The landlord, the tenant, the chain-smoking neighbour and the $11,000 fine

The landlord, the tenant, the chain-smoking neighbour and the $11,000 fine

 

Yep, welcome to progressive madness.

What next?
Will be interesting what comes out of this as far as legislation goes.

I must admit that I fail to be convinced by how the smoke got into her apartment if she had the windows and doors closed, seems to be making out that it's coming in "internally" ?

Is it illegal to smoke in your own "home" ?
Can the landlord indeed stop people smoking in their properties?

 

It's SMH, which stands for Shake My Head

There's probably a lot more to it that they aren't telling us.

Based on whats there, I think the owner could be successful in passing that bill onto the body corp.

 

Yeah that might be the behind the scenes answer. Apart from that, its not that controversial for the landlord to be responsible for it to the tenant at first instance.

 

So it's ok to report a story but not tell the whole truth?
What is it with media, how do they get away with this sensationalism/guilting of people ?

Should be censored to "report" and not disturb the facts.
Keep opinion based articles separate from the "news".
Just my opinion.

 

I suspect nothing will come out of this because its not even a particularly controversial application of the current tenancy laws - hardly "progressive madness".

 

I might have to take my landlord to court. The house I rent has a road in front of it, which has cars passing by all the time with toxic emissions. The landlord needs to block the traffic so I'm safe.

 

Cigarette smoke from neighbouring premises can indeed seep in and cause quite an impact. At a premises I rented in London, a neighbour went away and her son invited his friends over and they smoked non-stop and partied so hard the drinking glasses shook in my cupboards. The cigarette smoke was so invasive that it literally got into my doona. So foul. It was dealt with by pointing out to the lady when she got back what had happened, that it was a no-smoking building, and that if there was one more singe occurrence of even one cigarette smoked in the building, I'd report them to the building superintendent and the fire brigade. It never recurred, but yes, the smoke of a neighbour really got into my apartment and got into all the soft furnishings. Even the curtains had to be washed several times over.

With that said, I don't see why the landlord should be fined for it, especially since the poor guy didn't even own the offending apartment. I suppose that in such a case there is only two parties in front of the "judge" and one of them has to be the loser. The landlord of the offending property wasn't the plaintiff or defendant. So....

 

It is an odd outcome however the lessor will need to put the onus back onto the adjoining unit owner and to the BC.

 

Wow! I'd like to believe there's more to it, otherwise were becoming more and more like the USA.

Would LL insurance help out in anyway with this?

 

I wonder if you could argue that the cigarette smoke was a "guest" that caused malicious damage

 

news The landlord, the tenant, the chain-smoking neighbour and the $11,000 fine worth reading.

 

The worlds gone crazy...

 

"The owner of the apartment below was apparently reluctant to evict the tenant or stop her from smoking given her ill health."

"Smoking was allowed in the apartments and the owners corporation declined to intervene, suggesting instead that the owner, Dr Bhandari, take action against the owners of the flat below."

"The tribunal heard that "most afternoons and evenings the leased premises were affected by smoke from downstairs and to quite a considerable extent", noting that "somehow there is a mechanical problem in the internal ventilation passages of the strata that is allowing the smoke to pass from the downstairs unit into the inside areas of the upstairs unit"."

All this sounds like a strata issue rather than an individual landlord responsibility, and yet he also lost the appeal and one would assume that the issue remains.

 

Its always someone's fault and the landlord was the softest target in this case.

 

That's concerning because it seems that the Strata just palmed the issue off to the landlord when relevantly, the structural issues are questioned.

 

After all he is a doctor and apart from knowing that passive smoke is bad for your health he can also easily afford to compensate for other peoples actions.

 

The tribunal noted that "although this was of no fault of his own, he [Dr Bhandari] still has the responsibility to undertake the necessary steps to ensure" a habitable premises, ordering him to pay damages of $11,681, including rent reduction, packing and removal of $2800 and a refund on Ms Laming's blinds of $900.
Quote..