Rental property safety: should the law set minimum standards?
On May 29th 2011 a seven week old girl died when she fell from her father’s arms at their rented home in Yeppoon. Isabella Diefenbach’s tragic death was the subject of a 2012 coronial enquiry, the events that led to the fall, a broken decking board and the current responsibilities of tenants, landlords and agents in maintaining a rental home were dissected and discussed in full detail. In years to come this could well be seen as a tipping point in Queensland’s rental property laws.
Queensland landlords are required by our current Act to provide a dwelling “fit for the tenant to live in” and “in good repair”, but how should that be determined or measured? What should “good repair” look like? What minimum standards do we as landlords, tenants and property managers think are reasonable? And is there a place for legislation to require this standard to be maintained?
The Diefenbach Coroner recommended government introduce “mandatory inspections by an independent licensed builder of the structural integrity of a residential rental property with a deck, verandah or balcony that is greater than 10 years old immediately prior to the property being placed on the rental market and thereafter at a minimum three year interval during its continued use as a rental property.”
Last Thursday a Member of Parliament introduced a private bill to amend our tenancy legislation, “to make provision for statutory minimum standards for rental accommodation and rooming accommodation in Queensland.“ Member for Bundamba Jo-ann Miller told parliament that imposing minimum housing standards would ensure that “even at the lowest end of the rental market where renters are the most vulnerable, standards are enforceable to provide that basic minimum health and safety standards apply to places where Queensland families live.”
The detail of what these standards might look like isn’t offered by the Bill itself, suggesting the government prescribe them in regulations. There’s already specific laws on pool safety, smoke alarms, safety switches and blind cords for example. And the topics listed in the Bill include sanitation, drainage, cleanliness and repair of premises; ventilation and insulation; protection from damp and its effects; construction, condition, structures, safety and situation of premises; the dimensions, cubical extent and height of rooms in the premises; privacy and security and freedom from vermin infestation.
The draft Bill says “There is no alternative method of achieving the objectives other than by legislative amendment.” So what do you think? Is there another way to ensure rental homes in Queensland are safe? And is government intervention more red tape and expense for landlords with further disincentives to investing? Or much-needed law to provide safe housing?
We’d love to hear your comments.
Absolutely! But homelessness is also dangerous. How about some rent control so that everyone can afford to live in a house?
I would like to see them apply the same standards to the educational facilities they run. I reported a toxic mould situation in a classroom and was punished by the principal for it.
A 3 year inspection is ridiculous. Every 7 years I could agree with but every 3 is just another financial imposition on an already difficult situation. Adults should exercise judgement over the safety of the premises they occupy and not blame the landlord every time something happens. The parent was looking to blame someone other than themselves. Bad landlords and bad tenants screw everything up.
The cost for pool safety certificate, smoke alarm check, and repairing to keep property in good condition is so high for landlords.
Any further specific laws will add more cost to landlords. As such, more investors will leave the property market. Remaining property investors will put rental higher.
Is that good for tenants? Government should focus on helping people to buy owner house to live.
Making the property safer will be a good thing.
More Red tape-more costs for the Landlord-higher rents-less affordable to rent.
Wht does it have to be the Landlord that is responsible-it is the Tenant that is in occupation-why not make it the Tenant’s responsibility to report to the Landlord and the the Landlord then to be responsible to have work repaired (if it was not the Tenant that caused the problem)
Its a good idea for the safety of occupants but as Adrian says homelessness is a terrible thing. These are costs for the landlord and guess where the landlord will recoup there money of course ultimately it will come from “rent”. Premises kept in top condition will never be available to the low income family or individual.
I absolutely believe we need legislation to force landlords to maintain rental properties. If this forces investors out of the market then they shouldn’t be there. I do agree that the tenant should report any defects to the landlord or the agent but if the defect has been reported then the landlord should be obliged by law to rectify it. Many tenants will not report defects as they fear they will lose the tenancy so the onus must be on the landlord to conduct regular inspections for maintenance purposes.
I just wanted to post a comment. It’s a no brainier that houses should be a minimum standard however we are one of the most over regulated countries in the western world. When are people going to take responsibility for there own safety and stop blaming others for their own misfortune. If the property is unacceptable move out don’t live there. Tenant’s already have much more rights than an owner current affairs programs are full of those stories and look at the damage caused to our public housing with little to no consequences. Why are the many good landlords punished by yet another expense at the hands of a few bad ones. As a final comment, bring in more regulations and an already expensive rental market becomes even more expensive. No more knee jerk reactions by powerful politicians!
I am I landlord with several old pre-war homes that are completely unsafe to live in. But the Brisbane City council refuses to allow me to knock them down, sighting historical value. Even though the buildings are un-liveable and look ugly from the street council has a one rule fits all policy where any building built pre 1945 cannot be removed with out a lot of difficulty and possible court appeals. The result is that there are thousands of old degraded houses like the one in this story which would have otherwise been substantially renovated or demolished and replaced. Why are we forcing landlords and tenants to keep houses that they do not want for the benefit of a few people who believe that the 1940’s houses should be retained at any cost.
This needs to be revisited I think – glad our rental balcony didn’t collapse before we noticed it was Leaning