[NSW PSA] New Residential Tenancy Laws Commence 23 March 2020

Related Stores

fairtrading.nsw.gov.au

• 

  WreckTangle on 20/03/2020 - 20:35

  Nothing about pets though, pretty poor

  • 

    Clear on 20/03/2020 - 20:45

    +1

    Do you think all pets should be allowed?

    • 

      CyberMurning on 20/03/2020 - 20:53

      Should all ban for tenants but allowed for landlords

    • 

      WreckTangle on 21/03/2020 - 07:36

      -1

      Yip, Australians are entitled to own pets
      (And I’m a landlord)

      • 

        Clear on 21/03/2020 - 09:21

        +1

        I'm also a landlord and I say on application. Simply because I've seen properties where there has been pee stains and other nasties left behind.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 20/03/2020 - 21:26

    +2

    I noticed the recent Vic laws update makes it easier for tenants to have pets

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 20/03/2020 - 22:31

      Until their lease is up.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 21/03/2020 - 09:57

        Not a fan of pets in rental properties?

        • 

          [Deactivated] on 21/03/2020 - 10:39

          +2

          @[Deactivated]: Not a fan of stupid laws.

          It is not the fact it is a pet. It can be gingerbread men. The point is, if the landlord doesn't want a certain type of tenant and that is presented upfront before a contract is signed, the government has no business enforcing otherwise.

          If the tenant is not satisfied with the conditions presented before contract, do not accept the lease.

          It is that simple.

          • 

            [Deactivated] on 21/03/2020 - 17:43

            @[Deactivated]: People's circumstances change all the time.

            • 

              Clear on 21/03/2020 - 19:20

              @[Deactivated]: And a good landlord can be flexible when circumstances change.

              • 

                [Deactivated] on 21/03/2020 - 20:59

                @Clear: Exactly!

          • 

            abc123z on 08/04/2020 - 23:03

            @[Deactivated]: I am happy to allow pets in my properties for tenants that can show a good rental history and the pet is suitable, but the pet laws disrespect landlords rights. And also work against landlords like me who are happy to advertise their property as pets considered in order to attract long term tenants where both parties are happy, if tenants can just sneak their pets into any property regardless.

            I think a big cause of landlords not being willing to accept pets is being unable to legally ask for a reasonable extra bond or reasonable extra cleaning on exit to cover potential extra costs of pet (in the supposed interests of tenants) which just resulted in landlords not wanting to accept pets at all. And the tenants then had to give up their pets. A terrible outcome but now forcing landlords to accept pets and have a hostile relationship is not good either.

• 

  HighAndDry on 21/03/2020 - 10:54

  +1

  Mandatory set fees when a tenant breaks their lease will apply to all new fixed-term agreements that are 3 years or less

  There's no incentive for landlords to sign long fixed term tenancy agreements anymore when the tenant can get out for a few weeks break fee regardless - the long term would only benefit tenants.

  We're going to see a lot more 6-12 month tenancies.

• 

  RichardL on 08/04/2020 - 21:07

  Landlords must ensure that smoke alarms are in working order. A penalty will apply for landlords who don’t comply

  Does anyone know if a licensed electrician/certificate is required to ensure that smoke alarm is in working order?

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 21:45

    See below

• 

  [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 21:45

  Property manager arranges an annual smoke alarm service for our investment property which also includes a certificate.

  Key changes to smoke alarm requirements for rented homes

  • 

    abc123z on 08/04/2020 - 23:29

    I know this kind of stuff has been around for a while although getting worse but if a tenant can't be asked to replace a user replaceable battery or push a test button that is one thing but then all owner occupiers shouldn't be expected to do the same. The owner occupiers should expect the government to provide such services or should have to pay a qualified person to perform these services for them. Because if it is not safe for tenants it is not safe for anyone as we are all just unqualified people. See how well that goes down politically.

    • 

      pndl on 21/01/2021 - 09:19

      The government thinks they are helping tenants but these kind of compliance costs add up. A 2 minute job becomes a $100 one. The costs might be absorbed by the landlord initially but market economics says it will eventually be reflected the rental price. The only winner are the alarm testing 'technicians'.