No Way is the RTA Biased in Tenants Favour! Yeah, Right!

[Perry]

Yet another example of the bias and lopsided favouritism of tenants
by/in the RTA. Section 54:

Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect
(1) Within 14 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the
tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section
51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the
tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the
notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the
landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed
exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy
conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any
other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating
to the tenancy.

(2) If, on any such application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the
landlord was so motivated in giving the notice, it shall declare the
notice to be of no effect unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the
purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority,
or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or
would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord
was justified in giving the notice.

Case Study
Application was made to the TT for an Order granting improved access
for REAs and to allow a carpet cleaner in.

Eventually, DBH advised a Hearing date of 7 May. Seems fair to presume
the tenants received a similar notification.

Within 12 hours of that Hearing Notice being received by the LL (not me)
the tenants advise the LL that they will be ending their tenancy on the
6 May. Coincidence? Or an attempt to avoid a TT Hearing?

It seems fair to speculate that the tenants were motivated to end their
tenancy the day before the Hearing, so as to avoid the Hearing. I.e. it
was a retaliatory notice motivated by the tenant to avoid the LL making
just use of the provisions of the RTA.

But s54 of our pro-tenant RTA is wholly in favour of tenants exercising
their 'rights' and wholly inimical to LLs exercising theirs.

The RTA Biased in Tenants Favour? No Way! Yeah, right!

I feel another letter to Dill Bleatley coming on . . .

[mrsaneperson]

In a nutshell this is enshrined in the RTA :

2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving

voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on

landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or

more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on
landlords by this Act.
(3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power
conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.

So landlords can give away their rights but tenants can't. So long as this is written into the RTA , the legislation is biased against landlords.Totally unfair.

[Perry]

Yes, that's very true. But, in this case, there is no giving up of
anything by anyone, voluntarily or otherwise. The actual section
is biased, ipso facto.

Follow me a little . . .

Section heading:
Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect

An example from section content:
the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the
[retaliatory] notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the
notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise
or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority,
or remedy conferred on the tenant by . . . this or any other Act
or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to
the tenancy.

The section heading refers to the declaring of a [deemed] retaliatory
notice, yet the section provides that only the tenant can apply to
have a notice declared as retaliatory. That's similar to s7 relating to
short fixed term tenancies. I.e. both parties (LL & tenant) are not
allowed to enter into trial tenancies.

But, once again, only the tenant has the right of appeal. Viz:
(2B) The Tribunal may, on the application of a tenant or former tenant
who is or who was a party to a fixed-term tenancy of not more than
90 days, order the extension or renewal of that tenancy on any terms
that the Tribunal thinks just . . .

If "the parties" are not allowed to do whatever, why aren't "the parties"
given equal rights of appeal?

Because Dill Bleatley and co are morons is among the many reasons.

[cperkcpa]

Amazing how governments bend over backwards to favor tenant issues. We see some of this in Seattle Washington USA, where triple damages can be awarded if it is decided that a landlord evicted based on an action they deem retaliatory.

[Keys]

Right of renewal.

Here's a curly one for you.

A tenant who wishes to exercise a right under the tenancy agreement to require the landlord to grant the tenant a renewal or an extension of the tenancy must exercise that right by giving the landlord written notice, in accordance with this section, of the tenant’s intention to exercise the right

The tenant must give notice of the tenant’s intention not later than the 21st day before the date on which the tenancy would otherwise expire.

Well. That seems clear doesn't it? Must exercise that right. And here: Must give notice.
Excellent!. One would imagine that, should notice not be given, and the right not be taken up that the tenancy ends and you can go on to place a new tenant?

Yes?

NO!

On an application, made before or after the expiry of the tenancy, by a tenant who has failed to comply with subsection (1) or (2) but who wishes to renew or extend the tenancy, the Tribunal may order the renewal or extension of the tenancy.

OK, there are some hurdles for the tenant to jump through but.....

[flyernzl]

As I recollect it, when the RTA was in the process of passing through The House, the bias in favour of tenants was noted.

This was admitted, and explained by the governing party of the day as necessary to redress the natural balance of power that existed between the well-funded and heavily resourced landlord and the poverty-stricken and powerless tenant.