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

[Burbs]

WA rental property owners, there is still time to make your voice heard on the proposed regulations, before close of business 17th May.

That link again, http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/ConsumerProtection/Content/Resources/WA_state_reviews.html

Burbs

 

[HotRod]

Great way to get the government on-side.

Go for the throat and tell them they're crazy.

How about constructively offering alternatives if they've problems with the suggestions.

 

[Burbs]

HotRod - the Government is crazy, like a drunkard in a bar with a limitless credit card. They do have property owners by the throat.

As for myself, I have spent the last 3 years in 'dialogue' with the Government, with numerous written submissions, calls and personal meetings, to see not a single suggestion incorporated in the new legislation.

There comes a time where the farce of consultation needs to be pulled away, and recognised as brute force.

If you look in the above submission, you will see multiple items of feedback and suggestion.

I look forward to seeing your own submission, you have one day left.

Regards,

Burbs

 

[Beef_Hooked]

Personally none of this worries me half as much as the absolute gouging that PM's fees and additions cut out of my gross.

That to me is the greatest burden on WA investors.

Cheers,
Beef

 

[INVSTOR]

Personally none of this worries me half as much as the absolute gouging that PM's fees and additions cut out of my gross.

That to me is the greatest burden on WA investors.

Cheers,
Beef

Ditto, maybe that should be more regulated.

 

[thatbum]

WA tenancy lawyer here.

What's the issue with the amendments from a landlord point of view?

I didn't really notice any issues when I skimmed through.

 

[HotRod]

Maybe you shouldn't skim.

 

[thatbum]

Maybe you shouldn't skim.

Fair enough. I just had a look again and I can't see anything in there that's particularly concerning or onerous on landlords.

Nothing that wasn't already in place before anyway.

The tenancy database provisions might be a bit rough, but that's because not doing it in the way prescribed pretty much breaches a whole bunch of existing laws - defamation, and privacy laws mostly.

 

[Doovalacky]

Peepholes, and patio bolts on doors that already have deadlocks for starters as a "reasonable level of security".

Increase in various fines on the landlords side to what I feel are ridiculous amounts. We wear the fine if property manager stuffs up.
Nothing dealing with tenants that ignore magistrate court payment orders, or skip town. To me this is a major issue. Can't even get assistance to locate the tenant via welfare payments etc to send the debt collectors after them.

Only can require 2 weeks rent now instead of monthly or more that I have had higher risk tenants on. Now I just won't take the risk.

My interpretation is that I can no longer charge a pet bond either for fumigation given the shall not in the beginning.

The tenant must not allow interference, with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises if the agreement is a social housing agreement;
Yet we are supposed to ensure adjoining tenants have "quiet enjoyment" so why make the distinction of social housing. What's deemed reasonable steps for a disruptive tenant its not a breachable offense as far as I can tell.
Yes I am aware that there was clause to the above in the old act as well.

Even the standardised forms might sound like a good idea but causes issues if the property does not fit the default.

I am sure there are other bits I have missed or misunderstood.

 

[thatbum]

Peepholes, and patio bolts on doors that already have deadlocks for starters as a "reasonable level of security".

Increase in various fines on the landlords side to what I feel are ridiculous amounts. We wear the fine if property manager stuffs up.
Nothing dealing with tenants that ignore magistrate court payment orders, or skip town. To me this is a major issue. Can't even get assistance to locate the tenant via welfare payments etc to send the debt collectors after them.

Only can require 2 weeks rent now instead of monthly or more that I have had higher risk tenants on. Now I just won't take the risk.

My interpretation is that I can no longer charge a pet bond either for fumigation given the shall not in the beginning.

The tenant must not allow interference, with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises if the agreement is a social housing agreement;
Yet we are supposed to ensure adjoining tenants have "quiet enjoyment" so why make the distinction of social housing. What's deemed reasonable steps for a disruptive tenant its not a breachable offense as far as I can tell.
Yes I am aware that there was clause to the above in the old act as well.

Even the standardised forms might sound like a good idea but causes issues if the property does not fit the default.

I am sure there are other bits I have missed or misunderstood.

- Increase in fines: I've never heard of a private landlord being fined unless it was some ridiculous blatant and repeated breaches of the Act.

- Wearing the fine if the agent stuffs up - always the case, and that is the point of the agent. If they stuff up, then a landlord has a cause of action against the agent anyway.

- Tenants ignoring Mag Court orders - The normal rules for debt recovery proceedings apply. And the normal rules exist for a reason. Landlords even have an edge because not many other civil schemes allow for the holding of the other party's money in trust.

- Social housing tenants causing interference etc - this is actually a term that is an obligation of the tenant. It was already in the Act that tenants can't be a nuisance. Quiet enjoyment is an obligation of the landlord and I don't think that has changed.

- Standard lease - parties free to write in additional conditions

I don't know much about the other issues, but they are hardly deal-breakers in terms of being a landlord.

 

[kathryn d]

- Increase in fines: I've never heard of a private landlord being fined unless it was some ridiculous blatant and repeated breaches of the Act.

- Wearing the fine if the agent stuffs up - always the case, and that is the point of the agent. If they stuff up, then a landlord has a cause of action against the agent anyway.

- Tenants ignoring Mag Court orders - The normal rules for debt recovery proceedings apply. And the normal rules exist for a reason. Landlords even have an edge because not many other civil schemes allow for the holding of the other party's money in trust.- Social housing tenants causing interference etc - this is actually a term that is an obligation of the tenant. It was already in the Act that tenants can't be a nuisance. Quiet enjoyment is an obligation of the landlord and I don't think that has changed.

- Standard lease - parties free to write in additional conditions

I don't know much about the other issues, but they are hardly deal-breakers in terms of being a landlord.

It is the government that makes these conditions so difficult for a landlord to collect. We have this problem in Canada. If they fixed this problem, others could be more bearable.
Even if they wouldn't give the information directly to the landlord. If the judgement was lodged, it could be deducted from any tax refund, other government payment owing to the tenant. The government knows where a tenant works,from their tax file numbers. It doesn't need to be this difficult.

 

[Doovalacky]

-
- Tenants ignoring Mag Court orders - The normal rules for debt recovery proceedings apply. And the normal rules exist for a reason. Landlords even have an edge because not many other civil schemes allow for the holding of the other party's money in trust..

Feel free to tell me how I can cost effectively get hold of the $730 of the $4000 not covered by insurance/bond from the last tenant.
Got the form 15 court orders, haven't used them as toilet paper yet since they are a bit rough.

Debt collectors have tried and failed to locate them.

 

[thatbum]

Feel free to tell me how I can cost effectively get hold of the $730 of the $4000 not covered by insurance/bond from the last tenant.
Got the form 15 court orders, haven't used them as toilet paper yet since they are a bit rough.

Debt collectors have tried and failed to locate them.

Enforcement proceedings - exactly like anyone else in WA who has a judgment debt. There are fact sheets on enforcement on the Mag Court website.

And if that doesn't work, be thankful that it is only $730 owing and not the full $4,000 like nearly every other judgment creditor in the state having difficulty with enforcement. And that the bad debt is tax deductible.

I'm not sure what you would suggest as a solution to this problem without a complete overhaul of Australian civil procedure law.

 

[kathryn d]

Enforcement proceedings - exactly like anyone else in WA who has a judgment debt. There are fact sheets on enforcement on the Mag Court website.

And if that doesn't work, be thankful that it is only $730 owing and not the full $4,000 like nearly every other judgment creditor in the state having difficulty with enforcement. And that the bad debt is tax deductible.

I'm not sure what you would suggest as a solution to this problem without a complete overhaul of Australian civil procedure law.

Seems like that is always the answer to everything.
"Be thankful it isn't worse...."
along with
"...at least it is tax dedeductible"

 

[AlmostBob]

tenancy lawyer:-
as;

• appears for tenants against evil landlord,
  -no problems, presumption of liability the *expletive*s deserve it​
• appears for landlords against destructive tenants,
  - problems​

take lawyer hat off,

any law,
if the reversal of parties' responsibilities would not be acceptible to the parties as they are now,
is not fair and reasonable

I change locks, at your request, and am delayed getting you keys, you were not at work where our telephone conversation of 1 hour prior to installing the locks led me to believe you were, you complain, fine (in this case $4000)
You change the locks, do not supply a key, do not notify me, vacate and I cannot access the property. fine _______________ and dandy

Landlord does not repair water leak, had to know about through crystal ball, fine
tenant destroys property, fine _______________ and dandy

 

[redwing]

With regards to the RTA, here's an earlier, but accurate post from Dazz regarding the rules of the game with regards to property owners

Looking at the RTA which governs the court decisions, I think Owner's rights are listed half way down on page 4. They stop just before the end of page 4.

The rest of the 68 page tome is given to Tenant's rights.

The Tenancy Union Advocate has been before you and performed their job magnificently.

Don't worry though, with the new proposed legislation (alot of the states RTA's are 20+ years old).....they have tightened up the regs to assist the Tenant even further. I believe they proposed to simply tear page 4 out of the book and call it good.

Defaulting tenants who vacate leaving behind a trail of back rent owed and/or leaving the property in a mess or damaged has seen many a thread raised on the forum and property investment magazines even have "my property nightmare" sections...it's not all beer & skittles

Landlords Insurance is a must in this day

 

[Doovalacky]

I'm not sure what you would suggest as a solution to this problem without a complete overhaul of Australian civil procedure law.

Well for starters a provision to be able to use those forms without an address of said ex tenant. Provision to be able to locate said tenant by their welfare collection, tax or other methods and not be blocked by privacy laws.

Its clear what side you sit on if you think tenant skipping with $4k owing is fine. That's just the last one in a string of 3 I had the bad luck of getting.

 

[thatbum]

Well for starters a provision to be able to use those forms without an address of said ex tenant. Provision to be able to locate said tenant by their welfare collection, tax or other methods and not be blocked by privacy laws.

Its clear what side you sit on if you think tenant skipping with $4k owing is fine. That's just the last one in a string of 3 I had the bad luck of getting.

No I don't think its fine - I'm just not as quick to dismiss our current legal system as completely unfair. Funnily enough there's a reason why its not like you describe.

Otherwise, if I found out your full name somehow, I could start a bull#$@& claim against you, and then the courts or government or whatever would provide me with your address and contact details. Repeat ad infinitum for anyone you want to contact.

And then imagine if I got default judgment on you because I gave a bull#$%& service address for you, with a massive amount. I could then move to enforce sale and seizure of your house and other belongings before you even got a say in the matter. Eventually by the time you were represented, it would be a massive legal mess to unwind.

Funnily enough, the current system aims to strike a fair balance between both parties. Just like the Residential Tenancies Act aims to strike a fair balance between landlord and tenant.

And even with my lawyer hat off, I find it hard to see how the balance has been pushed too far towards the tenant side.

 

[Dazz]

Funnily enough, the current system aims to strike a fair balance between both parties. Just like the Residential Tenancies Act aims to strike a fair balance between landlord and tenant.

And even with my lawyer hat off, I find it hard to see how the balance has been pushed too far towards the tenant side.

You're a funny guy !!!


Most people find it hard to see when their head is shoved so far up their ......

 

[HiEquity]

thatbum

I suspect some drongo needs to take $5k out of your bank account because they:

a) feel like it; and
b) know how to work the system.

Then you might start to understand.

Loss of rent, malicious or negligent damage, pitiful bonds in comparison, constantly delayed payment, people just not meeting their obligations, skipping town never to be heard from again - these are the things residential landlords have to deal with all too often. All the time while the banks accept no excuses for not meeting mortgage repayments.

There is no "balance". The only reason to get into this caper is to make money. If people don't make money out of it then no-one will do it and legislation like this puts us on a highway to that point... which is good for no-one. I feel just as sorry for the majority of good renters out there who take pride in looking after their landlord's property, pay all their rent on time and try to leave the property in the same condition that they found it - they pay for these laws just as much as the landlords.

If the government wants to provide a certain standard of accomodation to the general population they can %%$# well pay for it themselves, rather than forcing the rest of us to pay for it instead. This is a joke that was already not funny 20 years ago.