Tenant Request Replacing of Ridge Capping
- Thread starter Joey5641
- Start date
-
- Tags
- property management
True BV i got one like that at present.
Tell me thoughts.... not trying to Hijack thread...
Tenant keeps ordering repairs (been there 9 years) because i bumped rent from 215-250pw should be 270pw. Now they have mice issue and agent tells me its my responsibility to spray because there a plague in the village (coastal town). Also they have little indoor dog (pet hate for animals but inherited tenant so i let it be. I told tenant id go 1/2, but agent demands i pay for it by law. My law tells me if tenant there for under 6 moths them my prob, if over its their prob. Anyone got thoughts?
I am ready to fold agency up into a ball, and jam it...
Tell me thoughts.... not trying to Hijack thread...
Tenant keeps ordering repairs (been there 9 years) because i bumped rent from 215-250pw should be 270pw. Now they have mice issue and agent tells me its my responsibility to spray because there a plague in the village (coastal town). Also they have little indoor dog (pet hate for animals but inherited tenant so i let it be. I told tenant id go 1/2, but agent demands i pay for it by law. My law tells me if tenant there for under 6 moths them my prob, if over its their prob. Anyone got thoughts?
I am ready to fold agency up into a ball, and jam it...
Nathan
From what I know it is the responsibility of the landlord to make sure the place is vermin free when a tenant moves in
and as you said 6 months is a reasonable enough time.
After that time it is the responsibility of the tenant to make sure the place is kept clean so that mice, cocroaches etc don't find food and create their home in the property.
Dog food is probably what attracts them.
I'd tell them to get rid of the dog and/or to get some rat poison from Coles
cheers
If they keep up with the demands, then I'd give them notice. They won't much like it when they have to pay market rent when they eventually move.
As far as I'm concerned, if I provide a property that is pest/vermin free, then anything that appears is the fault of the tenants. Unfortunately in NSW, I believe that the tribunal don't feel the same. On saying that, though, I have never had to find out first hand.
it can, my neighbour lost his favorite dog from spraying.
The dog must have eaten grass and got very sick.
It could have been saved but the vet misdiagnosed the problem and instead of treating it for poisoning he gave the dog antibiotics.......
Great stuff Nathan.
Your laws seems reasonable enough, but unfortunately they cannot be enforced !!
As with all laws, they are irrelevant if everyone behaves themselves and abides by them. It's only when the ratbags thumb their nose at the laws that they come into play, and mostly very weakly.
Just spent a good while surfing the NSW Tenant's Union website. That is scary stuff indeed. You guys are up against some serious competition.
Scenario A:
I'd tell them similar.....that you can't be 100% certain of what attracted vermin, but there's reasonable grounds for suspicion that it is a hygiene issue created by the tenants or their dog. And that you aren't prepared to incur an expense for vermin until all probable causes of attraction are removed.
Scenario B:
Drop around one Monday night with a block of blue vein and 3 mouse traps. tell em poison is no good cos the mice eat it then go die in the back of their fridge and stink the place out for weeks, or they can get a form of neurotoxicity causing hyperphagia (overeating) and start eating the electrical wiring of their electronics especially in the cold weather.
While you are there, tell the bugger you thought his dog was kept outdoors.
Then next day ring the PM and tell em you want an extra 2 weeks bond for the additional risk an indoor dog poses to your property.
ring the PM and tell em you want an extra 2 weeks bond for the additional risk an indoor dog poses to your property.
.....and the PM will say she cannot as that is against the law.
my oversight.....4 weeks max nowadays, at least in qld.
though a lot of PMs are too slack to raise the bond with rent rises........
bit of a bummer when you have to put the rent up to increase the bond...
Unless rent is over $500 pw, then all bets are off and they can ask for whatever they want. We're tenants currently - whilst our house is being put back together post-flood - and got hit with a $7,900 bond!
You might want to have a think about the attitude of your insurer in the event:
(a) Water enters the roof during a storm damaging your ceilings, carpets etc
(b) Your (by then) disgruntled tenant casually mentions to the insurance assessor that they warned you of the deteriorating condition of the roof and you refused to do anything
Insurers tend not to be so keen to assist you in circumstances where you failed to mitigate a known risk.
FWIW
(a) Water enters the roof during a storm damaging your ceilings, carpets etc
(b) Your (by then) disgruntled tenant casually mentions to the insurance assessor that they warned you of the deteriorating condition of the roof and you refused to do anything
Insurers tend not to be so keen to assist you in circumstances where you failed to mitigate a known risk.
FWIW
Unless rent is over $500 pw, then all bets are off and they can ask for whatever they want. We're tenants currently - whilst our house is being put back together post-flood - and got hit with a $7,900 bond!
hooley schmackerrooneys OP.........has it got gold plated toilet seats?
scarey stuff
just scanned the 2008 act and can't find anything about that bond condition, or a cpi adjustment.
Last edited:
I believe someone actually inspected the roof and said it was not a problem. That counteracts your point (b).
We did have a roof tiler go out and check yesterday, and was told that there may be a minor leaks, but nothing out of the ordinary. He suggested that we consider getting the ridge capping fixed at some stage, but also said there was no rush (as this is normal older homes).
On a side note:
We once had a tenant (same property) who complained there was a "gas" smell a few days after a gas hot water system was installed... we had the installer go back to check -there was no issue, but the tenants kept on complaining. Finally we got two different plumbers to go out and check (to confirm there was no issue). It can get a little frustrating at times......
On a side note:
We once had a tenant (same property) who complained there was a "gas" smell a few days after a gas hot water system was installed... we had the installer go back to check -there was no issue, but the tenants kept on complaining. Finally we got two different plumbers to go out and check (to confirm there was no issue). It can get a little frustrating at times......
Nah, they're only silver, but we've asked the landlord to upgrade.
I see it's now $700. From the RTA website: "No more than four weeks rent (two weeks for moveable dwellings) can be charged as a rental bond, if the weekly rent is $700 or less. There is no limit if the weekly rent exceeds $700."WinstonWolfe said:just scanned the 2008 act and can't find anything about that bond condition, or a cpi adjustment.
Not quite.
Want to hazard a guess what opinion the insurer will place emphasis on should water get in?
wylie, no doubt you and I would trust the tradie, but TF makes a valid point. If you have a good insurer, it shouldn't be a problem, so the first thing to do is make sure you have an insurer with a good reputation for paying.
But if you have an insurer who looks for reasons to deny claims, then they will want to emphasise the opinion of the tenant, whether it's fair, reasonable, correct, etc is not really the point. Would you win an argument with your insurer? Maybe, maybe not. But TF's point is valid, IMHO, that it could put you in an unenviable position, if the credentials of the tradie are anything less than impeccable with regard to the particular question he was asked about. If his credentials are equivalent or superior to the tenant's, then I agree, you're on pretty solid ground.
But if you have an insurer who looks for reasons to deny claims, then they will want to emphasise the opinion of the tenant, whether it's fair, reasonable, correct, etc is not really the point. Would you win an argument with your insurer? Maybe, maybe not. But TF's point is valid, IMHO, that it could put you in an unenviable position, if the credentials of the tradie are anything less than impeccable with regard to the particular question he was asked about. If his credentials are equivalent or superior to the tenant's, then I agree, you're on pretty solid ground.
Similar threads
