VIC Tenants having surveillance equipment

37. yep. Maybe got the percentage a bit wrong.

 

I prefer to leave that off a public forum atm.
It's 100% non-complent.

It's easy to fix though. Of the other things - won't cost money to fix, only need to be done.

 

Since the property is so big, how could their video cameras possibly be affecting the person you say rents the farmland?

 

All of this is just another reason WHY when buying a property you should do so with vacant possession
Then you get to screen the incoming tenants properly, do any maintenance items prior to leasing, and have an ingoing condition report

Ok, so does this tenant have a lease, or are they periodic ?

 

Bolded area may probably be an issue where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy

See also link re various states if an issue

 

The tenants house is on 7 acres of a 37 acre property. And the backyard is the remaining 30 acre parcel of land - which is being used as a farm.

So it’s unlikely that the cameras are interfering with the neighbours.

And sounds like the neighbours haven’t complained ...

 

So no reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to the external CCTV

 

Ok, I'll try to explain better.
The 7 acres are bordering the rest of the 30 acres, from 3 sides.
It's not the back yard.

Cameras that are monitoring part of the property they lease, can and will capture area outside of their property, an area that will be used by someone else who leases the farmland from me.

To be completely honest, I don't see this as a major issue.
I wanted know more about the legal stand of video and audio recording of me and people I send (like tradies), who might not want to be recorded. Not cause they are going to do anything wrong, but mainly cause they don't feel comfortable.
Be honest, if you're a plumber who need to get to a house to fix a leak and you're on cam, won't that make you feel like "huh??? what the hell?"
I know it's not suppose to be an issue, but I reckon it might.

I'm also quite surprised that the law does not provide the privacy to the those who legally have permission to enter to ask to not be on camera.
They are very big on the privacy and quite enjoyment of tenants, but very little regard to people who suppose to support their tenancy.

When you hit a 37 acres not too far from Melbourne CBD (relative. some people will think it's the end of the world), with the most amazing views, for a price one can afford - the fact it has tenants, even bad ones - is not something you consider.
Since I bought (not too long ago, just before prices started to go bonanza - and I striked a deal of a lifetime.

Lease.
The tenants, regardless of their cams and bogan friends will be leaving at the end of tenancy. They kinda indicate that they aware this love story won't last.
They either submit an intention to vacate or will be getting a notice to vacate with the proper reason and notice time, supported by documents.
They might decide to play the waiting game, but VCAT will have no choice but to award me possession order (I will comply word to word with the act).

They might try to trash the place, but as I mentioned - they are family with young kids. They live locally all their life, their family and schools are all around here.
They can't do a runner (they can, but very unlikely), so trashing the place will land then in really hot water with police report and insurance on their back.
Not to mention it's a smallish community - it'll make it almost impossible to rent a place.

I hope they have the sense to know that this is not gonna be to their advantage.
It will create some financial uncomfortableness for me, but it's not going to bring me down.

So yeah, I really hope they'll figure out the nasty game going both ways and playing reasonable with me probably will yield better end result for them.

Will see I guess.

 

A good PM should have been able to tell you your rights in regards to photos and videoing (if they don't know then they can ask the law firm associated with them at THEIR coist)

Crazy people questioning why OP action when confronted by a obstructing woman. With video everywhere it never looks good for the male. The female could just take a dive (soccer style) and OP would be in a world of pain. OP did the right thing (not worth the hassle of a police investigation even though proven to be innocent later)

 

I have camera's at home, outside and inside

I couldn't give a stuff what anyone/trades think

If they don't like it then it will be interpreted that they have something to hide


Long before ever getting the camera's we have always told the kids to act and behave as they would if their mother was standing there watching
In public, if you wouldn't do it in front of your mother then you probably shouldn't do it


Yes I have cams inside and out with months of recording storage, it may seem OTT to most, but when the police show up to your workplace and take you away and lock you up to investigate allegations of assult made by the stepdaughter (police imply/assume it is sexual of course) all because after playing off her mum and dad she didn't get her own way she lashed out........
These cams saved me from enduring that a further 3 times, and later saved that daughters child (when her mother was shaking and hitting her 3 month old)

I have signs about the camera's around outside (incl audio recording), don't like the idea then turn around and leave

 

This.
I very quickly figured out I'm gonna be in trouble if I'm not gone.
Either I'll be hurt or I will be framed for something. I left as fast as I could.

But it does bring the question, does PMs and other LLs, mainly males, come in pairs to make sure they have witness?
Maybe everyone who comes to someone's else house (like tradie, technician, PM, family visitors) they should all wear bodycams... It's just crazy.

Unless you need this tradie to fix your hot water system and he's gonna charge you for the visit and will go in unless you turn them off.

That's the back story that makes it look less extreme.
You have good reason for that.

However, for most, being recorded while being somewhere is not a good feel.
If I come to a friend's house, and they have cams all over the place, I'd probably gonna make sure the next visits are in my place.
Again, it's not about that you will do and how naughty it is - it's more about the feeling of being watched and recorded.
It's basically the core of privacy: the feeling you're not being watched.

 

I doubt "most" people feel intimidated by being recorded.

People can do what they want in their own home (or the toilet), the laws are pretty specific about where you can legally put a camera to record (not in a bedroom/bathroom/changeroom/other's private residence, and what can actually be done with digital footage these days) !

Pretty much anywhere (and becoming EVEYWHERE) else you go in this world today YOU are recorded on camera

Absolutely nothing you can do about it, at the supermarket, driving your car, every second new house, walking down the street, at your local park
Our friends are well aware of the camera's and couldn't care less.
If the plumber won't fix my hot water due to a cam on the corner of my home then he has issues ! If you wish to enter the tenants home to inspect your property then you accept that you will be recorded, or you can choose not to enter, simple, you have no right to expect them to be turned off.
I mow people's lawns, I see heaps of cams, I don't care, I have nothing to hide.

YOUTUBE and Facebook wouldn't exist without so many funny things being so easily recorded in today's world

If someone is that paranoid or don't like it then they can go live in a brick bubble in the bush

 

Pretty much with traffic cameras, dash cams, doorbell cams etc.

Cheap and easy-to-install cameras and monitoring apps are becoming more and more common in private homes. Rural Properties are also increasingly using them for security, monitoring stock and water levels, keeping an eye on fuel, etc

 

Also on building sites, remote or secluded locations, shops/shopping centres, car parks etc.

 

Actually, when looking at the act; Division 5, 60 (2):

(2) A renter must not—
.....
in any manner that causes an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any
occupier of neighbouring premises.
​

Which means that if the renter of the farmland is telling me they feel uncomfortable with the camera pointing in their direction, the renters are breaching their duty.

Didn't sound to me that anyone can just put a camera where ever they want and there's no protection (outside the boundary of their property).

 

Yeah that's not a correct interpretation. What do you think reasonable means in that context?

That provision is similar to the lessor's obligation not to breach the tenant's quiet enjoyment. Doesn't your own interpretation mean you've breached it by pointing your camera somewhere where the tenants felt uncomfortable?

 

Lost you there...

What do you mean it's wrong interpretation?
And what does the second paragraph means?

If one tenant claim they feel uncomfortable and that their privacy is being breached by the other tenant, in the way of pointing a camera in their face - I'm sure VCAT won't be very pleased with it.
I'm also confident that they will be all over the fences if my tenant (or me, by using my right to use my land) set up a camera that is capturing their property. They'll claim it's invading their privacy and voiding their quite enjoyment.

Not much different if they stand on their side and abusing the guy on the other side.
The tenants have duties in regards to their neighbours.

It's goes hand in hand.

 

I don't think what you're suggesting going to even come close to being a breach of a neighbour's reasonable privacy.

And I'm saying that somehow you've crafted that generous interpretation against the tenants, but wouldn't that same interpretation mean that you're breaching your tenant's private enjoyment by taking photos of your tenant's residence and personal belongings?

What's the difference?

I can think of two differences. The latter took place in someone's own home. And by someone using a frivolous notice to vacate to arguably bully the tenants into getting their own way.

 

Why not just breach them on the cannabis grow house (my guess from the non-description of the modification)?