Rent Increases

But I do not think it matters, what matters is that it was sent and got to the address, if the person/s at the address just throw it in the bin, bad luck for them I guess. Maybe even just proving you too the time to comply with the requirements & or be reasonable may be what counts.

At the end of the day, if a tenant wants to be difficult, well it is not going to be much fun for anyone, including themselves in the end.

 

This isn't necessary. As @D.T. said, proof it has been sent it enough proof. We have experience with this as an agency directly. The US citation was merely to demonstrate that yes, it can be proven in court with the appropriate backing legislation (see below). As we basically all operate under the Westminster system, it's fair to assume that aside from specific legislative exclusions, a court in Australia would rule the same way.

I think this is the point, when electronic communication is permitted by law, you can prove you've sent and you have a date and time stamp to show they've opened it, suggesting that any further proof is required is nonsensical and not how it works.

Yes, the Electronic Communications Act 2001, with specific sections relating to this exact argument.

There is also the Electronics Act 1999.

Here is also an interesting document on the acceptance of Electronic Signatures. Not directly related to email provisions but related to electronic correspondence nonetheless.

Furthermore, the General Tenancies Agreement Form 18a Section 44 states, under the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act 2001 (my bolding):

(3) A notice may be given to a party to this agreement or the lessor’s agent – (a) by giving it to the party or agent personally; or (b) if an address for service for the party or agent is stated in this agreement for item 1, 2 or 3 – by leaving it at the address, sending it by prepaid post as a letter to the address; or (c) if a facsimile number for the party or agent is stated in this agreement for item 1, 2 or 3 and item 4 indicates that a notice may be given by facsimile – by sending it by facsimile to the facsimile number in accordance with the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001; or (d) if an email address for the party or agent is stated in this agreement for item 1, 2 or 3 and item 4 indicates that a notice may be given by email – by sending it electronically to the email address in accordance with the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001.

Going one step further with respect to the use of email in negotiations and contractual obligations, this very surprising ruling by the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that a normal email with an offer constituted a contractual obligation, even though a contract had not been signed! I think it's fair to say if they're ruling on contractual obligations being met by way of standard email without signature for multi-hundred thousand dollar transactions then the onus of proof on a company that is meeting all communication obligations under the Act and as authorised by the tenant when they enter into a tenancy agreement is probably going to be in favour of the sender.