Page 2227 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
5
THE FOURTH MATTER CONCERNS THE TIME PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A LANDLORD OR A TENANT CAN RESPOND TO A NOTICE OF CLAIM.
UNDER THE ACT, WHEN ONE PARTY TO A TENANCY AGREEMENT FOR WHICH A BOND IS HELD SUBMITS A CLAIM TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE, A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS SENT TO THE OTHER PARTY.
CURRENTLY, THE NOTIFIED PARTY HAS TEN DAYS TO RESPOND IN WRITING OR THE CLAIM WILL BE PAID OUT PER THE SUBMITTED APPLICATION.
THE TEN-DAY PERIOD IS TOO SHORT, PARTICULARLY DURING HOLIDAY NODS SUCH AS CHRISTMAS, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A PERSON MAY NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESPOND.
THE BILL WOULD EXTEND THE TIME TO RESPOND TO FOURTEEN DAYS OR SEEK OTHER PRESCRIBED PERIOD IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT A PARTY RECEIVING A NOTICE HAS A FAIRER OPPORTUNITY TO DISPUTE A CLAIM SHOULD HE OR SHE WISH TO DO SO.
THE FIFTH AND SIXTH MATTERS DEALT WITH IN THE BILL CONCERN PROCEEDINGS IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT.
THE BILL REMOVES THE CURRENT PROVISION WHICH STATES THAT THE DIRECTOR OF RENTAL BONDS SHALL BE THE RESPONDENT TO PEGS IN THE COURT.
THE CURRENT PROVISION FORMALLY INVOLVES THE DIRECTOR IN COURT PROCEEDINGS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME MAKING NO FORMAL PROVISION FOR THE RIGHT OF THE OTHER PARTY TO BE HEARD.
2227
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .