We never provide our personal address. We have a mailbox at an apt building we own. You could also use a post office box?..you do have them here, right?
Landlords in WA about to be done over - Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011
- Thread starter Burbs
- Start date
We never provide our personal address. We have a mailbox at an apt building we own. You could also use a post office box?..you do have them here, right?
contacted the Dept of Commerce-Consumer Protection Division (tel: 9282 0777). The author of this policy is Trish Blake. I have left a message for her to return my call.
I would like to know from her:
1. Who were consulted in this amendment?
2. The results of this consultation.
when i get sometime, i may write to the Minister of Dept of Housing asking the impact this amendment to this housing shortage issue.
still angrily
k
I would like to know from her:
1. Who were consulted in this amendment?
2. The results of this consultation.
when i get sometime, i may write to the Minister of Dept of Housing asking the impact this amendment to this housing shortage issue.
still angrily
k
indeed Kero...the recent NSW amendments were the result of consultation with landlords, agents and tenant associations alike.
Overall the tenants got things a little easier but landlords also got cut some slack too especially with respect to evicting bad tenants giving more certainty to taking possession back of their property.
Certainly hope this does get to the consultation stage for you guys. Good luck.
Overall the tenants got things a little easier but landlords also got cut some slack too especially with respect to evicting bad tenants giving more certainty to taking possession back of their property.
Certainly hope this does get to the consultation stage for you guys. Good luck.
I may be misunderstanding your definition of consultation....but I asked about this before and it sailed on thru the lower house unopposed on the 7th of Sept, and is now parked off in some upper house committee.
Note well, in the WA parliament, all of the bigwigs of both big parties are in the lower house, and all of the minions of the party are in the upper house. If the lower house voted this through unopposed, you can guarantee the minions in the upper house won't go against the wishes of their bosses.
Consultation is over, this stuff is in. It's horrible.
it's the socialising of the world come to head.
all for none and one for all.
all for none and one for all.
I've been really busy and haven't had the time to find the answer to this. Anyone know, does the new RTA allow you to use a PO Box rather than residential address? I'm pretty sure when a compulsive liar tenant took us to court, all our personal address details were given to them and we were given the tenants new home address. Do landlords often use PO Boxes to avoid these issues?
I've read it previously, but I think they've taken it off the link burbs provided.
Yes, we do.
However, when it comes to lawyers and courts, PO Boxes don't cut the mustard....reason being, you can't serve a notice personally to a PO Box number.
We have several title deeds where the registered proprietor is a company and the address is listed on the title deed as a PO Box...so dunno.
The Directors & shareholders of private companies is public info, for a small fee anyone can get them.
And ASIC need a home/street address.
And ASIC need a home/street address.
Of course "we have them right ?" But as Dazz said "I dunno" if that's enough to satisfy the new rules
Last edited:
Regarding owner address disclosure, the new legislation does not change the existing requirement to always disclose the owner's name and address to the tenant.
If the property is managed by an agent, the address can be C/- the managing agency.
What the new legislation does do is to create new and increased fines for non-compliance. As owner you can be fined:
. $5000 for not giving the correct name.
. $5000 for not giving the correct owner address.
. $5000 for not notifying the tenant of your new address within 14 days of an address change (like moving home).
As far as creating owner privacy goes, once your name is disclosed to the tenant you can usually be located. A PO Box will not be enough. To remove yourself from the public domain you will need at a minimum:
. Google clearance of all references to where you live.
. PO Box
. Removal from white pages
. Removal from electoral roll
. Removal from RP Data, pricefinder and all the others
. Removal from public title records
. Removal from ASIC records
which is possible, however outside the scope of this post.
Burbs
If the property is managed by an agent, the address can be C/- the managing agency.
What the new legislation does do is to create new and increased fines for non-compliance. As owner you can be fined:
. $5000 for not giving the correct name.
. $5000 for not giving the correct owner address.
. $5000 for not notifying the tenant of your new address within 14 days of an address change (like moving home).
As far as creating owner privacy goes, once your name is disclosed to the tenant you can usually be located. A PO Box will not be enough. To remove yourself from the public domain you will need at a minimum:
. Google clearance of all references to where you live.
. PO Box
. Removal from white pages
. Removal from electoral roll
. Removal from RP Data, pricefinder and all the others
. Removal from public title records
. Removal from ASIC records
which is possible, however outside the scope of this post.
Burbs
Even in court, we never provide our personal address.
This address is not a PO Box. It is secure, so unless you live there you cannot enter. Unless you are the mailmail, you cannot leave mail for us.Couriers cannot deliver mail either.
We also inform our tenants..you want us..we will come to you, and you can serve us.
It is not safe for us or our family....some tenants are wackos.
1. That's in Canada
2. That's in Canada before the Western Australian law changes
The whako concern etc is the reason people have concerns.
Last edited:
Its why I have my front door and rear covered by decent quality security cameras plus a screen and a solid reinforced wood door.
Ever since a tenant being evicted turned up at the front door drunk, with a can in his hand, screaming and cursing at me. Fortunately he was smart enough to leave when I called out I was calling the cops.
Ever since a tenant being evicted turned up at the front door drunk, with a can in his hand, screaming and cursing at me. Fortunately he was smart enough to leave when I called out I was calling the cops.
Here are a few more gems from the recent debate on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011...
Janine Freeman MLA Member for Nollamara: "I want to put on record that I agree with my colleague, the member for Gosnells, that we at least need to have a discussion about rents and setting some capping on rents...Clearly many other countries do it, and now the Australian Capital Territory has done it. I do not think we can afford to dismiss it offhand."
And on the scope of fines for owners, and the empowerment of tenants to use the court system to make claims against owners:
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: In terms of the application of clause 41—proposed replacement sections 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 of the amended act—I note that proposed section 59D will apply the penalties. Does that apply to all of those areas of cleanliness and repairs, urgent repairs, quiet enjoyment, and securing premises in that regard, because I can see in proposed section 59D only the penalties of $10 000 for quiet enjoyment and $20 000 for security? The others, which are reasonable repairs, cleanliness and stuff like that, I gather, come under the tenant compensation bonds. I suppose I am asking the minister to give me greater clarification of how the tenant seeks relief when the lessor has not met those responsibilities. I also note that the application for relief and orders goes to proposed section 15(2)(b) of the act, so it is very circuitous. I suppose I want a bit of a mud map of how this is seen to actually apply so that relief is afforded under what are obviously responsibilities of the lessor, and, for want of a better word, rights, because I do not think they are rights there—they are expectations that a tenant can have, and how they can pursue those in terms of getting action and relief.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Thanks, member; that is a good question. It really cuts to the chase about how a tenant can seek relief when they feel they are being dealt with in an unfair manner, and it could apply across a whole range of things. The advice I have—I am just reflecting on the act now—is that proposed section 15 of the act provides the capacity for tenants to seek applications for relief, and, subsequent to that, orders thereon. I think last week we discussed the cost of that, which was around $26.10 through the Magistrates Court. I am comfortable that the bill and the act give the capacity for tenants, in a relatively low-cost and relatively uncomplicated environment, to seek relief in those circumstances.
And on the new ability of the courts to force owners to pay a bond:
Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The advice I have is that that can be dealt with by the court with access to the tenant compensation bond. In other words, a serial offender—the landlord—could be ordered to pay a tenant compensation bond, which could then be accessed, as determined by the court, to deal with the sorts of matters that the member has raised.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: By way of clarification, will that tenant compensation bond apply only to payments already made by the person or will it apply to future payments?
Mr T.R. Buswell: It will apply to future payments as well.
Burbs
Janine Freeman MLA Member for Nollamara: "I want to put on record that I agree with my colleague, the member for Gosnells, that we at least need to have a discussion about rents and setting some capping on rents...Clearly many other countries do it, and now the Australian Capital Territory has done it. I do not think we can afford to dismiss it offhand."
And on the scope of fines for owners, and the empowerment of tenants to use the court system to make claims against owners:
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: In terms of the application of clause 41—proposed replacement sections 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 of the amended act—I note that proposed section 59D will apply the penalties. Does that apply to all of those areas of cleanliness and repairs, urgent repairs, quiet enjoyment, and securing premises in that regard, because I can see in proposed section 59D only the penalties of $10 000 for quiet enjoyment and $20 000 for security? The others, which are reasonable repairs, cleanliness and stuff like that, I gather, come under the tenant compensation bonds. I suppose I am asking the minister to give me greater clarification of how the tenant seeks relief when the lessor has not met those responsibilities. I also note that the application for relief and orders goes to proposed section 15(2)(b) of the act, so it is very circuitous. I suppose I want a bit of a mud map of how this is seen to actually apply so that relief is afforded under what are obviously responsibilities of the lessor, and, for want of a better word, rights, because I do not think they are rights there—they are expectations that a tenant can have, and how they can pursue those in terms of getting action and relief.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL: Thanks, member; that is a good question. It really cuts to the chase about how a tenant can seek relief when they feel they are being dealt with in an unfair manner, and it could apply across a whole range of things. The advice I have—I am just reflecting on the act now—is that proposed section 15 of the act provides the capacity for tenants to seek applications for relief, and, subsequent to that, orders thereon. I think last week we discussed the cost of that, which was around $26.10 through the Magistrates Court. I am comfortable that the bill and the act give the capacity for tenants, in a relatively low-cost and relatively uncomplicated environment, to seek relief in those circumstances.
And on the new ability of the courts to force owners to pay a bond:
Mr T.R. BUSWELL: The advice I have is that that can be dealt with by the court with access to the tenant compensation bond. In other words, a serial offender—the landlord—could be ordered to pay a tenant compensation bond, which could then be accessed, as determined by the court, to deal with the sorts of matters that the member has raised.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: By way of clarification, will that tenant compensation bond apply only to payments already made by the person or will it apply to future payments?
Mr T.R. Buswell: It will apply to future payments as well.
Burbs
The world has gone mad with lawyers and magistrates.
They have tied it up amongst themselves to the point nothing can be done without a court.
The people that do wrong are given every assistance in the world, with the decent hard working folk left to pick up the pieces and fend for themselves.
The world has gone nuts....left me off.
They have tied it up amongst themselves to the point nothing can be done without a court.
The people that do wrong are given every assistance in the world, with the decent hard working folk left to pick up the pieces and fend for themselves.
The world has gone nuts....left me off.
Thanks for clarification.
Oh, I always thought people who lived in houses like yours were drug dealers. Now I know they're possibly landlords.
Extract Does that apply to all of those areas of cleanliness and repairs, urgent repairs, quiet enjoyment, and securing premises in that regard, because I can see in proposed section 59D only the penalties of $10 000 for quiet enjoyment and $20 000 for security? The others, which are reasonable repairs, cleanliness and stuff like that, I gather, come under the tenant compensation bonds. I suppose I am asking the minister to give me greater clarification of how the tenant seeks relief when the lessor has not met those responsibilities.
Burbs, was there any mention anywhere in reverse to above comments. I could only imagine they are referring to a minority of lessors. Is there any mention of tenants turning clean, secure premises into a property as they've described above? Why is there no mention of tenants being fined? Looks a wee bit one-sided. (sarcasm)
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/bills.nsf/96B8AEE2DD8103744825789400221E67/$File/EM+199-1.pdf
Dear God! Please don't let this piece of legislation make it's way to SA. I love the fact they're saying "the cost of increased fines will be managed by increasing rent", and then trying to cap rents. Screw the lifeboats, cuddle the iceberg, at least the end will be fast.
