A large tree has fallen in my back yard. It is stable and just missed the neighbour's fence. It is heavy and I cannot do anything about it. I am responsible for the lawns.
This tree will require professional removal, am I responsible for that or my landlord?
@Protractor: Quite possibly, but I don't think that was his intended purpose when they created him.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Woodpecker
But I suppose people get off on all sorts of things, why not a talking cartoon animal?
Were you at the base of the tree with a running chainsaw, just before it dropped?
Also what species of tree is it?
dont know, but its not eucalypt
Chuck a picture up.Someone might ID it for you. It might have some decent usable timber in it.
its dark out
@Typical16-bitEnjoyer: If he sets the tree on fire, then there will be enough light to take the photo.
@screensaver: I've got a baseball bat and glove to sell
https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=537513750874512&vanity=comed…
Well that narrows it down!
I’ve marked you as safe on Facebook, Pam
I heard the cats are fine too.
Thoughts and prayers for her key, that has not yet been located 😔
To who is your question directed, the OP?
I’m more terraced in who is Pam?
PUM 4 PAM?
Free firewood at Pam's place - post as deal - landlord with thank you later 👍
Not gonna lie, clicked on this post expecting the thread to be just another arsehole landlord trying to shirk their responsibility and trying to make a tenant pay for an "act of God".
Unless the "fall" was due to your negligence (ie: you backed a truck into it or hit it with a chainsaw) you are not responsible for it. The landlord also needs to make it a priority to get it removed as it would be a safety issue. I would warn them to get it done asap or threaten them that you will get someone in and send them the bill for it.
as it would be a safety issue
It was a safety issue until it fell.
Now its not.
Unless Pam trips over it when trying to run away from a burglar, kidnapper or evacuating her house after it caught on fire.
Gets a deep gash on her leg as she walks past it from a sharp branch that later gets infected (her leg) and requires amputation?
Is impeding her pathway from the laundry to her washing line?
A bunch of opportunistic OzBs invading her yard with chainsaws to collect the free fire wood?
Is a Tenant Responsible for Fallen Trees?
Nope
I am responsible for the lawns.
Tree isn't lawn. So you're all good. Let the owner/agent know.
What if she asked someone to cut it down an hour beforehand?
🙄
It's a possibility if you know who OP is.
You sound like a good tenant….
Ripe for 'the exploiting'?
Please..no more Pam exploits 🙏
Who is Pam?
If a tree drops on a boomers investment property? Can anyone hear it?
Dunno, but it seems like you'd be able to hear all the people applauding.
the insurer would hear about it, however the tenant will be on the street.
What are you talking about?
How is that clip relevant to this thread?
OMG, how can someone be a landlord on a forum and not understand their responsibilities they need to read all of the post before commenting?
am I responsible for that or my landlord?
Just get some termites or chipmunks and they will eat the entire tree.
Don't forget the beavers
And woodpeckers
I had this issue with a fallen tree many years ago in Qld during one of the big storms. We were the Tennant's, except the house had actually fallen on the house and penetrated through the interior roof leaving a large hole and a brand inside the house, making 1/3rd of the house unliveable. I had to take the real estate to court as they A) wanted us to continue paying full rent for the house and B) would not let us break lease early/ terminate the contract due to this issue
In the end we won the case, we broke lease early, and also had the rent cut down and reimbursed back to the original date
did you get the full rent back or just 1/3rd of it?
If I recall it was just reimbursed around 1/3rd of rent from the initial incident, and then were able to terminate the lease without the break lease fees and paying further rent. But this is going back about 8 years now so hard to remember exact details and figures etc
Inala?
You didn't mention which State you are in but in Queensland that would be the landlord's responsibility.
pretty sure it's in all states for anything major like that
tenant would need to do general jobs like trimming and pruning but lets say if it was very high then that would be unreasonable
Probably but each jurisdiction has their own legislation.
not for big fallen trees… landlord always responsible
You didn't mention which State you are in
Confused.
Time for bikies
wow even leaving a post a little ambiguous so there is the slightest chance OP could be a landlord brings out the haters.
It's a pretty safe default position,though.
Landlords and soup kitchens are hardly seen as compatible associates.
Are you serious? Oh wait, Pam right?
Damn, some think this is actually serious
Is a Tenant Responsible for Fallen Trees?
Depends on why they fell.
But what about fallen leaves?
From the fallen tree, of course …
But what about fallen leaves?
That is due to the Earth tilting.
Unless you are convinced that the tenant did something that caused the large tree to fall over - like what, crash their bulldozer into it? - I don't know why this question would enter your head.
And what's the bit about being responsible for the lawns? You mow the lawn at your rented property?
And what's the bit about being responsible for the lawns? You mow the lawn at your rented property?
Extremely common. The corralory is very uncommon where the landlord does this on behalf of their tenant, though sometimes this is done for tenant at their expense.
It is an expectation and a term of the lease in many instances that a tenant is responsible for basic garden maintenance including mowing the lawn. This typically extends to basic lawn mowing and edge trimming of a reasonable sized residential property with minimal obstructions and/or obstacles.Perhaps some very basic garden maintenance too.
What you cannot compel a tenant to do is actually water that lawn or garden (even if you pay water costs), and you certainly can't compel them to do things like trim hedges, control growth of large trees or bushes (nothing above waist height with general equipment), weed gardens or lawns, accrue any cost involved in maintaining that garden such as mulching, weed spraying, top soil, replacement of dead plants or grass or mulch that has naturally decomposed.
You cannot even compel a tenant to undertake any activity which may require them to use a ladder or connect their electrical equipment to an extension cord and if they indicate they use fuel driven equipment, you must provide adequate access to fire fighting/control equipment such as fire blankets/extinguishers.
If plants die, the tenant is never responsible for their removal, far less replacement, regardless of what caused the plant to die.
If you laid pebbles or stones without a weed barrier causing weeds to grow and survive, you also can't compel a tenant to treat or manage that, especially at their expense.
Same for weeds that grow between unsealed pavers or cracks/joins in cement paths and driveways.
For sure, there are situations where lawn and garden maintenance are included in the rental agreement and become the landlord's responsibility.
For example, one of my properties is 2 acres with extensive established plants and gardens, heaps of lawn across various levels and slopes and a 25m pool.
Complete garden and pool maintenance is included in the lease at my expense for several reasons
Pay for weekly pool maintenance, upkeep, cleaning and chemicals etc.
There is an automatic creepy crawly in the pool that tenants are supposed to take out from time to time/keep an eye on. Also a variety of pool nets and equipment to periodically scoop leaves and debris from pool. It is also hoped that the tenant will check and clean the filter box fairly often… Also a pool cover on a proper motorised reels to put over pool when not in use.
Unfortunately, none of this happens and I cannot expect them to do it. If they do try to do it and they make a mistake, the cost to fix still falls to me. The tenants aren't professional pool cleaners, nor are they legally required to become one.
Similarly, they aren't professional gardeners in most cases and even if they were, they are my customers, not my employees or slaves.
1) I believe that care and maintenance of this garden would be above the ability and care factor of most people, but especially tenants who effectively have no skin in the game.
2) I don't believe that most people would put in the effort required to maintain this garden to the level that I'd like, even if they could.
3) I believe that most prospective tenants would just walk away from the property because they anticipate how much work they may be required to do.
4) I believe that the amount of work required for the upkeep would cause many contracted tenants to move on quite quickly rather than renewing their lease and becoming long term tenants.
5) The garden is phenomenal and took over 20 years to establish to where it is today. A tenant is only required to do very basic care and maintenance, and that simply won't be enough for the upkeep of this garden and I'd be absolutely devestated if it were left to deteriorate.
6) the garden and landscaping significantly increases the value, appeal and utility of the property whilst maximising its potential and it augments the house, other structures on the land and achievable lifestyle the property has to offer.
7) it would be impractical to use a standard mower on a large portion of the property and it would be unrealistic to expect a tenant to buy and operate a ride on mower.
8) one part of the property can only be mowed by a hand mower, but because of the slope of that part, it needs a special mower that a tenant may not have and it can't be expected that the tenant buys another mower to do this.
=> early on, they decided to use their mower to mow this strip of land in between visits by the professional gardener. They thought they were doing me a favour and not asking for the Gardner to visit again before he was next scheduled.
It caused their mower to blow up and I had to buy them a brand new one to replace theirs. Apparently, you can't mow on a slope with a four stroke motor, you're supposed to use a two stroke motor for that. If I didn't know that, I can hardly expect my tenants to know that.
It would have been cheaper for me if they'd just given me a heads up that the grass had grown faster than usual that week and asked me to organise an extra gardening visit.
Another property is a typical residential house and land with basic lawns and gardens on flat ground with no obstacles.
However, tenants are on the older side and lawn and garden maintenance is often quite challenging for them.
They don't want or need anything fancy, just a nice neat and tidy appearance.
There is a producing mini mango tree on the property which drops fruit that needs collecting.
With their permission, I pay the kid across the road from them $40 a week for basic mowing, edging and gardening. I pay for stuff like weeding sprays etc. Kid is about 15 and he and his dad get into it together for a few hours each weekend.
I also pay them if a larger clean up is required which may require a dump trip or Bunnings visit for example.
Everyone else sorts out their own regular garden and lawn maintenance at their expense as they're pretty straight forward properties. But I do pay a professional gardener for one off upkeep and maintenance at the start of every Spring.
Landlord is responsible for the removal/repairs involved.
Only case where it's the tenant's responsibility is if you can clearly show that it's the tenants fault it fell over - which is incredibly hard to prove.
And then it has to be intentional, malicious damage. If it was an accident, the tenant can't be compelled to remedy.
correct, which again, is incredibly hard to prove.
I can't think of a situation where the tenant would be responsible here. The most they can do is inform the landlord or agent if they suspect a tree is no longer stable if it's something they became aware of.
Is the fallen tree bothering you or impeding access to the yard or for entertainment purposes? Landlord may come back and say it’s a new landscaping feature 🤣 and decide to leave it as is.
Except landlord can't change the property whilst the rental agreement exists.
LOL LL can't just randomly add stuff to a property when they have a legally recognised tenant, even if it is a benefit to the tenant. They have to get permission from the tenant to change, add or remove anything that causes the initial condition of the property to be different.
you can change the property.
I had a tree fall over at a tenants property after some of the storms of 2023, it also damaged the fence.
Our remedy - Get the fence repaired, and remove the tree. The tenant tried complaining that we need to replace the tree instead of simply removing it, they produced the same assumption as yourself "the landlord can't change the property". Property manager stepped in and showed the tenancy act. can't remember it word for word, but they proved that removing of the tree counts as a repair or safety measure, and unless it specifically mentions the tree in the tenancy agreement (which it didn't) we were not required to replace it….so in some, rare occasions, changes to the property are permitted.
You answered your own statement. In your situation, the landlord didn't change the property.
Meh, how often have your dividing fences been included in a rental agreement and what do you think would be expected to happen if one of those became not fit for purpose?
How about the roof? I can't remember anywhere in my property agreements that mentioned a roof, but I'm going to bet that if the roof stopped doing what it was supposed to do, the landlord would be required to replace it.
Driveway?
Letterbox?
Water meter?
Electrical box?
Windows & doors?
LOL, some things need to be replaced even if they're not included in the tenancy agreement.
In your case, like for like would have been unreasonable, but a $10 sapling from Bunnings would have likely appeased the xCat Gods.
If something is present at the property at time the tenant takes legal possession, if it's not included in the agreement, you have to specifically exclude it from the agreement.
You answered your own statement. In your situation, the landlord didn't change the property.
No i didn't….We did change the property. The property DID have a tree, now the property doesn't have a tree….that's clearly a change.
Regarding all the other areas you mentioned, they do get covered in the tenancy act under section 63.
Roof – must be leak-free and structurally sound.
Driveway – must be safe and not pose trip hazards.
Letterbox – must be functional, especially if used to receive notices.
Water meter / Electrical box – must comply with safety and utility access standards.
Windows & Doors – must lock, open/close properly, and be safe.
I do also believe there is a whole other section of the tenancy act for urgent repairs/replacement, i remember from direct experience as we had to get the AC replaced (as it fell under "Heating"), and we also had to get the door & lock replaced immediately as it fell under "security and safety"
So your right to say that things need to be replaced that are not included in the tenancy agreement, but criteria for them are clearly mentioned in the tenancy act.
But regarding all of the above, something like replacing the tree is not covered in the tenancy act or a standard tenancy agreement.
Edit:
I should add that i'm talking specifically about the NSW tenancy act as that's what i'm familiar with. Of course the rules may vary state to state.
@Muppet Detector: tell me you're not a property owner without telling me you're not a property owner.
The laws very state to state to state, and there can also be additional clauses in your tenancy agreement.
We would really need to know the state you are in, and if any additional clauses apply to your agreement.
I know we live in a landlordocracy with the weakest tenants rights in the developed world, but I'd be surprised if any state makes them pay for removal of fallen trees.
Not sure I agree with the weakest tenants rights, plenty of people got free rent during covid, but the landlords still had to pay their banks and all the other outgoings.
Back to the issue though, the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 in WA is silent on this type of issue.
The standard tenancy agreement normally has the tenant responsible for the upkeep of gardens. If the tree fell due to not being upkept by the tenant, then it could be argued that the tree fell due to the tenants negligence.
It is also possible to have specific conditions in the agreement, like the landlord pays for the upkeep of the garden, then it's clearly the landlords responsibility.
The agreement can also include that the tenant pays for tree trimming and maintenance, is it then the Tenants issue?
It's not clear cut, but baring any additional clauses in a lease here in WA, and not caused by negligence of the tenant, it would likely be the responsibility of the landlord.
Not sure I agree with the weakest tenants rights, plenty of people got free rent during covid, but the landlords still had to pay their banks and all the other outgoings.
Whoa, that statement is quite misleading.
Sure, about 25% of all renters became eligible to apply for Covid financial hardship that may have seen them living there rent free during the moratorium period (which was only about six months), but nowhere was this legally required to be a complete rental reduction to $0 nor did it prevent a requirement to establish a payment plan or other repayment method once things became stabilised.
At no time was there an expectation that landlords would forgive any rental arrears caused by the Covid meritorium.
The only thing that handicapped landlords during the moratorium was their ability to terminate and/or evict lease agreements for rental arrears.
If arrears did occur, the landlord was within their legal right to pursue those arrears through the usual Chanel's, including xCat and LL insurance.
At no time were these arrears ever forgiven.
Tenants and Landlords were encouraged to negotiate a rental reduction comparable to the amount of their reduced income.
For many, once the $750 payment was introduced, their income actually increased and they were no longer qualified to claim COVID hardship.
If the landlord agreed to a temporary rent reduction, he was within his rights to establish a date or payment plan for which any shortfall/arrears could be collected once the moratorium period had passed.
Note landlords didn't have to agree to any of that, only denied the ability to evict for non payment/arrears of those who qualified as COVID hardship during the Moratorium.
They were then quite welcome to approach xCat to recover any outstanding rental arrears just like any other occasion where tenant fell into rental arrears.
Landlord was never expected to forgive rental arrears.
If this caused hardship for landlords, they were certainly encouraged to reach out to their financial institutions and reach temporary repayment agreements where they too qualified for COVID financial hardship.
The only long term consequence for the landlords for this aspect was the interest owed on those reduced payments continued to accumulate because just as the landlord wasn't expected to forgive arrears, neither were the banks.
The whole reason behind introducing this meritorium was to prevent people becoming homeless whilst the world was trying to prevent the spread and gain control of a highly infectious, potentially fatal illness.
@Muppet Detector: yeah I'd just sue them afterwards if they refused to pay back rent for 6 months
That way they would be homeless and owe me money and likely bankrupt in the process. Additionally, unable to get a loan for a house for the next 7 years until after I was paid back (filing for bankruptcy negatively affects credit records).
I'd also add them to the national rental database blacklist if they stuffed around.
But in reality, if they contacted me, organised a payment plan we'd work it out and the 6 months moratorium could be worked out.
That way they would be homeless and owe me money and likely bankrupt in the process
The last thing you want to do to anyone owing you money is to force them into bankruptcy.
Crikey, you should be bending over backwards to prevent that, or at least strongly discourage it.
If a person declares bankruptcy, the majority of their debts are excused or at best, repaid at cents on the dollar.
This means, you will NEVER see any of your money back and in five to seven years your ex tenant will be good to get on with their lives with a clean slate.
Additionally, unable to get a loan for a house for the next 7 years until after I was paid back (filing for bankruptcy negatively affects credit records).
If they declared bankruptcy whilst owing you money, you're never seeing any of that money back, EVER.
And as for credit rating, it's restored once they've been discharged from bankruptcy.
I'd also add them to the national rental database blacklist if they stuffed around.
LOL, no such thing exists and creation of one is illegal!
But in reality, if they contacted me, organised a payment plan we'd work it out and the 6 months moratorium could be worked out.
That's the best solution whether we're impacted by COVID or not. Sure during COVID we incurred a few restrictions, but if we are in a position to structure a pathway for a tenant through a tricky period, I personally believe it is the landlord's responsibility to do this.
Sure, our overarching goal is to create income, but we are in the business of providing homes for human beings.
Too many landlords forget about that.
Sometimes you may have to make contributions based on a high income and/or high value assets in your name can be sold to raise funds, but once that bankruptcy is discharged, you're good to go with a brand new start on life and no noose around your neck.
Bankruptcy isn't a punishment.
2. LOL, there are only exceptional circumstances where a tenant can be included on that.
3. Its comments like those that contribute towards poor attitudes, perceptions and stereotypes about tenants and landlords and only lead to a breakdown in their relationships when dealing with each other.
@Muppet Detector: Well, I can tell you from personal experience that what you have said is rubbish.
I provided affordable housing to those others would not touch.
I had one tenant whose only form of income was government pensions for her and her children.
She had been a tenant for around 6 months before Covid with not too many issues.
Soon as the rent relief started, she stopped paying rent and claimed it was due to covid.
Nothing changed in her personal circumstances, she still received all her pensions and actually got additional payments from the government due to covid relief.
I was not able to terminate her tenancy due to the new covid laws.
It was almost 12 months of no rent before I was able to reclaim the property, during which time I was unable to inspect the property due to the laws.
The property was turned into a grow house for weed.
Apart from the rent, there was an additional $10.000 in malicious damage from the tenant which insurance refused to pay.
During the eviction she told the court that she blew her money on weed and had nothing.
The court still gave her another 2 weeks to move out is she paid those 2 weeks.
After 2 weeks she still hadn't moved out.
No hope of ever recouping the outstanding from someone who has never worked a day in their lives and no intention to start.
This is what us greedy, heartless landlords have to deal with when trying to help someone down on their luck.
It hurts both financially and emotionally.
Dude, it's a large tree that is not in the same position or condition as it was when the tenant took legal possession of the property.
It doesn't matter what state this is, or what clauses are included in the lease agreement because you can't contract out of the law and it is up to the landlord to deal with this stuff.
If a tree falls in a backyard and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Op if you want to be an exceptional tenant:
1. talk to the owner - if you're looking at owning a house where you need a chainsaw in the future, buy 1x now and offer to remove it for the landlord for something cheap
$200 or so (price your job to beat a private company)
2. you now own a chainsaw for your future home AND made money.
(Lemons -> Lemonade)
But in reality this is a landlords responsibility (to remove the tree)-> nothing stops you from being opportunistic though!
nothing stops you from being opportunistic though
Except the possible inability to operate a chainsaw efficiently and safely and maintain it (and can afford it in the 1st place)
Oh, and the little matter of suitable insurance, in case Murphy comes a knocking.
BTW You forgot to add your go to prerequisite for the exceptional tenant per your philosophy>
That 'said tenant' is living in fear…..
You can buy an ozito chainsaw from bunnings for $134 (or less when on special)
Do you also buy insurance for when you change a lightbulb? - or do you put in a control measure and at least switch off the power.
Murphy's law would be you licking your finger and sticking your finger in the outlet.
How much insurance did you buy to plug in in your laptop?
My actions do not contribute to a tenants emotional stability. Tenants can choose to be afraid or be happy. If they need help that's what they can choose to pay their doctor for.
To paraphrase the resident parrot>
Tell me you know nothing about chainsaws….. etc
For all we know the tree in this scenario could be big enough to kill a toy like an Ozito saw. And if you were 'future proofing' you'd buy a proper quality brand saw up front. Husky, Stihl etc.
Your superior attitude & language says different.>
My actions do not contribute to a tenants emotional stability. Tenants can choose to be afraid or be happy.
Not in your world apparently
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16754852/redir
you werent meant to let the tenants be aware of this… (living in fear often means a cleaner, well-kept home).
@Protractor: as someone that actually knows how to use a chainsaw an ozito may suffice, just take longer to cut than a petrol equivalent (charging times) but easier to maintain.
This post is about op though, not you.
You’re quick to read into things I have previously said.. in contrast you and your words are easily forgotten.
@[Deactivated]: Nah, you said it all, mate so don't try to deflect it.The fear comment was disgraceful.
Also you went on the sales pitch with the Ozito chainsaw , not me. I just commented. It's a large tree. Y'know, LARGE.Not Ozito puny.
Do you not think if OP was chainsaw adept he/she would mention it? Hell, you even went on to suggest a paid job removing the tree.
More holes that a crumpet, dude.
@Protractor: I’m not ashamed of what I’ve said. You’re reading into it (as before - forgettable)
Believe it or not, battery powered ozito can do the job - I doubt you’ve touched a chainsaw let alone afford a place where you could do something yourself (competently)
I feel a joke: How many protractors and his insurance policies does it take to trim a tree with a chainsaw?
$5K for the Stihl, and $5K for the business liability insurances, all to make $200
Better hope I don’t whisper it to your landlord- dude
@[Deactivated]: I've got 7 chainsaws.
They range from 40cc to 70+cc. None of them are toys. Your crystal ball is perished rubber dude.
And your last sentence is the typical infantile trolling you revert to, whenever your lies are exposed.
@Protractor: You collect chainsaws? Newsflash sweetheart, you only need 1 to do the job (and it could have been an ozito)
But as infantile as it might have been.. if you didn’t spend all that money on chainsaws you might have been able to afford a property instead of renting… But don’t worry it’s not too late… oh wait… I might be fuelling your addiction…
[ozbargain chainsaw] (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/846967)
@Protractor: Out of anything you said. I guarantee - not poor (and not a chainsaw collecting addicted tenant)
Depends where you holding a chainsaw when it fell.
@Protractor: Remember Woody Woodpecker?