Search

“Truly disgraceful”: Landlord cops backlash after posting photo of evicted tenant

A landlord in Victoria has been slammed online after posting a photo of a former tenant who was evicted, and was forced to live in their car. The picture was originally posted to the private Landlords Victoria Facebook page, but was then leaked to X (formerly Twitter), and shows an old Nissan sedan with a tarp over the top, where a person was living after getting evicted from a rental. The landlord had described the tenant’s living situation as “karma” for the financial toll her eviction process had taken on him, claiming he dealt with years of legal battles. He claims he was left out of pocket to the tune of “thousands of dollars”. “Took me almost three years to get this person out of my rental,” he wrote in the post. “It seems she had trouble finding a new place to live." <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ALAB?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ALAB</a> <a href="https://t.co/2WEn1hyBnf">pic.twitter.com/2WEn1hyBnf</a> — Purplepingers (@purplepingers) <a href="https://twitter.com/purplepingers/status/1790345077816279280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 14, 2024</a></blockquote> “I am thousands of dollars out of pocket in legal fees and lost rent not to mention the stress and frustration with VCAT ... Looking at this karma must be real.” The landlord added that it “must be bloody freezing” and gloated that the woman was “not (in) an enviable position”. The landlord's post welcomed a wave of criticism, as many took aim at the landlord for broadcasting, and even taking pleasure in his former tenant's hardship. One social media comment accused the landlord of “publicly shaming and degrading her", while another said the post was “truly disgraceful”. While several people were disgusted by the landlord’s lack of empathy, others defended his rights as a property owner. “I wouldn’t want to see my tenant in that situation. But the fact is unless they pay the rent on time it won’t be me turning them out onto the street,” one person wrote. Image credits: X (Twitter)

Money & Banking

Tenants forced to pay landlord after fleeing their “uninhabitable” rental

A family has been ordered to pay their former landlords $3,000 after they “abandoned” they “uninhabitable” rental property. Bechara Rizk and Ariye Atayi Juma claimed that the Sydney home was unlivable, given the unrelenting infestation of cockroaches and other bugs. When the couple moved into the home with their young daughter on April 29th 2023, they immediately noticed “tiny insects and small cockroaches” in the linen cupboard, living area, master bedroom, second bedroom and main bathroom. They said the house was completely inundated with insects, as they found them on the walls, doors, skirting boards, carpets and in the toilets. Rizk emailed the real estate agency saying he did not consider the property habitable — especially for his young daughter. “(We) went to the property an hour ago for the first time since we received the keys yesterday and there were tiny insects and cockroaches alive and dead in every room,” the email said. “I have taken some videos if you need to see evidence but, most importantly, we are not comfortable bringing a small baby who is crawling to live in this apartment.” “I am writing to formally pull out of the lease and wanting to understand what the repercussions are for us.” The real estate offered to arrange a pest control service, to which the couple turned down as they believed the problem was too far gone to be fixed easily. After returning the keys on May 1st, Rizk sent an email the next day requesting their bond and deposit be returned. A pest controller treated the home on May 3rd, recording that a “small amount of (insect) activity” had been located and treated. In a letter to Rizk and Juma the next day, the real estate agency said the pest controller had found “no evidence of a pest infestation in the property” and the couple’s claim the property was uninhabitable was without merit. Rizk replied, “We have pulled out of our lease not due to a change of mind, it is uninhabitable and simply not what we signed up for. “We cannot live in an insect-infested apartment with a young baby.” “As any parent should understand, our child is our first priority and at the very least it would be irresponsible and the most could potentially put her in harm.” The matter between the family and the landlord ended up in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with the couple seeking repayment of their bond while the landlords asked for compensation for the couple’s “abandonment” of the lease. Tribunal member Ross Glover found that the couple did in fact abandon the property, and were ordered to pay their former landlord $3,000 in compensation. The amount was deducted from the couple's bond which left no remaining balance to be refunded to them. Image credits: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Outrage after renters confronted with cleaning “scoring system”

An Australian real estate agent has come under fire for their “demoralising” scoring system for tenants during routine inspections. One fired up renter said they were shocked to receive a scorecard from the agent after they complied with an inspection, and shared their feedback on Reddit. The scorecard rated the tenant’s efforts cleaning the property in 17 different rooms and areas, marking them on cleanliness, and if the areas were damaged or required maintenance. The renter was then also given an overall rating out of five stars, based on the upkeep of their rental home. The Reddit user showed that they received just three and half stars, despite being marked down in only one area due to a light globe not working. In their post, the tenant said they had made every effort to clean the home, adding that the rating was “demoralising”. “I’ve been renting a long time, and my deep cleaning routine is based around inspections,” they explained. “I go all out - every room in my little 3x2 villa is given a spring clean, every surface is washed including walls, doors, lights, windows, carpets etc.” “Had my latest inspection a few weeks ago and just received the report. Despite the agent commenting once again that she never sees houses as clean as mine, and taking 112 (!) photos of every single thing that shows how great the condition of the house is - having one light globe not working is so terrible that I’m scored three and a half out of five.” The renter went on to say that they had only recently discovered that the broken light globe was the real estate’s responsibility to replace, and does not warrant such a severe marking down in their “score”. “The globe in question is a downlight fitting. We have so many downlights that I don’t even use this particular one,” they continued. “I can’t replace the globe itself, I need to get into the roof to replace the whole unit. Thanks to people here I’ve learned this isn’t even my responsibility to fix!” The renter’s post sparked a huge outrage online, with many up in arms over the current state of the rental market and unrealistic expectations of estate agents. One person said, “I fully believe that the average renter keeps a home to a higher standard than an owner, and it seems deliberately demoralising that someone could be marked down for having a light out.” Another added, “This is ridiculously petty, and more importantly, totally irrelevant to the purpose of a periodic inspection. Which is to identify whether any maintenance is needed.” A third person took their anger out on the entire system, summing it up by writing, “I sort of wonder what little lightbulb clicks in your mind and you wake up one day and ask yourself, ‘How can I be a massive c*** who offers no value to society? I know! I will get into real estate.’” Image credits: Getty Images / Reddit

Real Estate

Calls to protect rights of tenants with animals

Amid the current cost-of-living crisis and housing crisis, renters across Australia and New Zealand are finding it harder to secure homes to rent - but it’s even harder for renters with pets. In parts of Australia, landlords are legally protected if they refuse applications from tenants with companion animals, while New Zealand rentals can still refuse to have pets as well. Dr Zoei Sutton, an academic at Flinders University in South Australia, conducted a study involving in-depth interviews with tenants and stakeholders, including landlords, and found that many were struggling to obtain a rental when they had pets. “My study shows Australian landlords and property managers are particularly reluctant to house cats, as they’re seen as leaving allergy hazards or the need for deep cleaning of carpets. Owners of bigger dogs and certain breeds can also have a harder time finding housing,” she said. “And while we’re starting to see legislative shifts in Victoria and NSW, legislation to protect pet owners has been defeated in South Australia.” During the interviews, Dr Sutton also uncovered several strategies renters could use to improve their chances of success, including preparing pet ‘resumes’ for agents and landlords. “Both tenants and stakeholders agreed that there needs to be an understanding that rental houses are homes. This means working with both landlords and tenants to make sure everyone has a clear understanding of what fair ‘wear and tear’ is,” she added. While interviewing tenants, landlords, real estate agents, and emergency housing organisations in SA, she heard multiple stories of renters experiencing a “constant source of worry” while renting. “One tenant reported finding just ten potential properties listed as pet friendly while another family found only two within their price range. Some tenants are being asked to pay higher rent to secure a house,” Dr Sutton said. “Multiple participants reported that there was a bidding war for houses with some tenants offering 3 or 6 months rent in advance, just to secure a house. “One family had fallen through the damaged floor of their house multiple times but were reluctant to report the landlord’s failure to maintain the home because this might result in a bad reference when they next had to move.” “It’s a constant source of worry, knowing that your lease might not be renewed or your house might be sold and you’ll have to try to find something again.” Meanwhile, New Zealand journalist Charlotte Muru-Lanning <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/28-09-2022/the-absence-of-rights-for-renters-with-pets-is-just-cruel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> in September that 14 percent of rentals available across the country were listed as “pets OK”, despite nearly half of New Zealand households. “We need more protections for tenants so they can report unfair housing conditions without jeopardising future housing,” Sutton said. “Animals need to be able to use the home too, and there are small things you can do to minimise any potential damage. “Property managers have a key role in educating landlords and tenants to ensure everyone is happy and has reasonable expectations.” Image: Getty Images

Real Estate

Do tenancy reforms to protect renters cause landlords to exit the market?

More Australians are <a href="https://theconversation.com/wealthy-landlords-and-more-sharehousing-how-the-rental-sector-is-changing-94394">renting their housing longer</a> than in the past. But they have relatively little legal security against rent increases and evictions compared to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-australia-can-learn-from-overseas-about-the-future-of-rental-housing-90401">tenants in other countries</a>. When state governments suggest stronger protections for tenants, landlords and real estate agents <a href="https://www.reiq.com/articles/reiq-concerned-rental-reforms-unravel-rights-of-property-owners/">claim it will cause disinvestment</a> from the sector, increasing pressure on already tight rental markets. In <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/391">research</a> for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (<a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/about">AHURI</a>), published today, we put the “disinvestment” claim to the test. We looked at the impacts of tenancy reforms in New South Wales and Victoria on rental property records over 20 years, as well as surveying hundreds of property investors. We found no evidence to support this claim. We did find a high rate of turnover as properties enter and leave the sector. This happened regardless of tenancy law reforms. It’s a major cause of the unsettled nature of private rental housing for tenants. We suggest that if substantial tenancy reforms did cause less committed landlords to exit the sector, that might not be a bad thing. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> A tenancy law expert says it could be illegal in several states, while tenants’ advocates say it preys on vulnerable renters during Australia’s housing crisis. <a href="https://t.co/hQEdS80a3h">https://t.co/hQEdS80a3h</a> (via <a href="https://twitter.com/abcnews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@abcnews</a>) — ABC Australia (@ABCaustralia) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCaustralia/status/1587927668846399488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2022</a></blockquote> How did we test the disinvestment claim? We analysed records of all rental bond lodgements and refunds in Sydney and Melbourne from 2000 to 2020. From these records we can see properties entering the rental sector for the first time (investment) and exiting the sector (disinvestment). We looked for changes in trends in property entries and exits around two law reform episodes: when the 2010 NSW Residential Tenancies Act took effect, and the start of a tenancy law reform review in Victoria in 2015. We found no evidence the NSW reforms affected property entries (investment). And property exits (disinvestment) were slightly reduced – that is, fewer properties exited than expected. In Victoria, we found property entries reduced slightly when the law reform review started – perhaps a sign of investors pausing for “due diligence”. We saw no effect on property exits. So in neither state did we find evidence of a disinvestment effect. We also surveyed 970 current and previous property investors, and got a similar picture. When deciding to invest, investors said prospective rental income and capital gains were the most important considerations, but tenancy laws were important too. On the other hand, tenancy laws were the least-cited reason for disposing of properties. Many more investors said they did it because they judged it a good time to sell and realise gains, or they wanted money for other purposes, or because the investment was not paying as they had hoped. A state of constant churn Our research also gives new insights into the private rental sector, which <a href="https://www.housingdata.gov.au/">has been growing</a> relative to owner-occupied and social housing. Small-holding “mum and dad” landlords dominate the sector. Some 70% of landlords own a single property. Multiple-property owners own more properties in total, but still relatively small numbers (rarely more than ten) compared to corporate landlords in other countries who have tens of thousands of properties, or even more. Australia now has some large corporate landlords, but their properties are a tiny fraction of the total rental stock. Beneath its gradual growth and persistent small-holding pattern, the private rental sector is dynamic. Properties enter and exit the sector very frequently. In both Sydney and Melbourne, our analysis shows, most properties exit within five years of entering. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Chart showing private rental properties, Sydney and Melbourne, 2000–20, by year of first observation in rental bonds data and at five-year intervals" /></a><figcaption>Numbers of private rental properties in Sydney and Melbourne at five-year intervals from 2000 to 2020. Properties are categorised by year of first observation in rental bonds data. The authors</figcaption></figure> More than 30% of tenancies begin in a property that’s new to the rental sector. And more than 25% of tenancy terminations happen when the property exits the sector. Our investor survey also shows the sector’s dynamism. Many investors made repeated investments, owning multiple properties and some interstate. They indicated strong interest in <a href="https://theconversation.com/ever-wondered-how-many-airbnbs-australia-has-and-where-they-all-are-we-have-the-answers-129003">short-term letting</a>, such as Airbnb, and significant minorities had used their properties for purposes other than rental housing. Australia’s rental housing interacts closely with other sectors, particularly owner-occupied housing, as houses and strata-titled apartments trade between the sectors. The tax-subsidised property prices paid by owner-occupiers heavily influence investors’ gains and decision-making. Rental is also increasingly integrated with tourism, through governments’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-wins-and-who-loses-when-platforms-like-airbnb-disrupt-housing-and-how-do-you-regulate-it-106234">permissive approach to short-term letting</a>. In short, the Australian rental sector is built for investing and disinvesting. As properties churn in and out of rental, renters are churned in and out of housing. This presents problems for tenants. A new agenda for tenancy law reform Australian residential tenancies law has accommodated the long-term growth of the rental sector and its dynamic character. With no licensing or training requirements, it’s easy for landlords to enter the sector. It’s also easy to exit by terminating tenancies, on grounds they want to use a property for other purposes, or even without grounds in many cases. Over the years tenancy law reform has fixed some problem areas, but with virtually no national co-ordination. Laws are increasingly inconsistent on important topics, such as tenants’ security (for example, some states have restricted, but not eliminated, no-grounds terminations), minimum standards and domestic violence. Reforms have overlooked significant problem areas, such as steep rent increases and landlords’ liability for defective premises. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Works for Australia too. Although don't even need to pretend to put it on the market in NSW, it's called a "no grounds eviction" or perhaps more accurately: "tenant expected a liveable home or repairs to broken stuff". <a href="https://t.co/GolGDqlyCu">https://t.co/GolGDqlyCu</a> <a href="https://t.co/wORI3K6Yap">pic.twitter.com/wORI3K6Yap</a> — Nathan Lee (@NathanLee) <a href="https://twitter.com/NathanLee/status/1542298797039964160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></blockquote> It is time to pursue a national agenda that goes further than previous limited reforms. The focus should be on the rights of tenants to affordable housing, in decent condition, that supports autonomy and secure occupancy. Where landlords say it is too difficult and they will disinvest, this should not be taken as a threat. Indeed, it would be a good thing if the speculative, incapable and unwilling investors exited the sector. This would make properties available for new owner-occupiers and open up prospects for other, more committed landlords, especially non-profit providers of rental housing. Similarly, if we had higher standards and expectations to discourage private landlords from entering the sector, that would open up scope for new owner-occupiers and investors who are less inclined to churn properties and households. While past tenancy law reforms have not caused disinvestment, maybe the next reforms should. <hr /> The authors acknowledge the contributions of their research co-authors, Professor Kath Hulse, Professor Eileen O’Brien Webb, Dr Laura Crommelin and Liss Ralston.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194900/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Writen by Chris Martin, Milad Ghasri, Sharon Parkinson and Zoe Goodall. Republished with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-tenancy-reforms-to-protect-renters-cause-landlords-to-exit-the-market-no-but-maybe-they-should-194900" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Getty Images

Real Estate

Landlord overstays welcome sleeping in tent under tenant’s home

A landlord has been ordered to pay $NZ 700 ($AUD 630) in damages for unlawful entry after he pitched a tent and stayed under his rental property. When the tenant living in the home asked him to leave after he slept there overnight, Brian Clement verbally insulted them and came up with excuses as to why he was allowed to stay under the house, as reported by the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/landlord-slept-in-tent-under-tenants-home-refused-to-leave/MSWNZ6WCH3JCTTTXQM7OSQ57VE/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NZ Herald</a>. The tenant and partner, whose names are suppressed, told the New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal that Clement repeatedly came “unannounced and overstayed” for up to three days at a time. “The more visits the more it disturbed our sense of privacy at home,” the tenant’s girlfriend told the tribunal. Over two years, she said she saw Clement at the house at least 15 times and that he stayed overnight seven times. In one incident in February last year, the tenant was away and his girlfriend and her daughter were alone at home when Clement refused demands to leave. "I cannot express how uncomfortable and weird I felt that night," the girlfriend said. "I sent Brian a message as I could hear him around the house and asked him once more to leave." On the two occasions she called him, he answered with “verbal insults” and said he was “just under the house catching internet Wi-Fi”. She believed Clement would sleep in his car, only to discover the next morning that he had pitched a tent under the house and slept there. A neighbour who confirmed the account said it was “unnerving” and that she even felt “unsafe at the time”. She described the relationship between the tenant and Clement as “unusual and always ‘grey’”. She said the tenants had been renting the property for over a decade, and that Clement “appeared to come and go” from the property. Clement admitted to staying at the home overnight, but argued the tent was for storing tools and that he only slept in it for one night. He told the tribunal that his rental agreement gave him the right, as the owner, with “access at all times, with reasonable notice, for upgrading repairs … etc” and that the house “may need to be vacated by [the tenant] for occasional visits and staying of friends”. However, the tribunal ruled that the agreement was “entirely contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which only allows a landlord to enter the property during the rental period with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, or with minimum notice given. "Importantly, even if a tenant has given consent to the landlord to enter the premises, the tenant is able to withdraw that consent at any time, and if consent is withdrawn, then the landlord would need to leave immediately," tribunal adjudicator Rex Woodhouse said. As well as paying damages, Clement was ordered to pay an additional $1000 ($AUD 900) for the property having no or ineffective underfloor insulation. "There is a very strong interest for tenants, landlords and the public generally, to ensure tenancies are safe and secure, and tenants being able to preclude landlords from entering or staying on the premises falls within that expectation," Woodhouse said. Georgie Rogers, the resident of advocacy group Renters United, said tenants can go to the police if their landlords are harassing or threatening them. "But the convoluted way of going to the Tenancy Tribunal is the only way for tenants to access their rights," Rogers said. But, he said tenants could be named and blacklisted if their claims were unsuccessful. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Woman “harassed” over previous tenant’s 78 cent bill

A furious Sydney has slammed energy provider Dodo for “harassing” her over an unpaid energy bill belonging to the previous tenant. Since moving into her new rental apartment just two months ago, she has received several urgent notices concerning the “outrageous debt” of just 78 cents. “Who the f*** is running this company?” she wrote in a fuming post to Facebook on Friday, answering her own question, “A pack of f**kin dodos”. “I’ve been in this apartment two months, this is the third – that’s THREE – letter of demand for the outrageous debt of 78 cents owed by the former tenant,” she wrote. The woman then speculated that it cost the energy provider more than the amount owing on the bill to send the letters in the first place. “It’s cost them a sh**tonne more than that in postal costs, let alone the wages of the person I gave an ear bashing to,” she wrote, instructing the company to “bog off”. She then included a photo of the bill in question, which read, “This notice is to advise you that your final electricity amount remains unpaid and is overdue, as a result of your Pay on Time discount has been removed and the total amount of $00.78 is now overdue.” The company’s persistence caused many online to react in a similar way to the recipient of the letter, with many in disbelief at why they don’t just let it go. The woman clarified in a comment she called Dodo after receiving the invoice for a second time, but it seemed her effort had been wasted. “I have called them after the second letter to inform them the dude was no longer living here. They wanted to know my name … and eventually said they’d fix it up,” she wrote. “Maybe they thought they’d give it one last go – after all, it’s the princely sum of 78 cents at stake! Next time I will demand a recompense.” Image credits: Facebook

Real Estate

How an Aussie senior inherited her long-term home from her landlord

An Australian senior has finally been able to retire after she received an incredible gift from her long-term landlord. Jane Sayner, 74, was used to a life of waking up to her 3am alarm to go and work at a fruit and vegetable market in Epping in order to pay her rent and make ends meet. However, Jane has now been able to turn off her early morning alarm for good after inheriting her home from her late landlord. Jane rented off St Albans multi-millionaire John Perrett, who famously left his $18-million fortune to the Royal Melbourne Hospital when he died in 2020. Mr Perrett was the local pharmacist in the suburb of Melbourne, but made his riches through clever investing, all while continuing to live humbly in the neighbourhood. While the majority of his generous donation to the hospital has gone towards technology and research in the renal department that delivered him a kidney transplant, his philanthropic nature wanted to ensure Ms Sayner did not have to worry about finding a new place during her own health battle. After renting the two-bedroom St Albans unit for 23 years, Jane was shocked to receive a call from her landlord before he died after a battle with Parkinson’s. While the pair were on good terms, Perrett’s offering was next level, as he left the home to Jane. Mr Perrett also left another property to another tenant in St Albans, while another flat he owned similar to Jane’s was sold for about $400,000 to go towards the hospital donation. Jane paid $250 a week in rent, which barely rose over the last two decades, and would never have been able to afford anything like what she had if her home had been sold following her landlord’s death. Instead of still having to wake up at 3am to work at the market full-time, Jane now enjoys the simple life of a retiree as she tends to her garden and dreams of travelling to Canada. Image credits: realestate.com.au

Real Estate

House listing includes ex-husband “up for grabs as tenant”

A woman’s house listing has drawn a lot of attention after she included a very unusual bonus feature in her advertisement. The three-bed, two-bath pad in Panama City, Florida, has been listed for sale for $967,000AUD, as the listing is complete with a series of hilariously unusual photos starring a potential occupant. The man confidently poses in the photos, as the listing says, "Wonderfully rehabbed ex-husband up for grabs as tenant." The listing advertisement could almost be seen as focusing more on selling the vendor's ex than the house itself, as the description gives potential buyers an insight into their new life. "This dream man in the kitchen is a personal chef and server cooking up perfect meals on a new stove with updated countertops you can make memories on," the ad states. The tongue-in-cheek listing makes light of the former spouse's physical appearance as a segue to mention the local wildlife and nature of the area. "Head covering is well worn, mostly balding, like the eagles soaring in the sky above S. Lagoon steps from your massive driveway." The ad also alludes to the fact the ex-husband is quite handy, with his "XL ears" picking up creaks, while also "mak[ing] sure WD40 is applied to your new fixtures". The listing also includes the seller’s children in addition to their former spouse, which is left out until the last sentence of the advertisement. "Superhuman strength will save your back years of hard work lifting your hot tub cover where you can fall in love listening to our two young boys splashing in the pool." The bizarre listing has gone viral since it hit the market, with commenters online equally perplexed and intrigued. "I have so many questions and I'm desperate for answers," one said. Image credits: Zillow

Real Estate

Renter leaves hidden warnings to future tenants

A fed-up tenant has left hidden warnings for the future occupants of a Melbourne rental property to tip them off about the home’s issues. The notes, which went unnoticed by the real estate agent, were designed to prove the $600-a-week rental asking price was extreme, given the ongoing issues in the house that had not been adequately fixed. The person viewing the house found the notes and shared them to Reddit, saying the leasing agent hadn’t bothered to inspect the property. In the kitchen, a note was found attached to the exhaust fan above the stove and reads, “Rangehood doesn’t work, but window over sink fills house with bugs”. Another hidden note warned that the laundry window was the only way to ventilate the room, but there was no fly screen attached. “Water pressure has been fixed twice but still low,” said another note. The previous tenant also pointed out that cracks in the roof and walls had been “patched up” over time in one note inside the house. The person who found the hidden messages said it was “the most fun” they had at an inspection, as they searched the property for more secret notes. “The old tenant is a legend,” they said. Many online users celebrated the tenant’s gutsy move, describing it as “awesome”. “That tenant deserves a medal,” wrote one person. “This person is a true hero,” a user commented. “This is great. Wish we could see this more often. I know agents would remove notes left in the house. But get sneaky with it. Hide them in drawers and in dishwashers. House hunting is exhausting without having to worry about slimy real estate agents,” said another. One commenter even suggested starting a website “where tenants can leave a truthful report of a house, agent and landlords for the benefit of prospective future tenants”. Image credits: Getty Images / Reddit

Real Estate

Tenant “living in hell” with nightmare landlord’s restrictions

A woman claims she was “living in hell” under the regime of a strict landlord just days into her tenancy. The woman, named Mel, says her landlady imposed several unreasonable restrictions two days after she moved in, which involved restricting her access to parts of the house to short windows. Mel paid $1,090 (£595) a month to live in the two-storey South London home, and said that everything started out great in her new home when she moved in. Speaking with <a href="https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/south-london-woman-living-hell-23205354">MyLondon</a>, Mel said her landlady Sheena Shepherd presented her with a set of rules for the home within the first week of her tenancy, stipulating that she would only have access to the kitchen between 9am to 11am and 12pm to 2pm as Shepherd would be running PT sessions from home. If she needed to use the kitchen outside of these hours, she needed to cross reference Shepherd's demanding schedule. The lounge room was also off limits, with access only allowed to reach the kitchen. Mel also wouldn't be able to use the front door to the property between 9am and 5:30pm and was only permitted to work from home in her bedroom. Mel also told MyLondon that she was to "only come down the stairs once a day" in order to avoid disturbing Shepherd while she worked in the lounge, and was banned from having deliveries sent to the house as the doorbell was deemed "too distracting". Elsewhere in the house, Mel claims wardrobes were full of her landlady's "personal stuff," leaving her to keep her own belongings in the loft or shed. The relationship between the two quickly deteriorated, as Shepherd told Mel over WhatsApp, "You pay for a ROOM. If you want full access to the half, pay half the bills too. When you can pay £1,000 you can have equal say! Have some respect and not be so bloody entitled." Despite only having a three-month rental contract, Shepherd continuously tried to get Mel to leave early, but to no avail. The conflict eventually culminated in Shepherd having a party in the residence, where one of her guests verbally abused Mel in the kitchen with the police being called as a result. Tired of the abuse and restrictions at the hands of her landlady, Mel left the home and moved into a hotel, which she asked Shepherd to cover the costs of. The pair are now involved in legal proceedings over what happened during Mel’s tenancy. Image credits: Getty Images / MyLondon

Real Estate

COP26: what the draft climate agreement says – and why it’s being criticised

Having led the delegates at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow to believe that the first draft of the final agreement would be published at midnight Tuesday, the UK presidency will not have made many friends by delaying it till 6am Wednesday morning. There will have been plenty of negotiators – not to mention journalists – who will have needlessly waited up all night. In fact, COP26 president Alok Sharma will not have made many friends with the <a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Overarching_decision_1-CMA-3.pdf">text itself</a> either. As the host and chair of the summit, it is the UK’s responsibility to pull together all the negotiating texts which have been submitted and agreed over the last week into a coherent overall agreement. But the widespread consensus among delegates I have spoken to is that the draft they have produced is not sufficiently “balanced” between the interests and positions of the various country groupings. And for the chair of such delicate negotiations, that is a dangerous sin. Let’s recap. This COP (the conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is the designated moment under the 2015 Paris Agreement when countries must come forward with strengthened commitments to act. There are two main areas for this. One is emissions cuts by 2030, the so-called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs. The other, for the developed countries, is financial assistance to the least developed nations. The problem facing the COP is that we know already that, when added together, countries’ emissions targets are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-sets-course-for-disastrous-heating-of-more-than-24c-says-key-report">not nearly enough</a> to keep the world to a maximum warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial times, as the Paris Agreement aims for. And the financial promises don’t even reach the US$100 billion (£74.1 billion) a year that was meant to be achieved in 2020, let alone the much larger sums the most vulnerable countries need. So what have the poorest countries – and the vociferous civil society organisations demonstrating in Glasgow – been demanding? First, that NDCs should be strengthened before the scheduled date of 2025. And second, that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3">at least US$500 billion</a> should be provided in climate finance over the five years to 2025, with half of this going to help countries adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing. <h2>Urging – not requiring</h2> So what does the UK draft text say? It merely “urges” countries to strengthen their NDCs, proposing a meeting of ministers next year and a leaders’ summit in 2023. But “urges” is UN-speak for: “You may do this if you wish to, but you don’t have to if you don’t.” That is not enough to force countries to get onto a 1.5℃-compatible path. The text must require them to do so. On finance, the text is even weaker. There is no mention of the US$500 billion demand, although it does call for adaptation funding to be doubled. There is no mention of using the <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/08/23/how-the-world-can-make-the-most-of-new-special-drawing-rights">special drawing rights</a> (a kind of global money supply) which the IMF has recently issued for climate-compatible development. And there is insufficient recognition that the most vulnerable countries need much better access to the funds available. Of course, developing countries do not expect to get all their own way in the negotiations. But commenting on the overall balance of the text between different countries’ positions, one European delegate said to me: “This looks like it could have been written by the Americans.” It is of course true, as Alok Sharma emphasised in his afternoon press conference, that the text can still be changed. There are several issues on which negotiations are continuing and the text has yet to reflect their progress. Sharma has asked all parties to send in their suggested amendments to the draft and to meet him to discuss their reactions. He will find himself asked for a lot of meetings. But it matters how this early text is drafted, for two reasons. First, the lack of balance means that it is the least developed countries which will have to do the most work to change it. In Paris the French presidency worked the other way round. They drafted an ambitious text and dared the biggest emitters to oppose it. Second, the perceived imbalance could affect the trust in the British hosts. Sharma has built himself a strong reputation over the past couple of years preparing for the COP. He will not want to lose that in the crucial last days ahead. This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world. Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. <a href="https://page.theconversation.com/cop26-glasgow-2021-climate-change-summit/">More.</a> <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171632/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-jacobs-840558">Michael Jacobs</a>, Professorial Fellow, Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI), <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cop26-what-the-draft-climate-agreement-says-and-why-its-being-criticised-171632">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Landlord makes incredible gesture to tenant after selling house

A landlord has left an ex-tenant moved to tears after an incredible and unexpected act of kindness. Chris Robarge, from Massachusetts in the US, said he was randomly contacted by his former landlord to ask for his current address. After providing the information, he received a letter from the landlord who wanted to pay him back for the contributions he had made to the home. The landlord had recently sold the house, and said to Chris, “I firmly believe that the capitalist tradition of retaining that money after the sale of a property is exploitative and anti-ethical to a just society.” Enclosed in the letter was a cheque for $3,400AUD and a message explaining that the landlord had tried to keep rent “equivalent to the monthly expenses of keeping the house” for everyone who had lived there. The kind landlord wrote, “I calculated the amount of principal you paid each month you lived there, split it by who was living in the house at the time, and added 40 per cent (the increase in value of the home from when I bought it).” “While it’s not much, it’s yours! It was a great house and I’m glad I was able to share it with you.” The landlord also shared the same amount of money from the sale of the house to other tenants who lived there, saying, “some of the rent you paid each month contributed to paying off the principle of my mortgage.” Chris was shocked by the kind gesture, saying he had been thinking about the act of kindness for days. He said, “I am still completely beyond an actual way to describe what this act means to me.” “All that I can say is that there are people who talk about their values and there are people who actually live them, and the reason I wanted to share this is that I want to encourage us all to actually live our values.” “Do it off the clock, do it when no one is watching, do it always.” Image credit: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

Victory for terrorised tenants

A family who claimed their Christmas was ruined after their landlords began camping out in their backyard have had a surprising development. Nicky and William first made headlines when they spoke out about their landlord refusing to leave the backyard of their home, claiming it left them traumatised. However, local council have since come to the family's aid, advising the landlord their stay was no longer permissible and could result in an infringement notice. The council told 9News that the landlord has since returned to Sydney and does not plan to repeat their cruel conduct. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839492/landlord-tenant.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/bc13f56064644c8aa22aa23e179e33c7" /> The couple's fallout with their landlord Pascale Hubert and her partner began after Nicky received a shock text on Christmas night. Ms Hubert advised the family that the couple would now be occupying the backyard. "The text message said, 'Dear Nicky and William, I am the owner' … there was no names, no introductions, anything like that and it just said, 'as of tonight I will be occupying the rear yard'," Nicky told A Current Affair at the time. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839491/landlord-tenant-1.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/7b004ccc23ba42b286c0a83e2eede300" /> The couple soon found Ms Hubert and her partner near the rear end of the property with a camp set up. Nicky and William said the campsite at the back of the property had a shed, however there was no running water or toilet. It left the couple wondering where exactly they were leaving their bodily waste. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839492/landlord-tenant.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/bc13f56064644c8aa22aa23e179e33c7" /> "I noticed they've got a bucket, been doing poos and wees in the bucket. It's disgusting," William said. Nicky and William also claimed the landlord's partner was aggressive and that they had filmed the family in their own home. Not only that, but the couple claim their trampoline was dragged out of the backyard, and reinforcements were put in place when the couple tried to ask for help. Police had no idea how to handle the situation, and even the real estate agent managing over the property was stunned when they heard of the backyard bust up. Funnily enough, the backyard is not part of the lease, but it is all on the one title. "They can actually stay on the property in a tent for two days at a time, so they're allowed to stay here in the backyard for two days at a time but no more than 60 days in a 12-month period," Nicky said. In a statement to A Current Affair Clarence Valley Council said: "They were advised that occupying the property for longer than is permissible may result in Council issuing an infringement notice." "Mrs. Hubert contacted us immediately on receipt of the letter to advise she was unaware of the regulation and apologised for staying longer than permissible." The couple's lease ends in April and they're now looking for a new place to live. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839493/landlord-tenant-2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/e484bc0a393041b796448c98e2916ae7" /> The full statement from Laura Black, the Acting General Manager of Clarence Valley Council, as provided by Nine News reads: “On Thursday 7 January we issued advice to the property owner of ... Clause 77 of the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005, which states that 'The prior approval of the council is not required for: (a) the installation of not more than 2 caravans, campervans or tents on any land, so long as they are not occupied for more than 2 days at a time and are not occupied for more than 60 days (in total) in any single period of 12 months'. “They were advised that occupying the property for longer than is permissible may result in Council issuing an infringement notice. “Mrs Hubert contacted us immediately on receipt of the letter to advise she was unaware of the Regulation and apologised for staying longer than permissible. She and her husband had by then returned to Sydney and do not plan to return and repeat offend. “We also advised the tenants of ... of the action taken. “We will work together with local real estate agents to help them to better understand the rules around camping on private property. The attached fact sheet with more information is available to the community on our website.”

Real Estate

Tenant horror as landlord moves into backyard: “Our children are terrified”

A Yamba-based family have admitted their Christmas was swiftly ruined after their landlord set up camp in their backyard. Nicky and William told A Current Affair what they thought would be a peaceful stay at the rental home with their three kids has quickly soured into a “traumatic” experience for the family, because “nobody can help” them. Landlord Pascale Hubert and her partner pitched a tent in the backyard of the rental property on Christmas evening, refusing to leave the premises and had even gone as far to film the family while they were inside the home. "Listen here s--- for brains, I've given you a warning, move that frigging car now you are in big s---," the landlord's husband is heard saying in phone footage obtained by reporters. "Our children are terrified, they keep asking, "who are they?" and we can't give them any answers," Nicky said. The couple had both lost their jobs to COVID-19 but quickly hope was restored when Nicky landed a job at a hospital in north coast of NSW. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839361/landlord-tenant-2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/99aa2817ee754fcdbf1a82d8849449dd" /> They signed a lease for a rental at $560 a week. Just two months into their stay, Nicky says she was shocked when she received a text message from her landlord on December 25 telling her she and her partner would be living in the backyard. "The text message said, 'Dear Nicky and William, I am the owner' … there was no names, no introductions, anything like that and it just said, 'as of tonight I will be occupying the rear yard'," Nicky said. The tenants then came home to find that their landlord and her partner had set up camp at the rear of the property. The section is one title and while it hasn't been subdivided, a partial existing fence separates Nicky and William's home from the backyard – which is easily accessible through a side gate. To make matters worse for the couple, there is no running water or toilet in the backyard. "I noticed they've got a bucket, been doing poos and wees in the bucket. It's disgusting. I just want to know where they're emptying it. They've got to empty it somewhere, don't they?" William said. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839363/landlord-tenant.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/1f148998890445659efd6b4060ed6eb5" /> Jess claimed the landlords' partner "was very aggressive from the start". "I heard an altercation and my husband said, wow it's the owners. They've turned up," she said. The partner of the landlord had dragged the trampoline out of the backyard and installed gate reinforcements, while the couple desperately made calls for help. "It's completely bizarre to everybody we tell. Police and real estate don't know what to do. We can't contact council because of Christmas, but it's day 11 of them living in the backyard," Nicky said. When reporter Steve Marshall asked about the situation, the landlord told him they were “not squatting in the backyard” as the home was “not rented with the backyard.” The rental lease does confirm that the properties backyard was not included as part of the listing, but Nicky says she was told the “owners don’t live here” and only wanted access to the shed for storage with “adequate notice” being given first. "Regardless of them being able to access the back shed, they need to give us at least seven days' notice to come access the property - let alone camp in it," Nicky said. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839362/landlord-tenant-1.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/4b27e31ee9674bdb85b110a816e13d87" /> "The police are telling us that the real estate should be physically removing these people and the real estate are saying they can't do that." The landlord who usually lives in Sydney said they may be in the backyard to stay. "At the end of April, we're not going to take a tenant anymore and we're just going to start building," Ms Hubert said. "It could be that the landlord is trespassing whenever they go across that driveway area because they are entering into a place that they've given someone else procession," Leo Patterson Ross from The Tenants Union of NSW told A Current Affair. "At the end of the day while the lease says that the backyard isn't included the landlord has to go down the driveway that the lease doesn't talk about and what the lease also promises the tenant is reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in their home."

Real Estate

Landlord charged for truly “underhand” act that cost tenants $3700

A man has been charged after listing his ex-girlfriend’s flat to rent, pocketing the cash and heading overseas. Phillip Allman and Lucy Sharp were in a relationship for six years before ending it last December. The pair remained friends and Sharp allowed Allman to move into her apartment temporarily after his last relationship ended. However, the 29-year-old man abused that generosity by listing Sharp’s flat as available for rental online. According to Wales Online, Jolanta Goniuch responded to the advertisement on Gumtree that listed the flat at £400 ($AUD 744) and required a £400 deposit upfront. Goniuch called Allman to arrange an inspection and was told that the flat would be available from late June. After the phone call, she then transferred £800 ($AUD 1489) into his bank account. Another victim, Natera Morris and her partner Sean Malone, fell for the scam the next day and paid a total of £600 ($AUD 1117). It wasn’t until later that another victim also paid £600. In total, Allman pocketed more than £2,000 ($AUD 3700) from the tenants. On June 10, Allman disappeared and Sharp only became aware of the con when Malone arrived on her doorstep. Sharp tried to contact Allman, but was ignored. He was eventually caught by the police and sentenced to one year behind bars. “The offences for which I have to deal with you are really mean and underhand offences of dishonesty,” he said, according to <a href="https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/phillip-allman-newport-jailed-court-17217610">Wales Online</a>. “They come from a man who has been committing offences of dishonesty for years and years. “You were fortunate enough to have a generous friend. You abused her friendship and trust to cheat people out of money.” Allman admitted to three counts of fraud in breach of a suspended sentence and all the victims were repaid the money they sent Allman via bank transfer. However, Morris and Lobina paid some funds in cash, which were unable to be recovered.

Money & Banking

Landlord or tenant: Who is responsible for damage in a rental property?

Mould in the bathroom or a broken dishwasher can cause unwarranted stress for landlords and tenants. Especially when it comes to working out who is to blame and whose responsibility it is to fix. No landlord or tenant wants to be locked into a battle of “it’s not my fault” when it comes to rental repairs, or to pay for something when they shouldn’t need to. “Repairs are one of the largest issues that incur disputes between landlords and tenants,” Tenants Union of Victoria spokeswoman Yaelle Caspi says. But that doesn’t need to be the case if everyone knows their rights and responsibilities. Emergency repairs Tenancy laws across Australia stipulate that urgent repairs must be responded to immediately by the landlord, within 24 to 48 hours. If the landlord does not respond, tenants are, in most instances, allowed to organise urgent repairs themselves – up to a certain value. In Victoria, this is authorised up to the amount of $1800, in NSW it is up to $1000. A tenant is expected to be compensated for any of these expenses if deemed “reasonable”. Of course, not all cases are the same. Generally, urgent repairs include: Burst water services, blocked or broken toilets, serious roof leaks, gas leaks, storm or fire damage, electrical faults, flooding, issues causing the home to be unsafe or insecure, breakdown of stove or oven, serious faults in the staircase or elevator. In some states a breakdown of the air conditioner is also considered an emergency. Non-urgent repairs In most cases it’s the landlord’s responsibility to take care of routine repairs that don’t compromise the tenant’s safety, such as leaking taps or broken door handles. “My advice to landlords is to repair the property and keep it in good condition, because that is the best way to protect your own interest and your asset,” says Lisa Indge, director of property management service Let’s Rent. Mould If the mould is because of a problem with the property, such as a roof leak, then the landlord has the responsibility to clean the mould and make any repairs necessary, but if the tenant caused the mould, by, for example, letting steam build up, then they are liable. But, as Tenants’ Union of New South Wales senior policy officer Ned Cutcher says, it’s not always clear whether something is a cleaning or a maintenance problem. “Dealing with things like mould and vermin can be quite tricky because the landlord’s obligation is for repairs and maintenance and the tenant’s obligation is to keep the place reasonably clean, and these two things often butt up against each other,” he says. Lightbulbs Tenants are responsible for changing lightbulbs. But if changing a bulb requires specialist knowledge, or specialist equipment such as some halogen globes, changing it may be part of the property manager/owner’s responsibility to maintain the property. Drains and gutters Generally, if a drain or gutter becomes blocked due to fair wear and tear (for example, due to tree roots blocking a drain), it is the property manager/owner’s responsibility, but if the tenant has done something to block the drain they must fix it themselves. Smoke alarms In all states and territories smoke alarms must comply with the Building Code of Australia, and in every home there must be at least one smoke alarm located between the bedrooms and an exit. Landlords must supply and install smoke alarms and replace the batteries before each new tenancy. Under new legislation introduced in January 2017 in Queensland, smoke alarms manufactured more than 10 years ago must be replaced. Pools The tenant is responsible for everyday maintenance such as clearing leaves from the pool and may be responsible for more regular maintenance, but this should be discussed and set out in the terms of the lease. But before anything breaks or needs to be fixed… Remember to keep a record of everything – take pictures and document the problems in an email. And make sure, as a tenant, you thoroughly inspect the property before you’ve settled in. “There should be photos of each window, before the tenant moves in,” Indge says. “If it does not say on the condition report that the window is cracked, then the assumption is the window is intact when you move into the property.” And, of course, consult the laws relative to your state. Have you ever had issues with a landlord or tenant? Written by Madeleine Wedesweiler. Republished with permission of<a href="http://www.domain.com.au" target="_blank"> Domain.com.au</a>.

Retirement Income

The battle between landlords and tenants

Landlords have come in for a bashing following the publication of <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96017635/renters-unite-report-calls-for-caps-on-annual-rent-rises" target="_blank">the People's Review of Renting by Renters United.</a> The report contained extracts of tenants' bad experiences with landlords and damp, unhealthy houses. But seasoned landlords feel they are being demonised, and say tenants "who don't know how to live in a house" can turn an ordinary family home into a damp, mouldy mess in just a few months. Auckland landlord Peter Lewis gave the example of a friend who turned landlord by renting out the home he had lived in for 19 years, and had raised his family in. "Within six months the tenants were complaining it was damp and mouldy. That had to be the way the tenants were living," Lewis said. Just this week, Lewis said he visited tenants in a Pukekohe home he owns. It was a chilly day. The tenants were sitting huddled in the lounge wrapped in blankets, with condensation running down the windows. Lewis said he spent $6500 to insulate the house and install a heat pump. The tenants said they couldn't afford the electricity to run it. "I have done everything I can do, and to see the place as cold with condensation running down the windows. Yes, it is bad but they are not doing their part," he said. Lewis doesn't mince his words. "Some people are life incompetent." This includes people not understanding "how to live in a house", or managing their lives and finances to ensure there's money for necessities. Some, the Renters United report suggests, may simply not be fit for human habitation without landlords spending a great deal of money on them. But living in homes "badly", including not heating them, could rapidly result in mould appearing. Sharon Cullwick, a Hawke's Bay landlord, is involved in a state-funded programme to educate young people to be "Ready to Rent". Cullwick says in her own relatively new home she has to clean condensation off windows. "If I don't wipe down the windows, I get mould." Some tenants even have to be told not to dry clothes on racks in the house, to open the curtains during the daytime, and to air the house periodically by opening the windows, she said. Tenants using portable gas heaters, which can spew out a litre of water vapour in an hour, were also a problem, she said. All of this makes landlords feel nervous about calls from Renters United for a Warrant of Fitness (WOF) for homes. They fear homes could fail as a result of tenant behaviours. Graham Roper from Rental WOF has developed a system rating rental homes from A (excellent) to F (Very poor) which landlords, and tenants, can pay for. The idea is that landlords can use the WOF ratings, which are voluntary, to attract tenants. But Roper agreed with landlords like Lewis. "The way people are living can be a problem," he said. A home could be liveable when properly heated, and using dehumidifiers, Lewis said. But if a tenant did not do either, it could become cold and damp. Some tenants feared their landlord improving a property, in case they raised the rent, Roper said. Landlords may have made massive unrealised capital gains, but maintaining homes often built of wood is demanding and capital intensive. That can make landlords, who are often making an operating loss (capital gains excluded) on their properties, reluctant to spend money. Lewis has nine properties, and spent $41,000, not including his own labour, on maintenance last year. Another landlord, who asked not to be named, said excessive demands from tenants were unwelcome. She gave the example of a tenant who was demanding carpets be replaced. The carpets in question were stained by a previous tenant, not just in a few places, but in many with coffee, tea, and even raspberry sauce. The landlord had had them commercially cleaned, but not all the stains could be removed. Lewis said he valued a tenant who knew their rights, and was not afraid to assert them. Renters United concluded in its report that tenants feared challenging landlords over necessary maintenance, for fear they would be booted out using landlords' 90-day no fault eviction powers. Stories in the report included landlords taking months to fix unsafe wiring and light sockets, or pay to have faulty locks replaced. Lewis said there were arrogant landlords, and landlords who did not care about the law, but they were a minority, and tenants could fight them by going to the Tenancy Tribunal. He would like to see Tenancy Services slip information sheets into the bond receipt letters it sends out each time a new tenancy begins. Clearly some landlords could benefit from similar information. Tenancy Services' recently established investigations unit has so far done more than 400 investigations in less than a year of operation. Its findings make clear that it is not hard to find landlords who are failing in their legal duties. Who do you think has it worse, landlords or tenants? Written by Rob Stock. Republished with permission of <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank">Stuff.co.nz</a>.

Retirement Income

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

“Truly disgraceful”: Landlord cops backlash after posting photo of evicted tenant

Tenants forced to pay landlord after fleeing their “uninhabitable” rental

Outrage after renters confronted with cleaning “scoring system”

Calls to protect rights of tenants with animals

Do tenancy reforms to protect renters cause landlords to exit the market?

Landlord overstays welcome sleeping in tent under tenant’s home

Woman “harassed” over previous tenant’s 78 cent bill

How an Aussie senior inherited her long-term home from her landlord

House listing includes ex-husband “up for grabs as tenant”

Renter leaves hidden warnings to future tenants

Tenant “living in hell” with nightmare landlord’s restrictions

COP26: what the draft climate agreement says – and why it’s being criticised

Landlord makes incredible gesture to tenant after selling house

Victory for terrorised tenants

Tenant horror as landlord moves into backyard: “Our children are terrified”

Landlord charged for truly “underhand” act that cost tenants $3700

Landlord or tenant: Who is responsible for damage in a rental property?

The battle between landlords and tenants

Our Partners