Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's a bluff. If it were a real issue they would have moved as soon as the lease was up.
We had a similar issue in our first IP. Neighbour's small dog kept digging under the fence. There was noting wrong with the fence, but he wanted a new one. He used the holes under the fence (caused by his dog) as the reason, but it was because he'd just painted the trim of his house & got new gutters as well, & wanted it to all match.But that is their choice. Signing a new lease or staying on after the lease expires is the same thing. They had a choice to leave if it was that bad.
I'm so annoyed right now because this morning we've had an email from a neighbour of an IP suggesting we need to pay for half of a six foot high fence because their 50kg dog "could" jump the existing three foot high fence and put our tenant's young children at risk.
Our tenant said the existing fence is fine and they are happy with it "as is". These new owners next door just want us to pay half a fence to solve their problem.
They want to spend $2K on a new fence when the existing one is fine.
So, I'm in rant mode. No way am I paying for a fence to keep their dog in. If they want a higher fence, they can pay for the whole thing.
I'm just sick of people "trying it on".
Stand up to them...
Its a little concerning how many people are suggesting its a bluff and/or to take the matter to tribunal without even hearing more about the tenant's claims.
Currently there's definitely not enough information to advise anything at all apart from "more information is required". Scott had the right idea with the questions he was asking.
If this is the usual attitude of landlords going to tribunal, I'm not surprised that landlords regularly lose and then subsequently tell all their "tribunal is so unfair" stories.
Kate Peters said:I think someone else' s issue has been mixed up with mine. Fence does not need repairing
They are claiming that we haven't provided them with a closed in yard that they require for their children and dogs for 32 weeks.
Its a little concerning how many people are suggesting its a bluff and/or to take the matter to tribunal without even hearing more about the tenant's claims.
Currently there's definitely not enough information to advise anything at all apart from "more information is required". Scott had the right idea with the questions he was asking.
If this is the usual attitude of landlords going to tribunal, I'm not surprised that landlords regularly lose and then subsequently tell all their "tribunal is so unfair" stories.
If this is the usual attitude of landlords going to tribunal, I'm not surprised that landlords regularly lose and then subsequently tell all their "tribunal is so unfair" stories.
For those of you that followed, offered advice, opinions etc. the tenants took the matter to the tribunal and after months of angst on our part due to hearings being cancelled it was ruled that the tenants had no reason to make any claim against us.......Good outcome. It pays to be careful who you listen to and fight for what is right.