Tenant claiming interruption to peaceful enjoyment

[DaveM]

So I attended an AGM the other week for a property in a strata complex. During this meeting we did a walkaround of the complex to look at works to be done such as exterior painting and repairs.

I have never really met the tenant, but know what they look like as I was doing final renovation works during the open house. Have not been to the property since it was leased a year ago.

At the AGM, other residents complained of noise issues from my tenants. I passed the complaint onto my PM to contacted them to advise of the noise complaint.

Since the AGM there has been another noise complaint which the PM advised that if there are any further complaints, the lease will be terminated.

Anyway, tenant has responded to the PM that they are being victimised and also that if they are terminated they are taking ME to the CTTT for breach of privacy and interruption to peaceful enjoyment. Their reason? They saw me there at the AGM (must have remembered me from the open) and said I did not give any notice that I would be attending the property, or that their property may be looked at from the outside (privacy issue cited that I could see inside from the outside through open blinds).

PM told me there is nothing to worry about as no booking or notice is needed for attending an on premises AGM meeting as there is no entry to the lot.

But it raises an interesting question... how close can you get to a property you own before its classed as an inspection. And is there any merit to the claim that because we walked past the windows to the lot that an inspection took place or that quiet enjoyment/privacy was breached?

 

[Dazz]

Pure lunacy - the "claim" is a joke.

Unfortunately, your only problem is that lunatic tribunal members and lunatic magistrates often entertain and award these lunatic claims.

It doesn't raise an interesting question at all.....if you try and explore that lunacy you'll simply end up in an argumentative interpretive vortex where lawyers thrive and uncertainty abounds.

Looking for crystal clear simple clarity in vortexs like that is also pure lunacy.

It's just another case in a very long line of adults not liking being told by other adults to pull their head in and then fabricating whatever garbage they can, and hiding behind all of the legal nonsense that has been set up for them to hide behind.

The world has gone nuts.

 

[DaveM]

LOL yep, I am not in any way worried by their claims as they are rubbish. Its the latest in a long line of issues that have left me with no interest in keeping the tenant on.

 

[beachgurl]

As an owner of a strata property, you only own the airspace within a unit, so could the same apply that unless you are sharing their airspace within the unit you are not entering the premises without advance permission?

They sound like hard work. I guess you are not signing up a new lease with them?

 

[alplant]

I seem to remember a post on here where someone was accused of interfering with their tenants 'quiet enjoyment' of the property because the landlord drove past the place on his or her way to work each day. Obviously he should have found another route or at least averted his eyes as he drove past.

Oh, and someone else lived next door. The mind boggles about what some tenants would make of that.

Yep, the world has definitely gone nuts. Dazz is right.

 

[redwing]

The days that Albert feared

Albert Einstein:
"I fear the day when the technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots."

 

[mattysavager]

But it raises an interesting question... how close can you get to a property you own before its classed as an inspection. And is there any merit to the claim that because we walked past the windows to the lot that an inspection took place or that quiet enjoyment/privacy was breached?

You have done nothing wrong. If you were peering in the windows with your face up against the glass, then I'd side with the tenants - but currently they just sound like idiots.

I have faced the same complaint from tenants claiming that I'm harassing them by always loitering around their building and parking in their visitor space (pretty normal that they'd see me there when we manage the entire compex...)

If an owner enters the front boundary fence without permission, then technically he is 'entering' without permission. This would never be held up in court however, as people routinely go through gates and front yards to get to the front door.

I have had owners who I have had to have strongly worded conversations with - some have even been known to go through the tenant's letterbox contents and then ask me to breach the tenants as they got a letter from the RSPCA but claimed to have no pets etc. To be honest, some people who own investment properties are complete nutters.

One owner has been successfully sued by the tenants, who were allowed to break their lease without penalty as the owner would park across the road and wait for several hours per day and document the comings and goings of visitors, and reported the tenants to the police as drug dealers. He also followed one tenant to his workplace and made enquiries at the front desk to try to get more information. They were innocent, and he was a head case.

Your situation - nothing to worry about Matt

 

[HotRod]

Because people try and annualise the weekly rent by multiplying by 52.

That's wrong.

It's 52 1/7 weeks in a normal year and 52 2/7 weeks in a leap year.

Divide by 12 and there's the problem.

e.g. $100pw = $5214.29pa (not $5200) = $434.52pcm (not $433.33pcm)