Disputed rental increase

Hi all,

I'm seeking some advice regarding my current rental situation. 10 months ago I received a Notice of Proposed Rent Increase for the place I'm currently renting. The proposal was to increase the rent by $80/week. The place is in quite poor condition and we decided that we'd prefer to move somewhere else as the rent increase seemed excessive given the condition of the place. We applied for another rental and were successful pending reference checks. Of course, the rental agent for our current place asked why we wanted to leave and if there was anything else they could do to keep us there. We came to an agreement to reduce the rental increase. An increase of only $30/week was confirmed by the agent in writing via email, so we stayed.

Recently we receive another notice of increase, this time for a $150/week increase. Upon reviewing the increase, we noticed that we've inadvertently been paying the $80/week increase for the last 10 months rather than the $30/week that was agreed. After informing the agent, they initially claimed that it was too long ago to do anything about. After we pressed and provided evidence of the agreed terms, they have now said that they didn't provide a Notice of Proposed Rental Increase PDF for the $30/week increase, only an email, and therefore don't have to honor it.

If anyone familiar with the rental laws in VIC could provide some insight, that would be greatly appreciated. It seems that I can either take it to VCAT, or reduce the rent payment to match the agreed increase and let them take me to VCAT instead.

 

Courts, tribunals and agencies place more weight on written advice. Oral agreements often come down to "I said, he said" - hard to prove. Do you have anything in writing? Emails are evidentiary.

I would have noticed an extra $50 a week. It may be as simple as an admin error. I've seen this with a number of OC and property managers.

I suggest that you document who said or did what when and back this up with evidence. I use a numbered chronological format.

 

Thanks for your replies. The $50/week was just an oversight on my part. The recurring monthly direct deposit was set and I didn't look at it again.

The lower rental increase was proffered in an email from the agent, and accepted by me via email. I have sent this to them as evidence, but they're holding on to this idea that by not providing a Notice of Proposed Rent Increase with the new offer (only an email), which I assume is some sort of legal requirement for them to do that is designed to inform the tenant, they have not made a valid offer other than the $80/week increase initially proposed.

 

ask him what section of the act requires notice in PDF format

 

Don't know the law here, no offence meant but you should really get a hold of your budget and finances. No idea how you could be paying an extra couple hundred bucks a month and not notice.

 

If its agreed in writing it seems you are ahead of your payments and you need to drop it until you at back to normal. It will be on them to take you to court if they disagree

 

An agreement was reached in writing (email) so thats that as far as what rent you ought to have been paying.

The problem is that they are going to struggle to get the money back from the landlord (and Im not confident the landlord has any obligation here anyway - especially so if the agent can't produce any correspondence with the landlord agreeing to $30 instead of $80).

Regardless of whether the landlord is even required to return any money the agent knows that actually getting it will be like getting blood from stone.

From what I can see this is an error made by the agent. The agent is therefore responsible for righting you, how or where they get that money from is irrelevant.
I suspect they know this too, and I'd expect them to dig in heavily in an attempt to make thier problem your problem.

 

Doesn't need to, 8 months at $50/wk is about 34 weeks or $1,700 in advance. You've overpaid so you're in credit.

 

Folks, thanks for all your responses. They're all pretty much aligned with what I was thinking - including the bit about getting a grip on my finances

The thing I'm concerned about is that the RTA Section 498ZB states:
(1A) The notice of proposed rent increase must include—

(a) the amount of the rent increase; and
(b) the method by which the rent increase was calculated; and
(c) a statement informing the SDA resident of the SDA resident's right under section 498ZG to apply within 30 days after the notice is given to the Director to investigate and report on the proposed rent.​

...
(3A) Any proposed increase in the rent made in contravention of this section is invalid.

The email I have doesn't include 1A b&c. Does this make it invalid based on 3A? It doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what is written, but I'm not sure how my Dennis Denuto reading of the RTA holds up.

 

Unless that was being passed onto the landlord as originally proposed.

 

I read that as being the notification requirement to increase the rent and you do did receive 1a, b, and C. All that happened is you negotiatiated a different amount which by definition covers 1a and b.
C would have been covered with the orginal notice.

The absence of any of those would only prevent any increase from having legitimatly occured, but it wouldn't obviate your entitlement to reimbursement here.

 

The ledger has to reflect what has been paid, doesn't matter whether it's been disbursed or not it's a record of payment vs amount due.

 

In that case it may be invalid

 

Thanks @Terry_w. That's the main reason I haven't held payment. I'm not sure if I'm legally in the right even if I think on the face of it we reached an agreement for a lower amount.

 

Should you be looking at section 44 rent increase and not 498ZB?

I would argue these requirements are to protect the renter not the landlord otherwise this would be a loophole telling a tenant the rent will be dropped oh but sorry i missed out how I calculated it so you need to pay the original amount.

 

That's a very good comment.

Note that this section refers to advice from the LL or PM to the tenant.

If there was no compliance with this section then there is a breach.

Slightly simplified, a contract involves an offer, acceptance and consideration. The offer of a rent increase of $80/week was not accepted. While the OP was remiss in not monitoring the amount paid, the PM is liable in that the rejected offer was applied. Recovery of the $1700 or so from the PM seems apt, so the PM should be listed as a respondent.

But first try friendly. Say that a a mistake has been made and that you understand this. Seek their comments about the mistake and ask how they feel about repaying the $1700, which you should calculate to get a precise figure.

Some years ago I went to an insurance broker to get a policy. The broker found one and I paid their fee. A short time later I found a very similar policy for about half the cost.

Sections 60 and 61 of Australian Consumer Law deal with services, which must be executed with due care and skill, reasonably fit for the purpose, and of a nature, quality and condition such that they can be expected to achieve a result that the consumer makes known to the supplier. Under the ACL, consumers can seek a refund, replacement or repairs if a supplier fails to satisfy its obligations in relation to consumer guarantees.

The broker had breached these sections and I was entitled to a refund. The broker said that I would get a refund less commissions for the application and the refund. I tried to sway them, nada, and then lodged a formal complaint. I go the full refund, took months.

The PM may argue that their fee of 6 per cent or whatever is not refundable. BS. The PM has breached ACL and the remedy is set out above.

In summary there are most probably three breaches:
1 RTA;
2 contract law; and
3 ACL.

 

To play devils advocate, I think acceptance is implied simply by both A) staying on and B) paying the new amount. No need to say 'I accept'.

In any case, I'm guessing the tribunal may side with you based on email correspondence, so worth a shot. But the fact you have stayed in the house and paid the amount for 10 months suggests you have accepted. Feasibly, there could have been other discussions not documented that lead you to agree to this.

 

This is a little bit like the idea that if you let your neighbour use part of your yard, put their stuff on it etc., then at some point it legally becomes your neighbour's land. No need for you to have ever agreed to anything.

Watch where your money is going man! Hopefully you get it back.