4 insurance companies who will insure without stating a deadbolt.

Have the tenant show exactly where it says in their insurance where it specifically states "deadbolts". It may not even say that, it could have been someone on the phone..or they misinterpreted it, via a helpful family member.

 

[_Kaos_]

Correct me if I am wrong your tenant is simply asking for a deadlock, window locks and for some of the windows painted shut to be fixed. Why wouldn't a reasonable person just go ahead and fix these things? Surely the pros outweigh the cons. Just some quick ones off the top of my head:

Pros:
1. Makes YOUR investment more secure (especially during vacant times);
2. It's tax deductible;
3. More attractive to future tenants (if it turns a future tenant off you lose money due to vacancies);
4. Happier the tenant more likely they are to look after YOUR property; and
5. Property is safer to exit in an emergency (painted shut windows).

Cons:
1. Costs money; and
2. Don't like the tenants attitude.

Is the property single story or double? I would be compromising on lower level only for window locks. Seems more like a break down in communication unless they really are unreasonable tenants. I fail to see how they would threaten to go to tribunal in the first instance there must be more to it than that.

It's not as if they are asking for plasma tvs in all rooms, re-carpet, re-paint, down lights, new ovens and dishwashers, etc etc you get the point. Have to put in perspective.

 

[kathryn d]

Kaos,
I assume you are either a tenant, new LL, or you have 2 IPs at the most?

After awhile you get a bit disheartened with tenants.
Seems everything is fine, when they put their application in for the property, but soon decide it isn't good enough, and want improvements...of course at no rent increase.

 

[jaycee]

Perp,
I guess, in a round about way, you were agreeing with me then?
I misunderstood your clarification in the last post.Apologises.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the OP needs to contact a couple of insurance companies and get proof that a deadbolt is not required.....just a lock that works.Actually I wouldn't even ask about a deadbolt, I would let the insurance company give me info, and see if it directly mentions a deadbolt.

Usually a plumber has guidelines as to how hot water should be in a residential property.An adequate roof is one that doesnt leak. Making a roof pretty I would bet is not a requirement.

Areas are left grey often.
My point exactly. Why should the LL always feel they need to be the one to compromise? Unless the LL can do the work themselves, everything can be quite costly.
The OP has an easy way of obtaining this info without a lot of fuss. They can drop in a see a few insurance brokers (you do have them here ?) and ask in person for the information.

Then I would get rid or increase the rent on these tenants whenever legally possible. They are going to be trouble whether they decide to stay or leave.

Edit:
I'd be willing to bet, a tribunal would rules in the favor of the OP if they could show 3-4 insurance companies who will insure without stating a deadbolt.

Have the tenant show exactly where it says in their insurance where it specifically states "deadbolts". It may not even say that, it could have been someone on the phone..or they misinterpreted it, via a helpful family member.

Cause the landlord is the one is business.
And the tenant is the customer

What's the bloody cost difference between a deadbolt and a noraml decent lock anyway ? IS it worth all this debate ?

How do people have enough time to consider going to court over a lock ?

 

[kathryn d]

Cause the landlord is the one is business.
And the tenant is the customer

What's the bloody cost difference between a deadbolt and a noraml decent lock anyway ? IS it worth all this debate ?

How do people have enough time to consider going to court over a lock ?

If it is only because the LL is in business, then that is not a good enough reason.
If I go to furniture leasing store and lease a bed, sign all the papers, and then decide I want delivery & set up included in the price, do you think I should be accommodated?
NO...unless I pay for it. They may say yes, and that is their decision, but the contract didn't include it.

Jaycee, you and I know both know it has nothing to do with the actual cost. It is the principle of installing something that isn't required. Scoring the paint so the windows can open should be done by the LL.It probably (?) states that all openable windows must work.
It is the labor costs of installing such locks that is expensive.

Like the cost of strawberries. I will bet the most expensive part is the labor to pick them.I'm sure pickers here don't receive 40-50 cents a litre to pick berries, like in Canada.

Making time to go to court is a part of doing buisness.

 

[Perp]

Successful businesses do not say "My customers are demanding product X! Therefore I'm absolutely not going to sell product X, because I'm not going to be pushed around by my customers!"

Yes, tenants have already bought, but X can be provided at limited cost, adds value for future customers, and creates goodwill with somebody who's in control of your extremely valuable asset. So many landlords seem to say no, not primarily due to cost, but because they're engaging in some kind of emotional game-playing.

 

[vbplease]

How do people have enough time to consider going to court over a lock ?

Making time to go to court is a part of doing buisness.

You can't be serious????

 

[G_Man]

Correct me if I am wrong your tenant is simply asking for a deadlock, window locks and for some of the windows painted shut to be fixed. Why wouldn't a reasonable person just go ahead and fix these things? Surely the pros outweigh the cons. Just some quick ones off the top of my head:

Pros:
1. Makes YOUR investment more secure (especially during vacant times);
2. It's tax deductible;
3. More attractive to future tenants (if it turns a future tenant off you lose money due to vacancies);
4. Happier the tenant more likely they are to look after YOUR property; and
5. Property is safer to exit in an emergency (painted shut windows).

Cons:
1. Costs money; and
2. Don't like the tenants attitude.

Is the property single story or double? I would be compromising on lower level only for window locks. Seems more like a break down in communication unless they really are unreasonable tenants. I fail to see how they would threaten to go to tribunal in the first instance there must be more to it than that.

It's not as if they are asking for plasma tvs in all rooms, re-carpet, re-paint, down lights, new ovens and dishwashers, etc etc you get the point. Have to put in perspective.

Thanks Kaos, you got in before me

Why are you quibbling over the cost of this work, on what should be a long term investment??

Surely a few hundred spent now would be amortised over the life of this IP?
Why is it so many LL's seem to have such a short sited view on this?

I'm guessing the tenant is going the tribunal route due to previous requests going unfulfilled, but could be wrong.

 

[G_Man]

Originally Posted by kathryn d
Making time to go to court is a part of doing buisness.

You can't be serious????

Being from Nth America, I'd imagine Kath_D is by nature quite litigious...so wouldn't suprise me

 

[DaveM]

Being from Nth America, I'd imagine Kath_D is by nature quite litigious...so wouldn't suprise me

Calling a candian an american is sure fire way to being beaten with an ice hockey stick

 

[kathryn d]

Being from Nth America, I'd imagine Kath_D is by nature quite litigious...so wouldn't suprise me

You are wrong.
I'm Canadian, not American ewwwww
Big difference in attitude.

We are running a business.
Many times we do accommodate a tenant.
We are not in the habit of changing perfectly good locks to make a tenant happy. It just wouldn't happen with us. Just so you know..all of our properties already have deadbolts, which are master keyed.

We are not intimidated by a tenant saying they are going to take us to the tribunal. We know what the ACT says in our jurisdiction. Can you truthfully say the same thing?We just tell them when they have the papers ready, let us know, so they can serve us.


Edit:
By being willing to go to tribunal, we have found we rarely need to go now.

 

[kathryn d]

Calling a candian an american is sure fire way to being beaten with an ice hockey stick

lol...you beat me to it !!!
Like calling an Aussie a Kiwi?

 

[G_Man]

You are wrong.
I'm Canadian, not American ewwwww
Big difference in attitude.

I know you are not an "American" and agree that there is a big difference.
I would never call anyone an "American" god forbid

What I did say is you are from Nth America, which last time I checked encompasses Canada no?

 

[jaycee]

If it is only because the LL is in business, then that is not a good enough reason.
If I go to furniture leasing store and lease a bed, sign all the papers, and then decide I want delivery & set up included in the price, do you think I should be accommodated?
NO...unless I pay for it. They may say yes, and that is their decision, but the contract didn't include it.

Jaycee, you and I know both know it has nothing to do with the actual cost. It is the principle of installing something that isn't required. Scoring the paint so the windows can open should be done by the LL.It probably (?) states that all openable windows must work.
It is the labor costs of installing such locks that is expensive.

Like the cost of strawberries. I will bet the most expensive part is the labor to pick them.I'm sure pickers here don't receive 40-50 cents a litre to pick berries, like in Canada.

Making time to go to court is a part of doing buisness.

It's bloody common sense...

I open shop. customers come in, some buy, some jsut look... It costs me money to keep it en all day....and 90 of custoemrs don;t want to buy anything bloody *******s....

Hello, it's the name of the bloody game !

Those in business are always challenged by their customers. Competition in business allows people to have choice and therefore challenge/ask/move on when they feel the offer is not good...

It just sounds like normal life to me,

To me I think it has HEAPS to do with the cost.. If a door has a sh 1t / broken lock and for the same price you can get a credible lock whic will also keep the tenant happy, I see no reason not to do it except spite, what other reason or point could there be ? (I don't see the point of witholding reust just due to spite in a business relationship, it seems a bit immature and unprofessional etc I guess).