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?
I am understand the point you are making, but in that circumstance the responsibility is because they caused the issue, not because they are the tenant.
Anyone causing the fall would be liable, not just a tenant that caused it.
It would just be a coincidence that the person responsible was also the tenant, their tenancy plays no part in the responsibility.
This is the answer.
In NSW at least major maintenance of trees falls on the landlord
Pun intended?
No, it was probably a wish out loud
The tree has fallen, it no longer needs maintenance.
If a tree falls on a landlord, does it make any sound?
A scream?
The tree or the landlord?
I think Pam is a tenant
Pam the Bird?
Pamela Martha Focker?
No. Pam the screensaver.
Really wish Hellopam never changed their name.
Their posts will forever live on though.
We don't really have "landlords" as such anymore, not professional landlords. We have "property investors" now. They don't do it for a living, they do it because the housing bubble will make them a massive return on investment when it gets sold one day.
will make them a massive return on investment when it gets sold one day.
No worries Albo will stop that massive return … and beyond!
depends on the strategy and if they're investing.
1. they can buy a place to sell to someone for more down the track (that's a bet on the property market)
2. they can buy to rent have it paid off (to earn an income)
3. personal circumstances.
Personal circumstances might be:
-bought and got a job in another state or they cant afford to live locally (but can afford to rent locally but still want a place to call their own).
-bought a place for when their parents retire. (this list could be endless)
It often depends on their circumstances
Negative gearing is spending $1 to get up to 30cents back over 10 years or so (ie the life of a new tap/faucet) (and anyone that thinks that is a great investment strategy doesnt know how negative gearing works)
(some landlords no doubt straight up suck - I have experience with some historically like that - but some are also pretty good)
But landlords in general should not be demonised (they are necessary) if you dont like it, save and buy your own (you'll only need a 5% deposit soon)
What percentage of investment properties are from your two personal circumstances proviso? I'd guess less than a single percent.
@AustriaBargain: I own multiple (exact number is none of your business)
One of mine is for a parent for when they retire - the parent will not be able to afford one by retirement - its rented in the interim.
I know of others that bought in other states as they cannot afford to buy in Sydney (surprise - it even has a term - rentvesting)
So more than a "single percent" based on my situation and property porfolio (just assume I own less than 100 properties in which case the percentage point is definitely higher than 1%)
OP used ambiguous language; that's on them
What was ambiguous?
Wow that seemed locked and loaded, with the finger on the trigger just waiting for a mention of a landlord
Maybe we need landlord licenses.
As soon as we introduce tenant licences.
They're not licences…
@jv: you werent meant to let the tenants be aware of this… (living in fear often means a cleaner, well-kept home).
@alexdagr8: You really are the atypical land lord. I was wondering why your replies trend towards talking down to people. Now I know.
you werent meant to let the tenants be aware of this… (living in fear often means a cleaner, well-kept home).
What sort of monster are you that advocates for a tenant to be living in a constant state of fear?
You're an example why the majority of decent land lords get a bad name.
Sure, antagonise your tenants and create an environment ensconced in fear for them, and see how well that works out for you when you try and form a reasonable tenant/landlord relationship.
@Muppet Detector: Relax, I don’t deal with tenants directly, I pay for a property manager for each of my properties - they can deal with them and comply with the relevant laws relating to tenants.
What sort of monster are you that advocates for a tenant to be living in a constant state of fear?
It's a basic sociopath trait.
@Muppet Detector: My tenants should live with the knowledge, that paying their rent entitles them to a place that has:
- Good, functioning amenities.
- When the amenities break through no fault of their own, they are fixed within a reasonable timeframe.
- A rental agreement that is protected by law in the state that they are in that affords rights during the rental period and during their tenancy
- to live in a property in an area that they are either unwilling to buy in or cannot afford to buy in at that point in time.
And lastly, (and i cannot stress this enough) a hypothetical gun to the back of their heads that if they cease to pay the rent, they will have their bond forfeited, be kicked to the curb and replaced with another tenant that is more than willing to take their place.
The tenants also have a responsibility to keep things clean and maintained well (including the lawn, fertilising, weeding) pruning any trees, maintaining the pools, spas and sauna's, keeping things clean and tidy internally to the same level it was provided to them (when they originally started renting).
Why the dig at landlords in this thread. Landlord doesn't even know this tree has fallen over yet, his crystal ball is in the repair shop.
I think you might know the answer, now.It seems the more'landlord' a landlord is, the more they epitomise the most despicable traits as the audience has observed.
Post covid, saw a radical (dare I say unAustralian?) shift in this space.
Meh, too many people enter into housing investment without realising what their obligations and responsibilities are, or that, even though they retain ownership of that property, by transferring legal possession to another, they give up many of the rights a regular homeowner usually enjoys.
Personally, I blame the mom and pop investors with their misplaced goals, lack of understanding about what their roles and those of their tenants are, and their underfunded bank accounts that prevent them from maintaining and repairing a property, as soon as issues arise, to a decent, professional level, comparable to or better than what existed at start of tenancy.
People, condemn the housing investor managing a few different properties, but these are the dudes who work this like a business, treat their tenants as customers, abide by any relevant laws, can spread any costs across multiple properties and have the funds available to fix stuff, the right way, when it needs to be fixed.
@Muppet Detector: I blame raw greed and too many free kicks around investments allowing ppl to usurp them. And politicians too gutless to reform those perks.
@Protractor: Oh rrly?
Please share these "free kicks"
"Usurp what"?
Take what illegally or by force?
@Muppet Detector: You know I'm talking about negative gearing on as many properties as an investor can, and perks around capital gains. And if you want to talk morality the simple act of throwing one tenant out simply to get another one it at the first opportunity to cash in a higher rent. This act was rife post covid. It's a grotesque side of Australia, and further proof of the damage Howard did when he suffocated the fair go and replaced it with the license to put greed before fellow Australians.Landlords aren't a charity, but tenants and the homeless aren't an opportunity ,either.
@Protractor: I don't think negative gearing works as often as you think it does.
And nope, just not touching the rest.
Think you read a few too many Women's Weekly's or sumfin.
None of that is or was the norm, I'm not even sure it was the exception.
For starters, you don't have to evict a tenant to introduce a higher rent so just that claim is ridiculous.
@Muppet Detector: NSW changed laws around no grounds evictions for the very reasons I explained. Just because you didn't want it to have happened, doesn't mean it's fake news.
Ok Nazi
Ploise explain?
Am I responsible for that?
We don't know if you are the tenant or the landlord so i don't think we can really answer that question…
I am the tenant. I have not yet informed the landlord. The situation is stable and not urgent. The tree is large and will take ages to cut and remove the branches etc
Then nope, its the landlords responsibility.
Depends on why the tree fell.
@Protractor: They pull up some seats at the bar next to a nun, a drag queen and a talking frog..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FshU58nI0Ts&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5t…
Good for you Pam. Inform OzBargain first, worry about landlord later
I could be wrong, but I think @tenpercent was the Pam wanting to have a whinge about landlords without even reading enough to realise OP is the tenant.
Nothing wrong with asking OZB. OP got their answer, and now knows their rights when talking to landlord .
Dear God, the woman just wanted to know what her obligations, responsibilities and rights were before she contacted her landlord.
So many stories about people from all walks of life (particularly landlords) taking unfair advantage of people who didn't know what their rights and responsibilities were.
Do you seriously blame someone for trying to get an idea of where they may stand before they approach the landlord?
Or just maybe, they were worried about how they would pay someone to fix this up if it were their responsibility and wanted to have some answers ready for the landlord when she did contact him.
Then call the real estate tomorrow and inform them of the issue.
You mean we should just assume?
yes, usually people's existence generally revolves around them, i don't mean that they are selfish, but just on a human psychological level, people usually "think" about how situations will affect them on a personal level first, this stems sub-consciously, before they even use rational conscious thinking and consider "others" and "social normalities/expectations", with that said, the OP will try and put themselves into a first-person category that can be easily understood for contextual situations e.g if they are the "tennant" , they will state "tennant" in the question, if they are the "landlord", they will state "landlord" in the question, the correct way to answer this question would be just to state the facts as they are, making clear who is responsible between the "tennant" and the "landlord", this way, they get their answer and it is irrelevant what position/role they hold, answering the question this way would also remove any potential for an emotionally based answer/opinion that may be held and given due to feelings held by the person answering the question, reflecting their personal feelings/bias towards either parties, source:Trust me Bro, sorry for the rambling, i am drinking a bottle of high alcohol wine
@DoctorCalculon: i don't know how to, never paid attention in english class, but psychology doesn't come from education, it comes from experience and observation, like how from your comment i can deduce, that from my ramblings, you feel like i think i am saying something smart and deep, to which you want to point out to everyone that you are smarter and although i actually feel smart, i am actually an idiot, so you use things like basic grammar to put me in my place and show me and everyone that i am an idiot and you are much more intellectually advance, good job, its a shame you are so easy to read though, p.s the internet generally hates grammar nazi's
@Qazxswec: Grammar and punctuation is used to make text more intelligible.
never paid attention in english class
Self evident.
@DashCam AKA Rolts: If they had paid (any or more) attention in English, they'd also know more about the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person principle, instead pasting some almost there,second hand mumbo-jumbo about what they imagine, about the goings on in people's minds.
I'm also not convinced the 'internet' hates grammar Nazis. I think that perhaps they meant Collingwood Commodore forums.
Personally, I think the internet hates lazy people far more than they hate grammar Nazis. I base this on the 'vibe'.
I'm also not convinced the 'internet' hates grammar Nazis. I think that perhaps they meant Collingwood Commodore forums.
And @jv took that personally
@DashCam AKA Rolts: Well on a surface level it appears that way, but in a more in-depth analysis, that is more a sign of knowledge, knowledge and intelligence are 2 different things, to use a metaphor of a computer, intelligence is the raw processing power of the cpu and the capabilities of the ram, knowledge is the information that is able to be stored on the hard drive, filling your hard drive with many books and information sources gives the appearance of being smart but is more the ability to recite facts, no matter how bad someone's "processor" is, they can generally still fill their "hard drive" with information, intelligence is the ability to take any piece of information(limited or vast) and use it to produce accurate conclusions above the ability of what is to be expected of the limited/unlimited source of information available to them, but yes, i agree, my knowledge of grammar is very sub par.
@Qazxswec: You just made a sound case as to where all the obvious pitfalls of AI are, and yet at the same time ppl (most) are lining up to treat it as a font of knowledge and the pinnacle of intelligence.
The 'information' component and the 'processing' component.Both unreliable without constant independent non AI verification.
As to your grammar being sub par, I think that's a choice thing, not a skill thing. Like not washing your hands, not brushing your teeth, not using manners.
@Protractor: Robert Greene was interviewed by Piers Morgan 15 hours ago, and after briefly talking about the negative impact smart phones and social media has had on society Piers Morgan asked Robert about his thoughts regarding AI, Robert had some interesting things to say including how AI is making our brains turn to mush, it’s reducing thinking and learning and the amount we use our brains… Skip to 7:20 in the video of the interview I have linked to below:
@DashCam AKA Rolts: Maybe he's using the Indian Numerical System.
don't know how to,
Dude, just hit the return key after every couple of sentences and break up the text with some spaces.
The great walls of text require too much effort to work through, nobody wants to work that hard on a public chat forum.
It seems like you really have some knowledgeable and interesting things to say, but most of us will never know because our eyes go squinty, so we end up scrolling past it.
It's just courtesy.
@Muppet Detector: Ok, will do, i was really drunk yesterday, none of what i said is even on topic to OP's question, just drunken babble, sorry
@Qazxswec: You're good!
Even if they aren't proper paragraphs, just breaking up the text every few sentences makes your info so much easier to read and engage in.
From the bits I did persevere with, you really do seem to be smart, intelligent, knowledgeable and interesting, and just a really nice person as well.
For a person with little interest in your English lessons, you've definitely mastered various other areas of English better than many people!
@Qazxswec: Drunken babble? Mate you could be a speech writer for Mark Latham or Barnaby Joyce. Just try to be as incoherent and offensive as possible, to keep on song.
This tree will require professional removal, am I responsible for that or my landlord?
The last sentence in the OP didn't make that clear for you?
The post was revised. This information was not clear prior to revision.
We don't know if you are the tenant or the landlord so i don't think we can really answer that question…
I'd have thought that a landlord may not have asked "am I responsible for that or my landlord?"
Correct, the post was revised to include clearer information.
Landlord responsibilities: Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), landlords are required to maintain the property in a "reasonable state of repair."
While not specifically mentioned, that includes that the landlord is responsible for the removal of a fallen tree. The tenant's responsibility is to notify ASAP.
tenant's responsibility is to notify ASAP.
Not but before discussing it out in detail on ozbargain.
Define ASAP.
As Soon As Possible.
Can't really be defined further than that as that's the language that's used in the Residential Tenancy act.
You may want to speak to your relevant government body if you want to get more specific than that.
@whitepuma: You've answered the posters concerns. ASAP doesn't necessarily mean straight away, do nothing else first etc. it is a highly subjective term.
For this OP, as the tree doesn't seem to be a matter of urgency, it may only have been possible for her to contact her landlord after she was satisfied that she knew what her obligations and responsibilities.
ASAP has very different meanings for removing a drowning baby from a pool and telling landlord a tree fell over.
@Muppet Detector: I didn't answer the posters concerns, I answered your question, which was "define ASAP"
@whitepuma: I must have quoted someone who was saying something about reporting to landlord ASSP.
Whomever I quoted seemed to be implying that Pam did something wrong by researching her options before she notified her landlord ASAP.
I know what ASAP means, however it seems that others do not.
I was simply trying to encourage them to discover that for themselves without contradicting them and/or telling them they were wrong.
If you want to politely challenge a statement or comment made by another party, it is best practise to rephrase this as a question as it is usually interpreted to be less confrontational method of communication.
Always the Bikies
In this case, woodpeckers.
Is there really an OMCG called the Woodpeckers?
I would certainly like to think so.
@Grunntt: Let me just go on the record and say I meant no offence when, back in the day, I sang the Woodpecker Song. My hands were in my pockets the hole whole time.
The landlord is responsible.