Rent Increases

I'm just looking at the dept of fair trading website for NSW on rent increases. If i'm reading correctly, it is saying if the tenannt is in a lease of 2 years or less, this doesn't sound very right, have i missed something

Rent_increases

 

During a fixed term agreement of less than 2 years the rent cannot be increased, unless a term has been added to the agreement saying it can. (which is why most LLs would only do 6 or 12 month leases).

 

So does that mean after a you can give notice 60 days before the 6 months lease expires in that if they want to renew, it will be $x increase?

 

Yes

 

For NSW
Just to be safe , in writing, 4 days for postage, plus 60 days notice to increase rent in writing, by registered post.

 

It still blows my mind that they mandate it via physical post in NSW. It's not even one of a few options to notify of an increase - it has to be via post! So far behind the times when an email with an undeniable electronic time and date stamp has been available for so many years.

 

Email is a valid option in SA, funny how it isn't in other states and yet we're the city behind the times apparently

Back on topic, there's a tip written on rent raises already here - Tenancy Tip Thursday - Rent Raising Requirements

 

Get your PM to do it. That's their job. Unless you're self managing of course. In which case, carry on.

 

There should be a system where a third party, such as RTA, compel renters to keep up to date valid contact info along with the address and bond info, LL and PMs could use a form from such a third parties website that would notify when that person has received & opened that message.

If after X days it warns the LL/PM so that registered mail can be sent & ,maybe that snail mail option could have lower notice requirements as it is a secondary method.

But for anyone to be this organised, you would need to be able to threaten a few jobs

PS does express post satisfy ? or do you need registered so the letter is not just delivered, but signed for ? I can see many tenants refusing to sign for anything, must be delivery only ?

 

No different to snail mail, there is no way to prove it arrived. Unless registered post is used but many agents do not use registered post for rental increases as I'm fairly sure it's not a requirement. The difference is that once snail mail is lost, it's lost. You can generally always find emails.

This assumes that the property manager has had no correspondence with the tenant via email whatsoever prior to the rental increase. It would be taken as reasonable to assume that if other correspondence has been received and/or the tenant has engaged via email from the specified address that the rental increase would also be received and not blocked. I think it's highly unlikely in the modern world that a property manager would go the entire lease without contacting the tenant via email and if it were being blocked, it would be found out well before any rental increase. You're dealing with unknowns on a daily basis so the premise is different.

In any case, this same logic could be applied to anything - licence renewals, insurance renewals, ATO emails and a plethora of other official correspondence from any number of day-to-day sources in the modern world. I don't know what the rules are, but personally I would say absolutely the onus is on the receiver to ensure they are cleaning out their spam filter given how we regularly and normally communicate in 2017. It's no different to the adoption of any technology - there comes a point where it becomes the norm and society accepts that to be the case. It's not a requirement to send rental increases out via post in Qld and it works just fine via email. In fact, the acceptance of electronic communication is now implied in Queensland.

We can go even further - our management software tracks all outbound emails and actually shows when someone has opened an email with the time and date. A few weeks ago we had a tenant complaining they didn't receive a NTRB for invoice arrears saying they didn't receive the original notice or reminder. We were able to give a date and time to the second that it was clicked on and opened for both emails. The story changed very quickly to, "Oh yea, I forgot". You can't do with that snail mail unless it's registered and even then it only means it was delivered, not necessarily opened (yes, that's getting very picky)!

I would agree it could be prudent as a confirmation or even as an option, but a singular mandated source is just an outdated practice.

 

Just updated my original post with this in case you missed it as I think we posted at the same time:

"We can go even further - our management software tracks all outbound emails and actually shows when someone has opened an email with the time and date. A few weeks ago we had a tenant complaining they didn't receive a NTRB for invoice arrears saying they didn't receive the original notice or reminder. We were able to give a date and time to the second that it was clicked on and opened for both emails. The story changed very quickly to, "Oh yea, I forgot". You can't do with that snail mail unless it's registered and even then it only means it was delivered, not necessarily opened (yes, that's getting very picky)!"

 

Registered has an option for delivery confirmation as well as signature, or it used too.

But in reality, snail mail has become unreliable IMO, I guess for the time being requires a shotgun approach.

 

Yea at the end of the day, there will always be exceptions. It's about using the best and most logical methodology for the task. I'm sure the US government could readily intercept those pesky snail mail rent increases if they really wanted

 

Yes, but there's always the chance that the PM responds in a conversation with "we know you have read the email", but that's entirely false (as in demonstrably in a court). There is simply no way to be sure. Tracking images/URLs are almost useless as they give a false connotation that it's been viewed. AustPost tracking is the same - it was delivered, but may or may not be read. I'll leave the "did they understand the communications" part unaddressed - it can be wrong from both side.

It's just safest for both ends of the communication to assume it hasn't been read unless both sides are face to face, or using a F2F intermediary (then there is still the "understanding" aspect). This electronic and non electronic conundrum is part of my paid job

 

Are you able to elaborate on this or provide a basis for that claim? Electronic communication is a legally accepted method and to my knowledge, date and time stamps on 'read receipts' (whether sent via Outlook or otherwise) are absolutely accepted in court and that is the reason they're included in certain software programs, including Outlook. I just had a chat with a solicitor friend and although he's not a trial lawyer, he said that to the best of his knowledge 'read receipts' or equivalent are acceptable. See here also. Remember, this is not tracking URLs or images. It's logged by the software and emails are sent by the software for the express purpose of PM.

I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I'd like to know the basis for the claim.

 

Each state is different, but here in SA normal mail and email are acceptable methods to send notice. And having sent it is good enough proof for tribunal that its been received.

 

I'm sorry I can't say too much specific. What I can say is that what I'm talking about has been in the national news headlines many times over the last 2-3 months, with the problem being able to prove someone has received a communication.

Essentially, if you're covered by legislation (ie. notice can be sent by method X and this is deemed acceptable) then you're very very likely (ignoring that it's not been to the Supreme Courts or the High Court) to be ok. But if you are a private company not working to legislation, then don't rely on it (but this isn't legal advice! DYOR).

Note the citation you made was for US law, not Australian.

You've asked "why can't I do this", whereas I'd ask "on what basis is there a claim that the electronic read receipt offered by a particular piece of software can be used as legal proof?"
Can you provide more information - Australian context - for:
- Electronic communication is a legally accepted method...
- ...absolutely accepted in court...
As I said, if the method and perceived outcome are covered clearly in legislation then I personally would rest pretty easy. Otherwise...

Some references:
Signed, sealed and delivered - valid notices by email but when are they received? - Knowledge - Clayton Utz
"There is no easy answer to the question of when a contract should deem a notice sent by email to have been received"

Mostly overseas but mentions Aus: http://www.pwc.com.au/legal/assets/.../iif-28-email-contractual-notices-feb16-3.pdf
"The uncertainty in this area and the rapid speed of technological development means there is little case law on the status of email notices. For this reason, legislation has been passed in many jurisdictions to deal specifically with the particular issues arising from notices sent by email"

Service by email | Lavan
"Due to the uncertainties about proving delivery of an email, the other forms of service of notice remain the preferred methods of service"