Background
By now we expect 218-1 The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill to be fairly bedded in. You’ve got to be living under a rock to not know about it. Information
about the Bill is readily available. No major surprises there.
Commentaries as to its effects is another story altogether. Some are logical, matter of fact and should go without saying (e.g. you can’t advertise a rental
without a price, you just can’t). Some are speculative at best which is fine for now seeing the Bill is awkwardly worded. The rest are such gross extrapolations
and mis-facts that not only do they sow fear, but they also work against our collective efforts to mount a legitimate challenge to 218-1 with cogent
arguments.
To date, we have seen an increasing number of these mis-facts from both sides of the debate. To be clear, we are vehmently against 218-1. There are plenty of strong and clear reasons to reject the Bill that it is not necessary for landlords to resort to and propagate mis-facts.
Today, we examine one such hasty extrapolation: that the RTA Amendment Bill paves the way for lifetime tenancies. That is false.
Now, you may want to stop here but if you have an interest in policy interpretation then, by all means, stay on to geek out with us.
Issue
We are concerned with the suggestion that: taking away the 90-day notice to terminate + broadening the tenant’s control over the manner in which fixed-term
tenancies (FT) are rolled into periodic tenancies = lifetime tenancy/tenant for life.
So, is this true? Will you be stuck with a tenant for life? No.
Analysis
On termination
For the time being, a landlord can issue a 90-day notice to terminate without...
