Talking about your rights (without sounding like a law snob) (1 Viewer)

[dissipate]

have any of you been in a position (relating to real life) where someone has tried to deceive/take advantage/intimidate you by lying to you or telling you a half-truth about the relevant law? and you knew exactly what statute/section etc was relevant and what your rights were?

-- how did you respond? or how would you respond, especially if you were trying to be polite without sounding like a law snob?

my landlord has sold the apartment i'm renting, and the owner-to-be will become the new owner, legally, late next month. however, the owner-to-be bought the apartment to resell, and his agent is trying to get me to allow him to have an open house twice a week so prospective buyers can take a look. i said these few weeks are not a good time because of exams, and the agent said the owner has a right to have the apartment open for inspection.

when i replied, saying the owner-to-be isn't the legal owner yet, the agent looked startled and immediately retorted that the owner-to-be might settle the contract today or tomorrow.

thoughts?

 

[Frigid]

Re: talking about your rights without sounding like a law snob

first, registration confers indefeasibility, so that the registered proprietor is only subject to encumbrances on the register, fraud, in personam exceptions and a few other things in s42http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rpa1900178/s42.html.

second, assuming that your tenancy is under a total term of three years (incl rights of renewal), even if it is not registered, your tenancy is protected under s42(1)(d)http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rpa1900178/s42.html. this trumps the purchaser even if he/she became registered immediately. this provision only applies where the registered proprietor had notice of which he/she is not protected.

since s43A(1)http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rpa1900178/s43a.html grants a statutory 'legal' estate upon completion (but before registration), as long as the purchaser had notice of your leasehold interest prior to completion (and com'on, you're in possession, the agent knows you're there, it's hard to argue against notice), then you are protected under s42(1)(d) (like in old system, earlier equitable vs later legal).

in layman's terms, tell the agent to f* off and dare the purchaser to complete ASAP and try to claim ejectment against you. then you whip out s42(1)(d) to quash him/her.

 

[spell check]

Re: talking about your rights without sounding like a law snob

i wouldn't worry about sounding like a snob if someone is trying to fuck you over like this

this is so wrong it's funny

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 1987 - SECT 22

Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment
22 Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment

(1) It is a term of every residential tenancy agreement that:
(a) the tenant shall have quiet enjoyment of the residential premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or having superior title (for example, a head landlord) to that of the landlord, and
(b) the landlord or the landlord’s agent shall not interfere, or cause or permit any interference, with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises.
(2) A landlord or a landlord’s agent under a residential tenancy agreement shall not, during the currency of the agreement, contravene or fail to comply with subsection (1).

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: talking about your rights without sounding like a law snob

Frigid is right with regard to who has the interest and when, but the nature of that interest is defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1987.

Specifically s 24 provides that it is a term of every residential tenancy agreement that the landlord, the landlord's agent or any person authorised by the landlord, during the currency of the agreement, may enter the residential premises, but only in the following circumstances:

"...(d) to show the residential premises to prospective purchasers or mortgagees, on a reasonable number of occasions, if the tenant has been given reasonable notice on each occasion...."

So, under my reading of this section, the purchaser (and not yet legal owner) actually does have a right to show the property to others, with the landlord's consent.

It could be argued that this right only applies to landlords showing the premises to prospective purchasers, but there is nothing in the section which would indicate such a limitation. It seems to be wide enough to encompass purchasers who have not yet taken their legal title showing the premises to prospective purchasers, so long as the landlord has given consent.

(You should note, however, that this cannot be done on a Sunday or public holiday, and can only be done between 8am and 8pm. Also, the landlord must give written consent if it is with regard to anyone except the landlord or the landlord's agent: s 24(2)(a), (b), (c) RTA. Also remember that you have a right to reasonable notice.)

The real question, then, is what constitutes a "reasonable number of occassions". This is clearly a matter of degree. "Twice a week" is rather vague -- I would want a definite time period on that. Twice a week for two weeks might be okay, but any longer period of time I think once a week is much more in line with what the section requires. This is rather subjective though.

Bottom line is that the purchaser needs the landlord's consent to show it to prospective purchasers.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: talking about your rights without sounding like a law snob

Anyhow, in response to the actual question (I realise you weren't asking for legal advice, just thought I should point that out), it's difficult.

Let's face it -- no-one likes being told about the law. It's always going to be unpleasant and resorting to waving a statute around is best avoided. But at the same time sometimes you do need to stand up for your rights, and sometimes it is even necessary to be tough with them, lest you risk them not taking you seriously.

Usually these things arise in the context of consumer disputes.

Generally I try to be very polite and say that, with respect, I have a statutory right to XYZ, and that I would appreciate the compliance of the business with that right. If they refuse, politely, then I refer them to the exact section of the act, and again point out that, with respect, I must insist that the business comply with whatever act it is. If they are rude or completely unreasonable then I get tough. Getting tough means taking the conversation (if it hasn't already been with them) to the manager of the store, again politely (but firmly) stating your rights. If faced with refusal again then the big guns come out and you can, in a composed but assertive way, raise the issue of taking the matter further.

And it can go further. Personally, in the context of consumer disputes, I've threatened to take businesses to the CTTT, and report them to the ACCC or FTO. Most businesses get given a little fact sheet or poster to put in their place of operation which is basically a dumbed-down version of s 19 of the SGA, or ss 71 & 72 of the TPA. They will usually point to that sign when in a dispute and being able to explain that their little information sheet is simply a layperson simplification usually throws them.

In my opinion, the best thing to do is be calm but assertive, be polite and show respect to who you're talking to, and know your statutes! Then increase the pressure by following through with the issue of further action if compliance with the law is not met.

If you're in a conflict and you aren't sure of your rights, you can often say that you disagree with what the person says, but that you will not take the matter further until you check the status of your rights by seeking legal counsel. Do this calmly. It will probably scare the pants off them. Then you can go and look up the relevant law, or seek opinions, and go back if need be.

 

[dissipate]

wow thanks for the advice guys even though i wasn't asking for legal advice.

our s46 of the RTA (Owner's right of entry) is in relation to the owner actually - interesting in that unless the lease agreement expressly states that the owner's agent has these rights as well, only the legal owner has rights, correct?

also, when the new owner obtains legal title, will my lease with the new owner be based on the terms of the lease agreement i have with the current owner? --i don't remember seeing anything in the RTA about situations like this.

moonlight, you discussed 'reasonable number of occassions' just when i was wondering what a reasonable number of occassions was do you reckon anything above 10 occassions is unreasonable?

and when no prospective buyer is interested in looking at the property on an arranged date, does it still count as an occassion?

and thanks for your comprehensive advice on how to handle this situation (and any similar situation in the future)! i'm a foreigner here and am unfamiliar with how people do things and handle problems like these, but am feeling more confident now with yours and everyone's advice!