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

[thatbum]

first rule: tenants lie.
second rule: applies similarly to lawyers

For what it's worth, I'm sorry that your tenant or tenants screwed you over like that.

But I don't get why you have to generalise like that about all tenants or lawyers.

I've come to the thread to share my knowledge and experience in my field of work, and just seem to be criticised and called an outright liar.

I don't see how I deserve this treatment over other real estate professionals posting on the forum like architects, finance brokers, and tradesmen.

I imagine I'm one of the few lawyers in the entire state with residential tenancy expertise, and so far I've been happy to add my experiences to the forum. But it doesn't look like I'm very welcome here.

 

[kathryn d]

I wonder how many of you knew that you can terminate a tenancy 7 days after any rent arrears, and/or apply to a court for termination with no notice whatsoever for tenants damaging the property.

I'm sure most self managing LLs would know this.
Of course, this is only in theory.
First, you need to give proper notice.
Have it heard in tribunal.
Wait until the appeals are over.
Wait for the Sherrif to evict.

In the meantime, the pi**ed off tenant is having a field day destroying more property, as they have no intention of paying for any damages, rental arrears (because they will also stop paying rent).

As previously mentioned, trying to find where the 'midnight runner' tenant goes..(or even the Sheriff evicted tenant,for that matter ) so you can get a court order against is near impossible. The government has put up road blocks every step of the way, under the umbrella of "privacy act".

If the government will not provide this to the LL, the LL should be at least able to have the Court Judgement on record, and have the government collect on their behalf this money. Via garnishment, seized bank accounts etc.

 

[thatbum]

As previously mentioned, trying to find where the 'midnight runner' tenant goes..(or even the Sheriff evicted tenant,for that matter ) so you can get a court order against is near impossible. The government has put up road blocks every step of the way, under the umbrella of "privacy act".

Well as previously mentioned, this is a civil procedure law issue, not a residential tenancy one. And probably specifically how judgment enforcement is effected.

And so if you are proposing to change those rules to be more claimant friendly, then I would bet that it creates more problems for people that actually own things to claim against - like landlords.

Cue landlords having to protect themselves from a pile of false civil claims and judgments lodged without their knowledge, because some government department released their details to a claimant who lied and said the landlord owed them some money.

 

[kathryn d]

Well as previously mentioned, this is a civil procedure law issue, not a residential tenancy one. And probably specifically how judgment enforcement is effected.

And so if you are proposing to change those rules to be more claimant friendly, then I would bet that it creates more problems for people that actually own things to claim against - like landlords.

Cue landlords having to protect themselves from a pile of false civil claims and judgments lodged without their knowledge, because some government department released their details to a claimant who lied and said the landlord owed them some money.

It would be no different than the procedure now.Collecting the money is the only difference.
Court Judgements would still be required.

 

[thatbum]

It would be no different than the procedure now.Collecting the money is the only difference.
Court Judgements would still be required.

Well presumably the tenant was there, or was recently there when you got judgment or default judgment. You can commence enforcement proceedings on their service address. What is it you need the government to do?

 

[kathryn d]

Well presumably the tenant was there, or was recently there when you got judgment or default judgment. You can commence enforcement proceedings on their service address. What is it you need the government to do?

Obviously, you have never tried to collect from a tenant, that doesn't want to pay.
The ones who worry about their credit score are a different matter.

When they change jobs,how do you find out where they work?
When they move,change bank accounts?

 

[Doovalacky]

I wonder how many of you knew that you can terminate a tenancy 7 days after any rent arrears, and/or apply to a court for termination with no notice whatsoever for tenants damaging the property.

Then 3 week wait till your allowed to book the court appearance.
The mandatory meditation meeting and hopefully if your lucky the court appearance immediately after.
Tenant then claims has nowhere to move to so the judge gives them another 30 days despite the damage issues and no rent.
Fail to move out so you wait a week for the police eviction order to go through and be acted on.

All that time adds up the bond certainly does not cover it let alone the repairs.

As for using the service address for enforcement I have tried that and the current address must be known. Last known address is not accepted.

Don't get me wrong I don't have a major issue with a lot of the tenancy laws or I simple would not invest in that area. But when you get a bad tenant the landlord is left holding the bill.
A bad landlord soon has a court order of payment and certainly can't do a runner unless willing to loose all assets.

And as for false claims we must provide tenants our address and name. So again I fail to see how that argument applies when we have a court order for payment. Its not like the payment order is a slam dunk 5min job to get.

Where is our right to privacy too. I already have had an abusive drunk tenant kicking my front door once during an eviction notice procedure. I have to live with cameras and a locked security grill on my front door.

Sorry, don't take things personally but as landlords we get to see were it breaks down.

 

[Belbo]

Please forgive the belligerant tone of my fellow LL posters, Thatbum. I very strongly welcome your insight and perspective, and am convinced that many here including myself can learn a great deal from your input. I did suggest at the outset though that you'd just luv this place. Welcome to dystopia!

Your presence here on this forum is probably the first chance that many LLs have had to vent directly 'to the enemy', a real life tenant advocacy lawyer. Naturally, their desire to make you really hear their grievances, combined with deep anger and frustration over painful and costly personal LL experiences, renders them 'testy'. As a professional 'tester' though, I'm hoping you have the fortitude and tact to take the irrelevant 'tone' in your stride.

Now, your response to my suggestion that bonds need to be drammatically increased was disingenuous. You replied,

A bond is the tenant's money, held in trust, as an advance in anticipation of a breach of an agreement. What other sort of contract situation allows for that sort of power in favour of one party? (In fact, the only other one I can think of are lawyers who want money upfront)

Commercial leases do, and do so very effectively indeed. Moreover, you seem to be mostly concerned with the unfair favouring of 'the power of one party'. Mate, it's my property, not theirs! And of course, an independent Tribunal can still adjudicate the fairness of any bond claim, so it's not unfavourable.

Aren't you perhaps avoiding the real issue here which is the 'unfairness' of expecting tenants to put up serious amounts of bond?

 

[thatbum]

Please forgive the belligerant tone of my fellow LL posters, Thatbum. I very strongly welcome your insight and perspective, and am convinced that many here including myself can learn a great deal from your input. I did suggest at the outset though that you'd just luv this place. Welcome to dystopia!

Your presence here on this forum is probably the first chance that many LLs have had to vent directly 'to the enemy', a real life tenant advocacy lawyer. Naturally, their desire to make you really hear their grievances, combined with deep anger and frustration over painful and costly personal LL experiences, renders them 'testy'. As a professional 'tester' though, I'm hoping you have the fortitude and tact to take the irrelevant 'tone' in your stride.

Now, your response to my suggestion that bonds need to be drammatically increased was disingenuous. You replied,

Commercial leases do, and do so very effectively indeed. Moreover, you seem to be mostly concerned with the unfair favouring of 'the power of one party'. Mate, it's my property, not theirs! And of course, an independent Tribunal can still adjudicate the fairness of any bond claim, so it's not unfavourable.

Aren't you perhaps avoiding the real issue here which is the 'unfairness' of expecting tenants to put up serious amounts of bond?

Ah yes fortunately I'm thick skinned in terms of copping flak - it was more just wondering if anything I said would even be listened to - I would rather not waste my time if that's the case.

As for the bond issue, its true that a bigger bond goes far to cure the injustice of difficulties in enforcing judgement debts down the track. But its also true that making tenants front up with bigger bonds is a serious detriment to them as well - and one that is incurred before they have even done anything wrong.

And that's been my point all along, that the law is a balancing act in terms of drawing a line somewhere between the legitimate interests of both landlord and tenant. Where that line should be drawn is always in contention if you listen to one side over the other.

And for the bond issue at least, I think 4 weeks is not an unfair line to draw. Especially considering a properly advised landlord can terminate a tenancy in less time than that.

 

[Luv2Travel]

But its also true that making tenants front up with bigger bonds is a serious detriment to them as well - and one that is incurred before they have even done anything wrong.

I disagree, by not being able to set what a landlord would consider a fair bond, to cover any risk to them, many tenants are missing out. After my recent experience, there are many types of tenants I will never rent to again. If I was able to withhold more bond, to reduce the risk to me, I would not necessarily cross them off my list. So, the tenant now misses out. Same with pets, I'm sure many more landlords would rent to tenants with pets for example, if they could withhold a reasonable amount of "pet bond". Seeing as they are not allowed to, the people with pets can have much difficulty finding anywhere to live. Again, the tenant misses, out, even if they are prepared to pay the extra, landlord isn't allowed to charge it, so it's a lose/lose for everyone.

 

[Belbo]

Ah yes fortunately I'm thick skinned in terms of copping flak - it was more just wondering if anything I said would even be listened to - I would rather not waste my time if that's the case.

As for the bond issue, its true that a bigger bond goes far to cure the injustice of difficulties in enforcing judgement debts down the track. But its also true that making tenants front up with bigger bonds is a serious detriment to them as well - and one that is incurred before they have even done anything wrong.

And that's been my point all along, that the law is a balancing act in terms of drawing a line somewhere between the legitimate interests of both landlord and tenant. Where that line should be drawn is always in contention if you listen to one side over the other.

And for the bond issue at least, I think 4 weeks is not an unfair line to draw. Especially considering a properly advised landlord can terminate a tenancy in less time than that.

I think you might have garnered from some of the posts here that 4 weeks is not enough by any stetch. Try 13 weeks as a minimum, I'd suggest (and that's with no change to anything else in the RTA or Tribunal rules.) This of course mean tenants will have to -

1. Save very hard to come up with their first bond, or get a means-tested once in a lifetime 'first home renter's bond grant' that can never be redeemed in cash from the government.

2. Take very good care of their properties and permit regular inspections

The bond monies could still be lodged with an independent umpire, and the interest earned on all those bond monies could easily pay for independent inspectors to evaluate and fully document the property condition at the start and the end of every tenancy. (As you'd know, all current bond board interest earnings - tens of millions every year - are 'appropriated' by State treasuries into general revenue allegedly to cover tribunal costs.)

Sound fair?

 

[thatbum]

I think you might have garnered from some of the posts here that 4 weeks is not enough by any stetch. Try 13 weeks as a minimum, I'd suggest (and that's with no change to anything else in the RTA or Tribunal rules.) This of course mean tenants will have to -

1. Save very hard to come up with their first bond, or get a means-tested once in a lifetime 'first home renter's bond grant' that can never be redeemed in cash from the government.

2. Take very good care of their properties and permit regular inspections

The bond monies could still be lodged with an independent umpire, and the interest earned on all those bond monies could easily pay for independent inspectors to evaluate and fully document the property condition at the start and the end of every tenancy. (As you'd know, all current bond board interest earnings - tens of millions every year - are 'appropriated' by State treasuries into general revenue allegedly to cover tribunal costs.)

Sound fair?

I suppose we disagree on that point then. I am interested to see what other people think is a good level of bond, or just other solutions in general. I think you're the first one to actually suggest something with some consideration. Otherwise its been just people having a vent I think.

Increase the bond amount to that much seems to be a pretty high barrier to entry as a renter though. I can see demand for rentals falling and therefore rent prices falling as well.

I don't mind having some proper discussion about possible changes to the law, if people are at least willing to discuss other effects of such changes rather than just their own self-serving interests.

 

[Dazz]

In terms of Bonds, I find the larger the Bond submitted, the better the Tenant.

The ones who deposit 12 months worth of cash with me behave very well. I've never had a problem with them.

The ones who deposit 4 weeks worth of cash with some Govt dept where I cannot get to it without their approval...????.....misbehave on a very regular basis.

Stop paying rent 6 weeks out from the end of the Lease for a house renting at $ 300 pw, then decide to do $ 6,000 worth of damage if you get and clean it up, or $ 9,000 if someone else does it.....and they say, 'No worries - take it out of the Bond....hahaha."

"All you Landlord's are losers, I'm glad I trashed your place, have fun cleaning my mess up - seeya losers."

 

[Rob Williams]

"All you Landlord's are losers, I'm glad I trashed your place, have fun cleaning my mess up - seeya losers."

Yep, then onto the next landlord. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Dazz]

I don't mind having some proper discussion about possible changes to the law

.....but as Tenancy lawyer you've got no authority whatsover in changing the law.....and you aren't the arbiter of what is deemed to be "proper".

With the 1987 WA RTA being updated in 2011, I reckon the next chance is going to be in about 2035. Until then, as Hi Equity said way back

I strongly suspect your definition of "fair" is significantly different to mine and that you are not actually as impartial as you claim.

And that I'm just wasting my words here anyway...

 

[Ideo]

I think you might have garnered from some of the posts here that 4 weeks is not enough by any stetch. Try 13 weeks as a minimum, I'd suggest (and that's with no change to anything else in the RTA or Tribunal rules.) This of course mean tenants will have to -

1. Save very hard to come up with their first bond, or get a means-tested once in a lifetime 'first home renter's bond grant' that can never be redeemed in cash from the government.

2. Take very good care of their properties and permit regular inspections

The bond monies could still be lodged with an independent umpire, and the interest earned on all those bond monies could easily pay for independent inspectors to evaluate and fully document the property condition at the start and the end of every tenancy. (As you'd know, all current bond board interest earnings - tens of millions every year - are 'appropriated' by State treasuries into general revenue allegedly to cover tribunal costs.)

Sound fair?

Nope.

I had issues getting my bond back for no good reason (PM played ignorance about the legislation concerning lease breaks in certain situations, despite fact sheets and legal advice sent through).

I could live without the 1800 and pay another 2k bond easily enough. If it was 5850 in question and I had to pay another 6.5k it would be an impact on cash flow.

I have never been more than $200 out of pocket when tenants have left my property. Maybe I am lucky, maybe I tend not to be too phased about fair wear and tear, maybe I do my own work where required. But I hear horror story after horror story about bad tenants and have never really experienced any of it.

And that $200 is a business expense. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is not a personal insult.

If you are in the property game you get hits and you get wins. If you cannot accept this, get out.

If this was overseen by another government regulator there would be, of course, huge delays and backlogs in processing this. Do you really think you would get another tenant once our existing one had left if they were still waiting on a 5k bond back from a government department that said it would be 8-12 weeks before it was processed?

ETA. I realise this is a bit of a whinge and based on my own level of grumpiness over a recent situation. I think my post a bit further down the page explains my position better.

 

[Ideo]

Oh - meant to say this about the NSW law.

Tenants advocate wandering around the CTTT said how unfair the law was for tenants and how one sided things were (seemed a bit taken aback when I said I was a landlord as well as a renter)

I hear other LLs complaining about how unfair and one sided it is for landlords.

If both sides are unhappy it is probably a good outcome.

 

[Belbo]

Well, that almost had the chance of becoming a fruitful discussion of how the RTA could in principle be improved. But instead it descended into (1) LLs are only interested in themselves so not capable of fruitful discussion, (2) the RTA is set in stone so there's no point in a fruitful discussion, and (3) a modified RTA will be maladministered by so nothing fruitful could come of it. Fine!

 

[Ideo]

Well, that almost had the chance of becoming a fruitful discussion of how the RTA could in principle be improved. But instead it descended into (1) LLs are only interested in themselves so not capable of fruitful discussion, (2) the RTA is set in stone so there's no point in a fruitful discussion, and (3) a modified RTA will be maladministered by so nothing fruitful could come of it. Fine!

I disagree with your view. That doesn't mean it isn't worth having the debate about it.

I don't view the large bond as being workable because of the huge cost implications and the actual feasibility of government departments administering it.

Middle ground maybe? Bond hasn't been an issue for me in terms of getting it back except for that last time and I am still bitter and annoyed about that one

I'd consider something around the 6-8 week mark as being fairer than 13 weeks. But, once again that is based on my experience of being both a tenant and a landlord.

My main issue with it is the cost implications to new renters (i.e. recent graduates etc) and the actual delivery of money.

Independent body instead of a government body.

 

[thatbum]

I have never been more than $200 out of pocket when tenants have left my property. Maybe I am lucky, maybe I tend not to be too phased about fair wear and tear, maybe I do my own work where required. But I hear horror story after horror story about bad tenants and have never really experienced any of it.

And that $200 is a business expense. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is not a personal insult.

As a professional, a renter and a landlord, this has been my experience as well. Especially the part where landlords seem to take it as a personal insult when something they think should be paid for, isn't. For example, defining exactly what is fair wear and tear is often a grey area, but if you ask the landlord, its usually absolutely black and white in their favour.

Dazz, I'm actually also a casual lecturer at one of the Perth law schools teaching residential tenancy law. I suppose that makes me the closest thing to an academic on the area. I've also been consulted by the department of commerce on the issue of drafting these amendments and also the upcoming regulations (although I'm just one of many, many people and services).

I've been trying to give you all an opportunity to rationally discuss the issue with me, and I was being honest when I said I wanted to hear some opinions on the issue. But so far I've just heard a lot of frustrated venting rather than considered debate.

If this is the way that landlords have been giving feedback on amendments to the department, then don't be surprised if more considered and reasonable feedback on behalf of tenants is adopted over pro-landlord reforms.