Appointing a PM - inspection by potential PM

A Victorian IP is self-managed. It seemed like a good idea at the time - the tenant is the builder. He is paying under the market but was going to do some jobs and maintenance. This has not happened and I want him out. It looks like VCAT for recovery for the jobs he has not done. I've contacted REAs about inspecting the place but he is not replying. The tenant is aware of the PM being appointed and does not like it. There's rules about how often and under what circumstances a landlord or PM can inspect a property, but I cannot find anything about a potential PM.

Advice is sought: how does a REA notify a tenant in the above circumstances? TIA.

 

By mutual agreement or otherwise the standard timeframes apply. If you issue written notice you can rock up with your copy keys at the designated time.

Alternatively don't renew the lease and / or give NTV depending on whether he's on fixed or periodic.

The jobs he hasn't done - I doubt you can do much about this. They don't form part of the residential lease. You could either civil claim, bond claim or insurance claim if any damages are made though, depending on what they are.

 

DT, thanks for that advice. The jobs are on the lease and in my view remedies exist. Enough time has passed for the jobs to be done, so tradies can do them and the cost will be recovered later. At worst, insurance may apply.

I've just been advised that there are two options.
1 Issue the tenant with a notice under section 86 (1)(c) entry is required to enable the landlord to carry out a duty under the act. This, however, is quite vague.

2 Section 86 (1)(d) entry is required for valuation purposes might be better. Accessing the property with a potential PM to seek a rental valuation on the property could work.

This is hard for another reason. I want the REAs to do the inspection alone. The IP is too far away for me to go there several times. Maybe appoint all the REAs as temporary agents.

 

I don't know the victorian inspection provisions off the top of my head, but you should just use a 'normal' inspection provision and notice period - I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

You might need some local / specialist advice on this - but its possible this won't count for much as might be considered "contracting outside the act"

 

That's sound advice. Acts and regulations cannot cover all contingencies, and it's often counter-productive to to cite things to closely. If this is done then a smart lawyer can find a way around the laws. It may be better to write the laws, stating intentions and give examples. A slightly vague intention is hard to circumvent. I've seen this in a number of laws.

For example, if the law said something like:
* visits can be by any person associated with the owner;
* reasonable notice must be given;
* such notice must be at least 24 hours before the visit;
* the visit must be in business hours or as agreed with the tenant; and
* every effort must be made to make the visit convenient for the tenant
I think that all options are covered. There's another maxim - the reasonable and prudent person. What would this person do? In the situation under consideration, it seems to me that 24 hours is enough. The REAs are acting for the LL, even if they have not been appointed.

The tenant will have visitors soon, and if he does not let them in then too bad.

 

Not sure where you're going with that tangent.

There's 2 main issues here
- inspecting it ; no issue at all just serve the required notice and go.
- repairs by tenant ; doubt you can write this in a lease.

Otherwise remove tenant. Issue ntv if periodic or wait for lease to end. Get your repairs sorted then source new tenants.

Need to play each ball with a straight bat. Systematic and without emotion.

 

The issue seems to be that while a LL or PM can inspect, a potential PM is not cited in the Act. So I'm falling back on a long-standing maxim, the reasonable person. It seems reasonable to give the the tenant notice as if a LL or PM was inspecting, and then turn up. Four potential property managers have looked at the place, and there's a short list. There's also a short-list of tradies: garden, drive, pergola and a few smaller outside jobs.

So the outside jobs will be done while the tenant is in place, and if he does not like it there's not a lot he can do. He can argue inconvenience, but I can argue paying somewhat under the going rate for that property. I don't think he will be bothered.

The lease had repair and maintenance provisions, which is why the rent is less than the market. Some repairs and maintenance were done, some not. The tenant knows that unless the repairs and maintenance are done and quickly, then tradies will do the job, and he pays for this. All of a sudden he's starting to move on the jobs.

 

Already covered above

Already covered above

 

I would be very careful with this tenant just in case it get nasty. if you have put the jobs you require the tenant to do as part of the lease, you may be seen to contracting outside the act (you cant expect a tenant to do maintenance requiring advanced skill-sets). Fines can be as much as 10k for some offenses- as DT mentions your unlikely going to get money out of him for jobs not done, so i would be looking to get you new pm to move them along and make sure they are doing without it costing you an arm and leg in the process.

 

True. However, the jobs are relatively minor, do not need any training, accreditation, permits or the like. For example, mow the lawn, keep the garden tidy, remove rubbish, minor maintenance, and other like jobs. A builder can do small jobs like these.