Change.org petition: make tenants reimburse tribunal costs

Exactly...it might be a win win if something reasonable (midway between residential and commercial) to both the parties is legislated.

 

You may see 1/1500 applicants blacklisted. Once you find out that you are blacklisted you can easily rent from private landlords if this was a mistake while having it rectified. Either way, blacklisting is not the reason people are homeless, so you cannot use this as a reason.

That makes your point invalid to this topic though. The reason litigation would happen is because the tenant disputed the claim and would not cooperate which then forces the landlord to go to the tribunal. The tenant does not even show up and then the landlord has to pay the associated costs. The landlord would only use the tribunal if necessary.

The average landlord will still pay 70% of the cost. The idea behind this is to shift the expense to the responsible party, which is the tenant in most cases.

You cannot compare commercial tenancies to residential though. It is not as practical for business to move and therefore they have different terms. Even finding a tenant is different and fees have to be adjusted to suit.
Sure anything is possible and other countries may do this but then that is a different market to ours. The same reason that interest rates are different in other countries.

If that is what the tenant wants then they can negotiate a longer lease. There is no law stopping 2, 3 or 5 year residential leases. It is not inferior, but the market is different between commercial and residential and therefore has to adjust to the ideal terms to suit that market. You cannot force a 3 year lease on a tenant because they may move in 1 year but for a business this would be suitable.

 

Spot on @Skilled_Migrant - there's a need for the lease to be more equitable. The sooner tenants pull their heads in the better.

• Doesn't European law revolve around the inquisitional model of proving your innocence not proving one's guilt?
• Insurance, excess & increased premiums comes out of the lessor's pocket. The tenant is under no obligation to insure contents or provide adequate bond
• WTF?
• How/Why should increases be pegged to CPI when housing costs form part of the cost base for determining CPI?
• Tenants can presently ask for whatever length or term they negotiate and if it is longer than 3 years it isn't regulated by the tenancy act. It is only that LL don't understand the legislation, agents don't get additional letting fees if the tenant is on a 5 year lease - oh! There's an issue. It's not owners or tenants but the lack of fees to the agent.

 

Ok. Perhaps your problem is not literacy, but your posts are very hard to follow. I assume it is because you are worked up about things. You should proof read your posts.

Litigation... really? LLs and tenants suing each other - I'll ride my unicorn to the court cases.

 

Sure. I'll write it on the back of my last summons envelope.

 

Not sure if you are serious about that because most of the time the tenants move out for their own reasons. The agent doesn't control how long the tenants eventually end up staying there.

The 6/12 months is quite flexible for both parties and works well. Not many tenants want to commit to more than 12 months at a time as well.

 

@Nick Valsamis - check the last part of my comment

 

So if you are not referring to the lack of letting fees of long leases, then what?

 

You may see 1/1500 applicants blacklisted. Once you find out that you are blacklisted you can easily rent from private landlords if this was a mistake while having it rectified. Either way, blacklisting is not the reason people are homeless, so you cannot use this as a reason.

• It is not a procedural issue but rather a legislative issue which takes away the presumption of innocence from the tenant.
• Blacklists are not the sole reason for homelessness but a significant enabler.
• Not my opinion but justified by homelessness and legal agencies PM/REA Rorts

That makes your point invalid to this topic though. The reason litigation would happen is because the tenant disputed the claim and would not cooperate which then forces the landlord to go to the tribunal. The tenant does not even show up and then the landlord has to pay the associated costs. The landlord would only use the tribunal if necessary.

The average landlord will still pay 70% of the cost. The idea behind this is to shift the expense to the responsible party, which is the tenant in most cases.

• A data to backup the assertion that it is always tenants fault would help. In my anecdotal experience it has always been the other way around. PMs always try to keep the bond. I have been a student and a migrant, the horror stories I have to tell (not just mine) about the exploitation from the REAs and the PMs. But those are my experiences, overall data with win/losses for tenants would be more insightful.
  
• The litigation has been brought about by the landlord when he has other avenues of recovering money, why should the tenant pay ?
• The LLs know that litigation and its costs are part of being a LL and they willingly choose to be LL. No reason to cry foul after you have willingly undertaken a business venture ?

You cannot compare commercial tenancies to residential though. It is not as practical for business to move and therefore they have different terms. Even finding a tenant is different and fees have to be adjusted to suit.

Sure anything is possible and other countries may do this but then that is a different market to ours. The same reason that interest rates are different in other countries.

If that is what the tenant wants then they can negotiate a longer lease. There is no law stopping 2, 3 or 5 year residential leases. It is not inferior, but the market is different between commercial and residential and therefore has to adjust to the ideal terms to suit that market. You cannot force a 3 year lease on a tenant because they may move in 1 year but for a business this would be suitable.

• Why is an element of permanence to tenants residence impractical ? I can understand that some tenants might want to move, but that is no justification for not even offering the option of long term lease. Lease termination clauses should allow the requisite flexibility to both the parties in case of longer leases.
• The countries are different, but housing needs of tenants are same. If other countries can treat their tenants better, why can't we?
• Has the lease negotiation ever been on equal footing between the landlord and the tenant, in spite of the tenancy acts ? Why are tenancy acts limited to 3 years ?

 

I'm not going to get into tenancy laws in terms of tenure and other points raised by some...

However will say that it's extremely hard to list a tenant on NTD/TICA in Victoria and this has been the same for about 5-6 years. Previously you could list a tenant for any reason - now you need a VCAT order, for a monetary amount above the bond, not paid back, written notice must be given to the tenant prior to listing (which they can challenge) and the listing is also removed a lot quicker than it used to be.

Also, in Victoria you CAN claim the cost back from the tenant for application/warrant of possession fees. Has been this way for about 12-18 months. However, you will only be able to claim if you have a valid claim against the tenant and not just because you wanted to take them to VCAT for a trivial matter.

I believe tenants should be responsible for VCAT/court costs, with a valid claim from the owner and vice versa.

Worth noting that insurance companies don't just pay out because you said something happened. You need proof, a VCAT order or similar is what many will ask for which is why owners need to take a tenant to tribunal in the first place.

 

Even if there was data available, you don't need it. Just think about it, do you think that most landlords will go to tribunal to bully the tenant when they have no legitimate reason to do so. There may be some dodgy PMs that will keep more of the bond but if you disagree with this, then let them challenge it. If they are dodgy then they will let you go without any issues.

Next time if you have problems you should have asked for advice from an independent professional and or go to fair trading for assistance.

There is no real litigation. The main reason to utilise the tribunal is if the tenant does not follow the rules. Quite straightforward really.

Firstly the tenants want something the landlord has. Secondly why would the landlord do something in the tenants best interest if it is the landlords asset.
This is how it is and suitable for both parties. You are free to offer your tenants 3 year leases if you want but don't expect everyone to do this because you think it is fair for the tenants.

Tenants are treated better than landlords but both parties need to follow the rules.

 

I think the petition is mostly about things like agent representation costs and other 'legal' costs rather than the application fees.

 

• First of all thanks for keeping the debate civil in spite of differences unlike personal ridicule resorted to by many.
• The reason is not bullying but simple "free money" The vulnerable (homeless, students, unemployed, recent migrants) do not have the will or the ability to challenge it. Compare that to the LLs who have PMs fighting it out in the tribunals.
• The other reason for litigation is what @Lil Skater has stated. The insurance companies need VCAT order, hence the tenants have to face litigation and the cost for an extraneous procedural compliance :

• It has been 10 years since I have rented, and I do not think I will be renting again.
  
• I do not need help in the tribunal hearings as the tenancy act is pretty simple to understand, but yes help is available to those (few) who know where to seek.
  
• Nevertheless the retention of bond from vulnerable is a well known practice. Wrt to my experiences: I have been a tenant 4 times and all the four times (Barry plant, First national, LJ Hooker and fourth I cannot remember) ended up in tribunal with the PMs having to forego their false claims all the four time.
  
• When I used to discuss the bond return with my then peers their response was something like "Oh we never knew we could get the bond back".
• It is easy to ignore the tenants exploitation on a property forum as the vested interest is on the other side. Nevertheless the line of reasoning is: if the REAs are able and willing to do what they do with the LLs and buyers Closure of 6 LJ Hooker offices imagine what they will be doing to the vulnerable tenants.

• The only way to appraise guilt on either LL or tenant is with data. My experience does not agree with the assessment "tenant does not follow the rules". It is usually the LL/REA trying to extract the last cent using litigation as a leverage.
  
• Yes the contract is one sided (as the asset is controlled by the LL) and very likely under duress by the tenant. Hence the legislation needs to be strengthened for the weaker party rather than the stronger. OP goes the other way.
  
• Longer leases should be available under the tenancy acts with lenient breakaway clauses to permit flexibility, not the current setup in which the tenant does not have any legislated right to permanent shelter even though willing to pay.

 

Out of the 5 places I rented, only one actually try to make claim on the full bond because "we are not happy with the state of cleanliness of the property" which I countered with "we left the property in better conditoon compared to when we received it and I have photos to prove it. " They left us alone. We rented for quite sometime before buying our own property, so this is not a matter of my point of view as landlord.

It is important that tenants also know their right. Claiming we "don't know that we can have the bond back" reflect on what they know about their right. It is within their interest to know and "i don't know" is not a good enough reason.

 

Not sure what you mean because you don't have to pay anything to represent yourself at the tribunal. You challenge it, then if the landlord doesn't compromise they will choose to go to the tribunal, and if you are right then you don't lose anything.

That isn't actually correct that the insurance companies need tribunal orders. Eg., if the tenant is in arrears and vacates on the expiration of the notice then that is fine. Everything is sorted mutually and correctly with the tenant. It is only when the tenant does not adhere to the rules or disputes certain issues that you need to go further.

There may be a small number that operate unethically and illegally. Sure there will be people that don't educate themselves but what can we do about that? There is no ignoring the exploitation, but this is based on the property managers conduct which none of us knows about or has control over. The best thing is for tenants to report them to fair trading if they are dodgy.

Well the tribunal makes the decision if you go there so I don't see how that allows the landlord to extract the last cent unless they are legally entitled to.

The landlord supplies the property to rent. You want to tie the landlords hands then they will just charge more rent to balance things out. It is an investment and also a potential home for the landlord, they are not doing it for charity so the benefits can all go to the other party.

Longer leases are available by mutual consent but only a small percentage would go with a very long lease. Rent out a property and you will see how many people will opt for a 1/3/5 year lease.

 

I signed the petition because
1. I have seen tenants unfairly claim bonds just for the hell of it leaving landlords with the expense of having to defend it. One case recently is that the tenants trashed a property, stole every single light globe, left rubbish everywhere 2 men over 2 days and 4 trips to dump it ... And they still have the nerve to just have a go at getting the bond back.

Here's where the landlord stands in this situation.
Do not pay the fee to put together a case - it gets automatically awarded to the tenant if no defence is taken.
Pay the fee and put together a case involving lots of work, just so that the bond can be used for damage the tenants have caused.

Where is the fairness in this system?

2. The second reason I signed the petition is that I am a property manager and although there are good arguements here for the tenants side, I will always be biased towards landlords because that's just my job.

 

Just to clarify, are you saying that landlords should be entitled to costs orders but tenants shouldn't be in the same situation?

 

Free Money = Bond, not the cost of representing. Not everyone has the knowledge, resources and the ability to challenge. REAs/LLs know it. Some rent only to the vulnerable.

Clearly some members on your side of the fence (@Lil Skater ) think otherwise.

A better option would be to strengthen the laws that protect the vulnerable. The onus of proof should be on the REA/LL not what currently exists. OP swings the other way.

The LL/REA is relying on the fact that:

• Tenant will not challenge the assessment.
• Fake invoices (gardening/cleaning/plumbing/electrician) from their tradesmen will get them some money if not the complete bond.

Experienced it first hand and successfully defended multiple times in the tribunal. The tribunal member laughed at the amount claimed for mowing, even though the after picture was much better than before.

LLs in other countries also provide property on fairer terms and low prices. Fairer tenancy acts will not necessarily result in higher prices. But it will be bad for yields, hence the resistance.

A lot of posts here say that some tenants have not moved for decades. Why would enshrining it in law diminish their tenancy tenures or proclivity to stay put?