Can I increase rent if tenant demands deck railing?

[crashy]

House with a deck. Deck is 990mm above ground (no railing required). Tenant has a baby and an infant. I decided to put up an aluminium railing intended to make the deck infant safe only. No good deed goes unpunished. Tenants now demand railing be adult safe aka fully compliant which is obviously going to be expensive. The way I see it I have 3 choices:
1. Take down the railing and state that it doesn't require one
2. Tell the tenant it's as is or nothing
3. Build compliant railing and pass on the cost to the tenant. They just started a 12 month lease, so if they request work done, can I justify raising the rent?

[AlFa]

hmmm... interesting... personally I'd explain that decks below 1m do not legally require railing and offer to install one if tenant is happy to cover the cost over say 6-12 months.
But really 990mm is a bit pushing it. Tenant might take a spade and make it 1010mm and issue you 14 days notice to fix.

[PC]

Put the railing on. 1m is still quite high to fall.
If it costs $5K then up the rent $10pw - a reasonable return - but you won't be able to do this till end of the 12 month fixed term.

Is it a timber deck? Could be a small weekend DIY project?

[Learning]

Are you absolutely certain that not a single cm of the deck is more than 999mm above ground? Because sod's law says that's the point the kid will fall from. Personally I'd view the long term strategy of keeping happy tenants growing up in a family friendly home.

Have the tenants just moved in knowing the hazard existed. Or are they long term tenants, recently having a baby, making the adult suitable deck a new problem? If the former I'd try to reach a cost sharing arrangement. If the latter I'd make the investment to secure a long term tenancy.

[artemis]

You can change fixed term tenancy terms by agreement between the parties. Documented well!

Could offer to break the FT if the deck is a deal breaker for them.

Or ask them to share the cost of a railing but separate agreement rather than increasing the rent.

Demanding tenants need not have their tenancy renewed.

[John the builder]

the code clause only says that barrier is required for 1000 or higher and then must be adequate stength and rigidity

it seems that providing a child proof barrier is reasonable?

As for lowering the ground this would be contrary to building act and a stupid thing to do, Where did you measure to? paved surfavce or landscaped area?

The alternatives above are reasonable but dont feel compelled to do anything.

But removing it seems churlish?

[donna]

Wouldn't you add value to the property with the right railing? I like the idea of getting a win/win so they pay over time and you get the value add.

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

Tenant might take a spade and make it 1010mm and issue you 14 days notice to fix.

LL might take a spade and make it 970mm or might issue a 14 day notice to fix after unauthorised alterations.

Crashy readily understood the need of the infant child and acted appropriately, over-and-above the legal requirement. Well done!

The ungrateful tenant then seemed to see a sucker and seek to take advantage.

[Perry]

Noting Crashy's other recent post, seems it's a bad week.

Or is it maybe time to consider using a PM?

[AlFa]

LL might take a spade and make it 970mm or might issue a 14 day notice to fix after unauthorised alterations.

Haha... appreciate your humour. Would love to see "after unauthorised alterations" stand up in Tribunal. At the same time 1010mm will stand up just fine.

[Perry]

LL might take a spade and make it 970mm or might issue a 14 day notice to fix after unauthorised alterations.

Haha... appreciate your humour. Would love to see "after unauthorised alterations" stand up in Tribunal. At the same time 1010mm will stand up just fine.

To a point - you're right.

But you do overlook something. The tenant must issue a 14 day notice to remedy before making a TTKK claim on the matter.

The LL then responds in spades, eh what?

Of course, taking photographs of the tenant's 'alterations' before shovelling some soil back into place.

[AlFa]

To a point - you're right.

But you do overlook something. The tenant must issue a 14 day notice to remedy before making a TTKK claim on the matter.

The LL then responds in spades, eh what?

Of course, taking photographs of the tenant's 'alterations' before shovelling some soil back into place.

I haven't overlooked, just simplified. But we're shifting away from issue. As I said it's not legally required but still reasonably high and will be better for everyone to get this barrier installed. Actually had a chat with local building inspector and another option is to grow some shrubs just next to deck.

[Perry]

I (sort-of) go along with that.

But the reality is that the LL response to the presence of a child was reasonable, appropriate and indicative of 'good' LL.

The subsequent adult tenant demand was not. It was more like that of a child. A spoilt brat, at that.

I have a PPOR deck that's similar. No rails of any sort. Great, unimpeded view and soft lawn below for idiots.

[AlFa]

A spoilt brat, at that.

Agreed .

[crashy]

Well we might have a professional tenant on our hands.

Tenant contacts me at 6pm Friday night. I knock on the door, assuming it's some urgent matter. Indeed it is, a big leak under the kitchen sink. Clean up everything for the tenants, solve the problem temporarily and tell them I will be back on Monday (no time specified) to fix the problem. Turn up Monday as agreed. As I'm finishing up his wife calls him. By the time I get home there's a nasty email saying that I have committed an offence because I didn't give 48 hours notice of entry. I explain that firstly it's 24hrs, and notice was given in person.

So back to the railing, I informed him that I would be turning up Wednesday to work on the railing. I did so. And this date also marked the point of being 14 days late in with rent. A notice was issued. The next day I get another aggressive email saying I have again breached the law by knocking on the door. And that he declared he was NOT behind in rent because he didn't move in until 5 days after the lease began. The lease states payments are weekly. He chose to pay one month. He tried every trick in the book to get the keys before he had paid the rent. This battle raged for 6 days. 4 times he claimed that he had paid, or would pay on x date, therefore, little pig, little pig, LET ME IN. No, HELL NO I said. He has decided that he will pay monthly, on a date that I consider to be a week late, even by his BS monthly system.