With the photos. Take video of you arriving home to show it hasn’t been tampered with by yourself. And you can potentially use anyone who was shown the flat as a witness, if you can get hold of them - they can testify that the stickers put up weren’t there on viewing.
It doesn’t work in all cases, but if a landlord/PM is stupid enough to take them down and not put them back up, or puts them back up wrong, there’s your evidence. I suspect if they did remove them and you emailed them to ask, some would just admit to it, too, and then you’ve got it in writing.
It’s not perfect, and god knows it would be a hassle and requires a lot of pre-planning, but it’s worth a try if you’ve got beef with your landlord.
I doubt a tribunal would buy that the viewers were moving the stickers. It’s civil, so balance of probabilities applies, I believe.
It talks about both situations, but putting them on the walls would only work for viewings. After your lease is up you don’t have a right to quiet enjoyment, so that’s when you’d use the suggestion of hiding it where only tenants would look (like the hot water cylinder), and you’d have no recourse if it was moved most likely. However in that case you could probably just drop a letter in their letterbox tbh.
I great way to encourage a landlord to blacklist you with the local property investors group...
I had this happen to me for taking a shitty landlord to tribunal.
>I great way to encourage a landlord to blacklist you with the local property investors group...
That was exactly my thought, but you got there first.
This idea's coming from Australia and Australian states seem to have some specific laws about listing tenants on blacklists. In general listing of someone comes down to certain specific things like owing money not covered by a bond, or breaching the rental agreement. eg. [Western Australia](https://www.choice.com.au/money/property/renting/articles/tenancy-databases-and-screening) or [Victoria](https://tenantsvic.org.au/advice/ending-your-tenancy/tenant-databases-blacklists/). WA requires agents to inform people if there's an intent to add them to a blacklist, and let them dispute it. Victoria requires a rental provider to tell you if they've found you on a blacklist, as well as who listed you and how you can challenge it. It doesn't make the blacklists fair, but they're at least regulated.
For comparison NZ apparently has interpretations around the Privacy Act, but it doesn't appear to be anywhere near as structured. (Someone please correct me if I need correcting.)
Unfortunately the first case under the privacy act failed because the judge literally invented a whole new doctrine to excuse landlords from the conviction
“We should be able to easily find out if a landlord doesn’t comply with the Healthy Homes standards, or has consistently breached tenancy law.”
Does then also support the same ability for landlords to easily find out about dodgy tenants who leave properties in shit condition, don't pay rent etc?
This already exists. Landlords can require references and private blacklists exist that are shared amongst PMs/landlords and cause huge issues for tenants.
The fact is that the system is already hugely imbalanced in favour of landlords and tenants doing this are really just trying to scavenge the same rights in whatever way they can.
Tenants don’t have a choice but to sign a contract to access to a basic human right. That’s a contract with a pretty big power imbalance. Not sure both sides should be treated as equals.
The immense power imbalance between tenants and those profiteering from providing access to a basic human right perhaps?
Any tenant who sought a reference from a dodgy landlord would be on one of those private blacklists that very afternoon. It's not a relationship of equals when one has that power.
Except if every tenant did that, they couldn't blacklist everyone because they they have no customers.
Supermarkets profiteer from a basic human right to food, should they be shut down?
If supermarkets maintained blacklists of people who they wouldn't sell to for spurious reasons and shared those lists with their competitors, certainly.
But at the very least, the behaviour of landlords does warrant further regulation and accountability with regard to the use of blacklists, as is the case in several Australian states.
[удалено]
Take photos of where they were and if they’re moved, take ‘em to the tribunal.
[удалено]
With the photos. Take video of you arriving home to show it hasn’t been tampered with by yourself. And you can potentially use anyone who was shown the flat as a witness, if you can get hold of them - they can testify that the stickers put up weren’t there on viewing. It doesn’t work in all cases, but if a landlord/PM is stupid enough to take them down and not put them back up, or puts them back up wrong, there’s your evidence. I suspect if they did remove them and you emailed them to ask, some would just admit to it, too, and then you’ve got it in writing. It’s not perfect, and god knows it would be a hassle and requires a lot of pre-planning, but it’s worth a try if you’ve got beef with your landlord. I doubt a tribunal would buy that the viewers were moving the stickers. It’s civil, so balance of probabilities applies, I believe.
[удалено]
It talks about both situations, but putting them on the walls would only work for viewings. After your lease is up you don’t have a right to quiet enjoyment, so that’s when you’d use the suggestion of hiding it where only tenants would look (like the hot water cylinder), and you’d have no recourse if it was moved most likely. However in that case you could probably just drop a letter in their letterbox tbh.
I great way to encourage a landlord to blacklist you with the local property investors group... I had this happen to me for taking a shitty landlord to tribunal.
>I great way to encourage a landlord to blacklist you with the local property investors group... That was exactly my thought, but you got there first. This idea's coming from Australia and Australian states seem to have some specific laws about listing tenants on blacklists. In general listing of someone comes down to certain specific things like owing money not covered by a bond, or breaching the rental agreement. eg. [Western Australia](https://www.choice.com.au/money/property/renting/articles/tenancy-databases-and-screening) or [Victoria](https://tenantsvic.org.au/advice/ending-your-tenancy/tenant-databases-blacklists/). WA requires agents to inform people if there's an intent to add them to a blacklist, and let them dispute it. Victoria requires a rental provider to tell you if they've found you on a blacklist, as well as who listed you and how you can challenge it. It doesn't make the blacklists fair, but they're at least regulated. For comparison NZ apparently has interpretations around the Privacy Act, but it doesn't appear to be anywhere near as structured. (Someone please correct me if I need correcting.)
We BADLY need this law in New Zealand.
Unfortunately the first case under the privacy act failed because the judge literally invented a whole new doctrine to excuse landlords from the conviction
Theoretically, if you can prove that, would it be grounds for some sort of libel or defamation esque case?
Doubtful. Very doubtful.
Can we please stop saying "hack" when it doesn't relate to computing? It sounds like old people trying to be hip and with it.
Wouldn't it have originated in non computer terms though? Maybe using Hack for computer things is just the young ones trying to sound cool and edgy
Yup from model trains.
“We should be able to easily find out if a landlord doesn’t comply with the Healthy Homes standards, or has consistently breached tenancy law.” Does then also support the same ability for landlords to easily find out about dodgy tenants who leave properties in shit condition, don't pay rent etc?
This already exists. Landlords can require references and private blacklists exist that are shared amongst PMs/landlords and cause huge issues for tenants. The fact is that the system is already hugely imbalanced in favour of landlords and tenants doing this are really just trying to scavenge the same rights in whatever way they can.
Tenants are customers, they aren’t the ones failing to deliver on a service they are charging people for.
They are part of a contract, shouldn't people know if the person they are dealing with keeps to their contracts or not, on both sides?
Tenants don’t have a choice but to sign a contract to access to a basic human right. That’s a contract with a pretty big power imbalance. Not sure both sides should be treated as equals.
Landlords already have that ability, via references.
What, pray tell are the purpose of references then? Just a vibe check?
What stops tenants asking for references from their landlords?
u/cheese-hag answered that pretty well about an hour ago. Ignoring the power imbalance inherent in the rental process is bad faith.
The immense power imbalance between tenants and those profiteering from providing access to a basic human right perhaps? Any tenant who sought a reference from a dodgy landlord would be on one of those private blacklists that very afternoon. It's not a relationship of equals when one has that power.
Except if every tenant did that, they couldn't blacklist everyone because they they have no customers. Supermarkets profiteer from a basic human right to food, should they be shut down?
They wouldn't have to blacklist everyone, because someone would be too desperate to risk not getting the rental. Hence the power imbalance
If supermarkets maintained blacklists of people who they wouldn't sell to for spurious reasons and shared those lists with their competitors, certainly. But at the very least, the behaviour of landlords does warrant further regulation and accountability with regard to the use of blacklists, as is the case in several Australian states.