Actual property agent threatening to sue former tenant over ‘defamatory’ on-line evaluation

Real estate agent threatening to sue former tenant over 'defamatory' online review

Authorized letters are scary-looking paperwork and, even for these skilled within the regulation, having one land in your inbox could be a scary expertise — particularly when they’re accusing you of defaming somebody in a public discussion board.

That’s precisely what occurred to 27-year-old Zyl Hovenga-Wauchope when he posted a letter to his actual property agent on Fb.

He’s now being threatened with defamation motion, and authorized consultants are warning customers to watch out for what they are saying on-line, or they might wind up in the same scenario. 

‘Fairly stunned’: A authorized risk

In Might, Mr Hovenga-Wauchope penned a letter to his actual property agent, after a dispute along with his property supervisor at his earlier Canberra house.

He then revealed that letter to his Fb web page, and shared it extra extensively.

The dispute was over an end-of-lease inspection, and a water invoice.

Inside days, an e mail from his agent’s attorneys arrived. It disagreed along with his complaints and claimed the Fb submit was defamatory, and demanded he take away the submit and substitute it with an apology.

The letter mentioned additional authorized motion may very well be thought of if he didn’t adjust to their request.

Mr Hovenga-Wauchope mentioned at first, it was a bit alarming.

“I used to be initially fairly stunned,” he mentioned.

“It is all the time fairly a shock to obtain a threatening authorized letter.”

However, he mentioned, he was just a little higher geared up to deal with the conditions than most, given each he and his associate are attorneys.

They each moved out of the rental property after buying their very own house, and Mr Hovenga-Wauchope mentioned he was talking out as a result of different tenants won’t be as ready.

He has written again to the agent’s attorneys, and is ready for any additional correspondence.

However he mentioned for many who don’t perceive or commonly work together with the regulation, it may very well be an awesome scenario.

“There can be a severe, severe lack of ability for somebody in that scenario to be truly contesting it,” Mr Hovenga-Wauchope mentioned.

Give your trustworthy opinion however be able to again it up

Defamation is complicated, and preventing defamation claims might be costly and tough, consultants say.

Jelena Gligorijevic from the Australian Nationwide College didn’t touch upon this case, however mentioned that, typically, anybody was welcome to have their say.

Nonetheless, she warned anybody heading on-line to vent frustrations to not overreach, and to be ready to again up no matter claims have been made.

Dr Gligorijevic mentioned trustworthy opinions have been superb — as long as there was one thing strong to relaxation them on.

“What you’ll be able to say is your trustworthy opinion, which implies what you actually consider to have occurred and what your trustworthy evaluation of that’s,” she mentioned.

“So it means which you can’t make malicious feedback and your feedback, your opinions, need to be primarily based on info which might be true, or considerably true, or correct.”

Firms with 10 or extra staff typically can’t be defamed, however people inside these firms can.

And may a defamation case be launched, it’s as much as the defendant — the one that made the allegedly defamatory feedback — to show them.

Dr Gligorijevich mentioned these taking to the web to specific their emotions shouldn’t dwell in fixed worry of defamation, however must be cautious.

“It is not that defamation regulation operates to fully strangle you and never help you blow off steam,” she mentioned.

“What it’s important to watch out about doing is that, once you blow off steam, you aren’t doing so in a manner that may cut back somebody’s fame to the extent that extra will take into account it to be a incorrect.

“And also you additionally mustn’t blow off steam in a manner that you just make issues up or which you can’t show that they’re true afterwards.

“So it is not that you’re fully inhibited. It is that it’s important to be very cautious.” 

Issues about ‘weaponised’ defamation

Some client advocates worry defamation regulation is usually being weaponised, and used to stifle criticism on-line.

Whereas not commenting on Mr Hovenga-Wauchope’s case, Joel Dignam from Higher Renting mentioned he had seen numerous tenants obtain defamation threats from property managers over on-line commentary.

In some instances defamatory feedback had been posted, however he mentioned in different instances it was unfair.

“These makes an attempt to suppress tenants from sharing their experiences are intimidatory,” he mentioned.

“And in numerous the instances I’ve seen, it is not essentially that these are unfaithful claims, or it is not a foundation to them. It is simply an try to shut down any form of public accountability.”

He mentioned there was a transparent energy imbalance between a property supervisor and a tenant, notably if that tenant remained within the rental market, in contrast to Mr Hovenga-Wauchope.

Mr Dignam mentioned normally, those that acquired such a letter agreed to the calls for pretty rapidly, no matter how they considered their case.

“No one likes the thought of being threatened with authorized motion, and the thought — even when you understand you are in the best — of getting to defend towards that, is numerous work,” he mentioned.

“It may be very costly as a course of, so the primary response is to offer in sadly.”

Reforms to defamation regulation are being thought of by all Australian states and territories, to deliver the legal guidelines into the age of social media and on-line information.

Modifications like a cap on damages, and making plaintiffs exhibit how their fame has suffered, have additionally been floated.

However Dr Gligorijevich mentioned they have been unlikely to considerably change the scenario for the common one that is having a sprig on-line.

“The reform, at this stage, nothing that I’ve seen, seems at wiping out defamation regulation totally,” she mentioned.

“Or stopping it from being weaponised by somebody who may need to punish or cease another person from saying one thing about them.”

Supply hyperlink

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.