I have been travelling up and down the country talking about the new changes to the RTA. And let me tell you this, nothing gets landlords and property managers more fired up than the two-day withdrawal pathway for victims of family violence.

Let’s start with the basics. Under Section 56B, a tenant who is a victim of family violence can withdraw from a tenancy with two days’ written notice accompanied by an appropriate form of qualifying evidence.

For the first two weeks following the withdrawal, rent is proportionally reduced in line with the percentage reduction in total number of tenants on the agreement. If one out of two tenants leaves, rent drops by 50 per cent; one out of three, 33.33 per cent; one out of four, 25 per cent. You get the maths.

The right to withdraw also extends to tenants who are not direct victims themselves but have a dependent (such as a child) who is. The system is designed to enable victims to remove themselves from a dangerous situation as quickly as possible.

And this is where some landlords and property managers start grinding their teeth.

“What if someone cheats the system?”

“How do we know the claim is real?”

“Shouldn’t we be able to challenge dodgy withdrawals?”

“Why should I have to house the perpetrator?”

Parliament has made its position clear: the interests of family violence victims are paramount. In most cases, their right to withdraw trumps the interests of everyone else in the tenancy, including the landlord.

A low bar

The withdrawal process is deliberately low bar – Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s victimhood nor can it examine the validity of the qualifying evidence.

As much as you might want to play detective, let me be blunt: it’s not worth your time.

Your primary purpose as a tenancy manager (be you a property manager or a landlord) is to ensure business continuity. What comes after that is custodianship of your tenant’s welfare (within the RTA framework and your own moral compass).

Fixating on whether a withdrawal is “genuine” is a fool’s errand. Even if you suspect a tenant is gaming the system, what’s your endgame? If you somehow manage to invalidate a fraudulent notice (a near-impossible feat), you’re left with a resentful and resourceful tenant who has already proven they’ll do anything to get out. That’s not someone you want occupying the property.

Instead of seeing Section 56B as a threat, turn it into an opportunity. A withdrawal – even one that raises eyebrows – is a red flag. Something serious is happening behind closed doors, and ignoring it could lead to bigger problems: rent arrears, property damage, abandonment, or worse. In most cases, you are better off letting the tenant go before the situation spirals further.

Business continuity

Then there’s the business continuity piece. I can see how landlords can get hung up on the temporary rent reduction. There’s something to be said about having socialised solutions for a social problem: let the tax system fund the rent shortfall, not the landlord. But I digress.

Fixating on contorting the rental arrangement so that you are somehow compensated by the tenant(s) is futile. Instead, focus your energy on optimising your rent levels at all times, have robust loss of rent cover under your landlord insurance and build an ample cash buffer into your rental business. This will go a long way in helping you navigate the stressful situation of sudden loss of rent.

Another common concern is: what if the victim returns? We know it’s not uncommon for abuse victims to go back to their abuser, and some landlords worry that they’ll end up with repeated withdrawal notices.

The reality is, even if the victim returns, they are likely doing so as an occupant, not as a named tenant. That means Section 56B will not apply to them in future withdrawal attempts. To be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t support victims leaving again – but their departure as an occupant has no bearing on the rent you receive. If there’s no Section 56B application, there’s no rent reduction.

A way out

At the end of the day, family violence withdrawal isn’t about fairness between tenants and landlords – it’s about ensuring victims have a way out, fast. And the law is structured, quite rightly, to make that happen. The best thing landlords and property managers can do is shift focus from resisting Section 56B to mitigating its financial impact and ensuring properties remain stable and tenanted.

Look, I get it. Change is hard. For most of us, change represents disruption and disruption, by its own nature, is uncertain and unsettling. To the extent you are able, limit your insecurity of the unknown. Because disruption brings opportunities but you’ve got to look for them. Shifts in tenancy law, difficult transitions, and even problematic tenant departures can all create unexpected advantages if you lean into them strategically.

This isn’t the first major shift in tenancy law, and it won’t be the last. But like all changes, it’s best handled with pragmatism over paranoia. Focus on what you can control: keeping your business running smoothly, protecting your owners’ interests, and – yes – recognising that sometimes, it is best to just let the tenant go.