Showing posts with label Pedantic rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pedantic rant. Show all posts

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Australia, the land of indefinite, insecure tenancies

There's been a lot of talk lately about the insecurity of renting in Australia, and how things would be better if we can somehow get everyone onto longer leases. There's a perception that Australian tenancies are notoriously short, with the majority of leases lasting around 6 or 12 months.


We're often asked how long leases ought to be in order to give renters the security they need. Take, for example, this recent interview Leo did with ABC 24's Breakfast program, where he is asked (at 1:50) "what length of tenancies would you like to see become available for people?"


And Su-Lin Tan's latest piece in the Australian Financial Review - Renting in Australia is generally 'miserable' but doesn't have to be - wades into similar territory. Tan notes the growing number of Australians "not interested in buying a home" and adds:
But one of the biggest obstacles is the lack of long-term leases, a stumbling block for people who have kids in school, long-term job commitments or simply want a settled life.
Referring to data and commentary from the recent Unsettled report, Tan also notes that the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark offer "infinite leases".

For a more comprehensive look at how European tenancies work, there's the recent publication of the International Union of Tenants report from members to its 20th congress, Rent Regulation and Security of Tenure in the Private Rental Sector. Or, for a quicker grab, there's UK Shelter's map of renters rights in Europe. These tell us that for the majority of European countries tenancies are "protected" with fixed terms of three years, if indeed they are not "permanent" and can only be ended with legal grounds.

And what of Australia? In all jurisdictions tenancies tend to begin with a fixed-term agreement. It is for the parties to decide the length of that term, and it is a matter of convention rather than law that most tenancies begin with a term of 6 or 12 months. If a tenancy agreement is not formally terminated following the processes set out in our renting laws, or a new fixed term created, it carries over and becomes a periodic or continuing agreement once the fixed term expires. It does not end simply because the fixed term expires. These are essentially permanent agreements similar to what we see in parts of Europe, where tenants' have some of the strongest protections against eviction and unreasonable rent increases in the world.

So what makes Australia different? What's missing from our laws, that operates in those parts of Europe that we look to for inspiration, is the part about not being able to end tenancies without legal grounds. Or rather, in all of the Australian states and territories it is lawful to end a tenancy without a reason, so the legal ground becomes "no grounds". In New South Wales this can happen at the end of a fixed term agreement with 30 days notice to the tenant, or at any time during a periodic agreement with 90 days notice to the tenant.

When issued with a valid notice of termination without grounds, there is generally nothing a tenant can do to save their tenancy but beg. The rationale for this is that "landlords should be able to deal with their property as they see fit". While in Europe, landlords presumably still manage to deal with their property as they see fit, but they must do so within structures that protect tenants from unfair or unreasonable evictions.

A tenancy cannot be terminated without grounds during a fixed term, which is why it's often suggested that longer fixed terms would be a good thing. It might also explain why some tenants enter into new short fixed terms at the expiry of their term, although this might also be because landlords and real estate agents often insist - threatening termination without grounds if a "new agreement" isn't signed. And while longer fixed terms may suit some people, we can't help but notice that tenants frequently ask for advice on how to end a fixed-term agreement early. Some might be encouraged by the use of longer fixed terms, but they are not the catch-all solution we're after. Indeed, long fixed term agreements might present unacceptable risks to many tenants, if the means by which they are encouraged is the erosion of tenants' rights.

How long are Australian tenancies then? The Unsettled report doesn't give us much detail on this, focusing instead on the length of fixed terms for Australian renters. Unsurprisingly, it found that 83% of Australian renters have no fixed term agreement, or are on an agreement of 12 months or less. It also found that half of Australian renters have moved three times or more, including 19% who have been renting for less than five years, and 42% of those under the age of 35.

For tenancies in New South Wales, tenants' bonds lodged with the Rental Bond Board reveal a little more. From data released under a freedom of information request in 2016 and made available as part of the NSW Government's open data portal, it is clear that only a small proportion of tenancies end within 12 months or less. The majority continue into a second year and a significant amount go on for a third year after that. Slightly more than one in ten rental bonds have been held by the Board for more than three years.

Bonds lodged with the NSW Rental Bond Board, by duration
Whether they are (or were) attached to agreements with a fixed term of 6, 12 or any number of months, these tenancies are indefinite. They are insecure because they can be brought to an end without grounds. If predictability and stability for long-term renters is what we're after, we should focus less on encouraging longer fixed terms, and more on getting reasonable grounds for termination into our renting laws. As long as their home remains available to rent, and they continue to meet their commitments under the agreement, tenants should not be asked to leave without a good reason.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Frustration or breach for Lidcombe tenants?

A Lidcombe apartment complex suffered extensive damage to its roof during a storm this week - reports suggest it may be uninhabitable for months. So arose the question of remedies for affected owners and tenants. Whilst compulsory insurance for the strata corporation should ensure owners are covered for 'loss of rent' - that is, alternative accommodation as needed and actual rent forfeited - it may be of no use to tenants.


The roof in question

Our Senior Policy Officer Ned was quoted in Fairfax Media as saying the issue of tenant remedy is "...a tricky one. There's a question about the circumstances under which the tenancy might end, and there's questions around the circumstances under which a tenant might recover costs of damaged furniture and items." 

By way of clarity, such issues may be cause for either 'frustration' of a tenancy agreement, or action arising from a breach of the landlord's obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010.

Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act provides that a landlord or tenant may serve the other party with a notice of termination on the ground that the residence has become wholly or partly uninhabitable due to no fault of either party. For example, a residence maintained in a reasonable state of repair may suffer damage due to a thunderstorm. A notice served under Section 109 need not provide any minimum notice period and may be issued in either a fixed term or a periodic agreement. Such action implies no breach of the tenancy agreement by either party, and precludes further discussion about compensation for any loss arising.


On the other hand, section 63 of the Act provides that it is the landlord's responsibility to provide a tenanted residence in a reasonable state of repair. So, for example, a landlord may fail to provide a residence with a roof in reasonable repair, which may only become apparent after a bout of severe weather. This would mean the tenant has suffered a detriment as a result of the landlord breaching his or her obligations - potentially giving rise to not only termination rights for tenants, but also a compensation claim for any economic loss suffered.

To add a further complication - a landlord might try to avoid the obligation by pointing to a strata manager, saying "it wasn't me, it was them". But just as a landlord may be liable, under a residential tenancy agreement, for the defective work of a plumber or electrician with whom they have contracted, so too are they responsible for work carried out by or on behalf of their owners' corporation.

Of course, we don't claim to be privy to the details of the Lidcombe case. But it's worth noting that there is more than one way situations like this may play out. Affected tenants should visit www.tenants.org.au to view our factsheets on storm damage, repairs and maintenance and renting in a strata scheme. For further information tenants can seek free advice from their local Tenants' Advice and Advocacy Service.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Contracts, conjunctions and clarity

Entering into a tenancy agreement only to find out later that the landlord is selling the place with you in it can be very frustrating. We've written a whole series of posts on this. The Residential Tenancies Act 2010 introduced one particular method of dealing with landlord selling that has caused a bit of confusion since its introduction. That method is giving the tenant the ability to end the tenancy early because they hadn't been informed of the sale before entering into the agreement. We've written twice before on this issue, using our understanding at the time. Fortunately, as of 4th July this year, the Act was amended slightly to make it crystal clear what it had probably meant to say all along.

Unfortunately, it has been clear as mud to some, provoking today's pedantic rant.

Now see here, you lot!

The Act now reads:
(1)  A tenant may give a termination notice for a fixed term agreement on any of the following grounds:
...
(c)  that the landlord has notified the tenant of the landlord’s intention to sell the residential premises, unless the landlord disclosed the proposed sale of the premises before entering into the residential tenancy agreement as required by section 26,

Section 26 requires a landlord who has an intention sell the premises and has also prepared a contract for sale to disclose that fact to the tenant before entering into a tenancy agreement with them.

The confusion arises now on how to read (1)(c). Since the clarification an agent in NSW has told a tenant, that "this section now only applies if a Contract for Sale of Land was prepared prior to the lease being entered into."

Now, we're all for the evolution of the English language. We've accepted that google is a verb, that we all know some flexitarians, but we're not yet aware of anyone making an argument for redefining the word "unless".

Unless is a form of conjunction (a word that joins two phrases), which is "used to introduce a case in which a statement being made is not true or valid." What "unless" most definitely is not, is "only if", as asserted by that real estate agent.

In this case the statement that being made is:
A tenant may give a termination notice for a fixed term agreement on (any of) the following grounds: that the landlord has notified the tenant of the landlord’s intention to sell the residential premises,
The Act inserts the conjunction,
unless
and the qualifier:
the landlord disclosed the proposed sale of the premises before entering into the residential tenancy agreement as required by section 26.

For clarity, here is what the explanatory note that accompanied the amendment through parliament says about it:
A tenant will have a right to terminate the agreement early, unless the proposed sale was disclosed in accordance with that section [section 26].

The way to read this part is that a tenant is entitled to terminate in almost all the circumstances where the landlord notifies them of an intention to sell the premises. There is one exception, and that is where the landlord had, before the agreement started, disclosed that they had prepared a contract for sale of the home.

We hope this settles the question!

This information is not to be construed as legal advice and should not be relied on in the making of any rash decisions about moving house. If in doubt, contact your local TAAS.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Mortgage holder = lender

WARNING: pedantic rant follows.


Now see here, you lot. Let's get this straight.

The term 'mortgage holder'. It refers to a lender.

The lender holds the mortgage (that is, a legal interest in property) as security for the loan they've given.

The mortgage is given by the borrower. For this reason, the borrower is sometimes called a 'mortgagor' (and the lender a 'mortgagee'). If you want to call the borrower anything else, they should be called a 'mortgage giver'. You're probably better off just calling them a 'borrower'.

Long-time Brown Couch readers might recall that we've raised this issue before. At the time, we booed a couple of journalists for misusing 'mortgage holder'. Seems we didn't go far enough.  Seems that every journalist and sub-editor is doing it.

Now we've got the Federal Government – and even the otherwise learned National Housing Supply Council – misusing 'mortgage holder' for 'borrower'.

Seems everyone in Australia is getting it wrong.

Mind you, in other countries people get it right. Do a quick google of the term 'mortgage holder' and you'll find any number of international sources, including dictionaries, that refer to mortgage holders as lenders. And you'll find a bunch of Australian sources doing the opposite.

Keep it up and we'll probably end up also mixing up 'mortgagee' and 'mortgagor', while the rest of the world thinks we're babbling idiots.

Mortgage holder = lender.

Pedantic rant ends.