NSW Contraversial Changes

Hi folks,

having just read an article in "The States" section (NSW) of the latest API mag Feb 2010 titled "Contraversial Changes" begins p. 88, I thought I'd post some links to the draft residential tenancies bill 2009 for NSW.


http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/A...on/Draft_Residential_Tenancies_Bill_2009.html


http://intranet.tenants.org.au/print/policy-papers/submission-draft-rtbill.pdf

The first one is from the Office of (un)Fair :p Trading and the second from the tenants union providing their input to the draft.

Whilst it is still a draft and not L.A.W. law, I found some of the contents of the article a little disconcerting. I'm not going to reproduce it here, however it appears that discretion will be slanted to the tenant moreso than the landlord.....yeah, yeah, I know resi leases go that way anyhow, however it appears the scales are now weighted even more to the tenant side :(

Includes allowing poor performing tenants not to pay rent until sheriff serves notice and ability for them to terminate leases "at will" and an unfettered right for them to modify premises (at their own expense) and their own discretion as they choose, with little input from the landlord......picture black, orange, red, pro hart walls......and then an expense for landlord to rectify to a more neutral theme when said tenants vacate. The landlord also has less say in the tenants discretion to sub-let.

I will have a closer look at the info contained in the links I provided above and re-read the article as from a landlord's perspective I am interested to see how this becomes more attractive to my customers, yet at my expense.

I was looking at possibly further investing in NSW however might wait to see what actually transpires with this draft. That doesn't mean that other states won't play copy-cat and also create more inequity b/w landlords and tenants in favour of the latter :rolleyes:

There are scum/slum landlords that the tenants need protection from, however further pushing the penalties to the landlord side of the equation will not augur well for investors and possibly as an ultimate result the rents that tenants will have to pay.

I would be pleased to hear the views of folks who have portfolios in NSW and especially from property managers and rea's who deal in this state's market and how they see the impacts if this draft gets through as presented.

Ahh, the commercial sector is looking ever so appealing......... ;) :D
 
i have tried to repond here twice but due to the length of my post i keep getting booted and then when i come back my post is gone. sigh. so my response is getting breifer!

i have responded to several REINSW and Fair trading feedback forms on this matter.

My main issues are with
a) Break down of air con consider urgent... no way. we find the majority of problems with these are warrenty repairs... probably voided after the tenant gets any old air con person out to look at their troublesome unit on a sunday night at 9pm
b) victims of domestic violence being allowed to change the locks. In theory great! i really feel for them. However it already happens and results in an angry violent person showing up in our front office demanding keys... is there any protection for the agent or landlord in there?
c) Increase notice from 60-90 days. 60 days is already too long considering tenants can give then landlord 21days. Lets make it 30 days each... fairs fair.
d) break fee for ending a lease early - no thanks. Makes it too easy to break a lease. Once of our landlords only protections for the terrible winter market is to get leases that run through this period. this helps to weed out travellers as well who are only here for 6 months and then break their lease and dissapear over seas... at least now they are responsible for rent up until a new tenant moves in.. .if this changes to a simple fee there will be lease breaks left right and center.
 
Includes allowing poor performing tenants not to pay rent until sheriff serves notice
Oh, I see, having signed a contract to pay rent isn't sufficient? :confused:
Player said:
ability for them to terminate leases "at will"
:eek:
Player said:
and an unfettered right for them to modify premises (at their own expense) and their own discretion as they choose, with little input from the landlord......picture black, orange, red, pro hart walls......and then an expense for landlord to rectify to a more neutral theme when said tenants vacate.
I do think some landlords are unreasonable in not allowing any painting, pictures to be put up, etc, and that tenants should be able to make a place feel like home, BUT it should have to be returned to original condition by the tenant.
Player said:
The landlord also has less say in the tenants discretion to sub-let.
I'll have to read up exactly what the detail is on this one.
My main issues are with
a) Break down of air con consider urgent... no way. we find the majority of problems with these are warrenty repairs... probably voided after the tenant gets any old air con person out to look at their troublesome unit on a sunday night at 9pm
I see your point, but on the flip side, I also know a forumite whose landlord took over a month to deal with non-working air-con during sweltering heat with a new baby. Not good! I think that rather than reclassify air-con to urgent, it would make more sense to impose a (fairly short) time limit on the landlord to rectify the problem, and/or require the landlord to provide portable air-cons until the problem is rectified. I know people live without air-con, but if you've paid for it, and (like me) you really feel the heat, it's awful being without it. The forumite whose air-con wasn't working ended up staying with relatives for a fair bit of the time; it was a huge inconvenience.
Alabex said:
b) victims of domestic violence being allowed to change the locks. In theory great! i really feel for them. However it already happens and results in an angry violent person showing up in our front office demanding keys... is there any protection for the agent or landlord in there?
Why was this perceived as being necessary? Can't they just ask the landlord to change the locks? :confused:
Alabex said:
c) Increase notice from 60-90 days. 60 days is already too long considering tenants can give then landlord 21days. Lets make it 30 days each... fairs fair.
This is for a periodic tenancy, right? I'm with you; 30 days each is fair.
Alabex said:
d) break fee for ending a lease early - no thanks. Makes it too easy to break a lease. Once of our landlords only protections for the terrible winter market is to get leases that run through this period. this helps to weed out travellers as well who are only here for 6 months and then break their lease and dissapear over seas... at least now they are responsible for rent up until a new tenant moves in.. .if this changes to a simple fee there will be lease breaks left right and center.
You wonder what the point is in having a lease! :rolleyes:
 
HI kids...

ozperp... on the aircon one. I completely agree that maybe a timelimit could be imposed. in fact a time limit on all reasonable repair requests i dont think would be unreasonable.

We have landlord who has put off essential repairs for months, and quite frankly i am now siding with the tenant. Despite it not being in my current job description i have stepped in because the landlord just keeps saying " yeah ill do it myself next week...." and it never happens. Honestly if it was up to me we would be saying goodbye to the landlord.... ( i am sick of writting the same thing in the formal complaints book really :) )

Maybe they could bring in a classification as urgent or "required" and the "required" repairs could have a time limit.. say 7-14 days. Personally i think dripping taps should be "required" not urgent... running taps... another story.


sorry if this is rambling... hubby told me not to "forum" after two glasses of champers... but i disagree. :D
 
did i say glasses? you better edit that for bottles.... i am actually on here researching the recipe for long island ice tea... go figure.
 
I am of much the same opinion as Alabex. The truth is that crappy LL's will still be crappy LL's, this will not change them. Good tenants will not really gain much benefit and crappy tenants will be able to rort the system even more then previously. I really wonder sometimes who comes up with these things...
 
Top