Page 2225 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
3
CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY GROUPS HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BILL AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS APPRECIATED THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ALL PARTIES TO THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS.
THE BILL ADDRESSES SIX MATTERS.
THE FIRST RELATES TO THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS PRIOR TO THE END OF A TENANCY.
THE ACT DOES NOT CURRENTLY SPECIFY TENANCY STATUS IN
TION TO MAKING A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF BOND AND, HENCE,
"IM DIRECTOR OF RENTAL BONDS IS NOT OBLIGED TO INQUIRE INTO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR STATUS OF A TENANCY AGREEMENT IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE A PERSONS ENTITLEMENT TO REPAYMENT OF
BOND MONEY.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EITHER A LANDLORD OR A TENANT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OTHER PARTYS ABSENCE - FOR INSTANCE, OVERSEAS -AND CLAIM A BOND PRIOR TO THE END OF A TENANCY WITHOUT THE OTHERS KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO RESPOND.
THIS IS OVERCOME BY AN AMENDMENT WHICH REQUIRES THAT FOR A BOND CANNOT BE MADE PRIOR TO THE END OF A TENANCY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES, UNLESS ONE PARTY IS DIRECTING THE WHOLE OF THE BOND TO THE OTHER PARTY.
THIS AMENDMENT IS IN LINE WITH SIMILAR BOND-RELATED LEGISLATION IN OTHER STATES.
2225
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .