Victorian Rental Reforms

I don't think there will too much grey on this one. My guess is that pets will be allowed unless the lessor can show a clear external reason why pets can't be allowed (such as it being against strata laws).

I'm pretty sure the bar will be very high.

 

I think VCAT will be tied up initially, but as @thatbum has said I think VCAT’s rules will become clear very quickly and I expect there would need to be a very valid reason to deny the pets. Such as a horse in an apartment, an excessive number, against council regs, against OC, dangerous breed or a property with some form of significance/overlay.

 

I just read this on REIV site, anyone has opinion:-

Interstate landlords left in the lurch following Court of Appeal decision
Date: 6 Mar 20

REIV President Leah Calnan says a recent decision by the Court of Appeal, stating VCAT cannot rule on cases where the landlord resides outside of Victoria will create more questions than answers.

VCAT has been the common arena for rental disputes within Victoria since its inception, regardless of where the landlord resides.

The Victorian Court of Appeal recently changed that, when they ruled that VCAT cannot decide the outcome of a dispute when the parties are residents of different Australian states.

The new ruling means that interstate investors that own property in Victoria are no longer covered under VCAT’s jurisdiction.

Ms Calnan said the decision to exclude interstate landlords would create a lot of legal headaches.
“Cutting out interstate owners of Victorian property from having their cases heard in VCAT is absurd.” Ms Calnan said.

“Restricting landlords that don’t reside in Victoria, from being able to access VCAT creates a multitude of problems for both landlords and tenants.”

“This decision casts doubt on whether interstate landlords are susceptible to Victorian rental laws and could also result in tenants involved in disputes forced to travel interstate to have their cases heard.”

“The REIV will seek urgent action by the Victorian government to investigate this matter and ensure the Victorian investor market isn’t adversely affected.”

“With rental vacancy rates for 2019 sitting at 2.2% this is just another area of concern that may see investors leave the market and cause even higher rental shortages.”

“Victoria is a strong real estate market that has attracted investors from across the globe, having interstate owners of Victorian rental properties is extremely common.”

“This new interpretation will create mayhem for borders towns, like Wodonga, Echuca and Mildura, you could own a property a couple of hundred metres away and still not be covered by VCAT.”

“This decision creates stress and confusion to both landlords, property managers and tenants alike; they all deserve to know which judicial body they are covered by.”

“The Court of Appeal’s interpretation could also question the validity of previous VCAT decisions involving non-Victorian landowners.”

“We want Victoria to remain open for business; a lack of legal clarification has the potential to spook off new investors.”

Media contact:
Andrew Kilmartin

 

That’s correct, it’s been the case in a few other states for years.

I brought this up with the members at a forum last year and frustratingly they said they were ignoring the case from NSW and treating themselves as a court - but of course did nothing to change it before it became an issue.

For now we’re being told to apply as normal and it will be referred to another VCAT member who can hear magistrates cases. This is the process in SA and we’re unsure if this will be the norm to come for Victoria too - but sounds like that is what is happening at the minute.

Unfortunately I don’t know of a case as yet that has proceeded with an interstate landlord/tenant - but when I do will certainly update.

 

In generql, What is the best way to deal with this kind of cases - VCAT or Court?

 

Well, it’s hard to say. The magistrates court generally doesn’t deal with these cases and you would normally be making an application to VCAT because they deal with it on the daily, and it’s a lot cheaper.

Going forward though, who knows. It’s a decision that only came out in the last week or so, which means there’s going to have to be some trial and error before we know the best way forward - especially while there’s discussion on whether the legislation needs to be changed, which will take some time.

 

I thought I'd check in here before contacting my PM. It appears our tenant now has a dog. I understand that the laws regarding pets have changed. Is the tenant still required to ask permission for the dog and do I have 2 weeks to say no and go to VCAT?

Can someone shed light on what the process is from tenant and landlord ends. TIA

 

That's pretty much it in short. I guess in the meantime its a prima facie breach of the lease agreement?

 

Yep, pretty much. I couldn’t find the breach notice just yet on VCAT online (a few days ago), but that is the process. Breach, tenant will need to submit for approval and then if you wish to knock it back you would need to take it to VCAT to have the pet excluded.

 

Just thought I'd update: PM enquired and pets were just visiting. Yet a few weeks later they are still there. PM enquired again and sent a pet request form (how nice of them - they should have sent a breach IMO - because it is up to them to get the required form and apply). The pets are someone else's and the new reason is they are being housed by the tenant due to the 'current situation'.
Yes - we are lodging an objection through VCAT (whether it's futile or not).

It's simple - if you want pets - fine. Make a formal request to the landlord and in return, the landlord will allow where they can (secure yard, appropriate property, type of pet). Easy.
(And yes - we do allow pets where appropriate)

But wait for March 2, sneak pets in, deny they are there, wait to be caught out again and then use the current COVID situation is ridiculous!

 

I'm curious why you're even bothering with all this when ultimately you probably can't do anything legally about it anyway.

 

I am bothering because landlords have rights too. We have to follow and abide by the rules and processes and it should go both ways otherwise a lease agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.
We have already had to 'forgive' a significant breach by this tenant. We were unable to terminate because the tenant has a lease in place. 'Pets were just visiting' was the excuse.

 

The new laws mean you can apply to VCAT to exclude a pet, however the VCAT application is per pet (so just keep that in mind).

If you do take it to VCAT, please let us all know how you go. I just saw the first post go up on a page today about pets (likely only the first or second hearing because of the length of time to get a hearing). It went to mediation and not a hearing, mediation you can state your terms and the tenant agree or it will go to a hearing. Interesting.

 

Thanks for the heads up about application per pet - my PM didn't mention this. Yes - will keep all updated.

 

Our rights are being stripped to remove a tenant who refuses to pay rent or for any reason at all and people are worried about pet hair or fleas or a urine stain on the carpet on something?

 

Do you have a tenant that has stopped paying rent due to the moratorium?

 

Not yet but it isn't even firm law in most states and how many landlords here have had significant damage done to their properties beyond the bond due to tenants bringing in pets? The amount of fuss that was kicked up over tenants being allowed to bring in pets (whilst still allowing the landlord to appeal to tribunal to refuse an inapporiate pet) seems to be more than the fuss over these new laws which could cause far more cost. How much damage do landlords think sneaking in a cat can do?

 

These are two separate issues. When the government brings in a moratorium on evictions - I can't do anything about that. I need to abide by the rules.
When my tenant brings 2 dogs into the property without requesting permission - I have avenues I can take to address this. I have genuine reasons for not wanting dogs living inside this particular property.
I don't believe there is more fuss over pets as opposed to the moratorium. I think property managers have been very proactive in this area and representing their landlords well in terms of informing tenants of the various avenues available to them if in hardship.

 

Yes but do you even have a reasonable legal basis to refuse permission for the pet? You talk about following the rules, but the rules are that permission can't be unreasonably refused.

No point pursuing a legal cause of action that doesn't even have reasonable prospects of success - first thing any lawyer will tell you.

The second thing will be that spending unnecessary time, effort, and money on a legal claim just on the 'principle' of the thing is also dumb.

 

VCAT will decide if my reason for refusal is unreasonable.

How many victims haven't pursued their perpetrators due to this way of thinking?

I have a genuine reason for my objection to pets in this particular property. I am not dumb.