Should my PM be doing more?

Unless it's really low... unlikely. The threshold is quite low for maximum rent assistance (as is the amount of rent assistance). Insurance is an issue. I'm a bit flummoxed on that one myself.

Centrelink is smashed at the moment. They could have registered their intention to claim and are awaiting a Centrelink response. This is the advice the government has given. Currently people are still waiting weeks for callbacks which is to say that they haven't even gotten to stage 1 of about 5 stages. Some patience here is needed.

Uber is.. well yeah... but they're otherwise getting zero until Centrelink grants and backpays so maybe it's enough to feed themselves.

 

What they are doing with their centrelink benefits is of no consequence to you or the decisions you make. Nor is it frankly, any of a landlord's business.

Once again, that is for a tenant to claim and they may have circumstances that could make them ineligible for that. A landlord getting involved in the personal financial affairs of a tenant is over stepping the mark.

I understand why you are doing it but it is not justified.

 

You realise that quote in red was not from me, but from WA government? Direct copy and paste from their FAQ which I linked.

Whether a tenant has savings or not (or any other government benefits), is inconsequential to the landlord's decision for hardship.

A bit like LLs encouraging or asking if tenants have dipped into super.

This is where the line is being crossed and is unacceptable.

 

I don't think you quite understand the art of negotiation. Your idea of a negotiation is to fold and come halfway. That's stupid.

In a real negotiation, you try and work out what everyone's bottom line is, because without this, you have no negotiation power.

In Peter's case, he simply can't reduce rent due to insurances etc.. and 50% is ridiculous. He also isn't under any financial constraints where he has to accept a lower amount or sell, and probably could quite easily have this property un-tenanted for some time. He has clearly stated that he just wants to tenants to pay what they can and will work out the rest later. He also knows that the tenants will likely receive some government support which will cover the rent to some degree later on. He is also not caving to demands because he knows the tenants need him more than he needs them.

On the other hand, the tenants have lost their job and are demanding reduction in rent (50%!!, not even a reasonable reduction , and is not proving how they can even pay this amount). Their bottom line is that they still need somewhere to live and can't move out. So its fair to say, that they should be the ones making a reasonable offer.

Moral of the story- these tenants are going nowhere fast with their demands.

 

The tenants are doing this, landlords refusing and tenants basically saying well if you won't budge, neither will we.

Everyone loses, LL gets nothing, has no prospect of rent for 6 months and will need to find a new tenant, at a lower rate in due course.

I understand how negotiation works.

50% of something is better than 0% of everything.

 

You're right. What they're doing is none of their business.

I kind of figured that this was a bit of give and take from both sides. Work together and all that. I guess I'd just like some assurances that they're not simply taking advantage of the current environment to get a freebie at my expense.

If they're ineligible for assistance, then we'll work out what is possible. So far they haven't indicated this.

I suppose could take the position that I simply evict them at the first opportunity (might have to wait until October), put them on a blacklist and engage a debt collector to follow up. This probably doesn't help anyone though.

 

[

Yes, whilst I feel that it is probably not in any landlord's interests to agree to formal rent reduction or waiver etc at this time, it doesn't mean we are going to pursue a good tenant for money they can't pay after the end of 6 months where the tenant acted in good faith - some assurance to a tenant that just because we aren't agreeing to anything in writing doesn't mean we are going to immediately turf them out and send them to a debt collector at the end of this would surely be ok for insurance and legal purposes.

 

If you're having a reasonable and open conversation with your tenants I think they should disclose that they're trying to get Centrelink payments (awaiting this huge backlog perhaps) or that they're ineligible. It is a private thing though and there is still a stigma associated with it. Hopefully that stigma is dropped quicksmart during this pandemic and people feel they can discuss it more openly because it would definitely help your discussions if they were forthcoming with more details. You're not asking for a hardship form after all (I cannot abide by those).

If you're being reasonable in these absurd times I think they can offer up a little extra info even if it is a little embarrassing (it shouldn't be but that's the stigma we've created over the years and it persists even during a pandemic).

 

Lol. That's not how a negotiation works. Why the hell would they meet in the middle if Party A has no legal basis to ask for the thing and party B is legally entitled to stand on their position?

Are you going to negotiate with me and give me $50 when I send you a letter asking for $100?

I take EFT or cheque btw.

 

Lots of "should" statements on the consumer FAQ.

@thatbum whats your legal thought on "should" in tenancy laws in W.A?

 

Law hasn't changed in WA, and the inside word from my sources are that its not likely to for quite a few weeks.

Its really business as usual mostly. The FAQ doesn't seem add much to anything from what I can tell.

 

The Consumer Protection site (sounds like an advocacy group - gotta love government naming) has advice in line with the inevitable eviction moratorium. Their advice is to act as though it's in place and they even go into details on what you can and can't ask from tenants to prove hardship. Your magistrates court (which is, unbelievably mostly operating in many areas as normal to my surprise) says nothing at this point but I'm not sure their FAQ should - it's about process, generally.

They're currently working on amending legislation to reflect this advice according to Consumer Protection. So... sounds about as messy as everywhere. I don't know what advice might have been slipped under the door of the magistrates court but I suspect that 30 day hardship clause will come in handy while they get their ducks in a row. Anything already in motion that cannot be stopped by legislation should be ok everywhere because, by the simple consideration of time, the breaches must have occurred outside this period of crisis. That is to say, those tenants weren't paying their rent before coronavirus started killing jobs.

For current cases it sounds like a waste of time, and a little dodgy, to pursue eviction given that it takes, what, 5 weeks + 1 month hardship rule to get tenants out. If they're not paying due to hardship as a result of the pandemic do you really think it's going to be business as usual? WA Government is advising the opposite and they make it sound unlikely that they expect this to take long to amend.

WA Government advice to tenants and Landlords is roughly the same as everywhere else. And the legislation, like everywhere else, is lacking (apart from NSW where it's in place but not active!) It's all so clear.. like mountain stream mud.

I was talking to a colleague today (WA expat) who mentioned a lot of the above so it wasn't hard to find and have a quick glance.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this long post. Do I need to repeat myself?

Its business as usual. Laws haven't changed. Court procedures haven't changed for residential tenancy matters.

Its not "waste of time" or "a little dodgy" to pursue eviction if you have grounds and want to in WA. I'd probably be professionally negligent if I peddled that sort of advice - so maybe you shouldn't do it either.

 

I'm saying that WA government advice conflicts with yours. Just pointing it out... It's in black and white (or whatever their colour scheme is).

Absolutely true. Yet government advice has. It's brilliant. That's what I'm trying to get at.

I was quoting Western Australian government advice firstly and going from there. Are you saying you're going to advise clients, at this point onward, that if people aren't paying rent due to hardship caused by coronavirus that it's "business as usual"? Personally, I would question that.

It's fine to disagree but it's at odds with WA department advice and I'd simply ask this: Do you think you can start an eviction from scratch, right now, and get through the 6-8+ weeks (depending on what stage you step in) it'd likely take for the eviction to stick before the laws are in place?

If not then it's a waste of time...

My main point, however, rather than trying to prod the bees nest, was to point out that WA is the same as everywhere else with government advice and legislation: mismatched and muddy. Did you read the government advice? It should be taken into consideration surely. To not do so would be, dare I say, negligent. (I shouldn't have to put this here but it's text so.... j/k). Let's lighten up.

I'm on everyone's side, including yours, believe it or not. I think this whole thing is a mismanaged mess for all parties.