|
The Before Times posted:I just found out that the tenants literally aren't allowed to give notice of intention to vacate under the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act (unless they can demonstrate severe hardship to VCAT or it's a family violence situation). WTF, that can't be right can it?
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Centrists loving suck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:WTF, that can't be right can it? Under the new Omnibus act: https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/as-made/acts/covid-19-omnibus-emergency-measures-act-2020 quote:S. 545 When a tenant can give notice of intention to vacate—tenancy agreements so yeah it's literally in the RTA amendments
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I don't have a source I can share, but I've explicitly asked about this and been told it's not true, and that the ability of tenants to provide 28 days' notice of termination on a month-to-month lease will remain when the new COVID regulations are in place. EDIT: Curse you. Also I've seen some speculation around that the new laws are entirely be design and are to keep tenants on month to month leases from leaving and getting in on new leases that will be at a lower rent. Gotta love those REIV donations. CrazyTolradi fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
They are working on regulations to clarify, but I wanted to give notice today to my landlord so I could move in early June, and I doubt the regulations will be done soon enough to let me do that. I don't understand how they could do that by mistake, like "whoops my hand slipped and I accidentally expressly forbade tenants from providing notice of intention to vacate"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:20
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:The Before Times is just about to post the bill that was passed a few days ago that explicitly details that tenants on month to month leases CANNOT give notice unless they meet one of five criteria. I know, and I've had the same questions, but I've explicitly asked and been told renters' rights will be preserved when the regulations come into effect. I mean I guess watch this space and we'll know for sure in less than a week, my info could be faulty, but so far I'm inclined to assume the Andrews Government isn't gonna use the Omnibus Bill to secretly try and gently caress renters. E: The Before Times posted:They are working on regulations to clarify, but I wanted to give notice today to my landlord so I could move in early June, and I doubt the regulations will be done soon enough to let me do that. Yeah that sucks. And as to how it could happen, MPs aren't the ones who draft the Bills themselves, and the people who do are humans. That's not to say this is or isn't intentional, but even the people who write laws are human and make mistakes. For a while it was technically illegal in Australia to rip music you'd legally bought to a CD or MP3 player. So, yeah, it happens. Whitlam fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:24
|
|
|
I assume it is to support so the landowners can't go shopping for higher (or just paying tenants) and tenants can't enable that by going shopping for lower rent. I I understand correctly, basically the legislation is trying to price control current prices unless you can't pay in which case you don't have to pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:30
|
|
|
it's just really hard to see that, as it is written and was passed, this was mistake. If it was one subsection, sure, but it's explicitly in five subsections and they consulted the REIV on the changes, but TUV and Liberty Victoria somehow weren't.Electric Wrigglies posted:I assume it is to support so the landowners can't go shopping for higher (or just paying tenants) and tenants can't enable that by going shopping for lower rent. CrazyTolradi fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:31
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Not that, this: Good thing he lives in the iron jaws of Victoria and not a less measured state
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:38
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Yeah that sucks. And as to how it could happen, MPs aren't the ones who draft the Bills themselves, and the people who do are humans. That's not to say this is or isn't intentional, but even the people who write laws are human and make mistakes. For a while it was technically illegal in Australia to rip music you'd legally bought to a CD or MP3 player. So, yeah, it happens. I know enough about cabinet processes to know that the MPs are not the ones drafting the bills (and I didn't suggest that). But the provision was obviously written with some sort of policy intent in mind. They could have easily omitted that provision and current tenants would be no worse off. If the mistake was that month-to-month tenants were included in the catch-all and that wasn't the policy intent, I'd love to see evidence (like some sort of public statement) of that being the case. Not just a "we're changing it to clarify".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 09:42
|
|
|
I assume next time that rental prices are rising quickly there will be some kind of price controls in place for tenants right. Right? Oh, right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:00
|
|
|
If you're on month to month just give notice and then cut off payment, that's the point of a month to month lease and no law saying you are stuck in the lease which you entered as month to month forever unless "xyz" has much chance of surviving challenge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:00
|
|
|
Flannelette posted:If you're on month to month just give notice and then cut off payment, that's the point of a month to month lease and no law saying you are stuck in the lease which you entered as month to month forever unless "xyz" has much chance of surviving challenge. The problem is, under the law the notice simply doesn't count as notice. If you stop paying rent for any reason other than financial hardship due to covid-19 you can still be put on the tenant blacklist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:04
|
|
|
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-30/coronavirus-calls-for-private-health-sector-to-hand-back-profits/12197990quote:A former private health insurance regulator is calling on federal authorities to ensure private health insurers return windfall profits made during the coronavirus crisis to their members.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:05
|
|
My first car was a stick
|
The Before Times posted:The problem is, under the law the notice simply doesn't count as notice. If you stop paying rent for any reason other than financial hardship due to covid-19 you can still be put on the tenant blacklist. Hang on so if I were in Victoria and my situation changed (e.g. got a great new job 5 hours away meaning I have to move, or I suddenly had to take custody of my nephew and needed to find a bigger place, or I normally live overseas/in a regional area and are heading home in a month's time), I wouldn't be able to give notice to vacate? Coz that's what it sounds like and it's hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:21
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I know, and I've had the same questions, but I've explicitly asked and been told renters' rights will be preserved when the regulations come into effect. I mean I guess watch this space and we'll know for sure in less than a week, my info could be faulty, but so far I'm inclined to assume the Andrews Government isn't gonna use the Omnibus Bill to secretly try and gently caress renters. you are right vcat would side with the tenant, however that wont stop landlords saying no, refusing to release bonds, being further shits in general knowing that the vcat tenancies listings are massively backlogged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:27
|
|
|
froglet posted:Hang on so if I were in Victoria and my situation changed (e.g. got a great new job 5 hours away meaning I have to move, or I suddenly had to take custody of my nephew and needed to find a bigger place, or I normally live overseas/in a regional area and are heading home in a month's time), I wouldn't be able to give notice to vacate? Coz that's what it sounds like and it's hosed. Don't know but I assume (assume makes an rear end of u and me) that if you can demonstrate that maintaining your current residence would enforce hardship (not just monetarily but due to new job would mean five hour commute), then you would be able to give notice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
froglet posted:Hang on so if I were in Victoria and my situation changed (e.g. got a great new job 5 hours away meaning I have to move, or I suddenly had to take custody of my nephew and needed to find a bigger place, or I normally live overseas/in a regional area and are heading home in a month's time), I wouldn't be able to give notice to vacate? Coz that's what it sounds like and it's hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
Gotta love the ALP. Sees 450,000 people apply for Jobseeker and immediately jumps on alienating them as voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:40
|
|
|
Endman posted:Gotta love the ALP. Sees 450,000 people apply for Jobseeker and immediately jumps on alienating them as voters. You have to assume that question was asked because of the position it puts labor in. It would be madness for Labor to promise to maintain the elevated rates but to say anything else means "alienating labor voters".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:43
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:You have to assume that question was asked because of the position it puts labor in. It would be madness for Labor to promise to maintain the elevated rates but to say anything else means "alienating labor voters". They could easily have said "we think it there should be a permanent increase from pre-corona levels" and not hosed themselves
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:47
|
|
|
Have they hosed themselves by saying something years before an election only auspol can read these dessicated tea leaves
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:52
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:It would be madness for Labor to promise to maintain the elevated rates Why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:53
|
|
|
Endman posted:Why? it might win them an election
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:55
|
|
|
i cant decide if i dont blame labor for not wanting to risk another policy platform debacle, or if i blame them for being so loving incompetent and garbage that they lost to scott morrison 2019 when is it going to die and be replaced already?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Technically, the laws don't leave tenants worse off, but they don't allow tenants to better their situations by moving to a better suited tenancy. I'd say removing flexibility in their expressly flexible arrangement is worse off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:11
|
|
|
What is dead may never die
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:11
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:it might win them an election I don't think so. We are going to be paying a lot of tax no matter who wins though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:19
|
|
|
Endman posted:Why? There is no need to provide a sound bite promise which will be played at the next election if for whatever circumstances dictate the elevated rate is not possible. There is a real possibility that the economy will tank sufficiently between now and the next election such that unemployment will be well into double figures, government debt pushing a trillion dollars and real / minimum wages significantly reduced. If that was the case, labor promising the current rates for unemployed would represent double digit percentage of the GDP given out every six months as cash with not the produce to absorb it all. Of course, Australia could bounce back so much that an increase could be on the cards which is what they left open in the answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:30
|
|
|
the alp is going for the steven bradbury play
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:31
|
|
|
Hansard even has them saying that the intent is to limit terminating agreements to exceptional circumstances:quote:This bill amends: It cuts both ways, they have to have known that it does. I'm willing to believe one or two people in the chain of approvals missed it, but even with the very short turnarounds that are happening on these emergency bills, someone in the dozen or so policy professionals who handled it will have pointed out that it disadvantages tenants on periodic leases. if the politicians ignored that, it's not a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:32
|
|
JBP posted:I don't think so. We are going to be paying a lot of tax no matter who wins though. why don't we just make corporations and the wealthy pay a proportionate share? why do people hear "any increase to welfare or living conditions will be paid by the lower-middle class" and think that the problem is with the welfare, rather than the relative tax burden? anyway i'm looking at a general breakdown of the 2019 federal budget and "assistance to the unemployed and the sick" is 10.8 out of 500.87 billion (for reference, Assistance to the aged is at 70.2b) seems like letting businesses get away with just paying enough to cover people's immediate living expenses assuming nothing goes wrong wasn't a very socially responsible policy
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 11:35
|
|
|
Making corporations pay their taxes is probably popular with the public but it is extremely not popular with either political party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 12:19
|
|
|
The Before Times posted:Hansard even has them saying that the intent is to limit terminating agreements to exceptional circumstances: But if you're on a monthly lease, how can the landlord keep you longer than just that month? End of month, lease is up, 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
If they can double the payment now then they can do it into the future, the only reason they won’t is because they choose not to, not because we can’t afford it
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 13:26
|
|
|
bowmore posted:If they can double the payment now then they can do it into the future, the only reason they won’t is because they choose not to, not because we can’t afford it yes that's always been the case. the temporary increase is an acknowledgement that the previous rate was not enough to expect someone in an adverse job market to live on, but because so many people were unemployed all at once, the Government literally had no choice but to supplement the rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:But if you're on a monthly lease, how can the landlord keep you longer than just that month? However, the tenant cannot give notice of intention to vacate anymore, except under explicit circumstances. Nor can the landlord. At least, until September. It does give existing month to month tenants security, but it also means you can be stuck living with a shoddy landlord who doesn't repair the place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 13:39
|
|
|
Sulla Faex posted:why don't we just make corporations and the wealthy pay a proportionate share? They have weapons and apparatuses with which to fight back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 13:47
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:It's not monthly, it realistically is more an ongoing lease of the fixed term lease that can be ended with a months notice, hence the term month to month. So, it turns monthly leases into a six month unbreakable* lease? * severe hardship, notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
The Before Times posted:yes The government debt is increasing in line with the payments. The reason to do it now is not acknowledgment that the previous rate was not enough (as strong an argument as that is) but as a way to dump a heap of deficit spending into the economy - ala ruddbucks turbocharged. Megillah Gorilla posted:So, it turns monthly leases into a six month unbreakable* lease? Exactly. Whether you can't pay or you want to pay less (by moving), you don't move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 13:59
|
|