Residential Tenancy Act

Why is the law so much in favour of the residential tenant ?

What was the case many years ago in Australia ?

In many parts of the world if the rent is unpaid and the landlord jerked around the consequences are something else entirely .

What is required for change ?
 
In the same order as your points, in my humble opinion:

It's the way it is. There's still good return in it and insurance to cover most other things. Like everything, risk vs reward

Who cares what happened many years, today is the here and now. Do something with today that makes tomorrow better.

Who cares what happens in other countries. You're here.

Nothing I dont think. Happy to adjust and adapt to any change to comes up though.
 
a) Because LLs are very trustworthy
b) See a), they have always been trustworthy
c) LLs in other countries are even more trustworthy
d) When attitudes change
 
Some countries LLs have it 'easier' with residential leases being more like our commercial leases (tenants do the fit out and pay outgoings) but in other countries there are also laws that we don't have (i.e. you can't evict AT ALL during winter months, even illegal squatters).

Every place is different -- some better, some worse. All we can do is understand our rights (here and now) and work within the system. LLs do have rights in Australia and there are processes put in place that do work if you know how to use them.
 
Agree with above, what we have is hat we have and we need to deal with items. Also for only about $390 per year lanlord insurance you would have had no heart break.
 
You guys have made some very good points . Yes we have to deal with the here and now that's for sure .

I would like to know how and why our laws favour the tenant so much .

Who agreed to this and what were they thinking ?
 
You guys have made some very good points . Yes we have to deal with the here and now that's for sure .

I would like to know how and why our laws favour the tenant so much .

Who agreed to this and what were they thinking ?

I would take a guess that tenants were not well looked after 30 years ago when a landlord could bank the bond money and there was nobody who could say it should go back to the tenant or not. It seemed to be entirely up to the landlord.

Also, I'm guessing when there were no laws or rules, a landlord could just ask a tenant to leave on very short notice. I'm guessing on this one because we've never done the wrong thing by any tenant, and rarely had any tenant do the wrong thing by us. I have been a landlord for about 35 years and had less than a handful of problem tenants or situations in that time (with our own IPs and my parents' IPs).

I do know friends in the 1980s who went into a unit that had walls badly marked by furniture by the previous tenants before they moved in. When they moved out their landlord refused to return any bond due to the marked walls. I like the way we now have entry condition reports and the bond is held by a third party.

I'm unsure what power a tenant had 30 years ago to force a landlord to fix things. Tenants put up with a bad situation or moved on.

I'm not sure that tenants do have things all their way. Perhaps it is now it is now due to tenants having so little control 30 years ago?
 
I would like to know how and why our laws favour the tenant so much .

Who agreed to this and what were they thinking ?

As part of my job, I advise the government on residential tenancy law reform in WA. Obviously it involves research from around the country, and also on the international positions too - both currently and with a historical view.

So I think I'm fairly qualified to answer that they don't favour the tenant at all - it just sounds that way when you talk to landlords. If you talk to tenants, then you'll hear that the laws favour landlords too much.

The laws in Australia are noticeably different from a lot of other common law countries in that the landlords are much more restricted in what they can do.

But there is a historical reason for that - landlords in Australia have pushed for more and more power over the tenants, which they received. The consequence is that they also have more restrictions and limitations with those powers.

For example, in most other countries, it would be unthinkable for landlords to be able to dictate whether or not pets are allowed, or for tenants to require permission to hang up pictures or make other small alterations to the property.

Because of the "mum and dad" culture of residential landlording in Australia, there have also been historically a culture of general confusion and misunderstanding of what being a landlord actually entails. Hence the evolution of more restrictive laws.
 
You guys have made some very good points . Yes we have to deal with the here and now that's for sure .

I would like to know how and why our laws favour the tenant so much .
What particular part of the regulations do see as unfair/favouring the tenant?

It's not going to sound very LL like, but a large part of the laws I believe are fair. For eg the time/grace given to non paying tenants - I wouldn't want to live in a society where if a tenants a day late with rent I can boot them to the curb.

I do however believe the tribunals administer the rules in a biased manner towards tenants. Sometimes just plain ignoring them.

Who agreed to this and what were they thinking ?

Politicians! I guess they were trying to be socially responsible/conscious. Maybe they went too far.

Are you currently experiencing a situation that makes you ask these questions?
 
Yes some more good points .

Thatbum , you obviously are pretty well across the act .

I don't know . I just see it as being soft and pathetic in many ways . Four months notice required if you don't have a reason to vacate .

Tribunals administering in favour of tenants or ignoring them completely .

The need for landlord insurance to cover tenant damage etc .

I realise that change in favour of landlords would not be politically palatable . We need less restrictive laws IMO .

Tenants are able to get far too much from landlords I believe .
 
Tenants are able to get far too much from landlords I believe .

Yes I hear a lot of this sentiment from landlords. The problem I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of what granting a lease actually means.

Its not receiving money in return for letting someone stay at your house. It isn't a hotel or short stay accommodation service.

A lease is a transfer of nearly all your inherent rights as an owner to the tenant for the period of the lease. Effectively, the tenant is as good as the owner for the period of the lease.

And so it follows that only serious and fundamental breaches of a lease can alter this position. Adjudication of which naturally requires a court or tribunal to be the final arbiter.

When we start from this point of view (which is enshrined in hundreds of years of common law), then you can see why some tenants are the ones that actually cry foul when landlords try and do extra inspections, stop them having pets, and stop them having a partner move into the property.

Shrug.
 
. Also for only about $390 per year lanlord insurance you would have had no heart break.
Wait till you have to make a major claim. No matter how good your insurrance is you will still get a lot of heart burn.

The major thing that needs to be changed is tenants being able to skip without an address and disappear with court ordered payments owing. There is legislation in the act against it but you try to get a magistrate to enact it and see what a joke it is.
Debt collectors can only go so far.
 
we often read on hear about tenants that refuse to vacate at the end of their lease, despite having the required written notice. also about the process to follow when rent is not paid. it can take weeks to seek a resolution.

yes insurance will help but may not mitigate all the losses. perhaps landlords need a more effective advocacy service?
 
Why is the law so much in favour of the residential tenant ?

What was the case many years ago in Australia ?

In many parts of the world if the rent is unpaid and the landlord jerked around the consequences are something else entirely .

What is required for change ?

because this relates to residential accomodation. Extra care is needed to prevent people being thrown out of the streets unfairly.
 
Small investors, aspirational mums and dads, provide much of the available rental housing. They are poorly organised and when they speak, are treated as individuals. Owners typically rely on REAs or 'someone' to represent their interests, but REAs and 'others' have their own interests and agenda.

Ultimately the market will react where the industry is not viable or worthwhile for investors. It is not usual for instance for investors in anything to defer their gains - reasonable gains for risks taken - for decades while hoping for a windfall from the sale of the entire investment one day. -Selling the farm to make a profit that is of course also subject to tax.

It is distrust of other investments that props up an industry that could only be regarded as viable for the very astute and disciplined few. Rental property is not 'sit back and make a profit' and from the many posts on the subject, the sort of professional property management that facilitates problem-free, worry-free investment is a scarce commodity.

Regarding risk, how often does one read advice on the forum for owners to just shrug their shoulders and walk away?

Risks from complexity and regulatory risks? Not so few, apparently.

Inevitably the market will work it all out. However that could be by large lurches if investor confidence is challenged. Because investment in rental housing might often depend more on emotion and tradition than proper risk analysis and crunching the numbers.

I believe that one day a lot of the 'investment' housing will be owned by larger institutional investors and that will come about by the wholesale loss of confidence of smaller investors. It wouldn't take much to start the run and successive governments seem to be creating the conditions for it, as well as overseas influences, never discount those. Once lost, those smaller investors will not return. One could draw parallels with the loss of family farms and turnover of small businesses.
 
can understand that statement. but tenants also need to take responsibility for their behaviour, many may be unable and might be better served in alternative accommodation. social housing provided by those in a position to do so.

tenancy leases are usually for 12 months, but some tenants refuse to vacate despite written notice. some do not pay rent until they have too. perhaps bonds need to be higher to take into consideration how long it can take to remedy arrears?
 
we often read on hear about tenants that refuse to vacate at the end of their lease, despite having the required written notice.

We do often read that. What we don't often read about are the mistakes and failure of landlords and real estate agents to move quickly follow the correct procedure in obtaining vacate orders.

This these cases, the problem isn't the law - its the fact that PMs and LLs don't even use the laws that are there.
 
what time line would you say is typical to gain an order to vacate providing all the processes have been followed?

I'd say 3 weeks on average if you're doing it properly, and the breach is rent arrears. There's a reason the maximum bond amount is 4 weeks generally.
 
Back
Top