Another sob story of "poor" tenants

David's house was 'so unhealthy no person could occupy it', but he lived in it for three years

- David Billett says his rental property was in such a squalid condition "a rat wouldn't live in it".

-The landlord told the ABC Mr Billett "cheerfully took on the property" that was not of substandard condition.
- He said Mr Billett asked for repairs to be carried out "after ceasing rent".
- "The police were then engaged to serve the last notice to vacate, which was on the 27th [of] July 2020.​

Gotta love those tenants (and the ABC) for trying to paint a very one sided picture.
Seems the tenant was so disgusted with the house, they needed a police to tell him to get out of it...

 

1. Tenant should never stop paying rent unless a Tribunal order says to (two wrongs don't make a right, and this would have negatively impacted their ability to find another rental property by (a) negative reference and (b) bad payment history reflected on Tenant Ledger)

2. Tenant should have applied to xCAT for (a) rent reduction and (b) rent abatement, with respect to the Lessor/Agent failing to uphold their obligations re: condition of premise and undertaking maintenance etc.

3. Tenant should not play the victim when they're not willing to help themself. If they utilised the law and still came out worse, then yeah that's a problem and there's little more the Tenant could do if they exhausted all legal avenues. (Contrast: The Lessor/Agent used the law to evict the Tenant when the Tenant stopped paying rent, Tenant did nothing to enforce their rights etc.)

 

The rent was cheap for a reason !

I also have Champaign taste on a beer budget

 

So is this going to be a thread where we conveniently ignore the parts of the article where the landlord was in the wrong, and blame what we can on the tenants instead?

Sure looks like its headed that way.

Personally I think it's more in our interest to call out terrible landlords where we see them.

 

I detest slum lords, and I think it will end in tears if investors think this is a good strategy to save money

 

It is challenging when you have a Lessor (who is your client), that does not want to pay for repairs and maintenance, it can get to the point where as the Agent you just have to hand the keys back and say I can't work with you sorry. I also learnt early on not to make excuses for these Lessor's too, my website has this and I un-apologetically refer Tenants to it when needed:

 

Having lived in some scummy rentals in my life, I sympathise with these tenants.

Until you have experienced mould in the bedrooms because the landlord was too cheap to put an extractor fan in the bathroom, or roach infestations in the airing cupboard, or heating and ovens that don’t work - or similar - then don’t judge.

Often these issues are covered up before the new lease is signed - and only become obvious after a few weeks. Tenants often have nowhere else to go (e.g. single parents, etc) but that doesn’t mean they should have to live like this.

I sometimes despair at the narrow experience of life some of the posters have.

 

Saw this today and thought it might be relevant:

Lawyer wins $55,000 after suing landlords over mould
High-profile Sydney lawyer Chris Murphy argued mould in a multimillion dollar Eastern suburbs rental ruined thousands of dollars worth of art, clothing and furniture.

 

I rented a scummy place and I didn’t complain because I was afraid of the rent being raised.

 

Often the way, sadly...

 

Same, outside toilet and shower, 1 terrible little heater in the kitchen (which was seperated to the main house by a breezeway)

Have also been the landlord for a similar property (future knock down job), made it clear when I rented it to the young guy's it is what it is and it is what you are renting, want a better house then it cost's more !

We all make choice's

 

For some people the cheapest of the cheap rentals are the only properties they can afford. They are cheap because they are likely, old, basic, minimal features, etc. If the Lessor was to spend $10-20-30k fixing them up they wouldn't be as cheap. What the Tenancy advocacy groups are pushing trying to raise minimum standards with regards to 'comfort items' (heating and cooling for example) as opposed to necessities (necessities are already law... locks and latches on all opening doors and windows, structurally sound and safe/fit to inhabit, etc.) is going to force these Owners to spend that money and then when the properties get relisted they will not be cheap anymore. As for the tenants in that price bracket, unlikely their income will have increased to match, they will be worse off either using more of their income for rent or simply priced out of the market. An 'ok' house is better than a crappy house, a crappy house is better than living in a car, living in a car is better than under a bridge. Take away the crappy house option and living in a car suddenly the crappy house isn't so bad.

A while ago when I rented I chose the cheapest house I could find and it was exactly what you'd expect for the money and that was ok because I made that choice to rent it and I didn't complain about anything except this weird mould patch that appeared in the bedroom carpet from a rotting bearer beneath when my wife at the time was pregnant and I was concerned about the bubba. Got Mould Men to do a free inspection/quote, don't even remember if I bothered getting the Agent to do anything just got a carpet cleaner and some magic stuff and fixed it myself every few weeks when it would come back. This was my entry report and photos:








And this was my exit condition photos - left the place better than I got it which was no effort because that's how we lived 'normally', no problem with bond refund.


Eg. holes in walls, no worries - psssshhhhttttt . If the Lessor/Agent wanted to fix it they would have done so before we rented it, that's ok I "fixed" it for them



We had two mastiffs and 1 or 2 cats don't remember, this is how you "pest treat" like a pro for $6 (to tick the box)

 

No one should have to breath in mould spores all through the night. That’s quite different from an old kitchen or an outside toilet and shower.

 

Yes, but people don't have to be a helpless victim either, $2 mould spray from woolies, also, mould cleaner in a rectangle bucket with a flat pad rectangle mop thing and wash all the walls/ceiling with the cleaning solution (that's what Mould Men etc do and they charge hundreds of dollars for this ). Ensure suitable ventilation and sun light (windows open and not couped up like a dungeon) so that the interior humidity is matched with the exterior. 5mins googling how to clean and prevent mould will teach someone what they need to know. If there are leaking rooves, rising damp, leaking pipes - eg. a water source from a maintenance item, it is clear cut the Lessor/Agent must get this fixed, and if they don't you breach them, and if they try and evict you you stay that with a counter claim of retaliatory eviction as you have evidence this only occurred after you raised the issues, and also go for a rent reduction/abated rent for the period it wasn't fixed and until it is fixed.

 

In my case it was behind a huge 3.5 metre wide and heavy wardrobe that I couldn’t move (southern wall, single-skin concrete - in Vic).

Best to read the Choice article about getting rid of mould though, before recommending the $2 ‘mould remover’.

Bleach and similar products have been soundly debunked - How to get rid of mould | CHOICE

 

It's $3 now..




Bleach is only $1.70 now


That's a good link @Joynz

 

I'm not condoning the LL, nor think he's in the right, however the tenant had an option - not to rent the dump.
I'm quite sure the place was in this state when he started the tenancy and was all too happy to pay whatever low rent that he negotiate with the LL.
He then stayed in the house, stopped paying rent and the police was called to get him out. Doesn't seem like he wanted to get out.
He was all too happy to tell his sob story to the media though. Make himself look like the underdog, when in reality - they were both dogs.

It's the way it's presented by the ABC that made me bring it here; it's the same way other tenants, who are not living in a piggery, will present their sob story and the ABC will be happy to show how bad the LL is. If they managed to present the tenant as the victim in this case, I'm sure they'll manage to make any story a sob story.

I'd make an assumption I'm one of those posters you refer to, which is funny - cause I've rented many houses until I bought my own.
I did however made choices and when a place didn't fit me - I left and moved on. I didn't stay and hoped that someone (LL, State government, some advocate group) will fix my problems.

 

The full article in the OP says it was the only rental the tenant could find in the area (Smithton, Tassie).

I notice that your location is Melbourne - hardly comparable as the rental pool is much bigger there…

 

But we don't know the full story .....
Clearly there's far more to it (or the article would be 5 times longer)
Was it the only rental "within his budget" ?
Where did he move from ?
Why did he move from his previous rental in the town, or if he was moving to the new town he should have been better organised !!!

I once lived in St Helens, small towns are great to rent in, everyone knows everyone and if you are a good tenant it's easy, if you are terrible then everyone knows it and your stuffed