One of the things this Regulation will do is provide a standard form of residential tenancy agreement, so that landlords (who are responsible for preparing written agreements) don't fall prey to unscrupulous solicitors, who might charge a fee for their "agreement preparation" services...
They wont have to, because an already prepared agreement will be coming to a website near you (sheer genius!) Or so we hope.
We think this is a good idea, because we'd hate for landlords to find an excuse to put the rent up. But, because we like to be cautious, we've gone over the proposed standard form agreement with a fine tooth comb, to see if it includes anything untoward, or just plain silly.
We haven't been disappointed...
"The tenant agrees, when this agreement ends, to make sure that all the light globes on the premises are working" (cl 17.5). "The landlord agrees that all light globes on the residential premises are working on the commencement of the tenancy" (cl 18.2).
One can only assume that the agreement will come with instructions on how to repair a broken light globe. If not, perhaps the smart thing to do will be to pack up all your light globes and take them with you when you move. Chances are, you'll be needing them.
Aside from that, there's not much to report on the silly side.
... But the proposed standard form agreement could go a little way towards mitigating the damage a tricky provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 might do. Section 19 of the Act prohibits some additional terms from being included in residential tenancy agreements, and it specifically mentions professional carpet cleaning. This puts into legislation a consistently held view that carpets only need to be cleaned if they were clean to start with, but they're not clean at the end of the tenancy...
There was a last minute amendment to section 19, which unfortunately didn't receive any discussion when the Act was debated in Parliament. If your landlord lets you keep an animal, they can insist that you clean the carpets when you leave. This could apply regardless of whether your animal is a goldfish, or a raging bull.
To make matters worse, it also doesn't matter where your animal sleeps, or how dirty the carpets were to begin with. It is a bizarre piece of law, representing the unholy union of two quirks - pandering as it does to the fascination some landlords have with tenants keeping pets, and an obsession many real estate agents have with steam cleaned carpets...
The standard form residential tenancy agreement represents our best opportunity to reign this provision in. To achieve this, the proposed "pets clauses" (cl 42 & 43) in the draft Regulation will need a fair bit of work. If Fair Trading NSW can find a way to limit the use of "carpet cleaning" clauses, by incorporating sensible terms in the standard form residential tenancy agreement, then they should be well and truly congratulated. We shall have to wait and see.
Yes … the draft regulation wins prizes in the silly stakes. The Brown Couch hits the mark with its comments on the carpet cleaning clause. The wording of this clause borders on the absurd. Consider the following scenario:
ReplyDelete'Tenant moves into residential premises and carpets are old, worn and filthy at the start of the tenancy. Tenant minds a friend's goldfish for two weeks during a tenancy that runs for 5 years.'
As it currently reads, this clause will require the tenant to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy … regardless.
Well, there’s another clause that takes a prize. The one on ‘heritage properties’. This clause excludes from the Act heritage properties where ‘the landlord is the Crown, a public authority or a council, and the tenant agrees to be responsible for some or all maintenance that would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord under the Act’.
As this clause currently reads, a heritage property owned by a council would be excluded from the Act, solely on the basis that the tenant agrees to replace tap washers … and this doesn’t even have to be in writing!
This is really hysterical, it seems that most councils tend to make stuff up as they go and have a different set of rules from the rest of the public. I don't mean to sound all negative but I see stuff like this a lot with our local council.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to Pets ...
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding from data that up to 68% of tenants live with their "best friend", in a ...'dont ask, dont tell kind of scenario'; with their agent. I am sick to death of seeing a no pets policy in most properties. I would like to see a change in the strata laws that encompass a minimal requisite of; "...we are a two cat STRATA LOT...", or we can only have 3 dogs in our strata but they must be toy-size or we can have 1 labrador size in lieu of the three, and we already have that in our folio". If the cowboys of the Tenancy Databases who want to cross-contaminate our lawful details with credit act members, and make a quick buck from selling our identifiers, can maybe do some productive and proactive work for the community and establish beneficial pet databases that come with checklist and requirements forms for during and after the tenancy specific to the type of pet that you have. You can attach a rent ref. a character ref. micro-chip details, council details etc etc +. The agent/owner would not feel put upon as again; the strata registers the no. of pets that the folio allows min and max and the definition of the pets.
Another thing that comes to mind bar, assistance dogs for the disabled and the sight-impaired; is the need for companion animals for the elderly and lonely that they need to have with them for company - I wont even go into older austns and the impact that going into a supported home/care facility means for that relationship.
Lets get with reality, people have pets, they are part of the family - include them on the lease without distress - it will surely stop a lot of needless animal life losses and the owners fear of being evicted for not disclosing.
Entrepreneurs out there - do what you will and can !!! or some really savvy STRATA MANAGERS ?? ! Pet-Food for thought >> The "Cuddler" :)
It is absolute discrimination to rent a property and be told what you can do within that property.
ReplyDeleteIf one rents a house they should be allowed to have pets as long as they are no damage to the property or complaints to neighbours.
Owning pets is a lifestyle choice and right. Real estate agents and owners dictating that you can not have pets is pure discrimination. It is totally unreasonable.
Of course there has to be guidelines, you can't have a doberman in an apartment. Or four dogs in a house.
many people who own pets are very attached to them and they are beneficial to people with mild to major mental health problems. A person with depression benefits hugely from pet ownership - why should they be discriminated against for owning a dog or cat?
Would a blind person, also a medical condition, be stopped from owning a guide dog in a rental property (well agents would not doubt try!!!).
They could not be stopped so then why would a person with depression, also a medical cohndition, be refused by a landlord or agent?
Many older people need animal companionship. So do many children - it has been medically proven that children with autism are benefited by owning a dog or cat.
Futhermore, when is someone going to take this important issue on and stand up for it?!
Thanks for your comment, Louise.
ReplyDeleteWe've long held the view that it is ridiculous for grown-ups to have to ask other grown-ups for permission to keep a pet...
Now, the law in NSW currently does not require a tenant to seek permission from the landlord before taking in a pet. It does seem to encourage some discussion and negotiation on the point (as you can see by the provisions discussed in this post), but it is not a breach of the law to keep a pet without the landlord's permission.
On the other hand, it is fairly common for landlords and real estate agents to insert a "special clause" in tenancy agreements that do limit a tenant's rights about keeping pets - such as how and where a pet may be kept, and what must be done to the property once the tenancy ends, or indeed whether a pet can be kept at all.
As such, the problem is not so much with our renting laws (and touch wood it stays this way) but with attitudes towards those who live with pets, and the specific agreements people enter into as landlords and tenants.
Discrimination, as you say, is probably not that uncommon - but unfortunately it can be very difficult to prove.
Cheers,
N.C.
Thanks for your reply. I rent a house for $710 per week. I lied on the lease because I knew I'd be refused the property as I have two small dogs.
ReplyDeleteI work from home, the house is immaculate and the neighbourshave never complained about my dogs - quite the opposite.
Yet at the CTTT on Monday my lease was terminated and I was given two weeks to move out solely because I have two dogs.
That is despite no complaints and ample evidence as to the cleanliness and very well looked after property.
Tenants pay four weeks bond and are required to keep the property clean and in good order. Surely that is sufficient?
I have severe clinical depression and PTSD and I live alone. I could not live without my dogs.
But regardless of that, and I hesitate to even mention it, why am I discriminated because I choose to own pets?
If the pets did do any damage, which of course I would never allow, then it gets taken out of the bond.
In Canada and the US the laws are: "A tenant can be evicted for having a pet in their unit only if:
the pet is making too much noise, damaging the unit, or causing an allergic reaction, or
the animal or species is considered to be inherently dangerous.
Even if the tenancy agreement has a ‘no pets’ rule in it, the tenant cannot be evicted just for having a pet unless the Board decides in an order that the pet is causing a problem, or that the pet is inherently dangerous."
Why in Australia are we not allowed to have pets. Surely if I pay $710 a week for a house it's entirely up to me what I do in it? As long as there is nothing illegal, annoying to neighbours.
Fish are pets, would I be evicted for having a fish tank?
Surely the onus should be on the landlord why a tenant is not allowed to keep a pet?
In most civilised countries pet owners don’t face these barriers, which are unfair, unnecessary and fail to recognise the valuable contribution of pets.
I am surprised and very disappointed that NSW Tenants accept this too. How can they possibly believe that it is acceptable to not allow a tenant to keep a pet?! Especially when major animal organisations view it as discrimination.
I just found this - in Victoria the Tenants Union has successfully challenged the no pets clause.
ReplyDeleteWhy is NSW not also doing this? I look forward to your response.
'No pet'' clauses in advertising and rental agreements are a constant source of grievance among tenants and landlords, according to Tenants Union policy worker Toby Archer.
Although Victoria's Residential Tenancies Act doesn't have rules on pets, the commonly used Real Estate Institute of Victoria's tenancy agreement does.
''The tenant must not keep any animal, bird or other pet on the premises without first obtaining the written permission of the landlord or agent. Permission will not be unreasonably withheld,'' it states.
The Tenants Union successfully challenged this ban several times, arguing landlords are not entitled to restrict tenants from having pets because it interferes with their ''quiet enjoyment'' of the property.
Tenants can't be evicted on the basis of the clause, says Mr Archer, but they can be evicted if their pet is a nuisance, damages property or is a danger.
''The last thing you want to do as a tenant is not be clear about that and then sometime down the track get into a dispute with your landlord.''
People are proving more willing to challenge the ''no pets'' clause.
A recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing found in favour of a Geelong couple wanting a pet in their rental home.
''The tenants have permission to keep the labrador Harry at the rented premises on condition he sleeps in the outhouse and primarily resides outdoors,'' VCAT ruled in February.
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/when-pets-prove-a-problem-20110410-1d9cf.html
Hi Louise
ReplyDeleteYou should get advice from a Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service (link in the sidebar at right).
Consider also getting some advice about disability discrimination - the TAAS can put you in touch with the relevant experts.
Best wishes
Chris
Thanks Chris, I did get advice from Tenants Advice (Eastern suburbs)this week and the woman I spoke with sided w the owner ie; no pets. In fact she really sided with them.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the poor landlord who has tenants that damage their carpets, have dogs that tear up their back lawn and pee all over the carpet wrecking everything in their path (even digging at walls) and then get to the CTTT and do not get compensated for their now ruined carpets, walls and back lawn? No wonder landlords don’t want pets - they are sick and tired of being done over by the weak CTTT.
ReplyDeleteIt is easier for landlords to not allow pets in the property in the first instance in order to mitigate their financial losses. Until the CTTT are fair and even all ways round and stop looking on landlords as financial money pits, landlords will keep saying no to pets.
Landlords cannot keep accepting these losses due to poor rulings from the CTTT. If there is no landlords, there is no rental properties! Then where will renters live?
The Residential Tenancies Act needs to be quite clear on items such as pets, ie allow landlords to charge extra rent and bond if you keep a pet, have strict carpet cleaning clauses and not just use loose terms such as "reasonable" for clean etc.
Whilst people on this forum may be responsible renters, there is a minority out there who give renters with pets a bad name. Landlords need to ensure that their investment is kept in a good condition not only for renters and their future capital growth but they are legally obligated to under their insurance policies.
If a tenant keeps a pet without permission and that pet damages the property, a landlord’s insurance is null and voided without a clause in the lease. And the only way landlords can meet that financial cost is via the bond and the CTTT. Without the CTTT recognising the damage done by the renter (as it is their pet) landlords cannot be compensated for the pets damage.
It is so much easier for a landlord to say NO PETS in the first instance, and it is better for a renter to know this in advance, rather than go through the hassle of looking and applying for a property only to learn this later after expending all this effort.
The system has to benefit all or else landlords won’t buy rental properties and renters won’t have anywhere to live. And the majority of people need to rent at some time in their life. Landlords do an important social service, but there must be an advantage to it (in this instance it is mainly financial) or else there is no motivation to continue.
Anon declares/asks:
ReplyDelete'If there is no landlords, there is no rental properties! Then where will renters live?'
In properties previously owned by landlords?