I am in the waiting room at the tribunal for the 3rd hearing for the day.
First one went well - bond refund for minor damages and cleaning.
The second one was arranged as an urgent hearing due to tenants not sticking to their payment plan that they agreed to in a previous hearing.
Our application was for vacant possession.
Reason - the tenant is unable to financially commit to a payment plan - history tells us this, and our landlord will be financially better off recouping debt from the bond and insurance while we re advertise the property for another tenant.
The tenant was put onto a plan to pay $100 extra above normal payments in September last year. They have not adhered to the plan and payments have been late - 2-3 days late over a period of time really adds up.
We were overruled - payment plan re-instated today by tribunal order.
Tribunals do this a lot!
So my question is, aside from the unfairness of a landlord having to hold that debt with no interest and forced to act as a charity, are these multiple chances fair to a tenant?
The trend I have seen over the years is tenants falling further and further into debt as each fortnight adds a new payment and new water invoice.
It's difficult for an individual with a capped income to recover from a $1000 or $2000 debt that just keeps increasing.
Businesses / entrepreneurs/ investors can trade out of it by creating more money but someone who relies on one income is unable to do that!
Where do tribunals think the money is going to come from?
Are they just increasing tenant debt to landlords and adding to insurance claims later?
It could have been stopped when tenants were only a few weeks behind!
Is it really fair to give tenants so many chances and increase their arrears as a result?
First one went well - bond refund for minor damages and cleaning.
The second one was arranged as an urgent hearing due to tenants not sticking to their payment plan that they agreed to in a previous hearing.
Our application was for vacant possession.
Reason - the tenant is unable to financially commit to a payment plan - history tells us this, and our landlord will be financially better off recouping debt from the bond and insurance while we re advertise the property for another tenant.
The tenant was put onto a plan to pay $100 extra above normal payments in September last year. They have not adhered to the plan and payments have been late - 2-3 days late over a period of time really adds up.
We were overruled - payment plan re-instated today by tribunal order.
Tribunals do this a lot!
So my question is, aside from the unfairness of a landlord having to hold that debt with no interest and forced to act as a charity, are these multiple chances fair to a tenant?
The trend I have seen over the years is tenants falling further and further into debt as each fortnight adds a new payment and new water invoice.
It's difficult for an individual with a capped income to recover from a $1000 or $2000 debt that just keeps increasing.
Businesses / entrepreneurs/ investors can trade out of it by creating more money but someone who relies on one income is unable to do that!
Where do tribunals think the money is going to come from?
Are they just increasing tenant debt to landlords and adding to insurance claims later?
It could have been stopped when tenants were only a few weeks behind!
Is it really fair to give tenants so many chances and increase their arrears as a result?