Would you agree to this?

[Stella]

PM has sent a new management agreement apparently because of changes to the Act from 1 July. I am sitting here going thru the new agreement & it has a couple of things changed since our last agreement was done in August 07;

4.4 Assignment clause - if we sign this agent can assign the appointment to another agent without us having any say in the selection of the new agent....hmm I think not - I'd like to have some say & know who is managing my property.
6.3 max value of repairs/maintenance - 2 weeks rent on repair/maintenance any one item - very open - 2 items break & all of a sudden no rent for that month & I dont know about it until the statement arrives - I think not

Also debating on water - house has a compliance certificate re water eficiency & 1/2 of me wants to charge tenants for all water other part of me says for the $60 - 80 per 1/4 its not worth the hassle? Rent is around market, maybe bit over these days so maybe that will make up for water....

Although I am happy for the PM to manage the place, I would still like some say/control over how& by who it is managed....am I being too cautious & picky by being concerned with these items?
Cheers

 

[Project1080]

Stella,
It's your property. You should always have the final say.

Project 1080.

The project: 10 IPs in 80 mths.

 

[marg4000]

4.4 Assignment clause.
I think you will find that this relates to the business - if they sell the business then the management rights to your property will be included in the rent roll. Like you, I queried this item. Probably will never affect you.

6.3 - repairs. Cross out what the PM has inserted and put in what you want. We limit repairs to $100 unless we give permission. Yes, I know $100 doesn't cover much, but we are only ever a phone call away and few things can't wait 24 hours for contact to be made.

Of course in an emergency the PM by law is entitled (and probably obliged) to authorise urgent repairs - even the tenant can do so under certain circumstances.

Water - if your property is compliant and meets all the legislative requirements, then why not pass on the charge? If your rent is on the high side and you have good tenants (who don't use ginormous amounts of water) then it is probably a good idea to include water.

Although I am happy for the PM to manage the place, I would still like some say/control over how& by who it is managed

Rental management staff change agencies fairly frequently. Your agreement is with the office and you really have no say over who actually manages your property. If you are really keen on a particular person then I suggest you get their personal mobile phone number. That way, if he/she leaves, you can track them down as they will be honour bound not to contact previous clients.

Tip - check out the "notice to terminate" requirements. Most agents slip in 90 days notice. Far too long if you are not happy - we always alter to 30 days.
Marg

 

[Perp]

PM assignment: I agree with marg4000 that the notice to terminate is more important than the assignment clause. If they sell the agency and you immediately give notice, because you want to choose a new PM, you should still have ample time to move to the new PM before the business exchanges hands. I imagine that they insert these clauses because if they don't have them, they can't sell their rent roll, and their rent roll is one of the business's most valuable assets. I wouldn't object to the clause, but ensure the notice to terminate is relatively short, ie max 30 days. Marg also makes a valid point regarding staff changeover, such that you need a short notice to terminate even if this assignment clause didn't exist, and you were currently completely happy with your PM.

Water: don't have a strong opinion either way. But I like to keep things simple, so would lean towards not charging them for water unless it becomes excessive. One less thing for me to do (passing on the water charges to the PM to pass to the tenant) and chase up.

Repairs: I think it's important for your PM to feel that you trust them and know that they're competent. I'm all for giving them up to around $400, with certain provisos:

1) They must check that the item is actually faulty before authorising repair. Sounds obvious, but when I first started out, I'd say around two-thirds of all requests for repair were actually just the tenant not knowing how the item worked, or for temporary faults that magically resolved themselves by the time the repairman turned up. Yes, technically you can charge those unnecessary call-outs to the tenant, but if they genuinely thought there was a problem, and your PM was unable to spot that it was user error, I wouldn't blame the tenant for being annoyed at being charged back. Better to prevent the issue arising by getting the PM to confirm that there's a genuine fault, first.

2) The PM must consider whether the problem may be covered by an appliance or builder's warranty, and check with me if unsure.

3) The tenant must be reminded, at the time of requesting the repair, that if the repair is due to their misuse, or not knowing how to operate the item, that they'll be responsible for the cost.

4) The PM should attempt to contact me and give me a quick run-down, "just in case". For example, I had an $80 Ikea chest of drawers which my PM paid a handyman $150 to repair. Not only could I have just bought a replacement cheaper, but I actually already had a spare in the storage out the back. Mildly annoying, and would have easily been addressed if they'd called me first.

It may sound like I'm pretty involved, but the difference in doing things this way, rather than having a tiny limit, is that the PM has a very clear understanding of my expectations, and is still able to go ahead and repair things promptly if (for some reason) I'm not readily contactable. (And this does happen occasionally; I travel quite a lot and hate using my mobile phone. )

If you don't trust your PM to authorise repairs - with a set of guidelines in place as per above - then why are they managing your asset for you?

 

[marg4000]

If you don't trust your PM to authorise repairs - with a set of guidelines in place as per above - then why are they managing your asset for you?

It's really not a question of our not trusting the PM.

We had a much higher limit until we received a bill on our monthly statement for several hundred dollars from a "handyman" for a collection of very minor repairs. Hubby was on holidays and the IP not far away, and we could easily have done all the work in a morning.

We lowered the limit at the suggestion of the PM. It is a busy office and the person we deal with was away at the time.
Marg

 

[steveadl]

Repairs: I think it's important for your PM to feel that you trust them and know that they're competent. I'm all for giving them up to around $400, with certain provisos:
.....

4) The PM should attempt to contact me and give me a quick run-down, "just in case". For example, I had an $80 Ikea chest of drawers which my PM paid a handyman $150 to repair. Not only could I have just bought a replacement cheaper, but I actually already had a spare in the storage out the back. Mildly annoying, and would have easily been addressed if they'd called me first.

Tracey, doesn't point 4 negate points 1-3?

 

[Perp]

Tracey, doesn't point 4 negate points 1-3?

Well, no, because in my case, > 80% of the time, going through my instructions first leads to the PM/tenant deciding no repair is required (actually, there's are a couple more, too), or the PM just arranging free repair under warranty, and I don't hear about any of these. So I only get contacted < 20% of the time, when I'm actually spending money on a repair that may be necessary. And on those <20% of occasions, I nearly always just tell them to go ahead, so they're authorised to go ahead anyway if they can't get in touch with me. (Which, as I said, is sometimes the case with me... I tend to ignore my mobile for days on end at times. )

Marg, I see your point, but I'd prefer to leave the limit higher and add an instruction to the PM: "If repairs don't require trade skills, please contact me first, as I may elect to do the repair myself." (Actually, I have that one too - after I got a $123 bill from the handyman for changing 4 light bulbs. I still don't do it myself, but I get a mate of mine to do it for a much more reasonable rate. )

My point is simply that I prefer to give a set of instructions once, and hopefully have the PM handle things armed with my instructions and a reasonable repair limit, with minimal involvement from me, than be contacted every time something's reported. But admittedly, I have 16 students for tenants, who frequently report dumb stuff, eg some of the better ones: "lint in the dryer", "letterbox full", "need power board", "rubbish bin full", and dozens of complaints about oven/washing machine/lights not working which simply required circuit breakers to be re-set.

 

[Jazza]

Of course in an emergency the PM by law is entitled (and probably obliged) to authorize urgent repairs - even the tenant can do so under certain circumstances.

In urgent repairs tenants themselves can now spend $1000 (re-imbursable) if they can't reasonably contact the agent or landlord first.

Tenant should still use a licensed tradesman as well.

Check the Tenancy Handbook on OFT for more (right at bottom of page).

 

[Stella]

Thanks for all the responses guys & girls.

I had already changed the notice period from 90 to 30 days so all good there.

Whilst I do 'sort of' trust the pm, however I dont believe anyone looks after my $ as much as I will. This was evidenced last year when pm quoted us around $650 + instalation for a new clothesline. A 2minute call by me to a clothesline company & I had a bigger line arranged to go in for $430.
I think we will continue with the 'attempt to contact me first' - as it is now however will stipulate a max amount to be spent (say $400 per month not per item) - not just a rough 2 weeks rent per item. Of course we are going to ok the repairs but I would like to know about them first - before no rent in the bank at the end of the month.

As for the water - the house is water compliant but I think we sill stick with excess usage only. The tenants have always used what we condier a 'reasonable' amount of water so we will leave this as it is & only ask them to pay excess water.

Cheers
Stella