So we rented a BRAND new house at the start of Feb this year. When we went to the viewing, we talked to the property manager and made sure that the yard would be worked on before anyone moved in. At that stage it was still builders rubble.
So a few weeks later we got the call to say we had been chosen out of a pretty hefty field and we were pretty excited. But before accepting, I did ask again if any landscaping was to be done (landscaping is a pretty weighted word- we just wanted to know if at least grass seed would be thrown around) and the PM said yes- turf had already gone down in the front, and the back would be seeded within a couple of months tops. So, on that basis we accepted.
Skip to now, several maintenance requests later, as well as speaking with the PM in person a few times, we are at our wits end. Yes, the front yard is turfed. And we take damn good care of it- best grass in the street! But- our backyard is still builders rubble.. and weeds! Knee, thigh high weeds. Unsuitable for two young boys to play safely in.
We started to use pesticide on it, but stopped after a few weeks beacause a) it's costly to us to 'maintain' what is really- nothing. and b) It's pesticide!
So, what I'm really trying to ascertain is- are we right in assuming we have rights to demand a usable back yard? Someone mentioned to me about applying for a rent reduction on the basis we signed the lease under the assumption it would have a usable backyard.. is that possible?
I don't want to be a PITA, the PM has recently left and we haven't been told anything about it- heard it from my bro who knows her socially. The owner of the house works in WA, and builds houses back here to generate rental income, so surely he should know the value of at least putting some grass seed down?
For this part of the world, our rent is higher than average, so I feel ripped off really- I just don't know whether I have the right to feel this way, or if I'm just being whingey (damn AF I tell ya!)