# Forum More Stuff At the end of the day  Victorian Landlords look out

## cyclic

New rules being introduced in Vic from March 29 for renters and landlords  https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-a...3-049afc8d54f4
Idiots up here were going to do similar but nothing has happened since first word in 2019. 
Gotta love the one about tenants being allowed to authorize emergency repairs up to $2500. not to mention they can have 4 late rent payments per year.

----------


## phild01

Not to mention hook holes in the walls and allowing renters to paint walls.

----------


## Bart1080

Most of the stuff is generally whats provided for most modern properties today anyway.  
Contrary to popular belief, being a landlord doesn't mean you*r* loaded.  Fact (from somewhere...), 96% of landlords only ever have 1 house and not all actually make any money out of the deal  :Smilie:   to impose BS rules that incur more cost to the owner of the property makes my blood boil.  The risk is all with the owner, not the tenant. 
..particularly when your talking about painting, hooks everywhere, late rental 5 times over the year which doesn't help the owner maintain their loan commitments, Pet introduced laws in 2020 is an interesting one as its not owned by the tenant. 
Bonds and insurance rarely cover the cost and is always out of pocket expenses. 
The NREA lobbied heavily for a more sensible approach with BS proposals put forward by some moron out of touch politician in QLD a couple of years ago. 
...Theres my rant for the day!!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

How is this for an idea? 
The tenant that stays for 10 years, gains the right to buy the property at a price established by the Tenancy Tribunal. 
Another ... Each time the landlord evicts a tenant regardless of reason, he will incur in a bracket creep in his personal tax as a deterrent. 
One more ... Landlords who own more than one investment property will be subject to a tax audit and properties confiscated if any irregularity is found. Property to be passed onto the last tenant to be repaid with the rent ...  :Smilie: 
MArxism at its best ... Counties/States have the government they deserve. Keep on voting lefties guys ...  :2thumbsup:   

> The place I sold last year made an actual loss out of my pocket of close to 70k over 15 years of my ownership

  Aaaah, but you _profited_ from negative gearing so you didn't _really_ lose anything! Capitalist!   :Rofl5:

----------


## Bedford

At the end of the day, the tenant pays for it.....

----------


## Bart1080

> How is this for an idea? 
> Aaaah, but you _profited_ from negative gearing so you didn't _really_ lose anything! Capitalist!

  Incorrect, thats the big "myth".  That loss is out of pocket loss after negative gearing claims...so a real loss!!!  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

Yes ... myth and legends are dear to the left when it suits them, and a tag of shame when something inconvenience them. The idiocy of the anti "negative gearing" brigade is as foolish as the adoption of it's name. “Taken on its own terms, pragmatism’s folly is that it separates intelligence from wisdom. Its greatest sins are arrogance and deceit, including self-deceit. It is arrogant because it assumes the individual—particularly the expert—can know everything he needs to know without reference to received wisdom,” ― *Jonah Goldberg,* The Tyranny of Clichés

----------


## plum

Bring it on, I have around 25 gas safety inspections booked in to conduct. Speaking to R/E director today, he made me aware of the amount of inspections from them alone, approx 300.

----------


## joynz

As someone who rented for years (and now owns a rental property, I have to say that these reforms seem pretty fine. 
Its about time we had minimum standards.  The new legislation requires a property to have a working toilet,  hot and cold water, working locks, and window coverings. 
Id like to hear from any posters who disagree with the new laws, if they consider these items unnecessary - and why!

----------


## phild01

> It’s about time we had minimum standards.  The new legislation requires a property to have a working toilet,  hot and cold water, working locks, and window coverings. 
> I’d like to hear from any posters who disagree with the new laws, if they consider these items unnecessary - and why!

  You only mention what should be expected, but having the tenant putting holes in your walls for furnishings and pictures is not acceptable, nor them doing sloppy paint jobs to high quality finishes. The $2500 urgent repairs will be subjective and is of concern too, I can see a renter wrecking a cooker they don't like and demanding replacement bypassing the owner of the property. 
Not to mention the cats peeing everywhere and not being able to get rid of the smell.
 It is not their property to do as they wish and returning a property to it's original condition is also too subjective.

----------


## johnc

Actually Phild01, as a landlord you have to accept fair wear and tear on a property, the tribunals have a very generous view of damage from what I’ve seen.  
As a landlord I am not overly concerned by the changes but there are elements I do not like. Slum landlords should be hung drawn and quartered alongside rubbish tenants that wilfully destroy property. Most people will rent (as owner or tenant) without that many hassles, the rules are designed more for the exception. 
The emergency repairs seems to be restrictive despite the $2500 limit, every tenant has a right to hot water and heating, every owner has a right to arrange repairs as they see fit but it must be in a timely manner. Renting residential properties is 50 shades of grey when it comes to rights. Commercial is a far better space for a landlord providing you can keep a tenant.

----------


## phild01

> Actually Phild01, as a landlord you have to accept fair wear and tear on a property, the tribunals have a very generous view of damage from what I’ve seen.

  I just don't view holes in the wall as fair wear and tear. That sort of thing would need those walls to be repainted, not patched.

----------


## johnc

Tenants have always been allowed to add picture hooks, they aren’t meant to remove them. I wouldn’t be keen on fixing shelves to a wall that is a step to far. No regulatory system will cater for all types of landlord or tenant. In the main the changes seem fair, I will e curious to see how they play out as claims pass through the tribunal. 
Having attended a number of information sessions of the tenancy tribunal guys there are some amazing stories they can bring up. In the end no rule book protects you from self entitled individuals in this space, horrific things are done on both sides. Most people are decent the stories are just the nutters on the fringe.

----------


## Marc

Another marxist nail in the coffin of private property. Rent increase "allowed" only once a year? Next step the owner must ask Mr Andrews how much can he charge for rent?

----------


## johnc

> Another marxist nail in the coffin of private property. Rent increase "allowed" only once a year? Next step the owner must ask Mr Andrews how much can he charge for rent?

   It is normal practice to only adjust rent annually, most residential leases are also annual. Commercial leases are usually for longer periods and have a method such as CPI or a fixed percentage for annual adjustments. Some commercial leases will have a component linked to turnover. One mans normal business practice is apparently another’s Marxism, fascinating!

----------


## phild01

> Tenants have always been allowed to add picture hooks, they aren’t meant to remove them.

  Not from what I am aware of. There is no need to put holes in the walls with the stick on type available now. Geeze with a multitude of different tenants, I'd hate to see the pockmarked walls you might be speaking of  :Cry:

----------


## Marc

In NSW residential is 6 monthly, unless you agree on a different lease period. Commercial is whatever you want.  
What you fail to see, is that when one year may be common practice, and I had rental agreements that went for 10 years, with rental adjustments sometimes 6 monthly other times went for 2 years without change, according to the rental market, _ it is the imposition that you can only increase rent once a year_ that is wrong, together with all the other impositions over one's own property.  
 When the tenant may see this as a victory over the fat landlord who exploits the poor victim tenant imposing abusive rent charges (should be free right? after all one can only live in one house at the time), the market is the regulator of prices and frequency of rent increase. If you increase the rent quarterly the tenant will leave, if the rent is below market and you are stuck with that tenant for a year, you increase the rent to double and the tenant is gone. There is no way to force the owner to do what seems to be a political gain on the surface. Worse comes to worst, owners will sell and the rental market will skyrocket. 
Any intrusion from the government in a market, distorts it and the outcome is a loss for all. There is no way for a marxist government to rule that rent must be "affordable" or cheaper or fairer or any other cosy feely idea designed to harvest future votes. Renting a property is a business and the tenant is the client. if the balance is gone, the business proposition fails and the capital will go elsewhere. Bitcoins and gold has been a good one for the last ten years. No screwy customers to tolerate. 
There are areas where the government should intervene rigorously, and that is the foreign owners one. 
There should be legislation that prevents anyone from owning a property be it residential, commercial or rural, that is not a resident of Australia. Foreign owners should be forced to sell. 
That would drop teh price of property and make more available for rent dropping the cost of rent in the process.
But there are no balls to be seen in state or federal government. Much more important to show how safe the vaccine is by taking it in public even if it is staged. After all we are mugs and will not notice. 
In Sydney, it was the failure of the NSW government to enforce the foreign ownership rule that exists, although insufficient,  that made RE agents deny access to properties and advertise exclusively in china and sell only to chinese customers that drove prices up for years. Many of those overpriced properties, purchased to launder black market chinese money are empty.

----------


## Bart1080

> There should be legislation that prevents anyone from owning a property be it residential, commercial or rural, that is not a resident of Australia. Foreign owners should be forced to sell. 
> That would drop teh price of property and make more available for rent dropping the cost of rent in the process.
> But there are no balls to be seen in state or federal government. .

  Slightly off topic Marc, but agree to a certain extent  :Smilie:   The more expensive the market is, the more it drives up rent snowballing into rental affordability and further gov rental support handouts costing us all money in the end.  Hasn't NZ introduced something along those lines after years of foreigners buying relatively cheap property and massively forcing up prices making affordability (purchase/rental) issues.  Seen many suburbs across Melb skyrocket to ridiculous levels saturated by foreign ownership....even out here in the Yarra Valley where a lot of country properties are snapped up with massively over market prices.

----------


## Marc

I wonder if Mr Andrews will have the bright idea of putting a cap on say ... gold? Make gold bullions "affordable" ? Introduce a fairer price on Bitcoins ... or perhaps pizza? Why not, affordable pizza for all. Come on! ... have been tried before by the well known failed tyrants of all times.
Yea yea, try that one ... gold is not "essential" ... ok put a cap on meat? Pasta? Shoes? i can just imagine affordable shoes that go for one year and the sole comes off.

----------


## Bedford

*Good repair & fit for occupation*  *Section 65*  *Section 65* of the RTA States: (1) A residential Rental Provider must  ensure that on the day that is agreed the Renter is to enter in  occupation, the rented premises:  are vacant; andare in a reasonably clean condition  
This obligation applies regardless of:   Whether the Renter was aware of any disrepair at the property before they moved inThe amount of rent paidThe age and character of the rented property  *
Penalty:* 60 penalty units ($165.22 x 60 = $9,913.20) _(used to be zero penalty units)   _  *Prohibition on Letting after Notice*  
  If you serve a Notice to Vacate to a Renter due to demolition,  premises to be used for business, occupied by a Residential Rental  Provider or family or sale you must not let the premises before the end  of 6 months from when the Notice to Vacate was given. 
You can also apply to VCAT to have the property cleared to be re-let earlier.  *
Penalty:* 150 penalty units ($165.22 x 50 = $24,783.00)     
Welcome to Victoria...... :Rolleyes:

----------


## johnc

> Not from what I am aware of. There is no need to put holes in the walls with the stick on type available now. Geeze with a multitude of different tenants, I'd hate to see the pockmarked walls you might be speaking of

   Under the old rules tenants had to ask permission and make good any damage. All landlords are not the same, same with estate agents. Under the new rules they have to make good holes when they leave. While I am not bothered as much as you are this will probably become an issue for bond retention and improper repair. You wouldn’t want large masonry nails used as picture hooks in solid walls. I hate the self adhesive hooks as they seem to create damage to the surface if pulled off or pull away under load. I would prefer repair a pinhole from a standard hook but to each there own.

----------


## johnc

> In NSW residential is 6 monthly, unless you agree on a different lease period. Commercial is whatever you want.  
> What you fail to see, is that when one year may be common practice, and I had rental agreements that went for 10 years, with rental adjustments sometimes 6 monthly other times went for 2 years without change, according to the rental market, _ it is the imposition that you can only increase rent once a year_ that is wrong, together with all the other impositions over one's own property.  
>  When the tenant may see this as a victory over the fat landlord who exploits the poor victim tenant imposing abusive rent charges (should be free right? after all one can only live in one house at the time), the market is the regulator of prices and frequency of rent increase. If you increase the rent quarterly the tenant will leave, if the rent is below market and you are stuck with that tenant for a year, you increase the rent to double and the tenant is gone. There is no way to force the owner to do what seems to be a political gain on the surface. Worse comes to worst, owners will sell and the rental market will skyrocket. 
> Any intrusion from the government in a market, distorts it and the outcome is a loss for all. There is no way for a marxist government to rule that rent must be "affordable" or cheaper or fairer or any other cosy feely idea designed to harvest future votes. Renting a property is a business and the tenant is the client. if the balance is gone, the business proposition fails and the capital will go elsewhere. Bitcoins and gold has been a good one for the last ten years. No screwy customers to tolerate. 
> There are areas where the government should intervene rigorously, and that is the foreign owners one. 
> There should be legislation that prevents anyone from owning a property be it residential, commercial or rural, that is not a resident of Australia. Foreign owners should be forced to sell. 
> That would drop teh price of property and make more available for rent dropping the cost of rent in the process.
> But there are no balls to be seen in state or federal government. Much more important to show how safe the vaccine is by taking it in public even if it is staged. After all we are mugs and will not notice. 
> In Sydney, it was the failure of the NSW government to enforce the foreign ownership rule that exists, although insufficient,  that made RE agents deny access to properties and advertise exclusively in china and sell only to chinese customers that drove prices up for years. Many of those overpriced properties, purchased to launder black market chinese money are empty.

   Wow, all that about frequency of rental increase. Look up a standard REiV lease which is probably the most used residential lease in Victoria, they don’t allow some of the things you claim you want the freedom to deploy anyway. Commercial tend to be drawn up by a solicitor. Most residential landlords and tenants seem unwilling to lock themselves for a period of time anyway and you can reset to market at the end of the year. If you did set a six monthly rent increase you are usually stuck with CPI, for most landlords that will not even get them a cup of coffee from the increase 
I do agree we shouldn’t allow overseas nationals to hold Australian real estate unless they live in it. 
What I would say is in a long term lease it will state the methods that can be used to change rent and rights of review. A lot of the statements you make in this area don’t seem to fit with reality.

----------


## Bigboboz

OMG, can't change the rent every 6 months??? What next, let the tenant hang a picture with a hook? Wait what, they can do that now? 
Come on, is it that bad?

----------


## Bros

I have never had nor had any desire to own a rental. I have rented but they have been company houses where repairs were no problem so I have no experience with private rentals.  
My granddaughter was renting in Brisbane while she was a uni student and uni students seem to change accommodation at the end of every year but on the first rental she hired a bond cleaner and it wasn't satisfactory by the agent (she never got the agents cleaner) and she had to get them back twice and they found nothing wrong.  
I got in touch with a friend who does bond cleaning and she said using the agents cleaners can be a rip off and she advised me to tell her to go to the bond authority and ask for the bond back and lo behold she got her bond back and she has continued doing that for the next couple of rentals she has had. 
I wonder if some of the problems have been agents rather than landlords.  .  

> Stephen talked about being a "hostage" to the agent because of his bond.But one thing Stephen could have done is to apply to have the bond refunded himself. In NSW, where Stephen lives, once a tenant makes a bond refund application, the agent has 14 days to settle or contest the claim. If they don't respond in time, the tenants gets all their bond back. In other words, the burden of proof is with the landlord or their agent and not you

  https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/how-...g-out/12053116

----------


## JB1

> Bring it on, I have around 25 gas safety inspections booked in to conduct. Speaking to R/E director today, he made me aware of the amount of inspections from them alone, approx 300.

  Hi Plum, what's your charge?  
Do you work in Wantirna?    

> As someone who rented for years (and now owns a rental property, I have to say that these reforms seem pretty fine. 
> It’s about time we had minimum standards.  The new legislation requires a property to have a working toilet,  hot and cold water, working locks, and window coverings. 
> I’d like to hear from any posters who disagree with the new laws, if they consider these items unnecessary - and why!

  The changes will set minimum standards for a property including providing a working toilet, running hot and cold-water supply, a three-star shower head, and a working stove.
From the end of this month, rent can only be increased once a year. 
- happy with the above.  
I've actually never increased rent while tenants have been in there, the previous tenants where in there for 5 years. 
Unfortunately I will increase the rent in the next year or so to cover the gas/electrical inspection cost. 
Tenants are allowed up to four late rental payments a year. 
- this doesn't bother me as I don't rely on the income but I can see how it can really put the landlord in a difficult position if they relied on regular rent to cover expenses or mortgage repayments. 
In the real world it's very difficult to evict someone due to late payments. 
I've got landlord insurance, so late payment won't affect me. I'll collect it eventually.  
Tenants can also undertake urgent repairs, worth up to $2500 without pre-approval. 
- this is my concern. I couldn't find any details on the above. 
This can be abused, i.e. tenant's mate issues a dodgy invoice for urgent unnecessary/phantom repairs. 
If the tenants calls any plumber to fix the hot water, and the plumbers knows the landlord will pay up to $2,500, what's to stop the plumber charging $2,400 for a cheap DUX unit? 
And in the above situation,  how I be sure that the hot water system needed replacement? My own plumber could have found it was a dodgy TPR valve or a pilot light went off. 
In reality, if the hot water system needed replacement, I'd get my trusted plumber to replace it with a top of the line Aquamax.  
Painting. I believe tenants can now paint the house without premission.  
I'll definitely won't be renting to any goths lol 
I've always treated my tenants fairly and with respect,  including fixing things in a timely manner. 
If the tenant abused the new rental laws, I'd get rid of them.

----------


## johnc

> Tenants can also undertake urgent repairs, worth up to $2500 without pre-approval. 
> - this is my concern. I couldn't find any details on the above. 
> This can be abused, i.e. tenant's mate issues a dodgy invoice for urgent unnecessary/phantom repairs. 
> If the tenants calls any plumber to fix the hot water, and the plumbers knows the landlord will pay up to $2,500, what's to stop the plumber charging $2,400 for a cheap DUX unit? 
> And in the above situation,  how I be sure that the hot water system needed replacement? My own plumber could have found it was a dodgy TPR valve or a pilot light went off. 
> In reality, if the hot water system needed replacement, I'd get my trusted plumber to replace it with a top of the line Aquamax.  
> Painting.

  These are amendments to the act so the old definition of urgent repairs remain, it looks like they have added aircon to the list. The tenant can't just get repairs done, they have to give the landlord a chance to fix the problem. If the HWS blows then same day service would be expected although you may have two days for that. There are also roof leaks, gas leaks, water leaks (that does not mean a dripping tap), non working cooking appliances etc. This has been the case for sometime but dodgy owners and agents have always paid scant regard to the law and often get away with it. The gas and electrical inspections might be the biggest cost imposition. 
In my experience a tenant will get the landlord to arrange the work in preference to doing it themselves, however if its a young family with loads of washing and regular baths and showers then a blown HWS is something you want fixed today. If today you are in Sydney you would probably want a leaking roof fixed fast as well. 
Most landlords and tenants don't even read up on their obligations until something goes wrong, I doubt much will change and any excesses will see adjustments in the legislation.  
We can't be certain of what we have until it passes through both houses, some last minute lobbying may see minor changes, there has been the odd hysterical comment in this thread, but most of the changes have had roots in previous poor behaviour, there is plenty for both renters and landlords to dislike in these changes but VCAT remains the goto place for complaints and nobody is happy now so nothing changes there. 
If there is a takeaway it is to remain on good terms with the tenant, try to get them to contact you directly for repairs and fix everything promptly. We currently don't use agents, mainly because we have long term tenants, and partly because we had trouble with agents passing on information. When you do get a tenant from hell the issue usually isn't a forced urgent repair its more likely to be a long period of unpaid rent, expensive damage to the property and garbage up to window height etc, this will not change that outcome because those tenants don't give a stuff about laws and regulations in the first place.

----------


## Bedford

> These are amendments to the act so the old definition of urgent repairs remain, it looks like they have added aircon to the list. The tenant can't just get repairs done, they have to give the landlord a chance to fix the problem.

  This.   

> The gas and electrical inspections might be the biggest cost imposition.

  It's a small price to pay to take my neck out of the noose and put someone else's neck in it. 
However, there seems no requirement for the tenant to use tested and tagged appliances as in other places.   

> In my experience a tenant will get the landlord to arrange the work in preference to doing it themselves,

  This too. 
Interesting to see what happens if a tenant was to replace a broken HWS, Stove, or Airco that was under warranty..........   

> I doubt much will change and any excesses will see adjustments in the legislation.

  Agree.   

> We can't be certain of what we have until it passes through both houses

  My understanding is that it passed in June or July last year but was postponed until this March.  
I wasn't going to say much in this thread, but I've been renting properties for nearly 40 years. 
I've had a house trashed, and a family of 3 executed, and a few things in between, nothing surprises me. 
It's a business, don't get emotionally involved, don't sweat the small stuff, @@@@@ happens, fix it and move on. 
The better you present the house and maintain it, the better the tenant you will get and the happier every one is.

----------


## johnc

Those last two paragraphs sum it up Bedford, although now retired from my real job as an accountant I have seen plenty of photos of badly damaged properties, no deaths though. Generally a well maintained property attracts a better client who is likely to stay and pay. Very few owners have what I would call real problems, some will experience non payment of rent, then after a lengthy process to boot out the tenant will get back a property that needs weeks of expensive repair work. Very few people read the tenancy act and for most things just work out. Personally we have been lucky with tenants.

----------


## David.Elliott

_I've had a house trashed,_* and a family of 3 executed,* _and a few things in between, nothing surprises me. _ Not sure what they did but that DOES sound a bit extreme... :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

It is very difficult to have a balanced opinion when you either are a tenant, or you rent out just one property. 
One property owners can have very positive or very negative experiences simply because the size of the sample is ... well just one ... not very representative. 
I rented out 9 properties in two different states for a few decades, been in tribunal many dozens times, had tenants doing a runner, had multiple damages done to property, had tenants committing suicide in the property, fires and more situations. i also had tenants that paid on time for 14 years in a row never asking for anything that was unreasonable. 
When the above is just the reflection of the demographics that occupy your properties, and therefore has to be taken as part of the business, in my experience, the state is interventionist and encroaches onto the owner's private property and intrudes in the business with complete disregard to the owner.  
The state displays the fake mask of "benevolent tyrant" for the only purpose to harvest future votes, appearing to defend the tenant from the "greedy landlord" in an absurd confrontation that only damages the market.  Anywhere in the world were the government intrudes in the rental market, the results are a temporary apparent privilege for the tenant followed by a withdraw from the market from properties and the rent rise.  
In other words, communism does not work.
The housing commision is just one example of mismanagement and distortion of the market using taxpayers money. Best thing the states can do is sell all residential properties, and if they really want to play the generous King, give complete rental assistance to those they think require it. 
Adding pressure to rental property owners through idiotic "new" legislation is akin to doing charity with other people's money.
But then, that is what most governments do, quick to show their ugly faces on TV when there is a catastrophe, but absent when it is required to do something to prevent problems.

----------


## JB1

> Interesting to see what happens if a tenant was to replace a broken HWS, Stove, or Airco that was under warranty..........

  I can see this scenario being played out between Christmas and New Years. 
Every tried to get your aircond installed or serviced in the middle of Summer? 
Even if the landlord has good intentions to repair asap, AC fridgies and manufacturers can't keep up during summer or shut down over Christmas.  
If it was my own house I'd wait to get it fixed under warranty, rather than engage a third party to repair at a cost. Air cond? I'll survive with a portable fan. Stove? I'll cook on the BBQ or portable induction cooker. Hot water? Bucket of warm water in the shower. 
But I can see some tenants exercising their rights to repair themselves because the landlord can't get it repaired under warranty within 2 days. 
And landlord exercising their rights to evict said tenants at earliest possible date.

----------


## plum

> I can see this scenario being played out between Christmas and New Years. 
> Every tried to get your aircond installed or serviced in the middle of Summer? 
> Even if the landlord has good intentions to repair asap, AC fridgies and manufacturers can't keep up during summer or shut down over Christmas.  
> If it was my own house I'd wait to get it fixed under warranty, rather than engage a third party to repair at a cost. Air cond? I'll survive with a portable fan. Stove? I'll cook on the BBQ or portable induction cooker. Hot water? Bucket of warm water in the shower. 
> But I can see some tenants exercising their rights to repair themselves because the landlord can't get it repaired under warranty within 2 days. 
> And landlord exercising their rights to evict said tenants at earliest possible date.

  As a plumber that may be put in this situation, I would doubt the tenant would want to pay me direct for work performed particularly a burst hottie. I would want an agreement with property manager before proceeding.

----------


## cyclic

> As a plumber that may be put in this situation, I would doubt the tenant would want to pay me direct for work performed particularly a burst hottie. I would want an agreement with property manager before proceeding.

  That is of course if you KNOW they are tenants.

----------


## JB1

> As a plumber that may be put in this situation, I would doubt the tenant would want to pay me direct for work performed particularly a burst hottie. I would want an agreement with property manager before proceeding.

  agree with what cyclic said.. if you KNOW they are tenants. 
Under the new laws, the tenant can pay you directly and request reimbursement of up to $2,500 from the landlord. The tenants are your customers and you'll be none the wiser.

----------


## cyclic

> As cyclic said.. 
> Under the new laws, the tenant can pay you directly and request reimbursement of up to $2,500 from the landlord. The tenants are your customers and you'll be none the wiser.

  No, I did not say that at all.
What I am saying is there are tenants who will play the rules and caveat emptor for the contractor.
i.e tenant gets work done THEN the contractor finds out they are tenants when they tell the contractor to send the account to the agent or landlord.
I was caught a couple of times like this in the 90's.
Fortunately I got paid but not after some time and from the first one on I asked every one who wanted work done if they in fact were responsible for the payment. 
The very same thing used to happen after storms with people wanting repairs done and saying it was an insurance claim.
My answer to that was always, I will quote, then when I get written approval from the insurance, I will attend to the repairs.

----------


## JB1

> No, I did not say that at all.

  Sorry poor grammar... I should have wrote:   _Agree with what cyclic said. 
[my statement] Under the new laws...... _ Edited my post.

----------

