Ah, I see. What you are saying, Tbum, is that there is nothing wrong with RTAs and associated tribunal procedures in general as they now stand (i.e. with State by State variances). The problem - for both landlords and tenants - is not being familiar enough with how to use them properly. Right?
Okay then. I have no doubt a good case could made that many LLs do not use the RTA and tribunal to their full advantage in every instance. And this might alleviate the personal stress and financial strains for many LLs to an extent in a lot of situations. Your offer to assist LLs understand their legal and tactical options is very generous and should be appreciated here.
However, this argument that RTAs in practice are under-appreciated still does not address the core problem that every LL faces: Under RTAs the LL can still always lose massively - well beyond what LL insurance will cover - at no loss to the tenant. Moreover, as the LL's losses mount, the tenant's right to ongoing tenancy is irrespectively, institutionally protected.
In other words, RTAs effectively seize value (the right to terminate occupancy at will and the right to decide bond levels at will) from landlords and confer the benefits of this upon tenants for no return to LLs. This is the structural unfairness of RTAs that can only be remedied by substantially increasing statutory bond levels, in my opinion. (No, I agree tenants qua human beings can't be locked out by LLs at their will.)
(NB: Your suggestion that rents would likely fall in response to higher bonds is 'curious', by the way. How would bigger bonds create more houses? Bizarre!)
I completely agree that there is a institutional protection of a tenant's right to an ongoing tenancy, even where they have been blatantly breached the agreement by damaging the property or not paying rent. At the end of a day, a tenant can only be evicted by court order, even in the most ridiculous one side cases such as staying past a fixed term.
However, I disagree that a landlord "can lose massively" if they are properly advised, prepared and knowledgeable in the law when going into court or tribunal. I've given one example above, and I'm prepared to give more.
So I suppose following from my opinion there, its my opinion that this current legal situation is not unfair. It's no coincidence that a 4 week bond is more weeks than a landlord's first opportunity to get an eviction order.
Your average landlord that goes into court unprepared and with just general frustrated venting would not get any sympathy before a Magistrate. I've seen it time and time again from PMs and LLs. I'm not surprised that many landlords get unfavourable orders if that is the usual approach.
The reason I am successful in court is not because I'm a lawyer or have magical law powers. Its simply because I know the law, and focus on relevant facts and arguments in line with the law. This is something that any landlord can do as well.
Eg, for Doovalacky's case:
Relevant:
- x date since rent was last paid
- bond amount
- water bill also owing
- ongoing non-payment of rent
- tenant's circumstances on the issue of likelihood of further non-payment
Not relevant:
- Any other breaches of the tenant in the past
- Whether or not the tenant uses drugs
- Trying to attack the tenant's hardship arguments (its their hardship, how would a LL know?)
PS. A big increase to bonds means higher barrier to entry. So there's less demand for rentals. Prices are set by supply AND demand so changes to both can influence the market rate.
