WA New tenant being unreasonable?

Have a chat to them again but I would stand my ground on this one. BTW I believe there are new regulations regarding the cords on venetions and other blinds. I had to put a "sliding lock" on my rental in Tassie, mainly due to children being able to get hold of them and cause themselves harm. It is worth checking out.

 

The regs have been around for a while now. People are always playing catchup.

 

Yes, I just wasn't aware of it until the PM notified me. Fortunately the new tenant is an elderly chap so the PM is not pushing it. The problem is that I have the very old weighted type controllers and there is no safety catch available for them so you have to change the whole mechanism out which is a bit stupid. Time for new blinds I think.

 

Nah I can smell nightmare tenants a mile away. If it were me I'd be getting rid of them as soon as legally possible.

If something as small as this causes drama then imagine bigger stuff.

No chance I'd be keeping them unless they are good tenants in the 12 months they live there.

 

Well at least you got time to see how they go. No choice really.

 

Maybe give the posts a read and you'll see

 

I did, they appear conflicting to me.

 

Haha, I wouldn't! They can damn well pay me for them.

 

While that is true, these people have already been offered free pots & pans and they are still making noise. To me this sounds like they will be nothing but trouble, and I wouldn't want or need trouble.

 

So what would you suggest from here? (serious question as you have been in the game for a while).

I have offered to either provide the tenants with a new cooktop set for the property or $50 toward their purchase of cookware which they can keep for themselves. They then responded that the cookware is not good enough, they expect something equivalent to what they already have or that I replace the cooktop with a standard electrical.

Even before the PM responded to that, the tenants issued the breach notice stating that I have not provided an essential service.

The PM contacted me today saying that the tenants have now raised the issue of breaking their lease at no cost (I think that is what they really wanted to do all along), but I asked the PM to respond to the breach notice to say that the lessor does not accept that he has breached the tenancy agreement, has provided a fully functioning cooktop and, as a matter of goodwill offered to provide a new cooktop set, which the tenant has not accepted.

I have also asked the PM to address the break-lease issue to say that the lessor is happy to terminate the lease but the tenants are liable for the break-lease fee and any loss of rent if the house is vacant between re-leasing.

Anyway, the point is that the tenants do not seem interested in having a discussion, just making demands and firing breach notices.

 

Yep they sound like trouble tenants to me. I would be tempted to go and install the nastiest old coil element style cooktop just to spite them. But then you'd be wasting money and a chance to get rid of them at (hopefully) no cost.

 

Change them immediately to comply with leglislation. New blinds may be the only (or best) option.

Even elderly chaps can have young visitors.

Your PM has advised you of the problem, so now the onus is on you. If you fail to act, you are risking your insurance cover in the event of an accident as you knowingly allow the hazard to remain.

 

Sounds like you're on the right path already, ie tried discussing with them, offered an alternative (will be seen upon very favourably by the tribunal if you have proof of offering this and it not being accepted).
If they're bluffing, then they'll stay and hopefully it all gets back on track for you.
If they break lease, treat it as a normal break lease - ie break lease fee and rent til new tenant begins.
Be systematic.

 

@chooke - Refer previous discussion on blind cords: Linky

 

The blinds are not an issue with the tenants. I'll look into it further down the track but I'd be surprised of they are not compliant given they are just over three years old.

 

I have to make some assumptions obviously, but I don't necessarily think its a 'nothing' case from the tenant's point of view, assuming the induction cooktop was not expressly drawn to their attention before the signing of the lease.

They have some hurdles potentially too though, especially with the issue of whether the offer of a new set of compatible cookware is sufficient rectification of the breach. Again I don't think their position is unarguable necessarily.

One of my rentals has an induction cooktop and its expressly mentioned and brought to their attention as much as I can (because I've had issues with a tenant before as well).

 

Sorry but as a tenant you don't just assume things, a door has a lock it should work. Right?

I find it pretty .. stupid .. that they didn't ask about a cooktop when they have a "quality cooking set" that's not on par with IKEA.

There's more to the story here than just an induction cooktop and a set of "quality" pots and bloody pans.

 

I'm not exactly sure which side you're arguing. That the tenants are being stupid?

Your analogy seems to support the other side though. Just like when you when you see a lock at an inspection, its probably safe to assume that it works.

If a tenant was to see a cooktop, I suppose the argument is that they can assume it works to heat things. Not that it only works to heat specific cookware only, and nothing else.

 

It cuts both ways, did the tenant say "Oooooh! Ah laike coooking! I heve a spivvy set a saucy pens" to bring their culinary abilities to the fore with the agent?