44
Statement of Reasons Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 Introduction The Proposed Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 (Proposed Regulations) prescribe matters authorised or required to be prescribed under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RTA) following the commencement of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 (RTAA). They will replace the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2019. The Proposed Regulations include: terms which are prohibited from being included in residential rental agreement, rooming house agreements, caravan park agreements and Part 4A site agreement questions that rental providers (landlords), rooming house operators, caravan park owners and Part 4A site owners cannot ask information that must be disclosed before an applicant enters into a residential rental agreement or Part 4A site agreement, or prior to granting a rooming house or caravan park residency right prescribed safety-related activities which clarify the safety maintenance obligations for renters and rental providers under a rental agreement modifications renters can make to rental properties rental minimum standards for rental properties updates to forms and notices for all tenure types. An exposure draft of the Proposed Regulations and an accompanying regulatory impact statement (RIS) were released for public consultation on the Engage Victoria website, between 12 November 2019 and 18 December 2019. More than 700 written submissions were received from the Victorian community. These came from a diverse range of individuals and groups, including renters, rental providers, industry groups and advocates. Key Issues Many submissions raised out of scope issues either relating to the recent passage of the RTAA (pets was the most common reform cited) or the need for more legislative change (e.g. rental providers 1

Statement of Reasons · Web viewStatement of Reasons Residential Tenanc ies Regulations 202 1 Introduction The Proposed Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 (Proposed Regulations)

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Statement of ReasonsResidential Tenancies Regulations 2021

Introduction

The Proposed Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 (Proposed Regulations) prescribe matters authorised or required to be prescribed under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RTA) following the commencement of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 (RTAA). They will replace the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2019.

The Proposed Regulations include:

· terms which are prohibited from being included in residential rental agreement, rooming house agreements, caravan park agreements and Part 4A site agreement

· questions that rental providers (landlords), rooming house operators, caravan park owners and Part 4A site owners cannot ask

· information that must be disclosed before an applicant enters into a residential rental agreement or Part 4A site agreement, or prior to granting a rooming house or caravan park residency right

· prescribed safety-related activities which clarify the safety maintenance obligations for renters and rental providers under a rental agreement

· modifications renters can make to rental properties

· rental minimum standards for rental properties

· updates to forms and notices for all tenure types.

An exposure draft of the Proposed Regulations and an accompanying regulatory impact statement (RIS) were released for public consultation on the Engage Victoria website, between 12 November 2019 and 18 December 2019.

More than 700 written submissions were received from the Victorian community. These came from a diverse range of individuals and groups, including renters, rental providers, industry groups and advocates.

Key Issues

Many submissions raised out of scope issues either relating to the recent passage of the RTAA (pets was the most common reform cited) or the need for more legislative change (e.g. rental providers should be deemed to consent to modifications if they do not respond within a certain timeframe).

A large majority of rental providers expressed concerns regarding the overall cost of the RTAA reforms. Rental providers felt that the reforms were too favourable to renters. Some rental providers suggested that they will sell their properties if the Regulations (and pets reforms) were implemented, citing the increased regulatory cost, and the difficulty in removing problematic renters. Others have proposed significant rent increases, in order to ‘pass on’ the cost of compliance onto renters.

While the key issues below are broken up into ‘renters’ and ‘rental providers/property managers’ it should be noted that many submitters indicated that they were both a renter and a rental provider (or a rental provider that had previously rented for a long period of time). These submissions generally leaned more towards the issues brought up by other rental providers rather than renters.

The following priority issues were raised most commonly and consistently by renters and rental providers/property managers respectively.

Priority issues for renters:

· sought additional rental minimum standards around draught proofing, ventilation, insulation, and cooling

· requested that the energy efficiency rating of the heating standard be increased from 2 stars to 3 or 4 stars

· sought mandatory disclosure of previous issues with mould and damp in the rental property.

Priority issues for rental providers / property managers:

· sought to reduce compensation for sales inspections below what was proposed (half a days’ rent under the rental agreement per sales inspection) or to remove the requirement for compensation entirely

· did not agree with any modifications being allowed to be made by renters without the consent of the rental provider

· considered that the cost and frequency of electricity and gas safety checks are excessive.

Table 1 below summaries the issues raised in submissions and reasons for the direction taken in the final form of the Regulations.

Minor or technical suggestions (e.g. typos) are not included in Table 1. Where many submissions made similar recommendations, they have been grouped together.

Many of the same kinds of regulations apply to each tenure type (standard rented premises, rooming houses, caravan parks and residential parks) but are separated into different regulations in the table. In some circumstances, feedback to a regulation will apply to multiple tenure types but is only referred to in the table in relation to standard rental agreements for the sake of brevity.

Most submissions focused on concerns with the draft Regulations, but in many cases, also noted particular regulations they were supportive of. The below table does not note where submissions are supportive of particular regulations, and only records recommendations for change.

Many submissions raised concerns that were out of scope of the Regulations and related instead to the broader reforms imposed by the RTAA. These have not resulted in any changes.

Feedback on the prescribed forms in the Regulations has not been included in Table 1. This feedback was mostly technical or stylistic suggested wording changes and cannot be clearly indicated in this format. The forms have also undergone additional refinement based on further stakeholder consultation following the public consultation process.

2

Table 1: Summary of issues raised in submissions and reasons for the direction taken in the final form of the Regulations

Regulation

Description

Summary of feedback received from submissions

Response to feedback and reasoning

General Regulations

6 - Temporary Crisis Accommodation

The RTA exempts Temporary Crisis Accommodation (TCA) from the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RTA). The definition of TCA is in the Regulations. This definition requires a description of the type of accommodation and a timeframe to be prescribed.

Many submissions from rental stakeholders were concerned about the timeframe specified in the definition of TCA. Some believed that a long timeframe should be in place as many residents stay in TCA for upwards of 6 months, whereas others wanted a shorter time period to better protect resident rights. Many stakeholders were also of the view that the best way to address the timeframe issue was to remove it from the definition entirely and not prescribe a timeframe.

Support

The Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020, which is currently being debated in Parliament, will amend the definition of TCA in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 (RTAA) to make it optional to prescribe a period of time.

At this time, it is necessary to prescribe a period, however following the passage of this legislation, the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) will amend the regulations to repeal that prescribed period. In this way, TCA will be solely defined by the type of accommodation provided.

Two submissions were of the view that the definition of TCA should be expanded to capture more types of accommodation, allowing some community organisations and local councils to run their own TCA.

No Change

TCA under the RTA provides significantly different protections and requirements for renters than other types of accommodation. As such it is important to ensure that other processes are available to ensure the accountability of TCA accommodation providers. At this time, expanding the definition is not supported.

Most rental advocacy organisations recommended that the definition of TCA should be strictly tied to specific housing provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to pick up less ‘false positives.’ Some example definitions were provided in submissions.

Support

DJCS has worked with DHHS to develop a new TCA definition that best captures the kind of housing intended to exempt from the provisions of the RTA.

A submission suggested that the definition should list TCA providers individually, which would be the most accurate way to capture TCA housing.

No Change

Individually listing each TCA provider in the Regulations would result in a range of practical issues. The first is that the list would only be able to be updated when the Regulations are updated, which is by default is every 10 years.

The second is that listing individual addresses for properties in the Regulations could result in safety and privacy concerns for residents.

7 - Urgent Site Repairs

The definition of ‘urgent site repairs’ in residential parks.

A submission suggested that an additional phrase be added to reg7(b) to limit the responsibility of the caravan park owner for failure or breakdown of the supply of gas, electricity, water or sewerage affecting a site or Part 4A site to where the damage has been caused through the actions or negligence of the resident.

No Change

As with the urgent repairs process for standard rental agreements, the park owner is responsible for responding to urgent site repairs whether the damage has been caused through negligence or any other reason. The park owner is then able to seek compensation for the damage from the resident if appropriate.

A submission recommended that the definition should also include common facilities that have a significant impact on health and amenity, for example, a broken light that leaves a stretch of footpath dark at night and presents a serious hazard.

No Change/Out of scope

While DJCS recognises the importance of common facilities in residential parks, the heads of power in the RTA only allows the Regulations to specify urgent site repairs to a site, not for the common facilities of the park. The RTAA has reinforced the park owner’s duty to maintain the communal facilities. DJCS will monitor the implementation of this change following commencement of the RTAA.

11 - Prohibited Terms

Lists terms that cannot be included in a rental agreement.

Many individual submissions as well as some rental advocates recommended a range of additional terms that should be prohibited which have not been included in the final form of the Regulations. They include prohibiting:

· the use of third-party rental payment/ collection services that incur fees

· blanket terms that impose fees for lease breaking or related contract violations

· provision of renters’ details to third parties without the renters’ consent

· blanket terms that ‘unfairly diminish or alter a renter’s rights or liabilities during a lease’

· close-up photography during inspections unless it is for the sake of repairs

· ‘no pets’ clauses

· requiring payment, or requiring a commitment to rent a property, before providing a rental agreement to the prospective renter, and

· requiring that all questions must be completed before a rental application form will be processed.

No Change

DJCS considers that many of the suggested prohibited terms are already adequately addressed through existing processes or protections in the RTA or reforms following commencement of the RTTA.

There is an existing process within the RTA for addressing invalid terms in a rental agreement. Terms which diminish or alter renter’s rights are specifically made invalid under section 27 of the RTA, even if they are included in a rental agreement. The RTA distinguishes between ‘invalid’ and ‘prohibited’ terms, therefore it would be inconsistent to make all invalid terms prohibited in the Regulations.

In addition, the Regulation head of power only allows the prohibition of terms in the rental agreement, not the questions asked in the rental agreement or application. Many of the suggested prohibited terms are out of scope of this regulation-making power.

DJCS will monitor the implementation of regulation 11 following commencement of the RTAA, to determine if additional prohibited terms need to be prescribed.

An individual submission recommended that the prohibited term regarding renters not being able to seek compensation if the property is not ready on the day the renter is contracted to move in, should be amended to only apply where the rental provider has not taken reasonable steps to ensure the property is ready. This is to account for uncertain circumstances, such as where a rental property is broken into the day before a new renter is scheduled to move in.

No change

Under s65 of the RTA, the rental provider must ensure that on the agreed day for occupation, the rented premises are vacant and in a reasonably clean condition. It is not be possible for the Regulations to vary that duty.

A submission raised concerns with the prohibition on terms allowing the rental provider to nominate a third-party provider to ensure works carried out are of an acceptable and consistent level. They are also concerned about how this would apply to embedded networks.

A second submission also noted that this regulation could be practically difficult, for example where there is a bulk hot water service and a particular service provider is required.

Supported in part

If renters are paying for the work, they should be able to choose the third-party providers. However embedded networks have been exempted from this requirement, as this will not be within the control of the rental provider.

Rental advocates recommended a number of additional terms that should be prohibited:

· terms which allow rental providers to outsource or delegate safety-related activities to the renter

· terms which commit a renter to a contract without having the opportunity to review, and negotiate, the terms and conditions

· terms which make the renter liable by default for any excess on a rental provider’s insurance claim, and

· terms that provide for fixed lease break fees.

Supported

The Regulations have been amended to prohibit a term:

· which imposes fees for, or delegates, safety-related maintenance that is the responsibility of the rental provide

· which binds the renter to a contract that the renter did not agree to in writing after having an opportunity to review the contract, before entering into the residential rental agreement

· which makes the renter liable by default for an insurance excess to be paid under an insurance policy of the rental provider, and

· which imposes fixed fees for terminating a residential rental agreement early, unless the basis for calculating the fixed fees has been set out in the agreement.

12 - Professional Cleaning

Details the professional cleaning requirement term to be prescribed in the residential rental agreement.

A rental provider advocate was supportive of the term in principal but recommended that it be amended to have an exception regarding pet-related damage, which is not always immediately noticeable.

No change

The legal requirement to keep the property reasonably clean applies regardless of whether pets are kept in the property. DJCS believes that creating a specific requirement for professional cleaning for pets would be inconsistent with the government’s policy to enable pets to be kept. Although pets are not referred to directly in the professional cleaning, it is understood that keeping pets may make professional cleaning necessary.

One submission recommended that no professional cleaning term be prescribed in the rental agreement.

The submittor was of the view that the general duties in the RTA already adequately detail when professional cleaning is required and that prescribing a term in the Regulations will cause confusion.

No change

While the RTA currently provides a basis for requiring professional cleaning at the end of a tenancy, research and feedback from stakeholders indicates that more renters pay for professional cleaning than is actually necessary. Some rental providers also include standard terms in their rental agreements that require professional cleaning at the end of a rental agreement.

Having a prescribed term in the rental agreement will assist renters to understand their obligations regarding professional cleaning.

Several rental advocates raised various technical concerns with the wording of the proposed term, with many suggesting their own professional cleaning terms that could be adopted.

Supported in part

DJCS has considered all suggestions for rewording of the professional cleaning term. A new prescribed term has been prepared based on public consultation.

15 - Information Which Residential Rental Provider Must Not Require Rental Applicant To Disclose

Lists questions that rental providers are not allowed to ask prospective renters.

Many individual submissions and a rental provider advocate opposed not being able to ask about:

· previous legal action or disputes between renters and rental providers, and

· past rental bond disputes.

They believe that this information is essential to determining if the renter should be allowed to rent the property.

No change

One of the primary intentions of this regulation is to reduce discrimination against renters who exercise their rights under the RTA. Feedback throughout the Fairer Safer Housing (FSH) review process indicated that many renters who have had disputes with rental providers struggle to find new rental properties to move into. Prohibiting these types of questions will ensure that renters are able to exercise their legal rights without fear of having difficulty finding future rental properties.

Many individual submissions as well as rental provider advocates believed that there would be technical difficulties complying with the restriction on asking about passports and residency status. This would not be workable with certain Commonwealth requirements around international students and the need to verify their residency status.

Supported

The drafting of this regulation has been revised to require rental providers to explain why they need to ask a prospective renter for any the information about a protected attribute under s6 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

Renter advocates and some individual submissions recommended adding the following to the list of prohibited questions:

· questions about bond loans

· intrusive financial questions ‘over and above’ what is needed to assess if rent can be paid

· requiring renters to provide identity information to a rental provider beyond the standard ‘100 point’ system, and

· questions about whether a renter smokes.

No change

DJCS does not support the proposed prohibited questions. While it is recognised that some rental providers request more information than is reasonably required of prospective renters, rental providers are entitled to build a picture of their renter’s financial circumstances before deciding to rent to them.

The ‘100 points’ identity system is not mandated by legislation. Incorporation of such as system would be outside the scope of the regulation-making head of power. However, the Regulations will prohibit renters from providing full bank statements so renters will be able to remove or redact items as they consider appropriate.

While DJCS recognises that information about bond loans can be used to discriminate against lower income renters, there would be technical difficulties implementing this proposed restriction.

In relation to whether a renter smokes, smoking can have a long-term impact on the rented property’s amenity. Rental providers are entitled to make an informed decision when a renter’s behaviour can have a potential impact on the rented premises.

A large group of renter advocates recommended adding questions about any protected attributes under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to the list of prohibited questions.

Supported in part

The sentiment of this recommendation is supported, but some of this information is relevant to a renter’s potential ability to meet their contractual requirements. Due to practical challenges, it would not be possible to prohibit rental providers from asking about any protected attributes. Instead, the Regulations will require rental providers to explain why they need the information when they ask a question about a protected attribute.

16 - Information Which Residential Rental Provider Must Disclose To Rental Applicant

Lists information that rental providers must provide to all prospective renters.

A large amount of individual submissions and submissions from renter advocates recommended disclosure of:

· the rental property’s compliance with the rental minimum standards

· the rental property’s history of mould, damp, flooding and water ingress

· electrical and gas safety checks conducted at the rented premises, and

· heritage rules and restrictions.

Supported

DJCS considers that this information is valuable to renters and can help prospective renters when looking for properties to rent.

Provision of information about compliance with rental minimum standards, mould and damp, and gas and electrical safety checks supports the RTAA reforms around improving the safety of rental properties. Provision of information about applicable heritage rules and restrictions will also help renters regarding the modification provisions under the new rental laws.

The Regulations have been amended to require rental providers to disclose:

· if the rented premises comply with the rental minimum standards

· any repair request relating to mould or damp related to the building structure, received in the last three years

· the date of the most recent gas safety check, electrical safety check, and any outstanding recommendations for work, and

· if the rented premises is a registered place included in the Heritage Register.

Many submissions from individuals, organisations and renter advocates recommended disclosure of:

· any non-compliance with Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) repair orders

· the rented property’s building occupation certification

· known planning permits from neighbouring properties

· the plan, with a copy of owners corporation rules showing communal areas

· the presence and type of insulation

· the rented property’s energy efficiency standards rating (e.g. assessment against an energy efficiency scorecard)

· whether the rental provider has insurance and their insurer

· whether the rented property has previously operated as a brothel

· whether the rented property had been used for any illegal purpose in the past 5 years

· if there is excessive noise in the neighbourhood (including proximity to industrial or transport areas), and

· the contact details of the rental provider or agent for primary rental agreement and provision of a copy of primary rental agreement (in cases of subleasing).

No change

DJCS does not support the proposed additional disclosures. For the mandatory disclosure reforms to best support renters, the information disclosed provided should only be the most important information critical to renters. If the Regulations prescribe too much information to be disclosed, there is a significant risk that renters will be overwhelmed by the volume and are unlikely to read all of it.

Concerns about non-compliance with VCAT orders will be managed through the new Rental Non-compliance Register on the Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) website.

DJCS notes that few rental providers are likely to have extensive knowledge of planning permits in neighbouring properties, be able to objectively measure noise or to have undertaken an energy efficiency assessment. In addition, information about insulation is unlikely to be available to many rental providers unless the rental property is a new build.

The proposed disclosure about prior use as a brothel may result in greater discrimination against sex work and sex workers. In addition, the provision of contact details raises privacy issues and DJCS notes that the rental provider has no contractual relationship with the sublessor.

On balance, the suggested additional disclosures are unlikely to be considered essential information to renters and may be more likely to cause confusion.

A number of submissions raised concerns with the particular disclosures in the proposed regulation and/or recommended that particular disclosures be narrowed or broadened, including:

· further disclosures around asbestos, including past tests, need for mandatory assessments and requirement to undertake immediate rectification

· broader mandatory disclosure around chemical contamination (beyond drugs), and

· opposing the requirement to disclose details on electricity tariffs and fees, on the basis that this information is easy enough for renters to find themselves.

No change

This regulation requires disclosure of the known presence of asbestos. A requirement for specific asbestos testing and remediation is outside of the scope of the regulation head of power. It is understood that asbestos generally poses little risk to health, provided it is in good condition and is not disturbed.

Similarly, a broad general requirement for disclosure of chemicals is not expected to be effective in protecting the health of renters.

The cost of the proposed measures would be significant and would be expected to negatively impact the availability of rental properties.

In relation to electricity tariffs and fees, rental providers are better placed to find and provide this information. Placing the burden on rental providers is consistent with the disclosure requirement for embedded networks provided for in the RTAA.

Two submissions from organisations were opposed to the disclosure requirement around storage or use of a drug of dependence, believing it is too broad and is not useful information for a new renter.

Supported

This disclosure requirement has been amended to focus on the contamination of the premises rather than storage or use of drugs.

A rental provider advocate expressed privacy concerns regarding the disclosure requirements for homicides, drug contamination and notices, declarations and reports, and concerns regarding the extent of the administrative burden for the requirement to disclose notices, declarations and reports.

Supported in part

There is no requirement to disclose identifying information about previous renters. Although some information may be identifying if a prospective renter undertook further investigation through the neighbourhood, it is expected that much of that information will already be known. Although the privacy concerns are recognised, there has been strong stakeholder interest in these disclosure requirements.

These requirements have been refined to limit the extent of the administrative burden on the rental provider.

17 - Amount Of Rent For Which Maximum Bond Does Not Apply

The amount of bond and/or rent in advance is limited to one months’ worth of rent, where the weekly rent for a property is below a certain threshold (previously $350 per week). This regulation sets this threshold.

DJCS received a range of submissions in relation to increasing the maximum bond amount to $900, as proposed by this regulation. They included proposals to:

· cap one months’ rent as bond, regardless of the weekly rent of the property

· cap two weeks’ rent as bond (which is outside the scope of these Regulations)

· cap $760 weekly rent as bond

· cap $500 weekly rent as bond, and

· cap $850 weekly rent as bond for metropolitan Melbourne and $760 weekly rent as bond for regional Victoria.

In addition, some submissions disagreed with this regulation entirely, believing that they should be able to charge any bond they wish regardless of the weekly rent.

No change

The exemption from maximum bond (for properties with weekly rent exceeding $350) was originally intended to apply to high value properties (at the time, the top 20 per cent of properties in Melbourne).

It is reasonable that more expensive properties may require higher bonds, as repairs can be much more expensive if there is damage at the end of a rental agreement.

When the RTA was introduced, $350 was more than twice the median weekly rent for Melbourne and three times the weekly rent for Victoria.

As discussed in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), the Regulations will run over a 10 year period. The $900 cap is set at a slightly higher amount to future proof the Regulations over this period, noting that rents have risen considerably over the past 10 years. It is not proposed that a separate cap be set for regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne.

22 - Utility Charges

Lists utility charges that the rental provider is required to pay.

Two submissions raised concerns regarding imposing an obligation on the rental provider to pay for the initial NBN connection of the property, noting it can be very expensive in some circumstances. As alternatives, one submission suggested a disclosure requirement and the other submission suggested a limit on the amount the rental provider should be expected to pay.

No change

Internet access is essential in the modern era and NBN will be necessary for any internet connection for most properties by the time the RTAA reforms commence. It should be noted that due to COVID-19, many more properties will already be connected to the NBN before this regulation comes into effect.

26 - Modifications Which Can Be Made Without Residential Rental Provider’s Consent

Lists modifications that can be made by a renter to a rental property without having to seek their rental provider’s consent.

A large amount of individual submissions disagreed with the notion of this regulation, suggesting that renters should not be able to make any modifications without permission from the rental provider.

No change

The intention of the modifications reforms is to allow renters to make some prescribed modifications without consent, to help make their rental properties feel like a home. This is clearly provided for by the RTAA.

Several individual submissions and submissions from renter and energy efficiency advocates recommended the following additional modifications that the renter should be allowed to make without consent:

· family violence-related modifications to improve the safety of renters

· installation of doorbell if the rental property does not have one

· installation of internal ‘baby gates’ at hazardous places (i.e. stairs) to protect children

· changing showerheads (i.e. to a low flow showerhead) so long as the renter retains the original showerhead, and

· installation of non-permanent window film (insulation) to improve thermal comfort.

Supported

These proposed modifications are supported by DJCS. DJCS considers that the suggested additional modifications are appropriate minor modifications that can all be easily rectified after the renter leaves.

· Renters will be able to install removable safety measures (sensor lights, cameras, alarms) without consent, if they do not need to be hardwired into the property, and if they do not interfere with the privacy of neighbouring residents.

· Installation of baby gates will improve child safety.

· Changing showerheads and installing nonpermanent window film will improve the property’s energy efficiency and reduce the renter’s water bills.

Other submissions recommended additional modifications the DJCS does not consider it appropriate for inclusion in the list of modifications that can be made without consent. These include:

· basic gardening additions (e.g. setting up an herb garden)

· installation of fly screens on doors or windows

· installation of a lock on external gates

· weather sealing or draughtproofing

· modifications to support older people to live safely at home (rails, ramps, door safety hinges, etc.), and

· installation of picture hooks/ screws for wall mounts and furniture anchors in brick walls.

No change

Under the RTA, the renter is under a duty to restore any modifications at the end of the tenancy subject to fair wear and tear.

For the following reasons, DJCS believes these modifications fit better in the list of prescribed modifications that cannot be unreasonably refused:

· restoration of gardening modifications and fly screens at the end of a tenancy can be difficult and expensive

· adding new locks without informing the rental provider could cause various issues with inspections and repairs

· due to safety concerns with open flued gas spaced heaters, it is preferred that renters talk to their rental provider before draught-proofing the rented premises. Note, the Victorian Government has committed to introducing rental minimum standards for draughtproofing in 2022, and

· damage to brick walls is not easily restorable, however, based on stakeholder feedback, this regulation has been refined to refer to exposed brick and concrete walls which should be easily identifiable by renters.

DJCS also notes that when the RTAA commences, modifications to support older people will fall within the category of disability related modifications, which cannot be unreasonably refused under section 64(1B)(c) of the RTA.

A submission by a rental provider advocate suggested that the proposed modification without consent around installing picture hooks/screws for wall mounts and furniture anchors must be installed by a ‘suitably qualified person’.

No Change

Requiring a ‘suitably qualified person’ to install picture hooks, screws for wall mounts or furniture anchors would be onerous and excessive, as are generally no specialty skills are required to do such work. Renters will still be liable for the costs of restoration at the end of the tenancy.

Some individual submissions and rental provider advocates recommended placing a limit on the number of picture hooks/screws for wall mount that can be installed without consent.

No Change

Putting in place a ‘reasonability test’ could create confusion and give rise to disputes over what is a ‘reasonable’ number of picture hooks or wall mount screws.

A rental provider advocate suggested exempting fire walls from the proposed modification that renters can install picture hooks/screws for wall mount and furniture anchors without consent.

No Change

Such an exemption would likely lead to increased confusion and disputes, as many renters would not know which walls in the property are fire walls.

28 - Modifications For Which Residential Rental Provider Must Not Unreasonably Refuse Consent

Lists modifications to the rental property that renters can request which cannot be unreasonably refused by their rental provider.

Several individual submissions and a rental advocate suggested additional modifications for inclusion in the list of modifications that cannot be unreasonably refused that are supported by DJCS. They include:

· painting for decoration or to cover up old/peeling paint, and

· modifying and securing external gates.

Supported

These fit well with the government’s aim to help make rental properties feel like a home to renters.

Securing external gates will also help improve the security of the rental property.

Several individual submissions suggested the addition of other modifications that cannot be unreasonably refused that are not supported by DJCS. They include the:

· installation of a cooling device (e.g. ceiling fan) where no other cooling exists

· installation of a dishwasher where feasible and done by a professional (that meets the energy efficiency standard),

· modifying or installing extra fencing, and

· installation of a pet door (to a current door or get a new door and preserve old door).

No Change

Due to the potential works involved and the cost of restoration, DJCS determined that these proposals were not suitable to be listed separately in the Regulations. Installation of a pet door also raises potential security impacts for the rental property.

DJCS notes that on commencement of the RTAA, modifications necessary to increase the thermal comfort of the premises are already listed as modifications that cannot unreasonably be refused in section 64(1B)(g)(i).

30 - Requirements For Gas And Electrical Safety Check Record Keeping

Details the requirements for keeping gas and safety check records – related to Schedule 3 clauses 1 and 2.

An organisation recommended that all records of gas and electrical safety checks should be retained for 3 years.

No change

The Regulations specify that a record of a gas or electrical safety check must be kept until the next check occurs (and a new record is made). This approach is considered more efficient as the renter only needs to know that the rental property is currently safe, not whether it was safe before the most recent checks and any rectifications.

31 - Rating Compliance For Residential Rental Provider’s Appliances

Specifies efficiency standards that must be met by a rental provider when replacing a water appliance that has broken down. These standards align with those in the rental minimum standards.

An individual submission was concerned about the potential cost impact imposed by this regulation and suggested a disclosure requirement instead.

No change

This Regulation exists to deal with the possibility of a rental provider replacing an efficient appliance with a less efficient one, increasing utilities costs for the renter. A disclosure requirement would not resolve this issue.

32 - Amount—Urgent Repairs By Renter

Where a rental provider does not respond to a request for ‘urgent repairs’, a renter can action the repairs themselves. If the renter actions the urgent repairs, they can ask to be reimbursed for the reasonable cost of the repairs up to the amount specified by this regulation.

Several individual submissions believed that the $2,500 limit proposed was excessive and that it should either stay at $1,800 or could be increased to $2,000 as suggested by one submission.

No change

DJCS believes that $2,500 is a reasonable limit to set for ‘urgent repairs’, particularly noting that these Regulations will be in place for the next 10 years and there is a need to ‘future proof’ the amount. A higher amount will also incentivise rental providers to respond to requests for urgent repairs more readily.

An organisation indicated in their submission that they were supportive of the increase but recommended that there be a higher requirement placed on the renter to provide the original invoice for the works undertaken, to provide for warranty and taxation purposes (in line with ATO requirements for property investors).

No change/Out of scope

It is agreed that such a requirement would be of benefit to property investors, however, imposing it on renters is out of scope for this regulation which can only set the authorised reimbursement limit.

35 - Compensation—Sales Inspections

Where a rental provider conducts a sales inspection in a property that a renter is currently living in, they must compensate the renter an amount specified by this regulation.

A large amount of individual submissions proposed that no compensation should be provided to renters when a sales inspection is undertaken, believing that the disruption to renters is very minor.

No change

Sales inspections can be very disruptive for renters who have a right to ‘quiet enjoyment’ of their property. It is the intention of this reform to provide compensation for the disruption and inconvenience to renters.

Many individual submissions and some from real estate agencies proposed that instead of rental providers having to pay a half days’ rent per inspection (as proposed by the draft regulations), compensation should be determined at an hourly rate (per hour of disruption or length of inspection). Alternatively, other individual submissions and rental advocates recommended that the compensation be increased to a full days’ rent.

No change

The length of a sales inspection (most last only an hour) is not an accurate indicator of the level of disruption caused to renters, as it does not account for time spent in preparation for the inspection cleaning, loss of privacy and potential additional costs (such as child care fees). However, increasing the compensation amount may incentivise rental providers to evict renters before advertising the property for sale, which is not a preferable outcome.

Submissions from rental advocates recommended setting the compensation at a full days’ rent with a minimum compensation of $50 and $75 respectively to capture low rent households.

Supported in part

The overall rate of compensation has not been changed, for the reasons above. However, in recognition that the level of disruption is often consistent regardless of amount of rent, a minimum compensation requirement has been set at $30 per inspection.

36 - Matters—Tribunal Orders

Lists the evidence that VCAT can consider in an application for termination or creation of a new rental agreement due to family or personal violence.

Submissions from two organisations recommended amending the regulation to require family members or friends to provide statutory declarations rather than letters to support VCAT applications to stop vexatious family violence claims from perpetrators.

No change

The potential for abuse of this provision has been noted, however the RTA does not authorise requiring statutory declarations at present. DJCS will monitor this issue as part of implementation of the RTAA reforms.

An organisation recommended that the list of evidence be expanded, so that VCAT must take into account people who are in care relationships with individuals who display behaviours of concern related to their disability, cognitive impairment (e.g. acquired brain injury or dementia), mental or chronic illness which results in the property being damaged.

No Change

The list of persons able to provide evidence is sufficiently broad that it could include individuals in a care relationship. However, the suggestion that this provision be extended to address violence within a care relationship is outside the scope of the Regulations.

39 - Prohibited Terms

Lists terms that cannot be included in a rooming house agreement.

A submission from a rental advocate recommended prohibiting all terms that would be considered invalid under the rooming house agreement (e.g. if they contradict the RTA) as many residents would not be aware that they are invalid.

No Change

The reforms have differentiated between ‘invalid’ and ‘prohibited’ terms in recognition there is a broad remit of terms that can be included, and some invalid terms may have been inserted into the rooming house agreement in good faith.

A submission from an organisation recommended prohibiting terms which unreasonably limit rooming house resident activities for the purposes of ensuring that utility costs paid by the rooming house operator are minimised beyond a reasonable level of service (e.g. house rules restricting the use of air conditioning).

Supported

A term which unreasonably limits the resident’s use of utilities has been included in the list of prohibited terms.

A rental provider advocate was opposed to the prohibition of terms which unreasonably limit resident's activities for insurance purposes, on the basis that it may lead to residents undertaking activities which invalidate insurance cover.

No change

There are concerns that rooming house operators have incorporated compliance with their insurance contracts without giving the resident the contract, or the ability to understand the requirement. This provision still allows the operator to limit resident activities, but requires that it be done reasonably, and not merely by reference to their insurance requirements.

A rental provider advocate was opposed to the prohibition of terms which require the resident to use a third-party service provider nominated by rooming house operator. It is concerned that this requirement may be incompatible with the use of embedded networks in rooming houses.

Supported in part

If the resident is responsible for paying for the works, they should be empowered to choose a supplier. Embedded networks have been exempted from this requirement.

41 - Information Which Rooming House Operator Must Not Require Applicant To Disclose

Lists questions that rooming house operators are not allowed to ask prospective residents.

A rental provider advocate was opposed to not being able to ask about past rental bond disputes. It believes that requesting this information is standard practice and it is important to determining if the resident should be allowed to rent the room in the rooming house.

No Change

Feedback throughout the FSH review process has indicated that many residents experience frivolous claims made by rooming house operators against their bond. Prohibiting this question limits the potential for rooming house operators to discriminate towards residents where a bond dispute has not been successful.

An individual submission and submission from a rental provider advocate were concerned about the restriction on asking for certain personal information, e.g. about nationality and gender. The individual submission noted that some residents only wished to live in ‘female-only’ rooming houses or rooming houses with people from the same nationality. The rental provider advocate also noted potential compliance issues with Commonwealth legislation regarding housing international students and requirements about confirming residency status.

Supported

The drafting of this regulation has been revised to require rooming house operators to explain why they need the information if they ask a prospective resident about a protected attribute under s6 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

Two organisations recommended that rooming house operators be prohibited from asking about bond loan debt by a prospective resident. It was noted that there is currently a practice of rooming house operators paying the bond loan debt and placing residents on unachievable payment plans alongside their rent payments.

No Change

There has been insufficient evidence provided to DJCS to determine the extent of this issue and whether it can be successfully dealt with through these Regulations.

42 - Information Which Rooming House Operator Must Disclose To Applicant

Lists information that rooming house operators must provide to all prospective residents.

Individual submissions and rooming house resident advocates recommended that rooming house operators should be required to disclose that they are fit and proper persons for the purposes of the Rooming House Operators Act 2016.

Supported

This is an appropriate disclosure that a rooming house operator should be able to easily provide to prospective residents.

A submission from an organisation recommended that rooming house operators should be required to disclose:

· the nature of any outstanding ‘urgent repairs’

· if the rooming house is part of a retirement village, and

· the rooming house rules.

No change

DJCS does not consider that the suggested additional disclosures are necessary, as they are unlikely to assist potential residents to make an informed decision about whether to live in the rooming house.

There is already a process in place under the RTA for the rectification of urgent repairs and on commencement of the RTAA, section 124 of the RTA will require rooming house operators to give residents a copy of the house rules no later than the day the resident agrees to take up occupation.

In relation to whether the rooming house is part of a retirement village, insufficient evidence was provided for DJCS to confirm that this is a widespread problem that needs to be rectified through these Regulations.

47 - Safety Devices

Lists safety devices which a resident must not remove, deactivate or interfere with unless it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.

A rental provider advocate recommended that evacuation diagrams be added to the list of prescribed safety devices.

No change

An evacuation diagram is not considered an essential device and it can be easily reprinted if a resident interferes with it.

A rental provider advocate recommended that ‘any emergency lighting’ be amended to also include ‘evacuation lighting.’

No change

The term ‘evacuation lighting’ is considered to be easily understood to fall within the category of ‘any emergency lighting’ and that no distinction in the drafting of the regulation is needed.

49 - Amount—Urgent Repairs By Resident

Where a rooming house operator does not respond to a request for ‘urgent repairs’, a resident can action the repairs themselves. If the resident actions the repairs, they can ask to be reimbursed for the reasonable cost of the repairs up to the amount specified by this regulation.

An individual submission recommended that the authorised amount be set at $1,000 (rather than $1,800 proposed by the regulation).

No change

For reasons discussed in relation to regulation 32, DJCS believes that the proposed authorised amount of $1,800 should be retained for all tenure types, including rooming houses.

54 - Prohibited Terms

Lists terms that cannot be included in a caravan park residency agreement.

A rental provider advocate submitted that they did not accept this regulation. It believes that loss or damage caused by a resident or their visitor must be the responsibility of the resident and that the Regulations should not direct otherwise.

No change

This regulation has been redrafted to reflect the intended purpose, which is to prevent the assignment of liability by default. In some cases, liability will fall on the caravan park owner or caravan owner, in some cases it will fall on the resident or their visitor. This should be determined based on the factual circumstances of the incident. The resident’s responsibility for damage is provided for under section 173 of the RTA.

57- Information Which Caravan Park Owner Or Caravan Owner Must Not Require Applicant To Disclose

Lists questions that caravan owners or caravan park owners are not allowed to ask prospective residents.

A submission from a rental provider advocate opposed the prohibition on asking an applicant to disclose a previous dispute with a caravan park owner. It notes that many caravan park owners experience a significant level of debt when residents incur arrears in either rent or electricity costs, and it is therefore important to enquire as to any previous disputes in their previous rental history.

No change

Feedback throughout the FSH review process has indicated that many residents who have had disputes with caravan park owners or caravan owners struggle to find new rental accommodation to move into. This sort of discrimination also dissuades residents from exercising their legal rights in fear of having difficulty finding future accommodation.

58 - Information That Caravan Park Owner Must Disclose Before Agreement Under Section 144(1) Commences

Lists information that caravan park owners must provide to all prospective residents.

A submission from an organisation recommended the following additional mandatory disclosures:

· any caravan park rules

· any contact information for a residents committee, and

· an information statement that the residents committee can use suitable park facilities.

No Change

DJCS does not support the proposed disclosures.

On commencement of the RTAA, section 185(4) of the RTA will require the caravan park owner to provide a copy of the caravan park rules to each resident and section s198B will require the caravan park owner to allow residents to use suitable communal park facilities for meetings of the residents committee.

The proposal relating to the provision of contact information for the residents committee is not appropriate, as it would require the provision of private information to all prospective residents of the caravan park.

74 - Prohibited Terms

Lists terms that cannot be included in a residential park residency agreement.

A rental provider advocate submitted that it did not accept this regulation. It considers that loss or damage caused by a site tenant or their visitor must be the responsibility of the site tenant and that the Regulations should not direct otherwise.

No change

This regulation has been redrafted to reflect the intended purpose, which is to prevent the assignment of liability by default. In some cases, liability will fall on the site owner, in some cases it will fall on the site tenant or their visitor. This should be determined based on the factual circumstances of the incident. The site tenant's responsibility for damage that they or their visitor have caused is provided for under section 206ZO of the RTA.

77 - Information Which Site Owner Must Not Require Applicant To Disclose

Lists questions that site owners are not allowed to ask prospective residents.

A rental provider advocate opposes the prohibition on asking an applicant to disclose a previous dispute with a site owner. They note that many site owners experience a significant level of debt when site tenants incur arrears in either rent or electricity costs, and it is therefore important to enquire as to any previous disputes in their previous rental history.

No Change

Feedback throughout the FSH review process has indicated that many site tenants who have had disputes with site owners struggle to find new accommodation to move into. This sort of discrimination also dissuades site tenants from exercising their legal rights in fear of having difficulty finding future rental accommodation.

78 - Information That Site Owners Must Disclose

Lists information that site owners must provide to all prospective site tenants.

Submissions from two rental advocates recommended that this regulation should also require that site owners be required to disclose whether the Part 4A site, Part 4A park or any other site in the Part 4A park is prone to, or has a history of, subsidence.

Supported

Subsidence is acknowledged as an ongoing concern for parks and Part 4A sites, and disclosure of such information would allow potential residents and site tenants to make an informed choice.

91 – Further matters to be considered by Tribunal

Lists depreciation scales that VCAT must have regard to in calculating an amount of compensation payable by a renter, a resident or a site tenant (as the case requires).

VCAT informed DJCS that it currently uses the ATO Guide Rental properties 2020 to determine depreciation for rental properties.

Supported

On commencement of the RTAA, the RTA will require VCAT to consider the Guide to depreciating assets, which is a general guide to depreciation that applies to all property and asset types. It provides minimal guidance on depreciation in rental properties. The Guide Rental properties 2020 provides specific guidance on calculating depreciation in rental properties and would be of assistance to VCAT members when assessing compensation.

94 - Goods Left Behind

Lists certain categories of goods which, if left behind after a renter vacates the property, must be retained and stored by the rental provider for at least 14 days.

Submissions from two rental advocates recommended adding the following to the list of prescribed goods: any electronic device which could reasonably be assumed to store photographs or other personal documents, including but not limited to portable or computer hard-drives, computers, laptops, tablets, USB’s and mobile telephones.

No Change

The goods suggested to be prescribed already fall under the definition of ‘personal goods’ which must be retained for 90 days. Prescribing them under this regulation would reduce the retention requirement for these types of goods from 90 to 14 days.

A rental advocate recommended that animal taxidermy be included, alongside human remains, as prescribed goods in this regulation.

No Change

DJCS does not consider that preservation of animal taxidermy is a priority, given the range of other potential goods suggested and considered for prescription.

97 - Documentary Evidence To Accompany Objection To Listing Of Information

Lists evidence of family violence which can be included to support an application to object to information being listed on a residential tenancy database.

A rental advocate noted several items that they believe should be included as evidence of family violence, which can be attached to an application objecting to a listing on a residential tenancy database:

· bank statements of the alleged victim, the perpetrator of violence or related party

· photographic or audio-visual evidence

· any electronic communications as defined in s4(1) of the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 (Vic), and

· any oral evidence about where a victim has been staying or living.

No change

The information prescribed in this regulation will be provided to database operators or rental providers rather than VCAT, who will not be properly trained or skilled to interpret nuanced information. Therefore, DJCS has deliberately omitted oral, audio-visual, photographic and other evidence which would require interpretation from this regulation.

Schedule 3 – Safety related activities

Schedule 3 clause 1 - Electrical safety-related activities

Details electrical safety requirements for rental providers.

A large amount of individual submissions primarily coming from current rental providers and estate agents recommended that the mandatory electrical safety checks be performed less frequently (every 3-5 years or only after major renovations, instead of every 2 years). They believed that checks every 2 years would be excessive and unnecessary for renter safety.

No change

Energy Safety Victoria (ESV) recommends two yearly electrical safety checks. Although the expense of the safety checks has been noted, on balance electrical safety is an ongoing concern in rental premises, which needs to be prioritised.

Several individual submissions recommended that electrical safety checks should only be required for certain properties that are less safe (i.e. due to their age or structure).

No Change

While certain properties are less safe than others, trying to distinguish between them in the Regulations would likely lead to confusion and unintended consequences. Many renters would also not know the age of the property they are staying in, which would make it difficult for them to challenge the rental provider if they claim to be exempt from the electrical safety requirements.

Schedule 3 clause 2 - Gas safety-related activities

Details gas safety requirements for rental providers.

A large amount of individual submissions primarily coming from current rental providers and estate agents recommended that the mandatory gas safety checks be performed less frequently (every 3-5 years or only after major renovations, instead of every 2 years). They believed that checks every 2 years would be excessive and unnecessary for renter safety.

No Change

DJCS has received consistent advice from ESV that to properly ensure renter safety, gas safety checks will need to be performed every 2 years. Although the expense of the safety checks has been noted, on balance gas safety is an ongoing concern in rental premises which needs to be prioritised.

Some individual submissions suggested limiting the gas safety check to certain gas appliances in the rental property that are more likely to cause harm rather than all gas appliances and fixtures (e.g. gas space heaters but not gas appliances in roof space).

No Change

While DJCS recognises that some gas appliances pose higher risks to renter safety than others, all gas appliances and fixtures have some risk. Therefore, it remains expedient to regularly check all gas appliances to ensure that they are safe rather than only those which pose the highest risk.

Schedule 3 clause 3 - Smoke alarm safety-related activities

Details smoke alarm safety requirements for renters and rental providers.

Rental provider advocates recommended that renters should be responsible for periodically dusting smoke alarms and/or replacing smoke alarm batteries, instead of rental providers or rooming house operators.

No Change

Depending on the type of the smoke alarm and its location (e.g. whether it requires a ladder to access) it could be difficult for renters to dust a smoke alarm or replace a smoke alarm battery, particularly if they are older or have a disability.

Such a requirement could also make it difficult for renters to comply with the safety device provisions in the Regulations, which aim to prevent renters from inadvertently interfering with devices such as smoke alarms. The overall duty for the renter to keep the premises reasonably clean continues to apply nonetheless.

An organisation recommended that the Regulations should specify that:

· smoke alarms must be replaced on or before their expiry date of 10 years, and

· that the rental provider must arrange an ‘urgent repair’ to fix the smoke alarm if they are informed by anyone that the smoke alarm is not working. (The proposed regulations state that the rental provider only has to arrange an urgent repair if informed by the ‘renter’ that the smoke alarm is not working).

No Change

DJCS is of the view that the requirement to replace smoke alarms on or before their 10 year expiry is already sufficiently covered by the rental provider’s obligation to ensure that each smoke alarm is correctly installed and in working condition.

In relation to the suggested amendment relating to urgent repairs, as the rental provider only has a contractual relationship with the renter, the prescribed safety-related activities can only regulate the relationship between the renter and rental provider.

An organisation recommended that the Regulations should specify that replacement of smoke alarm batteries must be carried out by a suitably qualified person.

Supported in part

Although replacing smoke alarm batteries should not require specific qualifications, the regulation has been altered to specify that work to repair or replace a hardwired smoke alarm must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person.

Schedule 3 - Carbon monoxide alarm safety-related activities

Details carbon monoxide (CO) alarm safety requirements for renters and rental providers.

A rental provider advocate, a number of organisations and several individual submissions recommended removing the requirement for rental providers to undertake CO alarm safetyrelated activities. As installation of a CO alarm is currently optional for rental providers, they believed that this requirement could have the perverse outcome of incentivising rental providers to remove existing CO alarms from rental properties in order to avoid having to comply with the maintenance activities imposed by the Regulations.

Supported

It is recognised that imposing additional requirements on rental providers with respect to CO alarms may be a disincentive to rental providers to keep a CO alarm. The safety-related activities with respect to CO alarms have been omitted from the Regulations.

Schedule 3 clause 4 – Swimming pool barrier safety-related activities

Details swimming pool barrier safety requirements for renters and rental providers.

A rental provider advocate recommended adding in a requirement for renters to ensure that a pool barrier is not made ineffective by (for example) propping open the gate or placing climbable objects adjacent to the barrier.

No Change

Renters already have a requirement under regulation 25 not interfere with a pool barrier (such as by propping open the gate) as it is a prescribed safety device.

Schedule 3 clause 5 - Relocatable pool safety-related activities

Details relocatable pool safety requirements for renters and rental providers.

A rental provider advocate and a government organisation recommended amending the relocatable pool safety-related activities to ensure they are consistent with local council requirements and regulations made under the Building Act 1993.

Supported

Since consultation on the Regulations, the Building Act 1993 has been amended to include a compliance framework for swimming pools. The safety-related activities for relocatable pools have been amended to support that framework.

Schedule 3 clause 6 - Bushfire-prone area safety-related activities

Details safety requirements specific to bushfire-prone areas for rental providers.

Submissions from two rental advocates recommended that the rental provider should be required to ensure that a firefighting tank is full of water, in addition to being clean and in good repair.

Supported in part

DJCS agrees with the importance of ensuring firefighting water tanks are full of water, however, the rental provider is not able to know how much water is in the tank during the tenancy. Therefore, the rental provider will only be required to ensure that the water tank is full and clean at the start of the rental agreement.

A rental provider advocate recommended that the rental provider’s requirement to clean the inside of a firefighting water tank should be removed.

No Change

The regulation only requires rental providers to ensure the water tank is clean at the start of new tenancies. As such, DJCS does not consider this requirement to be too onerous for rental providers. Having a clean and full water tank in bushfire prone areas is essential to Victoria’s bushfire management approach.

Additional safety checks - Asbestos

This additional standard would require regular, mandatory asbestos safety checks.

An organisation recommended adding a mandatory regular asbestos safety check to the list of required safetyrelated activities for rental providers.

No Change

Asbestos remediation should only be required where asbestos is disturbed, as it is otherwise safe. DJCS considers that implementing regular mandatory asbestos safety checks for all rental properties as excessively costly and disproportionate to anticipated safety benefits.

Schedule 4 – Rental minimum standards

Schedule 4 clause 1 – Locks

This minimum standard covers expectations around locks in a rental property, essential for a renter’s safety.

Approximately 180 individual submissions were concerned about the cost imposed on rental providers. They argued that deadlocks should only be required for external doors that are accessible from the street and not surrounded by a secure fence.

No Change

The overall cost is considered to be outweighed by the safety benefits to renters, as shown through detailed analysis in the RIS.

A rental provider advocate suggested a clarifying amendment to deal with apartment building ‘public lobbies’ that already have swipe card access.

Supported

This regulation has been clarified in line with the rental provider advocate’s suggestion.

Schedule 4 clause 2 – Vermin proof bins

This minimum standard covers expectations for effective bins that can be used by renters.

A rental provider advocate suggested clarifying the vermin proof bin standard to enable use of a bin provided by the local council, or a vermin proof bin which is compatible with local council collection.

Supported

This regulation has been clarified in line with the rental provider advocate’s suggestion.

Schedule 4 clause 3 – Toilets

This minimum standard relates to toilet functionality and its location in the rental property.

A government organisation suggested there should also be an efficiency standard for toilets or that the standard should require a dual flush toilet.

No Change

All replacement toilets must comply with the 3-star standard and DJCS understands that the dual flush requirement is incorporated as part of that standard. However, requiring the complete replacement of an existing functional toilet as part of the standard is not a priority when considered in the context of the overall cost of the Regulations on rental providers.

A rental advocate suggested that the minimum standard should include sceptic tank servicing and a minimum one toilet per five people.

No Change.

The rental minimum standards are intended to set basic yet critical requirements for amenity, safety, privacy and security. The proposed amendments to the standard are not considered a priority, when considered in the context of the overall cost impact on rental providers.

Schedule 4 clause 4 – Bathroom facilities

This minimum standard details bathroom requirements such as access to hot and cold water and efficient shower heads.

An organisation suggested that towel rails and toilet roll holders be included as mandatory standards.

No Change

The rental minimum standards are intended to set basic yet critical requirements for amenity, safety, privacy and security. This proposal is not considered a priority, when considered in the context of the overall cost impact on rental providers. There may also be practical difficulties for many rental providers installing towel rails depending on the configuration and size of the bathroom, potentially resulting in significant costs with limited benefit for renters.

Schedule 4 clause 5 – Kitchen facilities

This minimum standard relates to kitchen requirements including a food preparation area, sink, cooktop and oven.

Concerns were raised by several individuals and organisations around the specificity of this regulation (e.g. including an oven, a certain amount of stove top burners, etc). This was a particular concern for certain kinds of accommodation, like student accommodation, where these requirements are not standard and would be very expensive to implement.

Supported

The regulation has been revised so that the kitchen minimum standard requires the oven to be in good working condition (only if it is present) and to remove the specificity regarding the stove top burners, for a more flexible approach.

Schedule 4 clause 6 – Laundry facilities

This minimum standard requires that any laundry facilities in a rental property must have a reasonable supply of hot and cold water.

A rental provider advocate suggested that the word ‘reasonable’ be removed from the standard.

No Change

The amount of hot water is not been specified in the laundry standard, therefore the reasonableness requirement provides a useful benchmark for the supply of hot and cold water.

Schedule 4 clause 7 – Structural soundness

This minimum standard ensures that the rental property is structurally sound and weatherproof.

Concerns were raised by several individuals and organisations relating to how this standard was framed and potential challenges with assessing compliance with the standard.

A rental provider advocate recommended that the standard be rewritten to require that the property to be weatherproof and structurally sound ‘insofar as can be reasonably determined or is reasonably apparent’.

No Change

It is recognised that there are challenges in determining whether the structural soundness standard has been met. However, it is not proposed that the regulations prescribe the process by which the rental minimum standard is assessed. If the premises appear to be structurally sound and weatherproof at the time of occupation, it expected that they will meet the rental minimum standard.

Note, the Victorian Government has committed to introducing rental minimum standards for draughtproofing in 2022.

Schedule 4 clause 8 – Mould and damp

This minimum standard requires the rental property to free from mould and damp caused by or related to the building structure.

A rental advocate sought a stronger mould and dampness standard in line with ‘New Zealand approach’ which mandates openable windows in each room and extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom(s).

No Change

While this standard remains unchanged, a new ventilation minimum standard has been included in the Regulations, partially in line with the rental advocate’s suggestion.

Schedule 4 clause 9 – Electrical safety

This minimum standard ensures the safety of electrical appliances, connected to Australian and New Zealand electrical safety standards.

Five individuals and a group of stakeholders were concerned about the delayed implementation of the electrical safety standard, pushing for it to come into effect immediately (i.e. upon commencement of the RTAA). Some individual submissions were also concerned about the cost of the standard.

No Change

Due to the high compliance cost imposed on rental providers, it is appropriate to provide for a phased approach to implementation of this standard. The commencement of this standard balances the potential health and safety impacts of faulty electrical safety with the cost to rental providers.

Schedule 4 clause 10 – Window coverings

This minimum standard aims to improve renter privacy by requiring coverings on any windows in bedrooms and primary living areas.

Several individuals and stakeholders wanted the window coverings standard to come into effect immediately (i.e. upon commencement of the RTAA) alongside the other minimum standards.

No Change

Due to the high compliance cost imposed on rental providers, it is appropriate to provide for a phased approach to implementation of this standard.

Some submissions pushed for more than just bedrooms and living areas to be captured by the standard, wanting it to also cover bathroom windows as well.

No Change

Window coverings were identified in the RIS as imposing a significant cost on rental providers. The cost impact on rental providers of extending this standard to bathroom windows, outweighs any privacy benefits to renters.

Some individual submissions were concerned about the costs impact of this standard and the challenges of providing coverings for certain kinds of windows. Others indicated that some rental homes had been deliberately designed to avoid the need for window coverings.

No Change

The overall cost of the rental minimum standards, including the window covering standard, is outweighed by the privacy and amenity benefits for renters (as shown through detailed analysis in the RIS).

Schedule 4 clause 11 – Windows

This minimum standard requires external windows capable of opening to be set in an opened or closed position, and to have a functioning latch if they cannot be locked.

Approximately 24 individual submissions believed that a key should not need to be provided if the window is locked and cannot be opened from the street, or is on or above a second level.

No Change

This windows rental minimum standard is consistent with the standard for rooming houses, and allows renters to have a measure of control and security regarding the windows in their rental home.

An organisation suggested the standard go further, so that all windows are made capable of opening and being locked.

No Change

This proposed standard would go beyond what would be considered a minimum community expectation and would not be feasible in many existing rental properties, as not all windows are able to be opened/locked. This would result in such windows needing to be replaced and/or removed, at a significant cost to rental providers.

Schedule 4 clause 12 – Lighting

This minimum standard relates to adequate lighting throughout a rental property.

A rental advocate recommended that the standard require LED lights in rental properties, to reduce energy costs for renters.

No Change

This proposal relates to introducing an energy efficiency standard, rather than a standard intended to ensure rental properties meet a minimum lighting requirements.

Instead of introducing a rental minimum standard, regulation 26 will allow renters to modify their properties by installing LED lights globes (which do not require new light fittings) without the rental provider’s consent.

Schedule 4 clause 13 – Heating

This minimum standard ensures all rental properties have a heater and certain rental properties have heaters that meet a defined energy efficiency standard.

Rental providers and their advocates submitted that the proposed heating standard went too far and should be either reduced or removed entirely. Some suggested that heating should not be a minimum standard at all, while others were opposed to the high cost burden imposed by having an energy efficiency standard limiting the types of heaters that could be provided in a rental property.

No Change

The overall cost of the rental minimum standards, including the heating standard, is outweighed by the amenity and health benefits and energy bills savings for renters, as shown through detailed analysis in the RIS. Having more efficient heaters is also in line with the Victorian Government’s significant energy efficiency commitments around reducing carbon emissions across the State.

Renters and renter advocacy organisations submitted that the heating standard should be strengthened – either increasing the energy efficiency star rating (2 stars), extending the standard to Class 2 properties, or both.

Supported in part

The proposed energy efficiency standard strikes an effective balance between costs for rental providers and benefits for renters. Although an increase in the energy efficiency standard was considered, DJCS considers that the added cost to rental providers (particularly given the economic impacts of COVID-19) is not appropriate at this time.

However, the energy efficiency standard has been extended to Class 2 rental properties (apartments) unless the installation of an energy efficient heater is not reasonable. It may not be reasonable to install an energy efficient heater if, for example, the costs are excessive, or Owners Corporation requirements are prohibitive.

Concerns were raised by organisations about the phase-out of LPG heaters, as this could have disproportionate effects on rural properties.

Supported

While it was intended to phase out LPG heaters due to their high running costs, it is recognised that this may have disproportionate financial impacts for rural owners and occupiers. The requirement in the heating standard that LPG heaters be replaced has been omitted from the regulations.

Additional standards – ventilation

This additional standard relates to ventilation throughout a rental property, primarily to reduce the build-up of mould or damp.

Many submissions advocated for an additional ventilation minimum standard in the Regulations. This was often in relation to the current mould and damp standard, which was thought to not go far enough. The suggestions for what this standard should specifically look like varied.

Supported

A new ventilation minimum standard has been created which is aligned with performance requirements in the Building Code of Australia (BCA). This has been developed in consultation with VBA and is consistent with the standards imposed under the Residential Tenancies (Rooming House Minimum Standards) Regulations 2012.

Additional standards – insulation/hot water

This additional standard would relate to insulation in a building to improve renters’ thermal comfort and energy bills.

Many submissions advocated for an insulation minimum standard, to improve the energy efficiency of homes and reduce renters’ energy bills. This proposed standard would support the heating minimum standard.

No Change

As discussed in detail in the RIS, work by government to develop a ceiling insulation standard will need to be progressed separately, to ensure insulation is installed safely and effectively and to determine an appropriate standard that is simple to administer and cost effective. Similar issues arise in relation to development of rental minimum standards for hot water systems, and further work is required before such a standard can be delivered.

Note, the Victorian Government has committed to introducing rental minimum standards for hot water and ceiling insultation in 2022.