Skip to main content

To: NSW Department of Communities and Justice; Fair Trading NSW; Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation;

Better balance in tenant-agency relationship

This campaign has ended.

The Residential Tenancies Act 2010 is meant to provide for a fair relationship between tenants and rental agencies or landlords, but does it? A lack of regulatory initiative for a normal balance has in time encouraged agents to behave like some feudal lords' servants over their master's serfs, with no way to stop them. A tenant is meant to make videos of water dripping, mould growing, etc. - a phone call to report a fault would do, but if you try to call it goes somewhat like: "How dare you to call!, for the 2nd time this week(!!)- about a dripping hot water tap [?! are you out of your mind [!?], don't you know there are laws against harassing rental agents! ..." And that is just the beginning of it.
The focus of my petition is a lack of clear provision (as well as an apparent lack of prosecution) that would protect exiting tenants against frivolous and fraudulent claims on their bonds.
The agency I rented from, from the beginning of February 2021 to a few weeks ago (middle of Nov 2021), in all likelihood, claimed a part of the previous tenant's bond, to recover costs of cleaning. On the incoming report, I marked, for the record, that (as their own pictures clearly indicate) the place is rather dirty and, with some begrudging, cleaned it myself. I cleaned it again on moving out (even hired help - not one recommended by the agency) - leaving the place by far cleaner than it was. Without much of a notice, they recently made a claim on my bond to, again, recover costs of cleaning - it seems like, I did not take the right kind of "insurance" (...). Upon my application to NCAT, they sent me the same or almost the same pictures (that they took) from the incoming report. At about the same time that they claimed on my bond (about 10 days after being vacated) the place was advertised for rent, without any cleaning (additional to mine) being made. Evidently, 3 or 4 days after claiming (!) they paid almost $700 for a cleaning work so meticulous that it has skillfully preserved all the little imperfections of our cleaning (little stains on walls, rust under the stove...).
A day after they claimed (which is also a day before I lodged an application to NCAT to stop the deduction from my bond), I warned them that (aside from being completely unsubstantiated) their claim constitutes an offence under s. 165 of RTA 2010 because it precedes any quotes. Silly of me, in a rage and under influence of a certain webpage (since removed), I somehow, read that section as if it provides me with sufficient protection! A few days after my application to NCAT they sent me 2 quite bizarre quotes (made after the claim to match the amount claimed, one requiring the use of a hammer) that made it obvious that they do not have a morsel of fear of being caught in committing a wrong. This behaviour should constitute, at least, a "lack of reasonable excuse" (as per s. 165) - it should bear, at least, the same chance of punishment.
This agency (unlikely alone) is in a cycle of claiming on tenants' bonds (no matter whether there are reasons for it or not). As the law is, it does not cost them anything to try to get a few dollars from an exiting tenant - they would be crazy to let any scruples get into the way of profit. If not intimidated, most tenants are likely to be impatient, click on "check how much you would get.." and agree with a claim - job done. Even if a tenant is ready to pay for an application to protect his/her money (and do hours of work - one cannot hire a lawyer for a claim worth several hundred dollars, and preparing a Tribunal application and supporting documentation is quite an arduous and time taking work, no matter how big a dispute), it does not matter, any invoice might do... This unthinkable parasitism would, and must, be discouraged by a more informed view and reach of regulation - "unthinkable" should not be unimaginable. Far from being unimaginable, unwarranted or malicious interferences with bonds are in no way more"victimless", or more commendable conduct than riding on a train with no ticket, parking illegally, etc. Why can't the RTA 2010 address this commonly known issue and what is a reason for tolerating these acts of "petty extortion"?

Why is this important?

We all, landlords and (decent or crooked) agencies included, pay our taxes, in the hope to live a society that is not lawless thanks to administrative bodies not wanting to administer, or even properly regulate, affairs in their jurisdiction. If this goes on, we may all end up having to buy a place to live in, or move in hotels, just because we have no nerves to deal with too trying rental agencies.
Imagine you are being mugged and you (you'd think, fortunately) attract patrolling policeman's attention, but they say something like: "you need to pay $52 for an Application for protection - ....you can swipe your card here ... we'll get you out of this situation (like a knife in ribs) in less than a year, cheer up!" That is roughly how the system works - if you want to keep your money, you have to become an applicant in a lengthy tribunal claim.
I am not blaming the system (of admin justice) - the system itself would benefit the most from a few words in the Act that would make it clear to agents that there are no presumptions in their favour. I would not imagine that any such "few words" (a fairer regulation) would put NCAT out of work - far from it, besides simply providing for fairness (and perception of if - presuming that it is the regulator's goal to be perceived as fair), it would significantly increase public revenue.
An update to this (12/2/22): Now, I do blame the NCAT. Not only that I was swindled for over $600, but it happened with their sanction. By closing their eyes to my side of evidence, while treating "very detailed" invoice as being brought down by Moses, ... they have shown to be a "rubber-stamping body" for this type of racketeering. The amounts of money involved in such claims (to small for a proper consideration), punitive cost of (leave to) appeal - all things considered, the process as it is, "shields" the Fair Trading from perceiving any lack of fairness in it.
I would have also been spared of this perception if, in place of providing what is only an illusion, the RTA would redefine a bond into some kind of a non-refundable fee. I am not advocating for a fee on top of rent, but such a fee would not only remove (existing) illusions and save tenants unnecessary grief - it would potentially make agents act competitively (not only in attracting tenants but in keeping them). There would be neither "petty extortions" nor a need to seek justice, that may not be found.
Either way, it looks like this petition might be the only way ...
Thanks for reading and for your signature.

New South Wales, Australia

Maps © Stamen; Data © OSM and contributors, ODbL

Updates

2021-12-14 11:50:58 +1100

10 signatures reached