This is how biased the tribunal is

Screenshot taken from a colleague in Victoria. Tenant has been in rent arrears from the very start (41 days now), went to tribunal who let them off because the tenant has a job interview soon which might result in income.

 

Disgusting, but doesn't surprise me.

 

Shrug, could be an 'unfair' decision, could be a fair one. We'd need to know more about the circumstances - and also how strong the grounds against adjournment were.

I've seen some truly awful applications for adjournments be granted simply because the court list was overbooked for the day and it was inevitable that one of the matters was going to be adjourned.

 

I might pull out this one at NCAT for the members' amusement.

 

They are excellent in increasing arrears and the total final claim against the tenant when inevitably they do get evicted.

To be fair, some manage to pull through though

 

That's absolutely ridiculous! So the tribunal is designed to protect dodgy tenants, not to be fair and equitable for all.

 

And......... to think i recently nearly bought another six toilets. I came to my senses and would rather focus on commercial and take my risks with start ups. I can't wait for a reasonable stock market softening or correction. I own too many toilets that i have to fix as it is

 

Hi Player, you are starting to sound like Dazz.

 

Yeah it's a joke - the tribunal in the ACT demanded that a tenant pay us circa $3k in unpaid rent.....he didn't pay up.....they didn't do much to make him. It was taking up way too much of my time so I never saw a cent.

 

The tribunal magistrates have a strong opposition to throwing someone into homelessness... which is probably a net good overall.

Yes, it sucks not being paid rent but if it were easy to evict then we'd see a whole lot of other problems much larger than some small amount of rent.

 

Is it any wonder how all the lawyers snicker about the tribunal not being a real court?

 

1. Application was under section 322 (1) of RTA: Application for possession by landlord when notice to vacate has been given. There is more to the story than just the arrears.
2. The matter was adjourned under section 331 (1)(b): The Tribunal may dismiss or adjourn an application for a possession order if the Tribunal considers that satisfactory arrangements have been or can be made to avoid financial loss to the landlord, rooming house owner, caravan park owner or caravan owner (as the case may be).

The respondent demonstrated that he had made arrangements to avoid financial loss.

A perfectly just decision given the situation even if we ignore the social good of the decision.

 

Thats a fine but impractical sentiment. even if what you're saying is correct the tribunal could have imposed some conditions, ie if job is not obtained by a certain date and rent +% of arrears not paid weekly from first paycheck that the tenant gets booted.

what if the landlord had multiple tenants behind in rent? who is going to protect them from potential homelessness?

 

satisfactory arrangements have not been made. if a payment plan (assuming job was obtained on 24th March) was fixed or even a charge over an asset of the tenant was given then sure, that could be argued. there is no arrangement made whatsoever let alone a satisfactory one.

what does arrears of rent can be paid even mean. can doesn't mean will and over how long? a month? 6 months? it means nothing.

 

My bad. should have highlighted the relevant clause:
The Tribunal may dismiss or adjourn an application for a possession order if the Tribunal considers that satisfactory arrangements have been or can be made to avoid financial loss to the landlord, rooming house owner, caravan park owner or caravan owner (as the case may be).

Can be made: An arrangement need not be made. Possibility of future arrangements even without the specifics is an adequate threshold.

I (and VCAT as well) agree with you : can does not mean will and over how long. That is why the details of arrangement are not required.
It's an easy bar for adjournment. The tribunal has interpreted it just the way it has been written. There is no bias here, maybe disappointment for the landlord and the PM.

 

The tribunal would be breaking the law if it imposes extra-judicial conditions. Tribunal is not authorized to impose arrangements during adjournment

• Landlord Insurance.
• If Portfolio is positively Geared: The other properties would provide the buffer
  
• If Portfolio is negatively Geared:Tax payer as the loss of rental income would only inflate NG claim.
• If it is so difficult to evict the tenant, it would not be easy for the banks to take possession of the properties.

 

Should have just sent around "the boys"

 

Are you offering?

 

add to this thread, my latest one

problem tenant, oven isnt working (they have a whinge with other things)
oven under warranty, took a bit long but warranty company sends out technician,
intiially they refuse to let them in , followed by abuse of the repair company, eventually, the repair company refuses to go out again,

warranty company sends out a different company, fixes unit,
2 weeks later, they are complaing its not working,
send out another guy and something else has broken down,
entire unit replaced with a different model,
1 week later, complaining, oven or cooktop is getting too hot (its supposed to get hot FFS!)

technician comes out and looks at it and says in email, unit fine, user error if there is a problem

fast fwd 3 months, after 3-4 more appearances where its been adbjourned because their side or mediator not showing up,

finally, gets ruled in my favour
a month later, back at court again because they get it reinstated saying they didnt receive notice

verdict: compensation from day 1 for $10 per day, and to get a differnet technician out to write another report saying its broken or not.

in them meantime they have been told not to pay any rent until its sorted

 

man thats so biased