Questions for the experienced landlords?

[jingo]

In my residential housing business I aim to create good will with my residents by treating them with respect and consideration

Hi GoAnna,

I would agree. I think this is the key to being successful in residential investing. I met with a tenant in one of my IP's this week. The tenant has some very minor maintenance issues that need to be attended to. The PM was ignoring her requests. Interestingly, I rang the agency, and the receptionist thought I was the tenant. She was very rude to me. Her tone changed completely when she found out that I was the landlord ringing on my tenant's behalf.

Needless to say, I have arranged for the maintenance to be attended to immediately, and am in the process of changing the management of this property over to my other PM who is outstanding.

All the tenant wanted was for someone to take her requests seriously, and attend to them. My tenant said to me that she was on the verge of moving out simply because she wasn't been taken seriously by the PM. She has been in my place for three years, paid her rent on time every month and looked after the place, and has not had any maintenance during that whole period.

She now wants to stay on - saving me re-leasing fees.

Regards Jason.

 

[Dazz]

These are the facts of the tenancy agreements as I understand them.

Sorry GoAnna, I have no clue as to which specific legal document you are referring to, or more particularly the legal ramifications of those most specific wordings, so I couldn't possibly comment as to any fact that may or may not arise from such wording in any tenancy agreement you may be referring to.

What I do know, is that the specific wording in our legal agreements, specifically detailed in the special conditions of any Lease executed by the other party to the Lease, clearly stipulates the responsibility of all minor repairs (other than structural) to the house to be to the account of the Tenant, with the prior approval of the Landlord. The Tenant is not obliged to lift a finger if they so desire, but they do need to foot the bill in our agreement if they employ a tradesman.

We don't have any legal clauses in our contracts which state anything about "respect for other human beings" or other such terms.....it's simply a division of responsibility between two executing parties to a contract. No emotion, no goodwill, no discretion, no consideration, no pleasure and no negotiation after signing.

You'd be amazed what is achievable when you don't subscribe to the dross meted out by the "standard" REI contracts that most PM's peddle. We clearly aren't looking at the same document.

As to the rest.....yes agreed.....our business models and philosophies are obviously not aligned. Due to this, we shall obviously disagree on many points.

 

[GoAnna!]

Sorry GoAnna, I have no clue as to which specific legal document you are referring to, or more particularly the legal ramifications of those most specific wordings, so I couldn't possibly comment as to any fact that may or may not arise from such wording in any tenancy agreement you may be referring to.

Dazzling are you talking about residential or commercial?

I am referring to residential tenancies as per this thread which may diiffer slightly from state to state, agency to agency, depending upon whether they use the standard form or not but essentially it boils down to what I referred to above.

I presume you are referring to commercial which as you know that is a whole different kettle of fish. Many commercial tenants actually own the internals to the building they operate their busines from. Commercial operates differently under the law than does residential. In fact they operate under diffferent laws.

If We don't have any legal clauses in our contracts which state anything about "respect for other human beings" or other such terms.....it's simply a division of responsibility between two executing parties to a contract. No emotion, no goodwill, no discretion, no consideration, no pleasure and no negotiation after signing.

Division of responsibility between two parties? EXACTLY! So this is why I can't understand why you are advocating that any residential tenant should be undertaking repairs. It is not their responsibility nor their right. Why does it frustrate you that tenants on the whole expect landlords to keep their side of the contract and maintain the property in good working order? Purely their obligation. To ignore this resposibility leads to ill will from tenants and will eventually effect the bottom line. Not smart business in my view. Jingo illustrated this point clearly in his last post.

 

[wylie]

Both my tenants in two properties nearby had a water audit the same day as I had mine a week or so ago. When the plumber came to my house he commented that both tenants said what a good landlord I was, approachable and friendly.

One tenant moved in over a year ago and I have not heard boo since, apart from raising the rent and the phone call and new lease to be signed that entailed.

Other tenant has been there three years and in that time has asked for a leaking downstairs toilet to be fixed (arranged that same day) and the heating needed a service (arranged the same day). They DON'T whinge, they ask reasonable questions about the house they are paying me to live in. The long term tenant would be earning at least twice what my husband earns. He is a reasonable man.

The only time in over 25 years of having an IP that I have had a tenant request me (a women) to come around and change a washer was an ex-army chap who obviously was used to barking orders. Maybe we are just lucky, but I don't think so. I think most people who rent are reasonable people. It is the relatively small number who do the wrong thing that make some people think that ALL residential tenants are the pits.

I believe it is my part of the tenancy contract to have a house that works. If I was the owner I would be fixing the aerial so it works for this tenant and anyone else who rents it after. We have actually had this exact issue with one house, and we fixed the aerial. The phone line is a bit different as there is a working line, so if it was me, I would not do a special fix on this, but next time I had an issue in the house that required an electrician (or whoever fixes phone lines), I would save the call out fee and have it looked at at that time.

Each time I spend money on our IPs, it is either because something needs fixing and/or something that will benefit a tenant and the value of house (both rental and resale) is usually increased by such expenditure.

Wylie

 

[caz]

I agree with Goanna and Wylie and others.
If it was our property we would try our hardest to have both problems fixed. We believe that as landlords we should keep the house how we would like our house to be kept if we were the tenants.
It makes currents tenants happy and also stops the problem arising for future tenants.
Any repairs are done ASAP and any requests are considered. So far we have done everything our tenants have requested including a new aerial as the recepetion wasn't good. We have bought an extra blind as a single mum didn't feel safe with only lace in the kitchen. Yes this was techniacally not our problem but we have had great tenants and I feel treating them with respect and spending a little money here and there helps.It sure costs less then a reletting fee and potential vacancy.
We have only had tenants move out as they have bought their own place or needed more room and they have all commented on what good landlords we have been.
I have rented with really bad landlords who would just let himself in for a look when he felt it with no notice and wouldn't fix anything. It took 6 months to get him to agree to fixing a leaking roof and this was in a nice house in an upmarket area. It made me determined to always be the best landlord we can be.
Maybe if we have bad tenants down the track we may feel differently but tenants are our clients and we need them to succeed in the PI business.

 

[Ausprop]

just do what a tenant did to me recently - decided one day that they would like me to pay for an alarm system and stopped paying rent pending installation. It's the simplest way to get action and the tenancy tribunal won't kick you out on the street. Tell them you want an extra air con or a plasma whilst you are at it as you may as well make it worth your while. The landlord will just go "oh well it's cheaper than vacancy and reletting fees and it's a great tax deduction" and will probably just wear it.

 

[caz]

Now that is very cheeky. Can they really do that ?
Are they offering to pay more rent to cover the alarm system ?

 

[Ausprop]

no offer to pay more.. it was just "necessary". they can't do it legally but what could I do about it? In the interim I took an offer to sell the place so there was no way I was going to install one (as it had been sold without an alarm). the new PM for the buyer says she will adjust the rent back - been a month or two, will hopefully see the money. Otherwise, a tax deduction (another).

what I can't understand is.. they had a 3 year lease that was under market value due to market raises, they seemed to think this alarm was vital.. well ok I am not to judge on that, but if it were so vital wouldn't you just install it (with owners permission) and say oh well, $600 over 156 weeks... $4 a week for somehting we felt we had to have.

Just to be clear - i was playing devils advocate back there. Personally as a resi tenant I expect it to be a fair thing that you would get a clear TV reception. still it is a case of whether it's worth arguing over. as Dazzling said, just do a cost / benefit decision on your time.

 

[aus_investor]

Hi all,

Thanks for all your replies. It sounds like the owner is technically not obliged to provide these services.

If there was something in the apartment that I wanted, that wasn't already there, I would be more then happy to pay for it. For example, if I wanted an alarm or air con installed, I would go out and pay for it myself (with owners permission to install), no questions asked. If wanted an extra telephone connection in the bedroom, then I would pay for that.

In this situation, these items where there when we negotiated the lease. I was never informed that they did not work or that there was a possibility that they may not work. I also just found out that the person living in the unit before us was the owners son (and kids), so the owner would have known that these things didn’t work.

I know that a few people have said that if I want these items I should pay for them my self. To be honest, I feel that I pay for these items on a weekly basis, through my rent.

It would be a different story if we were told before renting the place that these items didn’t work and the owner was not prepared to fix them.


Dazzling, I think this is a bit different to asking to have a light bulb or washer changed.

It think it’s a mix of principle and $$, why should I pay a few hundred dollars to fix something that should be in good working order? At its most simple interpretation, I pay the owner for the privilege of living in his property and agree to look after his place, keep it clean and not damage anything. I meet all the responsibilities expected of me as a good tenant. I would think it’s only fair that the landlord meet his responsibly?

I know some people may see this as a trivial problem but what if the place had 3 toilets, we were told that they work, and then after moving in we find out that 2 of them were never connected to the plumbing and don’t work? Would be fair for the owner to respond in the same way and just say, “well they never worked, you have one toilet that works great”? Would it still be my responsibility to fix, I mean, there is a functioning toilet in the place??

We are not trying to ask for anything extra, all we want is what we were promised, which is 2 working phone sockets and 2 working antenna sockets, nothing more.

I also noticed a few members said that in a tribunal setting, we would probably get our way. This is not the way we would like to do things, we want to keep a good relationship with the owner.

Ausprop, fortunately for our landlord, we are nothing like your tenants

Again thanks for all the input,

Nik

 

[Alanna]

I was under the impression (in WA at least) that if an item exists in/on the property (such as a telephone point) that the tenant is able to assume that it is in working order unless specifically told otherwise prior to the tenancy commencing.
If, for instance, there was a wall oven in the kitchen, the tenant should be able to assume that it is functional - unless told otherwise. What happens if it doesn't work, does the landlord get away with saying "Oh well, the last tenant didn't really like cooking anyway" ??
Landlords do need to remember that tenants are paying for the use of the property and they are entitled to having things in good working order. I am a bit unsure about how I would deal with the phone point scenario, it sounds like possibly just bad kitchen design. Can the microwave be placed onto a wall bracket perhaps?

Regards
Alanna

 

[Dazz]

To be honest, I feel that I pay for these items on a weekly basis, through my rent.

....and there-in lies the problem. There's way too much "feeling" and "believing" and not enough crunching of numbers.

If you asked the Landlord about this statement, they may have a different opinion - hence the resistance.

This property game has always been, and forever will be, about numbers. What people feel and believe isn't worth a cracker.

You never answered the question about the yield you are paying. You probably reckon it isn't relevant to what you are requesting....I bet the Landlord reckons it's highly relevant.

Anyway, no-one wants to talk numbers, so I'll let everyone carry on about beliefs and feelings.

 

[pulse]

so to summarise:

TV and working phone sockets are not essential services as discussed in the standard residential lease

but

you have a contract with the landlord who has misled you by not including things you rightly assumed to be part of the contract.

Cheers
Pulse

 

[GoAnna!]

From the link David posted www.tuv.org.au It would seem that telephones are definitely the tenant's responsibility ( at least in Victoria) . I am unsure if the TV aerial is covered so specifically. And I am in Victoria and the tenant in NSW so he would need to speak to the relevant state organizations in case there is a difference between states on these matters.

The most difficult thing about this case is that there IS both a telephone and TV service supplied. Even an aerial. But not out of all sockets. If however the condition report from the agent suggested that these items were in working order, and clearly the landlord knew they weren't, then it is misleading and I would have thought the tenant would have a good chance at the tribunal.

But as Dazzling points out whether you would want to push this far on two relatively small items where the outcome is not clear I do not know.

If I were the tenant in this circumstance I would certainly push for them to be rectified via the PM if I was clearly misled but I doubt I would take it to the tribunal. In any case not the ideal way to start a tenancy.

 

[tubs]

I believe it is the responsibility of the landlord. I also dont think that suggestions on using hand frees, mobiles etc are relevant. The point is, the property was rented on the basis of 2 phone points and 2 television points.

Lets say you wanted the house set up in a certain way, and wanted a phone plugged in one room, and the TV in a certain spot. You've checked these things out, and they look OK. When you go to do it, I think you've got every right to expect them to be functioning. They are installed. You have to assume they are functioning. If they are not, then it should be noted on the condition report. The agent has admitted that they knew, so its even worse for them (and they could be penalised). Either that, or they didnt know but the landlord failed to declare it to them.

I'd pursue it, I think you are in the right and have been mislead.

Numbers/yields etc are also irrelevant. It doesnt matter whether the landlord wants to do it, or it adds up financially, they are required to do it.

 

[aus_investor]

Dazzling, more than happy to talk numbers mate, the owners rental yield would be around 4.2% - 4.6%, but are you saying his level of responsibilty should be linked to his rental yield?

If you were the landlord and leased out this property to a tenant, knowing that these items didn't work but you did not inform your tenants, effectively misleading them, would you fix the problem or not??

 

[Dazz]

Dazzling....If you were the landlord...

As was amply demonstrated in a recent thread, most people on this forum are not interested in my opinion about subjects such as this. Whatever I write is perceived by most as negative and not helpful, so it doesn't matter. Best to just ignore me.

I am coming from a totally different paradigm, which totally skews my views and opinions away from what others call 'normal'.

 

[jasper]

Hi,

If you are really concerned about this and feel that strongly about it, you could just book a tribunal hearing. Get the judge to sort it. I don't think it will do you any favors when it comes to renewing your lease however. I would be disgusted if a tenant of mine went into a lease believing the property was in full working order if indeed it was not. I don't care what the RTA says, you do the right thing as a landlord.

Other option, negotiate with the landlord, he pays X amount and you pay Y for the repairs.

Jasper

 

[Dazz]

.....Elvis has left the building......

I don't care what the RTA says

....most people who own assets governed by this legislation usually do.



Postscript......Geez, that Dazzling character sure was an argumentative pr1ck. Glad he's gone.

 

[Alabex]

.....Elvis has left the building......




....most people who own assets governed by this legislation usually do.



Postscript......Geez, that Dazzling character sure was an argumentative pr1ck. Glad he's gone.

Ha ha Dazz i love reading posts when you get involved... granted i dont always agree with some of your points, but i love the way you put them forwad... always sparks a bit of interesting reading.

 

[boomtown]

I gotta say - on a 4.3 gross yield I wouldn't be particularly sympathetic. This isn't a health and safety issue its a matter of convenience.

My likely response would be if you don't like the reception get Foxtel. If you don't like the phone socket in the kitchen - that's too unfortunate (although I might offer to buy a 30 dollar cordless).

Of course if you are paying 900 per week that's different and it would be fixed pronto - but when its probably only 280 per week there's a lower standard of service. After all you are paying less than half of the cost of the accomodation services you are consuming.

GoAnnas position in providing a block of flats is a bit different to an IP on its own.