Landlords in WA about to be done over - Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011

Does it matter how often it happens? As you state here...



...this never happens and yet there are provisions galore in the RTA about it.

I can guarantee that malicious or negligent tenant damage happens far more often than the stuff above that would warrant the LL being fined. Maybe there should be some real, enforceable provisions about it then hey?

I don't exactly understand what you mean. Of course it matters how often it happens. Because you are proposing to change in the law in a way to affect every single renter.

As for the fines, it doesn't make much of a difference to 99.99% of landlords. I actually agree in that the fines shouldn't have been increased - what's the point when Consumer Protection don't even bother enforcing them? And its hardly a deterrence anyway. My point was that its hardly something to cry foul about in terms of amendments.
 
Are the tenant advocates the ones making the court orders now? And drafting the legislation?

Actually yes. Tenant advocates clearly have massive sway and political clout in developing this legislation - twenty years ago as well as now. The framing of the legislation pretty much dictates the court orders - the judiciary can't rule against the law, except on constitutional issues.

As you are involved in the process - how many submissions were made by tenants and their reps and how many by LLs? And how many personal mtgs with tenant reps would have been held compared to LL reps. And who is the peak body for LL representation?

And before you say LLs only have themselves to blame for not making submissions, I find resi LLs to be a transient bunch. Try it for awhile before giving it up as a bad joke and moving on to greener pastures. Maybe keep a couple of RIPs because the transaction costs are too high but it's almost written off in their minds and their attention is turned elsewhere. That's been my experience - I don't personally know of any dedicated resi investor who would care about it enough - they've all (without exception thinking about it now...) written off the idea and moved on. Hence next to no submissions, apart from the good Burbs here...
 
I don't exactly understand what you mean. Of course it matters how often it happens. Because you are proposing to change in the law in a way to affect every single renter.

It may or it may not. The market would determine the level of bond - which may still end up being four weeks for a lot of people. It just wouldn't HAVE to be four weeks.

So if we agree that if something doesn't happen very often it can be removed completely from the RTA (as there aren't any effective debt collection provisions in the RTA for LLs). Fine - then let's remove the fines for LLs altogether...

But if it's $20k for the LL not lodging the bond form, how about $20k for the tenant trashing the place? With enough of that going to the LL to make good the damage. If they can't pay it immediately it can be garnished.
 
Are the tenant advocates the ones making the court orders now? And drafting the legislation?
tenant advocates are on the boards/councils/thinktanks that provide input to the draft of legislation
landlord advocates are not
I suppose Consumer Protection (and its equivalent in every state), the legislature, AND all the members of judiciary and law reform commissions have gotten it completely wrong. They must be all idiots and clearly don't know jack about what the law should be.

Either that or its a some sort of big conspiracy against landlords around the country.
even I dont go that far, but I will defer to your learned opinion :D
Those two things are clearly much more likely than the fact that their learned opinions on what's fair might be different from yours.
'learned opinion' with no experience of the issue, and only input from one side of the argument, not very
Beforeanyone , , , I DONT think there is a conspiracy.
I think there is ignorance.​
Landlords don't dislike tenants
Lions don't dislike gazelles, gazelles are delicious. prey assuages hunger, prey is good[sup]1[/sup]
1. literary quote, Larry Niven:Tales of Known Space; by a kzin (sentient carnivore)

tenants arent prey,
tenants are dairy cattle,
kept in conditions ideal, balancing cost and return, when they cease to produce - petfood.

If the learned persons get it right, why is this the Residential Tenancies amendment bill.
get it right there would be no requirement for amendment
 
Last edited:
I suppose Consumer Protection (and its equivalent in every state), the legislature, AND all the members of judiciary and law reform commissions have gotten it completely wrong. They must be all idiots and clearly don't know jack about what the law should be.

Either that or its a some sort of big conspiracy against landlords around the country.

Those two things are clearly much more likely than the fact that their learned opinions on what's fair might be different from yours.

Funny way of asking for people's opinions. If people like this got things right every time what need would we have for democracy?

The problem with legislation like this is that it's not deemed particularly important so it doesn't get enough scrutiny by people other than these people.

I know what BHP think is fair and sign up for when they are the tenant and they are hardly lambs being led to the slaughter by the tin pot little landlords on the Terrace. My opinion on fairness stands, thank you very much.
 
Burb,
That was an excellent post.

If PM's were the answer to all the problems, many on SS wouldn't be asking for help.
It seems the majority of questions come from LL who use PMs.

In our province evicting a tenant is even more time consuming, and expensive.

We must wait until they are 30 days in arrears.
Then give them a 15 notice.
If we are psychic, and know they will be in arrears, we can have a hearing booked.
..We did book a hearing yesterday, and the first available date is 14 June. ..so about 3 weeks.

The adjudicator has 10 days to provide a verdict.
The tenant then has 10 days to appeal.
They would then book another hearing in Small Claims court. Lets assume another 3 weeks.
The Small Claims adjudicator has 2 months to provide an answer.
Then the tenant can appeal this, and have another 30 days to decide.
If they continue because it is buying time, and of course stop paying rent
nothing we could do.
In the meantime we are responsible for mortgage payments, repairs and maintenance.

All up, if the tenant wants to drag it out, it would take us 8 months to evict with the Sheriff.
Tenant would save 8 months of rent. Move and find another LL.

Bond in our province is a maximum of 1/2 month.
Some provinces are not even permitted to collect any.

And we don't have the option for LL insurance, such as Australia has.
 
Burb,
That was an excellent post.

If PM's were the answer to all the problems, many on SS wouldn't be asking for help.
It seems the majority of questions come from LL who use PMs.

In our province evicting a tenant is even more time consuming, and expensive.

We must wait until they are 30 days in arrears.
Then give them a 15 notice.
If we are psychic, and know they will be in arrears, we can have a hearing booked.
..We did book a hearing yesterday, and the first available date is 14 June. ..so about 3 weeks.

The adjudicator has 10 days to provide a verdict.
The tenant then has 10 days to appeal.
They would then book another hearing in Small Claims court. Lets assume another 3 weeks.
The Small Claims adjudicator has 2 months to provide an answer.
Then the tenant can appeal this, and have another 30 days to decide.
If they continue because it is buying time, and of course stop paying rent
nothing we could do.
In the meantime we are responsible for mortgage payments, repairs and maintenance.

All up, if the tenant wants to drag it out, it would take us 8 months to evict with the Sheriff.
Tenant would save 8 months of rent. Move and find another LL.

Bond in our province is a maximum of 1/2 month.
Some provinces are not even permitted to collect any.

And we don't have the option for LL insurance, such as Australia has.

Jesus! What are your average yeilds?
 
Last edited:
A response to thatbum's post:

1. Bond is never enough: that is correct, an owner's bond will never be enough to cover rent arrears. The timeframes legally prevent it from being enough. And rent arrears is usually dwarfed by the repairs costs from the tenant's damage and neglect. And landlords insurance will not cover most of the items in a bond claim - cleaning, carpet staining, pest control, rubbish removal - as these are deemed 'poor housekeeping' and not 'malicious damage'.

thatbum, if you attend a residential tenancy hearing and say that you gave 7 days for your Form 1B, your case would be thrown out immediately. Why? Because you have not allowed for SERVICE. The RTA requires you to allow time for service, and reasonable time at that. 2 days is tight, 3 days is safe. If your service period commences on a Wednesday to Friday, you must remember to not include the weekend in the service time (the tenant's non-paid rent is still accruing but you cannot include those days). If you have the misfortune of issuing a Form 1B before a long weekend, you will need to not include the Monday in your service period too). The normal process is Rent due day 1, not paid. Issue 1B on Day 2, allow 3 days service. Day 12 1B expires, remember to wait until Day 13 to apply to Court. If this is over Easter, you will be applying to Court on Day 16. And remember this is doing everything in the fastest possible timeframe. Many owners are busy with the rest of their life and may not pick up that the tenant is in arrears for a couple of days. Or perhaps they listened to the tenant's excuses and gave them a few extra days. In those cases the timeframe will easily be a 1B expiring on day 21-28.

Average wait for a first court date - I just checked my spreadsheet and as of today it is exactly 21.0 days. The fastest ever is 13 days and the slowest 34 days (over Christmas). And it is not just regional courts that have only 1 day for tenancy matters - for example Midland Magistrates Court hears their resi matters on Mondays, unless it is a special hearing or trial.

So the typical total timeframe from issuing a Form 1B to standing in front of the Magistrate is 13 + 21 = 34 days. But often it is longer than that. And owners are prevented by law from holding more than 28 days bond.

But wait, there are more days!

If the Magistrate rules in the owner's favour, they will often give the tenant extra time to move out. I always ask for vacant possession on the day. That is rarely granted by the Magistrate, even though the law allows it. Instead, the Magistrate feels it is okay that the tenant who is not paying the rent and commonly damaging the property, is given some extra time to move out. Another 3-7 days is normal. So that is day 39 before the clean up can start. To pick an extreme example, one non-paying filthy tenant I had took 5 separate hearings to evict at Armadale Magistrates Court. All the paperwork was in order but that was not the issue. 3 of the hearings were adjourned because the Magistrate accepted the tenant's promise that she would pay later that week, and that it was hard to find another rental property. 1 was adjourned because the Court forgot to advertise the hearing (its okay, the owner's rent clock is still running).

Speaking of extra days, if the tenant refuses to move out, then a Bailiff must be engaged. Cost around $410. Start adding more days as you need to wait for the instructions to go from the Court to the Bailiff. Then the Bailiff will negotiate with the tenant, then attend a few days later. Average of 8 days from application to eviction. Then the cleanup starts.

Tenant smashing everything up in the house? Yes that happens for sure. But what is more common is the tenant neglecting everything in the house, and the yard. Ballpark $1500 clean up cost for the average tenant just neglecting stuff, no actual damage.

2. No appeal provisions - hence the Magistrate is a despot in their courtroom, never held to account and there is no development of case law. Case law would allow precedents to develop and a body of common practice to occur. Instead, Magistrates make whatever decision they feel like.

There is a right to be re-heard if you were not present. In practice, this only benefits the tenant, as the owner almost always attends. But if a tenant is being evicted, they just need to follow this old trick - don't turn up for the eviction hearing, then stay in the house. Wait for the owner to realise you are not voluntarily leaving, and spends $410 on the bailiff. When the bailiff finally contacts you, lodge an appeal claiming you were not aware of the hearing. These requests are always granted, I have never seen one refused. So the original trial is re-heard, and the eviction order is re-issued. However the tenant has bought themselves an extra 14-28 days rent-free. They will never pay.

3. Fines: Why is it necessary to generate a raft of new fines for owners, yet none for tenants? But tenants are the routine defaulters, not owners. To quote the flip side, I have never seen a tenant prosecuted for failing to provide a forwarding address (which is an offence under the RTA). Probably for the same reason that the report upon which the RTAB 2011 is based uses the terms “unscrupulous owners” five times, with no useage of negative terms regarding tenants. Yet in the same report, the term “disadvantaged tenants” is used five times to enhance the impression that tenants are an oppressed class.

In the trenches,

Burbs
 
Good people like Burbs & kathryn d and Almost Bob and a bunch of other good folk on here (like skater and handyandy) are the true "learned fellows" who live a breathe this stuff every day with a huge gaggle of residential Tenants.


I suppose Consumer Protection (and its equivalent in every state), the legislature, AND all the members of judiciary and law reform commissions have gotten it completely wrong.

You're blowin' hot smoke up the wrong chimney chief.

  • Clowns at Consumer Protection
  • Pollies up behind the Barracks Arch
  • Judges
  • Law Reform Commissioners

Chuck all those "learned fellows" into a pot, up end them and give 'em a shake up, I reckon you'd be lucky to have 5 or 6 residential Landlords amongst the lot of 'em. Further, I reckon they'd all be single IP owners with PMs paid to do everything at percentages (in WA at least) over 20% of the pitiful levels of gross rent collected. They'd have bugger all working knowledge of what the "on-the-ground consequences are".

They'd all have the same response as you do now ;

  • I don't exactly understand what you mean
  • its hardly a deterrence anyway
  • I'll be honest and say I don't have an answer for that
  • I have literally never heard of an actual landlord being....
  • I don't even understand what exactly the complaint is here.

Mate, you're such a babe in the woods.....you literally have no clue about this business do ya ?? A tenancy advocate perhaps, but still no clue about the real world troubles facing a Landlord. But then, you don't need to concern yourself with any of that nonsense - your cash isn't at risk. Pip pip, tally ho, case closed, nothing to do with me, I'm alright Jack.


I note no-one yet has enquired whether you actually own any property. I won't embarrass you either.



They must be all idiots and clearly don't know jack about what the law should be

.....not at all.....but that wasn't the subject. That's a slant you placed on it cos you're a lawyer and you feel comfortable with these at arms length individuals who never deal with non-paying violent grots....all the while wrecking your investment, not paying a cent.....with a Bank breathing down your neck with security swinging over your head.


When you drive from your Irwin St chambers back to leafy Peppy Grove every day in your Jaguar, you don't really ever come into contact with the struggling single Mum with 4 kids out in Gosnells who tries to defend the home against hubby when he gets released from prison and comes around and smashes the windows and doors at 3am.


You, thatbum, literally sir, are waaay out of your depth discussing this subject with monumentally experienced and practical landlords like that listed at the top of the post.
 
Belbo ,,

ladylove says I should reply on this one

Our properties are all CG+CF+, CG+, retired living on rent CF+.
So CF+ that we are not limited to IO loans, P&I= no limitation on servicability.
returns on individual properties twixt 22 & 65% and around 8% CG (one 11 unit building had a 240% cg after reno, 3 months after we bought it)[sup]1[/sup]
A bit like Nathan, try to chose pisspoor property and improve it. Ignore what I want to live in, I'm not the tenant, basic house with strong bones. If a tenant wants a McMansion, let them buy one.

looked at a $1500 house last week, just couldnt be bothered with the work this time, walked away






1 plan renovations: many have much less value than they should, just because the value isnt visible to assessors, assessors are largely ignorant
 
Belbo ,,

ladylove says I should reply on this one

Our properties are all CG+CF+, CG+, hugely CFG+, retired living on rent CF+.
So CF+ that we are not limited to IO loans, P&I= no limitation on servicability.
returns on individual properties twixt 22 & 65% and around 8% CG (one 11 unit building had a 240% cg after reno, took 3 months after we bought it)[sup]1[/sup]
A bit like Nathan, try to chose pisspoor property and improve it. Ignore what I want to live in, I'm not the tenant, basic house with strong bones. If a tenant wants a McMansion, let them buy one.

looked at a $1500 house last week, just couldnt be bothered with the work this time, walked away






1 plan renovations: many have much less value than they should, just because the value isnt visible to assessors, assessors are largely ignorant

What I meant Bob was what are your typical rental yeilds over there in Mooseland (to make up for the lousy deal you get in institutional respects - as in here we get say 4% on houses and 6% on apartments)?
 
Burbs I'm sorry that's been your experience. I feel like I want to point out where things might have gone different for you in terms of a legal solution.

But I'm fairly sure you wouldn't believe me unless it matches up to your experiences and perceptions on the issue. Ditto with a lot of other landlords in this thread.

Dazz, I don't even know what to say really. You criticise those 4 professional bodies I gave and then claim you aren't later on in the same post.

I've cited my experiences, professional and otherwise (including being a landlord which I did say earlier), but it seems to be worth nothing in your eyes.

I don't mind copping some flak, but if I'm not being listened to at all, then I don't want to waste my time getting no where.

PS. I actually work in the suburbs, giving free legal advice at a community legal centre. Primarily I am a domestic violence solicitor, with some tenancy on the side in my current role. Free legal advice isn't a great business model, and so I get paid roughly on par with other community workers. i.e low.

I actually live in a share house, drive a dented beat-up car, and save nearly all my disposable income to have bought the properties I have.

I doubt I'll be coming back to this thread, but anyone that wants some legal pointers on tenancy matters can message me I suppose. The only thing I would ask in return is that you be polite, and maybe actually listen to what I have to say.
 
What I meant Bob was what are your typical rental yeilds over there in Mooseland (to make up for the lousy deal you get in institutional respects - as in here we get say 4% on houses and 6% on apartments)?
Thats what I wrote
between 22 and 65% yields
make $6.5K per year on a property that cost 10K, 65%
$67.5K/year on a property that costs 310K, 22%
$72K/year on a property that costs 360K
$9K on 20K 45%

compare any properties
one that cost less, for the same $return, is better
one that cost least, is best

if a tenant wants to rent their ideal home, so what, who cares,
they cant afford to buy it, they cant afford to rent it.
they can afford a strong warm(important here cold is -20) clean house.
when they can afford a McMansion, buy one
 
Burbs I'm sorry that's been your experience. I feel like I want to point out where things might have gone different for you in terms of a legal solution.

thatbum,
unfortunately what Burb is trying to tell you, is the situation.
If the courts and legistlation allow this to happen, every single tenant can do this, and absolutley nothing NOTHING a LL can do.

It is only getting worse, because as soon as they do it once, it's a game.
They tell their friends and families.
The snowball is growing.

If you think you are safe as a LL because you charge higher rents, and have a 'higher caliber' of tenant, don't fool yourself.
At the tenant's whim, you are in the exact same position as any LL.
 
I doubt I'll be coming back to this thread, but anyone that wants some legal pointers on tenancy matters can message me I suppose. The only thing I would ask in return is that you be polite, and maybe actually listen to what I have to say.

That was fairly tame by ol' Silverback's standards. You should read his political stuff! And Burbs was only saying it how he reads it, just like HiEquity did. You really haven't beaten them in debate, Thatbum, and by not doing that but claiming offence as the reason for pulling out of discussion, I think you are really being a bit pissweak.
 
1. Bond is never enough: I don't know how those days were calculated because a Form 1B termination notice only needs 7 days. Its not an average 21 day wait for a first court date either - that would be a maximum, and only at the regional courts that have one day a week for tenancy. .

"The Magistrates Court hearing date cannot be earlier than 21 days after the notice of termination (Form 1B) has been issued"

Now as others mentioned you also have the service time. Even hand delivered to the renters letter box you have to allow another day for delivery for every form.


Back to my last eviction, those very facts including the fact I was currently unemployed were given the Magistrate by my PM.
I only answered direct questions from the magistrate.
PM had to argue quite strongly just to get it reduced from 30 days to 2 weeks. That was only achieved because the tenant messed up at one point and said could be out in 2 weeks. 2 weeks is the minimum anyone I know has ever gotten unless the tenant has agreed to a shorter date.

You still have not answered why its fair the landlords have to provide name and address to the tenant yet its somehow fair for them to be protected under the privacy act from the followup on court orders.

Sorry but so far all I have seen is someone looking at the current laws with rose colored glasses.
 
You still have not answered why its fair the landlords have to provide name and address to the tenant yet its somehow fair for them to be protected under the privacy act from the followup on court orders.

We have similar wording here.
We never provide our residential address, only our mailing address, which is different.

Our last hearing we attended, a former tenant accused us as having a fraudulent address. The Director stated she has never had an issue with us being able to receive any mail from the courts.

The tenant was upset because we refused to sign for any registered mail they sent us. They had to try to think of different ways. Here, it must be by registered mail or in person.
Should they have any trouble, they can then request "substituted service" which they hadn't.
We informed the Director, these tenants will need to follow procedure, just as they make us, when a tenant (these tenants also) refuse to sign for registered mail.
BTW these tenants lived for free from Sept 1 until 7 Jan. We have a judgement, and they refuse to pay, and are now counterclaiming their heating bills were too high (for a place we had evicted them from in Autumn)
 
Back
Top