Victoria rental laws reform,

Discussion in 'Legal Issues' started by KinG3o0o, 7th Sep, 2018.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
Tags:
  1. KinG3o0o

    KinG3o0o Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Jul, 2017
    Posts:
    1,074
    Location:
    Sydney
    triple it if u ask me.

    so basically imagine these scenario. pet and owner damage property,
    leave at the last month without paying last month's rent
    leaving no bond to collect for repairs because bond is used to cover last month rent.

    tribunal ? means property manager needs to be fighting and chasing tenants.
    extra trouble if damage to strata property means now strata gets involved.

    you could argue thats what insurance is for.

    now who pays for that insurance premium?
    fact is this is a political move and not something for the interest of tenants, short term wise especially if owners now are short on cash, might in the long term if owners "wakes up" tenants suffers.
     
  2. Lil Skater

    Lil Skater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,109
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Whilst I do agree with the above, bond is not high enough - trying to prevent these situations starts at the application stage. If you're being diligent checking applications, this should hopefully avoid a lot of situations where you need VCAT.
     
  3. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,788
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    It's a shame that higher bond wasn't pushed for in the new round of amendments. I feel like that would have been one of the few reasonable trade offs that were within possible reach in exchange for more security of tenure for tenants.

    Although I also feel like Victorian LLs and PMs ought to have used the current laws that allow more than 4 weeks bond a bit more than they have - so that there might have been more of an acceptable industry practice behind it now than there is.
     
    Lil Skater likes this.
  4. Paul@PAS

    Paul@PAS Tax, Accounting + SMSF + All things Property Tax Business Plus Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    23,319
    Location:
    Sydney
    Tenants will have the right to keep pets, provided they obtain the landlord’s written consent first which can only be refused by order of VCAT. The onus will be on the landlord to get approval from VCAT to refuse consent to a pet, once they have received the request from the renter.

    The reforms dont appear to prohibit asking the applicants for lease if they have pets (and their details) at the time of application to rent. Landlord doesnt need to consent or apply to VCAT if they dont approve the tenants.

    Reforms dont mention if a fee can be charged to deal with lease application. eg charge $0 if you have no pets and $XXX if you seek to have pets that may be reason to apply to VCAT to refuse the consent. The VCAT process will definitely impose costs on the landlord to refuse unreasonable requests OR to have a higher bond imposed.

    Reform 22 has a way out I suspect. It says : The reform does not prevent RRPs and agents from accepting a rental bid if it is offered unprompted by a prospective renter. A real nudge nudge wink wink - The landlord would consider rental requests by a tenant without pets and make the bid about a NON-rent issue eg pets. Its not a bidding war if two parties each offer to pay the fixed rent and one has no dodgy pet issues.
     
  5. d_walsh

    d_walsh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Mar, 2018
    Posts:
    164
    Location:
    Australia
    Will be curious to see whether a landlord’s approval ‘with conditions’ is considered compliant or if it’s considered refusal and therefore VCAT application required. I notice the excerpt @Paul@PFI posted doesn’t say unconditional approval.

    No doubt it will eventually be tested by someone in VCAT. In the interim, any thoughts? Could a landlord approve subject to an increased bond, but call it something else like “pet damage guarantee” (held in PM trust account), pass on the cost of increased insurance, or add on a ‘pet loading’ to rent (say 10%) given increased risks?
     
  6. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,788
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    I can't think of any conditions that wouldn't either be void or redundant off the top of my head.
     
    Lil Skater likes this.
  7. d_walsh

    d_walsh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Mar, 2018
    Posts:
    164
    Location:
    Australia
    On what basis?
     
  8. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,788
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    Because they would either be unlawful under the Act or redundant because the legal rights already exist.

    For example your "pet damage guarantee" just sounds like a way to take another bond above the normal limits. Charging an additional fee would be unlawful generally speaking, and charging more rent is pretty much just a refusal of permission.
     
  9. d_walsh

    d_walsh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Mar, 2018
    Posts:
    164
    Location:
    Australia
    I think an approval with conditions is different to a refusal.

    Currently, many landlords would simply refuse, regardless of additional conditions or not. Now they cannot. Of course, if they impose such unrealistic or unreasonable conditions that it’s intended to defeat the new provisions entirely, I can understand that it can be deemed effective refusal.

    What would those additional conditions contradict under the Act to make it unlawful? I made analogies to bond, rent increase etc in the way it might operate only, not to tack on to those existing items. They might share some features, but be 2 separate things.
     
  10. Paul@PAS

    Paul@PAS Tax, Accounting + SMSF + All things Property Tax Business Plus Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    23,319
    Location:
    Sydney
    Nobody said rent cant be refused. A lease cant exclude pets. But i dont read where a landlord must agree to pets vs one without pets
     
  11. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,788
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    The problem is that every state pretty much has a standard lease agreement and nearly any attempt to add terms to the standard conditions would be an attempt to modify the legislated legal position - which would be both unlawful and void.

    There are very few exceptions to this rule.

    So you can't take another bond above the normal limits, and you generally can't ask for any fees or money from a tenant outside of the bond and the rent in advance. You can try and call it something different, but if they are in effect another bond or additional fees, then a tribunal or fair trading body will shut that down quick smart.

    And I don't think an "approval" with conditions is really legally different to a refusal. Not with any conditions that actually mean anything anyway.

    True, but I can't think of what a LL/REA can do about a tenant who says they don't have a pet, and then brings one in after day 1 of the lease.
     
  12. Peter_Tersteeg

    Peter_Tersteeg Mortgage Broker Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    8,130
    Location:
    03 9877 3000
    Realistically the whole pet thing is a bit of a non event.

    Right now, you can exclude applications that include pets. If the tenants subsequently get a pet, you can't evict them or insist that the remove the pet, unless the pet is causing damage.

    With these laws, you can still ask if they have a pet. You can also refuse any application without giving any reason at all. You can't evict a tenant for having a pet, unless the pet is causing damage to the property.

    The benefit of these changes is prospective tenants are more likely to disclose existing pets. The downside is they're more likely to get a pet once they've moved in, although they are more likely to inform landlords of this fact.

    On balance, I'd say it's a slight win for landlords, but most tenants wouldn't actually realise this.
     
  13. Coffee

    Coffee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    173
    Location:
    Canberra
    Besides the pet issue. I would be more worried about reform 70. RRP get into big debit to provide accommodation to renters and the government start telling us what we can and can't do with our IP.
    I'm from Canberra, so expect a tread to start later in the year on what the (ACT government AKA Labor/Greens) have in store for us IP owners.

    Reform 70.
    RRPs will be able to issue an ‘end of fixed term’ notice to vacate at the end of the first fixed term of a residential rental agreement, but not for any subsequent fixed terms. Renters will now be able to issue a 14-day notice of intention to vacate before the end of the first fixed term, in response to receiving an end of fixed term notice. This reform reflects the view that the first rental agreement is often a trial period for both the renter and RRP. It may be, by the end of the first term that the RRP does not wish to continue the relationship because they would like to rent the property to a new occupant. For subsequent fixed terms however, the ability to terminate using this notice will be removed, so that the RRP will only be able to terminate for a reason prescribed by the Residential Tenancies Act.
     
  14. Paul@PAS

    Paul@PAS Tax, Accounting + SMSF + All things Property Tax Business Plus Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    23,319
    Location:
    Sydney
    The reforms assume tenant consent is requested and then its approved but pet rights are not automatic. The reforms dont blindly give consent to pets
     
    Coffee likes this.
  15. Ricki barkham

    Ricki barkham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Aug, 2018
    Posts:
    300
    Location:
    Pakenham
    So your all practicaly saying that a renter can do what they want with our properties amd all we can do is take them to vcat to there bond which may or may not cover the damages.

    Sounds like they have more rights with our properties and the legislation back them over the owners.
     
  16. thatbum

    thatbum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    5,788
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    Except this has always pretty much been the case, and the new round of amendments don't drastically change the balance as much as you probably think.

    A residential tenancy agreement has always been about signing away a huge number of rights away in exchange for rent.
     
  17. Joynz

    Joynz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5th Apr, 2016
    Posts:
    5,751
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I think the fear expressed by some people about the changes is out of proportion.

    Of course, it’s natural to be wary of the unknown, but let’s see how it works in practice.
     
  18. Coffee

    Coffee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    173
    Location:
    Canberra
    1. Seems Investors are being forced to accept pets.
    2. After the 1st year of renting, we are forced to jump hoops to move a renter on if they stay a 2nd year.

    Two issues I can see which would affect me. And I don't even live in Victoria! Any reason why I should not be concerned.

    You haven't seen the holes in the back yard a dog left next door. Then I had to live with a dog barking for 3-4 hours per day when the owners was not home. Only lived with that as the tenant was having a house built and moved out after 9 months.

    I have very good experiences in why I have zero tolerance with dogs.
     
    Last edited: 15th Sep, 2018
  19. Ricki barkham

    Ricki barkham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Aug, 2018
    Posts:
    300
    Location:
    Pakenham
    I do a lot of work fixing up yards afteres renterz leave and my bos says do a quick job cos there already exceeding there bond.

    So have to level ground and put soil down a seed to clean up alot. Probably do 1 place a week
     

Price Accounting are a leading tax service for your property + tax issues. Contact Paul@PFI for property focussed tax services using our client portal access, digital signing and checklist based approach for best pricing. Free client pack included.