Search

“Truly disgraceful”: Landlord cops backlash after posting photo of evicted tenant

A landlord in Victoria has been slammed online after posting a photo of a former tenant who was evicted, and was forced to live in their car. The picture was originally posted to the private Landlords Victoria Facebook page, but was then leaked to X (formerly Twitter), and shows an old Nissan sedan with a tarp over the top, where a person was living after getting evicted from a rental. The landlord had described the tenant’s living situation as “karma” for the financial toll her eviction process had taken on him, claiming he dealt with years of legal battles. He claims he was left out of pocket to the tune of “thousands of dollars”. “Took me almost three years to get this person out of my rental,” he wrote in the post. “It seems she had trouble finding a new place to live." <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ALAB?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ALAB</a> <a href="https://t.co/2WEn1hyBnf">pic.twitter.com/2WEn1hyBnf</a> — Purplepingers (@purplepingers) <a href="https://twitter.com/purplepingers/status/1790345077816279280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 14, 2024</a></blockquote> “I am thousands of dollars out of pocket in legal fees and lost rent not to mention the stress and frustration with VCAT ... Looking at this karma must be real.” The landlord added that it “must be bloody freezing” and gloated that the woman was “not (in) an enviable position”. The landlord's post welcomed a wave of criticism, as many took aim at the landlord for broadcasting, and even taking pleasure in his former tenant's hardship. One social media comment accused the landlord of “publicly shaming and degrading her", while another said the post was “truly disgraceful”. While several people were disgusted by the landlord’s lack of empathy, others defended his rights as a property owner. “I wouldn’t want to see my tenant in that situation. But the fact is unless they pay the rent on time it won’t be me turning them out onto the street,” one person wrote. Image credits: X (Twitter)

Money & Banking

“Greedy” landlord slammed for illegal act

A Victorian landlord has been slammed on social media after admitting to making her tenants pay an illegal pet bond amounting to $1000. The woman made the admission while replying to a post on a Facebook group for Victorian landlords after a member asked for advice about renting to tenants who have pets. "Not knowing everything but in my experience I would rather have pets than kids!" the landlord began. "I would ask for a pet bond. I have one it's $1000 for damages by the pet," she said Pet bonds are illegal in Victoria, and landlords who try to secure it illegally often describe it as a way to cover costs if their pet causes any damages to the property. When the poster replied saying that her tenant offered to provide a pet bond, but she knows they're not legal in Victoria, the landlord confessed that: "I know they are not legal but I always ask for them and my PM (property manager) has been great about them.” “I have lots of pets personally and don’t turn down animals. Again, kids have done more damage than animals in my experience,” she added. “Most renters are happy to do it as it means they can have animals.” In Victoria renters who want a pet on the property must ask the rental provider, and if they refuse the request, the landlord must provide a valid excuse, with assistance dogs being the exception. If a pet causes damages to a property, the cost of these damages can be taken out of the regular bond paid at the start of their tenancy, so a pet bond is not required. Western Australia is the only state where landlords can legally ask for a pet bond, but even then they can only charge a maximum of $260 regardless of how many pets there are. A screenshot of the landlords shocking admission was shared on X by by popular renter’s advocate, Jordie van den Berg with the caption: “Landlord: ‘yeah I know it’s not legal, but I do it anyway’." Outraged renters slammed the landlord's “greedy” and “vile” behaviour, with one calling it “emotional blackmail”. “‘Most renters are happy to pay’ – I’m sure none of them are happy but they need somewhere to live without having to give up their pet," one wrote. “I personally would not describe myself as ‘happy’ to be exploited over an illegal bond that I can’t dispute when you go ahead and invent some bulls**t to keep it because the alternative is that it’s almost impossible to get a rental with pets,” another added. “The most concerning thing is the manager, how many illegal bonds have they taken and where is the money being held? In the agents account, with the owner? It wouldn’t be with fair trading where legal bonds are lodged,” a third wrote. This comes after a recent Rental Affordability report shared by Anglicare Australia revealed that “the housing crisis is the worst it’s ever been." According to the report only 0.6 per cent out of 45,000 listings across the country were considered affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage. Image: Jordie Berg/ X/ Shutterstock

Legal

Becoming a landlord while still renting? ‘Rentvesting’ promises a foot on the property ladder, but watch your step

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-graham-1264059">James Graham</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> As home ownership moves further out of reach for many Australians, “rentvesting” is being touted as a lifesaver. Rentvesting is the practice of renting one property to live in yourself, while simultaneously purchasing an investment property somewhere cheaper and leasing it out. Ideally, “rentvestors” get to enjoy the capital gains on an investment property while living where they actually want to live, allowing them to cash in and upsize to their dream home later. It might seem like a savvy way to game the property market. But what are the risks of such an investment strategy? And how might broad adoption of this behaviour affect housing affordability in Australia? <h2>A rising tide lifts all boats differently</h2> The aim of the rentvesting game is to buy cheap property now, ride the expected capital gains, and move into a more desirable home down the track. The hope is that by climbing the first rung of the property ladder early, the whole thing won’t be pulled up out of reach. The first problem with this strategy, however, is that capital gains on housing are not always and everywhere equal. Generally, the cheapest properties available to rentvestors will be houses in the regions or apartments in the city. But both regional housing and apartment properties <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-20/house-apartment-price-gap-widens-record-high-property-market/103484076">tend to appreciate more slowly</a> than the inner-city houses rentvestors might hope to live in one day. They might get a foot on the property ladder, but the rungs themselves are slowly drifting apart. Would-be rentvestors should also be aware that investments by “out-of-town” buyers tend to generate <a href="https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/29/2/486/1902789">much lower returns</a> – both capital gains and rental yields – than investments by locals. Out-of-towners don’t know the local market trends, don’t know which neighbourhoods to avoid, and aren’t able to monitor their investments as effectively from afar. Avoiding the regions by investing in city apartments presents its own difficulties. Large, unexpected maintenance bills and poor strata management are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-21/a-world-of-hidden-charges:-strata-company-insiders/103617944">common complaints</a>. <h2>Different costs lead to different returns</h2> Perhaps the potential rentvestor should invest in something more straightforward instead, like stocks. After all, the return on equities in Australia has <a href="https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1225/5435538">outperformed housing</a> in recent decades. However, it is much easier to borrow to invest in property than it is to borrow to invest in the stock market. And leverage is the investor’s secret weapon. For example, if house prices were to appreciate at 10% per year, then using a mortgage and a A$100,000 deposit on a $1 million property would earn you a 100% return on equity before costs. But while both investors and homeowners would earn that same basic return, their costs could be very different. For starters, property investors face capital gains tax on the proceeds of property sales, <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/investments-and-assets/capital-gains-tax/property-and-capital-gains-tax/your-main-residence-home/eligibility-for-main-residence-exemption">unlike those selling their primary residence</a>. Banks also typically charge <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/interest-rates.html">higher interest rates</a> on mortgages to investors than to homeowners. At times, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has also imposed caps on bank lending against investment properties, making it more difficult to find mortgage financing in the first place. Highly leveraged properties require mortgage insurance, too. Investors may need to take out larger insurance policies against the properties themselves, reflecting the higher risks associated with investment properties. Then, you also have to throw in property management fees, council rates, strata management fees and regular and unexpected maintenance costs. <h2>Negative gearing offers little benefit</h2> What about negative gearing? Property investors that generate losses on their property can deduct these costs against the tax bill on their other income. But negative gearing disproportionately benefits high-income earners with large tax bills. The <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/personal-income-australia/latest-release">median Australian individual income</a> is around $55,00, which generates a tax bill of about $8,000 – not a lot from which investment property losses can be deducted. The bigger picture is that while negative gearing helps defray the regular costs of managing a property, it doesn’t do anything to change expected capital gains. At the end of the spreadsheet tally, an investment property could end up earning rentvestors significantly less than they could have gained by simply buying their first home. <h2>Effects on housing affordability</h2> Rentvesting is new enough that its prevalence and influence awaits formal academic study. But economists might speculate about its implications for the housing market more broadly. The simplest analysis suggests that a rentvestor occupies one rental property while supplying an additional rental property to the market. If, instead, they had bought a home, they would vacate a rental property while removing another property from the market. In this case, even rentvesting en masse would have zero net effect on the housing market. But a more nuanced perspective might consider where rentvestors are renting and where they are investing. Perhaps they are most likely to rent properties in the already-crowded inner city, but purchase investment properties in regional areas where other first home buyers would like to live. This would increase demand for rentals in the city and reduce the supply of owner-occupier properties in the regions, worsening the affordability of both. Of course, if these rentvestors all eventually move up the property ladder – selling in the region and purchasing in the city – this effect would be reversed. From that longer-term perspective, rentvestors would ultimately have little effect. <h2>We still need more houses</h2> Rentvesting is not a panacea for Australia’s housing market woes. Potential investors should weigh the benefits of property investment against its substantial costs and risks. Additionally, they need to carefully consider the obvious alternative: simply buying their first home up-front. We have good reason to be wary of yet another get-rich-quick scheme involving the housing market. But initial considerations suggest that for the market overall, rentvestor behaviour is no worse than someone simply buying their first home, which we would otherwise encourage. Rather than criticising those seeking a way though our housing market morass, we might instead redouble our efforts to increase the supply of housing.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/229116/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-graham-1264059">James Graham</a>, Lecturer in Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/becoming-a-landlord-while-still-renting-rentvesting-promises-a-foot-on-the-property-ladder-but-watch-your-step-229116">original article</a>. </div>

Money & Banking

Tenants forced to pay landlord after fleeing their “uninhabitable” rental

A family has been ordered to pay their former landlords $3,000 after they “abandoned” they “uninhabitable” rental property. Bechara Rizk and Ariye Atayi Juma claimed that the Sydney home was unlivable, given the unrelenting infestation of cockroaches and other bugs. When the couple moved into the home with their young daughter on April 29th 2023, they immediately noticed “tiny insects and small cockroaches” in the linen cupboard, living area, master bedroom, second bedroom and main bathroom. They said the house was completely inundated with insects, as they found them on the walls, doors, skirting boards, carpets and in the toilets. Rizk emailed the real estate agency saying he did not consider the property habitable — especially for his young daughter. “(We) went to the property an hour ago for the first time since we received the keys yesterday and there were tiny insects and cockroaches alive and dead in every room,” the email said. “I have taken some videos if you need to see evidence but, most importantly, we are not comfortable bringing a small baby who is crawling to live in this apartment.” “I am writing to formally pull out of the lease and wanting to understand what the repercussions are for us.” The real estate offered to arrange a pest control service, to which the couple turned down as they believed the problem was too far gone to be fixed easily. After returning the keys on May 1st, Rizk sent an email the next day requesting their bond and deposit be returned. A pest controller treated the home on May 3rd, recording that a “small amount of (insect) activity” had been located and treated. In a letter to Rizk and Juma the next day, the real estate agency said the pest controller had found “no evidence of a pest infestation in the property” and the couple’s claim the property was uninhabitable was without merit. Rizk replied, “We have pulled out of our lease not due to a change of mind, it is uninhabitable and simply not what we signed up for. “We cannot live in an insect-infested apartment with a young baby.” “As any parent should understand, our child is our first priority and at the very least it would be irresponsible and the most could potentially put her in harm.” The matter between the family and the landlord ended up in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with the couple seeking repayment of their bond while the landlords asked for compensation for the couple’s “abandonment” of the lease. Tribunal member Ross Glover found that the couple did in fact abandon the property, and were ordered to pay their former landlord $3,000 in compensation. The amount was deducted from the couple's bond which left no remaining balance to be refunded to them. Image credits: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

"You are the problem": Landlord slammed over rent increase just before Christmas

An Australian landlord has been slammed online for deciding to raise the rent on one of her struggling tenants before Christmas. The landlord from WA took to social media to try to defend her decision to slap her tenant, who is a single mother, with a $100 rental increase at the start of the festive season. The woman, who owns four rental properties, explained that the increase comes from the growing market value in the suburb the tenant lives. "I decided to increase the rent by $100 a week for my tenant, who is a single mum with two kids, on the basis a reasonable rental increase would have been an extra $140 a week," she began in the video shared to her X account. "I recognise that she probably couldn't afford that. So I came to the conclusion that $100 would be a very good deal considering the suburb and it would be one of the cheaper rentals on the market." The tenant said that she is unable to afford the steep increase, especially in the weeks before Christmas, and would have to decide between affording her rent and feeding her young children. "So now I'm in a position. Do I subsidise the tenant's rent and cop it out of my own pocket... or do I tell this tenant she can't afford this particular suburb and she should look for somewhere more reasonable," the landlord said. "It's a really tough decision and one that I am not taking on lightly and just further evidence that this housing crisis is really impacting people financially." In the end, she decided to increase the tenant's rent. "I increased the tenant's rent by $100 per week after I did further research. The rent is still $30-$40 per under market value. Now I'm learning you can't mix emotions with business," she said. The landlord has been rinsed online, with many people calling out her callous actions in the festive season, dubbing her as "greedy" and contributing to nation's housing problem. "Jesus, I cannot imagine increasing a rent by $100 a week- that would ruin anyone, let alone a single mum. What are you thinking of? Have some ethics," one person said. "You and the real estate industry are the problem! Hiking the rent based on your real estate greed. If you recognise the social issues why do you add to the problem?" another person added. A third person chimed, "Is this satire? Surely you aren't this much of an awful human being." "I fully understand it's your property - however to increase rent just before Christmas is a little heartless and $100 a week increase is tall during a cost of living crisis," a fourth person said. Others jumped to defend the landlord, claiming owning rental property is a business and not a charity. One person commented, "Take the emotion out of it! It's an investment property not a charity! As harsh as that sounds it's the cost of being successful. But, perhaps leave it until after Christmas though as a goodwill gesture." Image credits: X / Instagram

Money & Banking

ATO cracks down on landlords submitting dodgy tax returns

The Australian Taxation Office (ATM) has plans to crack down on landlords submitting dodgy tax returns after an interview found nine in 10 made mistakes and wrongfully claimed expenses. Those working at home, including those who run home-based businesses and people who earn via short-term rental sites like Airbnb or Stayz, will also be under the thumb this year to file returns correctly, in a new bid to eliminate tax fraud. The review comes in the wake of a major funding boost to the ATO, announced in the 2023 federal budget, which saw an $89.6 million injection. The ATO claims there was a tax gap of $9 billion in the 2019-2020 financial year. Taxpayers paid 94.4 per cent of the whole amount theoretically owed to the Commonwealth, with deductions for rental expenses, including those incorrectly claiming negative gearing deductions, contributing $1.4 billion to the gap. Australian Tax Commissioner Tim Loh said the ATO will be taking action in 2023. "We encourage rental property owners and their registered tax agents to take extra care this tax time and review their records before lodging their return," Loh reportedly told The Age. "You can only claim interest on a loan used to purchase a rental property to earn rental income – don't forget, if your loan also includes a private expense, such as for a new car or a trip to Bali, you can only claim an interest deduction for the portion relating to producing your rental income.” Loh warned Australians who work from home and advised against the “copy and paste" tax return method. He said, ” We know a lot of people are working back in the office more compared to last year”, and the method the ATO uses to calculate working from home expenses has now changed. Image credit: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Landlord slammed for listing $300-a-week "coffin"

A Sydney landlord has sparked outrage online after advertising a “coffin” for rent at an astonishing price. A Reddit user shared the Facebook Marketplace advertisement for the “pantry room”, located in an apartment at the heart of Sydney’s CBD. The room contains just one single mattress that fills the entire width of the room, with no window and just a small patch of space between the bed and the room’s door. The questionable listing is advertised for $300 a week. Initially advertised as a “Penthouse small room” for $300 a month - or $75 a week - the Reddit user who found the ad confirmed this was false. “I have clarified with the person who posted this ad, it is $300/week to sleep in a CBD apartment pantry room,” they said. Fellow Reddit users were dumbstruck by the listing, saying that it goes to show how “out of hand” Australia’s rental crisis has become. “This is how far Sydney has fallen. F*** this shit,” one wrote. Another added, “At this point in the rental crisis I shouldn’t be surprised, but wow ... what a scam!” “Worst part is I guarantee people would consider it.” a third wrote. “Lol this is what I pay for a one bedroom apartment near the beach in Newcastle.” Another response read. Another noted, “It’s a cupboard - not a bedroom.” Others questioned if it was legal to rent the room as it has no window. According to the National Construction Code, in order for a bedroom to be “habitable” it has to have access to daylight and natural ventilation. Experts said this usually calls for a window. “That’s illegal anyways, every habitable room must have a window. You could report it,” wrote one Reddit user. “But my lord ... is that legal?” another questioned. Many users commented that they “weren’t surprised” given the lows that some landlords are going to in the current climate. “Amazed they didn’t put a bunk bed in there,” one wrote. Another added, “Yeah, I think the eternity I spend in a coffin will be time enough to enjoy these sorts of conditions.” While a third joked, “Would the person that rents this out please sub-let the top 30cm of this penthouse to me? I’d sleep in a submarine hammock bed up there. Say, $200 a week?” Image credit: Reddit

Real Estate

Landlord rents out balcony for $300 a week

As the housing crisis in Australia continues, one landlord has decided to capitalise on the desperation of renters by leasing a balcony for $300 a week in a bizarre listing. The landlord shared the “room” on Facebook, sharing photos of the enclosed balcony with city views, obscured by tarps and heavy curtains, along with a peculiar list of questions for prospective tenants. “Man Private Room Sydney Cbd. 1 boy only. $300/week,” the ad read. “Quick response 04******** Please kindly send me your information.” The ad then prompts tenants to list what items they will be bringing into the apartment, before the landlord asks applicants to provide their nationality. The balcony room is in Haymarket’s Miramar building in the Sydney CBD, although any views of the city skyline have been obstructed with silver tarpaulin, while the glass sliding doors leading to the actual apartment were concealed by blue curtains. A blue single mattress has been squeezed into one corner of the balcony room, opposite a small desk and TV, with both walls adorned with tropical-themed art. When the landlord was contacted on the phone by news.com.au, they answered several questions before refusing to speak further with a female journalist. He said he had received “a lot of interest” and several calls about the property, though wouldn’t specify how many people had been in touch. A three-bed, two-bath unit in the building sold for $1.15 million in September last year, while the estimated rental income for a two-bed, one-bath unit is $810 per week. Even a parking space in the Miramar can be rented out for $650 a month. The listing comes amid unprecedented pressure on the Sydney rental market, with record-low vacancy rates pushing prices sky-high. The median rent for a house in Sydney reached a record high of $650 per week at the start of the year, while the median rent for a unit was also at a high of $550. Tenants have little choice but to pay up, with the national vacancy rate at just 0.9 per cent. Image credits: Facebook

Real Estate

Calls to protect rights of tenants with animals

Amid the current cost-of-living crisis and housing crisis, renters across Australia and New Zealand are finding it harder to secure homes to rent - but it’s even harder for renters with pets. In parts of Australia, landlords are legally protected if they refuse applications from tenants with companion animals, while New Zealand rentals can still refuse to have pets as well. Dr Zoei Sutton, an academic at Flinders University in South Australia, conducted a study involving in-depth interviews with tenants and stakeholders, including landlords, and found that many were struggling to obtain a rental when they had pets. “My study shows Australian landlords and property managers are particularly reluctant to house cats, as they’re seen as leaving allergy hazards or the need for deep cleaning of carpets. Owners of bigger dogs and certain breeds can also have a harder time finding housing,” she said. “And while we’re starting to see legislative shifts in Victoria and NSW, legislation to protect pet owners has been defeated in South Australia.” During the interviews, Dr Sutton also uncovered several strategies renters could use to improve their chances of success, including preparing pet ‘resumes’ for agents and landlords. “Both tenants and stakeholders agreed that there needs to be an understanding that rental houses are homes. This means working with both landlords and tenants to make sure everyone has a clear understanding of what fair ‘wear and tear’ is,” she added. While interviewing tenants, landlords, real estate agents, and emergency housing organisations in SA, she heard multiple stories of renters experiencing a “constant source of worry” while renting. “One tenant reported finding just ten potential properties listed as pet friendly while another family found only two within their price range. Some tenants are being asked to pay higher rent to secure a house,” Dr Sutton said. “Multiple participants reported that there was a bidding war for houses with some tenants offering 3 or 6 months rent in advance, just to secure a house. “One family had fallen through the damaged floor of their house multiple times but were reluctant to report the landlord’s failure to maintain the home because this might result in a bad reference when they next had to move.” “It’s a constant source of worry, knowing that your lease might not be renewed or your house might be sold and you’ll have to try to find something again.” Meanwhile, New Zealand journalist Charlotte Muru-Lanning <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/28-09-2022/the-absence-of-rights-for-renters-with-pets-is-just-cruel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> in September that 14 percent of rentals available across the country were listed as “pets OK”, despite nearly half of New Zealand households. “We need more protections for tenants so they can report unfair housing conditions without jeopardising future housing,” Sutton said. “Animals need to be able to use the home too, and there are small things you can do to minimise any potential damage. “Property managers have a key role in educating landlords and tenants to ensure everyone is happy and has reasonable expectations.” Image: Getty Images

Real Estate

Do tenancy reforms to protect renters cause landlords to exit the market?

More Australians are <a href="https://theconversation.com/wealthy-landlords-and-more-sharehousing-how-the-rental-sector-is-changing-94394">renting their housing longer</a> than in the past. But they have relatively little legal security against rent increases and evictions compared to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-australia-can-learn-from-overseas-about-the-future-of-rental-housing-90401">tenants in other countries</a>. When state governments suggest stronger protections for tenants, landlords and real estate agents <a href="https://www.reiq.com/articles/reiq-concerned-rental-reforms-unravel-rights-of-property-owners/">claim it will cause disinvestment</a> from the sector, increasing pressure on already tight rental markets. In <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/391">research</a> for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (<a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/about">AHURI</a>), published today, we put the “disinvestment” claim to the test. We looked at the impacts of tenancy reforms in New South Wales and Victoria on rental property records over 20 years, as well as surveying hundreds of property investors. We found no evidence to support this claim. We did find a high rate of turnover as properties enter and leave the sector. This happened regardless of tenancy law reforms. It’s a major cause of the unsettled nature of private rental housing for tenants. We suggest that if substantial tenancy reforms did cause less committed landlords to exit the sector, that might not be a bad thing. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> A tenancy law expert says it could be illegal in several states, while tenants’ advocates say it preys on vulnerable renters during Australia’s housing crisis. <a href="https://t.co/hQEdS80a3h">https://t.co/hQEdS80a3h</a> (via <a href="https://twitter.com/abcnews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@abcnews</a>) — ABC Australia (@ABCaustralia) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCaustralia/status/1587927668846399488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2022</a></blockquote> How did we test the disinvestment claim? We analysed records of all rental bond lodgements and refunds in Sydney and Melbourne from 2000 to 2020. From these records we can see properties entering the rental sector for the first time (investment) and exiting the sector (disinvestment). We looked for changes in trends in property entries and exits around two law reform episodes: when the 2010 NSW Residential Tenancies Act took effect, and the start of a tenancy law reform review in Victoria in 2015. We found no evidence the NSW reforms affected property entries (investment). And property exits (disinvestment) were slightly reduced – that is, fewer properties exited than expected. In Victoria, we found property entries reduced slightly when the law reform review started – perhaps a sign of investors pausing for “due diligence”. We saw no effect on property exits. So in neither state did we find evidence of a disinvestment effect. We also surveyed 970 current and previous property investors, and got a similar picture. When deciding to invest, investors said prospective rental income and capital gains were the most important considerations, but tenancy laws were important too. On the other hand, tenancy laws were the least-cited reason for disposing of properties. Many more investors said they did it because they judged it a good time to sell and realise gains, or they wanted money for other purposes, or because the investment was not paying as they had hoped. A state of constant churn Our research also gives new insights into the private rental sector, which <a href="https://www.housingdata.gov.au/">has been growing</a> relative to owner-occupied and social housing. Small-holding “mum and dad” landlords dominate the sector. Some 70% of landlords own a single property. Multiple-property owners own more properties in total, but still relatively small numbers (rarely more than ten) compared to corporate landlords in other countries who have tens of thousands of properties, or even more. Australia now has some large corporate landlords, but their properties are a tiny fraction of the total rental stock. Beneath its gradual growth and persistent small-holding pattern, the private rental sector is dynamic. Properties enter and exit the sector very frequently. In both Sydney and Melbourne, our analysis shows, most properties exit within five years of entering. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496048/original/file-20221118-13-8fazlx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Chart showing private rental properties, Sydney and Melbourne, 2000–20, by year of first observation in rental bonds data and at five-year intervals" /></a><figcaption>Numbers of private rental properties in Sydney and Melbourne at five-year intervals from 2000 to 2020. Properties are categorised by year of first observation in rental bonds data. The authors</figcaption></figure> More than 30% of tenancies begin in a property that’s new to the rental sector. And more than 25% of tenancy terminations happen when the property exits the sector. Our investor survey also shows the sector’s dynamism. Many investors made repeated investments, owning multiple properties and some interstate. They indicated strong interest in <a href="https://theconversation.com/ever-wondered-how-many-airbnbs-australia-has-and-where-they-all-are-we-have-the-answers-129003">short-term letting</a>, such as Airbnb, and significant minorities had used their properties for purposes other than rental housing. Australia’s rental housing interacts closely with other sectors, particularly owner-occupied housing, as houses and strata-titled apartments trade between the sectors. The tax-subsidised property prices paid by owner-occupiers heavily influence investors’ gains and decision-making. Rental is also increasingly integrated with tourism, through governments’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-wins-and-who-loses-when-platforms-like-airbnb-disrupt-housing-and-how-do-you-regulate-it-106234">permissive approach to short-term letting</a>. In short, the Australian rental sector is built for investing and disinvesting. As properties churn in and out of rental, renters are churned in and out of housing. This presents problems for tenants. A new agenda for tenancy law reform Australian residential tenancies law has accommodated the long-term growth of the rental sector and its dynamic character. With no licensing or training requirements, it’s easy for landlords to enter the sector. It’s also easy to exit by terminating tenancies, on grounds they want to use a property for other purposes, or even without grounds in many cases. Over the years tenancy law reform has fixed some problem areas, but with virtually no national co-ordination. Laws are increasingly inconsistent on important topics, such as tenants’ security (for example, some states have restricted, but not eliminated, no-grounds terminations), minimum standards and domestic violence. Reforms have overlooked significant problem areas, such as steep rent increases and landlords’ liability for defective premises. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Works for Australia too. Although don't even need to pretend to put it on the market in NSW, it's called a "no grounds eviction" or perhaps more accurately: "tenant expected a liveable home or repairs to broken stuff". <a href="https://t.co/GolGDqlyCu">https://t.co/GolGDqlyCu</a> <a href="https://t.co/wORI3K6Yap">pic.twitter.com/wORI3K6Yap</a> — Nathan Lee (@NathanLee) <a href="https://twitter.com/NathanLee/status/1542298797039964160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2022</a></blockquote> It is time to pursue a national agenda that goes further than previous limited reforms. The focus should be on the rights of tenants to affordable housing, in decent condition, that supports autonomy and secure occupancy. Where landlords say it is too difficult and they will disinvest, this should not be taken as a threat. Indeed, it would be a good thing if the speculative, incapable and unwilling investors exited the sector. This would make properties available for new owner-occupiers and open up prospects for other, more committed landlords, especially non-profit providers of rental housing. Similarly, if we had higher standards and expectations to discourage private landlords from entering the sector, that would open up scope for new owner-occupiers and investors who are less inclined to churn properties and households. While past tenancy law reforms have not caused disinvestment, maybe the next reforms should. <hr /> The authors acknowledge the contributions of their research co-authors, Professor Kath Hulse, Professor Eileen O’Brien Webb, Dr Laura Crommelin and Liss Ralston.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194900/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Writen by Chris Martin, Milad Ghasri, Sharon Parkinson and Zoe Goodall. Republished with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-tenancy-reforms-to-protect-renters-cause-landlords-to-exit-the-market-no-but-maybe-they-should-194900" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Getty Images

Real Estate

Leaked email advises landlords to increase rent amid housing crisis

A real estate agency in Brisbane has come under fire over a leaked email in which landlords were advised to consider raising rents by more than 20 percent amid Australia’s worsening rental crisis. The email, sent by Ray White East End, asked landlords to consider whether their properties were being “under-rented” and advised them to increase rents by “above 20 percent” - more than double the rate of inflation - with potential earnings of an extra $10,000 a year. “Our property managers have been reviewing all our lease renewals and on average recommending a 17% rent increase on the leases renewed in October & November this year,” the email said, per <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/17/brisbane-real-estate-agency-advises-landlords-to-increase-rents-by-over-20-amid-housing-crisis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a>. “As we are planning December lease renewals, the average lease renewal recommendation is above 20%. This can be as much as $10,000 per year in additional rental income.” The agency said that “many landlords are not being provided with the information to make an informed decision” about rent increases, claiming that landlords were being advised to sign long-term leases with increases of $5 to $20 a week. The email also said that most tenants “are agreeable” to the increases and would understand that it is “fair and reasonable” based on what is available on the market. “On average, apartments in West End/Highgate Hill/South Brisbane/Brisbane CBD are renting for one bedroom $480 to $520+ [a week and for] two bedrooms $675 to $850+ [a week],” the email said. “If you are not achieving these rents (at a minimum), you should be asking why?” It comes as the Queenlsand government prepares to hold a housing summit to address rising homlessness and rental stress across the state. Penny Carr, the chief executive at advocacy organisation Tenants Queensland, said the email was an example of “opportunistic price-gouging” that is happening across Australia at the moment. “Rents are unaffordable for people at the moment and tenants are having to absorb increases because of fear of not finding another property or becoming homeless,” she said. “We should only allow rent increases above CPI if they’re justifiable and there’s been major work to the property or something’s had to be replaced.” Ms Carr said rent increases have been due to vacancy rates and supply and demand, and that the email dispels the myth that a land tax proposed by the government last year for interstate investors is to blame. Meanwhile, Ray White East End principal realtor Luke O’Kelly said rental affordability relies on investors. “Over the past 12 months, Brisbane has had some of the strongest population growth in the country and this has most clearly shown up in rental growth,” Mr O’Kelly said. “Right now, Brisbane doesn’t have enough homes for those that want to live here … with rents rising so quickly, Brisbane needs more property investors.” Fiona Caniglia, executive director of not-for-profit housing and homelessness organisation Q Shelter, said the timing of the email couldn’t be worse. “It is disappointing to hear this the week of the emergency housing summit to be honest,” she told <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/dont-have-enough-homes-rental-agency-ray-white-tries-to-increase-rent-by-20-per-cent/news-story/e4ff2ab4807fffe3b50b90fe81069156" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news.com.au</a>. “We already know that many vulnerable Queenslanders are struggling to secure a rental property in the first place.” “There are record numbers of people showing up for the small number of properties listed right across Queensland. Such an increase will only benefit those on higher incomes and will of course again negatively affect vulnerable Queenslanders, forcing more people into homelessness.” Ray White’s chief economist Nerida Conisbee defended the email in a statement shared with the outlet, saying that the market is currently ideal for investors. “Right now, Brisbane doesn’t have enough homes for those that want to live here,” she said. “This is making it tough for renters but does make it a good place to invest. While red hot house price growth is unlikely to start up again in the near future, yields are increasing as rents rise.” With Australians paying an extra $7.1 billion in rent over the past year and the average renter spending $62 more a week than this time last year, Greens housing and homelessness spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather said the email showed that urgent action is needed. “It’s this sort of flagrant price-gouging that demonstrates exactly why we need a national two-year freeze on rent increases,” he said. Image: Getty Images

Real Estate

If your landlord wants to increase your rent, here are your rights

Inflation is pushing up interest rates. Interest rates are pushing up mortgage costs. There’s talk of a rental supply crisis. This means there’s a good chance your landlord wants to increase your rent. So what are your rights as a renter? That depends on where you live, because residential tenancy laws are determined by state and territory governments. There are, however, many commonalities. Here’s a rundown. When can your landlord raise the rent? In every state and territory there are limits on when and how often your landlord can raise the rent. If you are on a fixed-term lease your rent cannot be increased during the lease period, unless the lease itself specifically provides for such an increase. This makes it worthwhile to negotiate a longer fixed-term lease if you can. If you are on a periodic (month-to-month) lease, state and territory laws set limits on the frequency with which the rent can be increased. For the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia, rent can be raised every six months. Elsewhere, it is every 12 months. <hr /> <iframe id="jPQW9" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jPQW9/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <hr /> What must the landlord inform me of? Landlords do not need to provide a reason for increasing the rent. They are, however, required to strictly follow notification procedures – informing you in writing, using forms that are specified in relevant regulations, and giving you advance notice of the increase. Minimum notice periods are about 60 days in most states and territories (see the table above) and 30 days in the Northern Territory. If your landlord does not comply with these requirements, you are not obliged to pay the higher rent. Is there any limit on how much my rent can increase? The Australian Capital Territory is the only jurisdiction that puts a cap on rent increases. They are limited to no more than 10% above the Consumer Price Index for Canberra. Any larger increase must be approved by the <a href="https://www.acat.act.gov.au/case-types/rental-disputes/rent-increases">ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal</a>. In all jurisdictions, however, you can appeal to the tribunal or court that oversees residential tenancy laws if you believe a rent increase is excessive. These bodies have the power to reduce or refuse the increase. They can also order landlords to reduce the rent in some circumstances (such as if disrepair or damage makes the property less fit for living). No state and territory residential tenancy legislation defines what makes rent “excessive”. But they do include similar lists of things a tribunal or court may consider to determine whether rent is excessive. These include the rent of comparable premises, and the property’s value and condition. You will need to provide this evidence, because the burden of proving your rent is excessive is on you. Can I be evicted so the landlord can charge more rent? A landlord can terminate a fixed-term lease at its expiry for any reason (as long as they follow the notice provisions). They cannot terminate a fixed-term lease earlier than its expiry just so they can raise the rent for new tenants. They must have a legitimate reason, for instance if you are continually breaching the terms of the lease, or making the property uninhabitable. They must provide the reason in writing. With the exception of Victoria, a landlord can terminate a periodic lease for any reason. The only requirement is a minimum notice period. In Victoria, your landlord must give and substantiate a valid reason. Wanting to lease out the property at a higher rent is not a valid reason. In short, what to check? 1) Check your lease. If it’s a fixed-term lease, look to see if the terms allow for a rent increase. 2) Check your landlord has used the correct form for the notice and given you at least the minimum notice period. 3) Seek advice from your local tenants’ advisory service or relevant government tribunal or agency if you are in doubt. The organisations in the following table are a good place to start. <hr /> <iframe id="mCf23" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mCf23/3/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> Correction: This article has been amended to correct the minimum notice period in NSW. It is 60 days, not 90 days as originally stated.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190126/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-grigg-1377368" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brendan Grigg</a>, Senior Lecturer in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flinders University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hossein-esmaeili-426640" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hossein Esmaeili</a>, Associate professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flinders University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-your-landlord-wants-to-increase-your-rent-here-are-your-rights-190126" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Landlord overstays welcome sleeping in tent under tenant’s home

A landlord has been ordered to pay $NZ 700 ($AUD 630) in damages for unlawful entry after he pitched a tent and stayed under his rental property. When the tenant living in the home asked him to leave after he slept there overnight, Brian Clement verbally insulted them and came up with excuses as to why he was allowed to stay under the house, as reported by the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/landlord-slept-in-tent-under-tenants-home-refused-to-leave/MSWNZ6WCH3JCTTTXQM7OSQ57VE/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NZ Herald</a>. The tenant and partner, whose names are suppressed, told the New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal that Clement repeatedly came “unannounced and overstayed” for up to three days at a time. “The more visits the more it disturbed our sense of privacy at home,” the tenant’s girlfriend told the tribunal. Over two years, she said she saw Clement at the house at least 15 times and that he stayed overnight seven times. In one incident in February last year, the tenant was away and his girlfriend and her daughter were alone at home when Clement refused demands to leave. "I cannot express how uncomfortable and weird I felt that night," the girlfriend said. "I sent Brian a message as I could hear him around the house and asked him once more to leave." On the two occasions she called him, he answered with “verbal insults” and said he was “just under the house catching internet Wi-Fi”. She believed Clement would sleep in his car, only to discover the next morning that he had pitched a tent under the house and slept there. A neighbour who confirmed the account said it was “unnerving” and that she even felt “unsafe at the time”. She described the relationship between the tenant and Clement as “unusual and always ‘grey’”. She said the tenants had been renting the property for over a decade, and that Clement “appeared to come and go” from the property. Clement admitted to staying at the home overnight, but argued the tent was for storing tools and that he only slept in it for one night. He told the tribunal that his rental agreement gave him the right, as the owner, with “access at all times, with reasonable notice, for upgrading repairs … etc” and that the house “may need to be vacated by [the tenant] for occasional visits and staying of friends”. However, the tribunal ruled that the agreement was “entirely contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which only allows a landlord to enter the property during the rental period with the tenant’s consent, in an emergency, or with minimum notice given. "Importantly, even if a tenant has given consent to the landlord to enter the premises, the tenant is able to withdraw that consent at any time, and if consent is withdrawn, then the landlord would need to leave immediately," tribunal adjudicator Rex Woodhouse said. As well as paying damages, Clement was ordered to pay an additional $1000 ($AUD 900) for the property having no or ineffective underfloor insulation. "There is a very strong interest for tenants, landlords and the public generally, to ensure tenancies are safe and secure, and tenants being able to preclude landlords from entering or staying on the premises falls within that expectation," Woodhouse said. Georgie Rogers, the resident of advocacy group Renters United, said tenants can go to the police if their landlords are harassing or threatening them. "But the convoluted way of going to the Tenancy Tribunal is the only way for tenants to access their rights," Rogers said. But, he said tenants could be named and blacklisted if their claims were unsuccessful. Image: Getty Images

Legal

How an Aussie senior inherited her long-term home from her landlord

An Australian senior has finally been able to retire after she received an incredible gift from her long-term landlord. Jane Sayner, 74, was used to a life of waking up to her 3am alarm to go and work at a fruit and vegetable market in Epping in order to pay her rent and make ends meet. However, Jane has now been able to turn off her early morning alarm for good after inheriting her home from her late landlord. Jane rented off St Albans multi-millionaire John Perrett, who famously left his $18-million fortune to the Royal Melbourne Hospital when he died in 2020. Mr Perrett was the local pharmacist in the suburb of Melbourne, but made his riches through clever investing, all while continuing to live humbly in the neighbourhood. While the majority of his generous donation to the hospital has gone towards technology and research in the renal department that delivered him a kidney transplant, his philanthropic nature wanted to ensure Ms Sayner did not have to worry about finding a new place during her own health battle. After renting the two-bedroom St Albans unit for 23 years, Jane was shocked to receive a call from her landlord before he died after a battle with Parkinson’s. While the pair were on good terms, Perrett’s offering was next level, as he left the home to Jane. Mr Perrett also left another property to another tenant in St Albans, while another flat he owned similar to Jane’s was sold for about $400,000 to go towards the hospital donation. Jane paid $250 a week in rent, which barely rose over the last two decades, and would never have been able to afford anything like what she had if her home had been sold following her landlord’s death. Instead of still having to wake up at 3am to work at the market full-time, Jane now enjoys the simple life of a retiree as she tends to her garden and dreams of travelling to Canada. Image credits: realestate.com.au

Real Estate

Landlord slammed for “dirty trick”

A landlord has come under fire for using an unusual advertising technique to lease out a studio apartment in Leeds, UK. <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7dwvy/luxury-shopping-bags-rental-flats-photos">Vice</a> writer Joel Golby noticed the one bedroom studio flat available to rent for £535 ($943AUD) a month excluding bills on real estate website <a href="https://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/details/61269048/?search_identifier=e41b2d510aba81ae7a72f962cd2c3501">Zoopla</a>, when he noticed some very out of place accessories. Almost all of the photos attached in the advertisement featured shopping bags from luxury brands such as Harrods, Chanel and Harvey Nichols. The landlord had increased the price of staying at the property by £9 since the ad was first created, despite its bleak appearance. “The Chanel bag is there to dazzle us: we, foolish non-property owning fools like we are, will easily be distracted by the bag, and ignore the fact that the living room and kitchen are only demarcated by slightly different carpet textures because we know the person renting it to us owns either a really nice card holder or a too-expensive belt,” Joel wrote. Despite being listed as partially furnished, the property seems to have all the basic amenities and little space for the renter to bring much of their own belongings. The photos of the flat include images of the small kitchen, living room, bedroom and half of the bathroom, with most surfaces adored with the luxury boxes. Joel slammed the landlord’s “dirty trick”, and challenged readers to share their own stories of upselling rental advertisements, as well as any potential tenants for the “miserable” studio apartment. Image credits: Zoopla

Real Estate

Tenant “living in hell” with nightmare landlord’s restrictions

A woman claims she was “living in hell” under the regime of a strict landlord just days into her tenancy. The woman, named Mel, says her landlady imposed several unreasonable restrictions two days after she moved in, which involved restricting her access to parts of the house to short windows. Mel paid $1,090 (£595) a month to live in the two-storey South London home, and said that everything started out great in her new home when she moved in. Speaking with <a href="https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/south-london-woman-living-hell-23205354">MyLondon</a>, Mel said her landlady Sheena Shepherd presented her with a set of rules for the home within the first week of her tenancy, stipulating that she would only have access to the kitchen between 9am to 11am and 12pm to 2pm as Shepherd would be running PT sessions from home. If she needed to use the kitchen outside of these hours, she needed to cross reference Shepherd's demanding schedule. The lounge room was also off limits, with access only allowed to reach the kitchen. Mel also wouldn't be able to use the front door to the property between 9am and 5:30pm and was only permitted to work from home in her bedroom. Mel also told MyLondon that she was to "only come down the stairs once a day" in order to avoid disturbing Shepherd while she worked in the lounge, and was banned from having deliveries sent to the house as the doorbell was deemed "too distracting". Elsewhere in the house, Mel claims wardrobes were full of her landlady's "personal stuff," leaving her to keep her own belongings in the loft or shed. The relationship between the two quickly deteriorated, as Shepherd told Mel over WhatsApp, "You pay for a ROOM. If you want full access to the half, pay half the bills too. When you can pay £1,000 you can have equal say! Have some respect and not be so bloody entitled." Despite only having a three-month rental contract, Shepherd continuously tried to get Mel to leave early, but to no avail. The conflict eventually culminated in Shepherd having a party in the residence, where one of her guests verbally abused Mel in the kitchen with the police being called as a result. Tired of the abuse and restrictions at the hands of her landlady, Mel left the home and moved into a hotel, which she asked Shepherd to cover the costs of. The pair are now involved in legal proceedings over what happened during Mel’s tenancy. Image credits: Getty Images / MyLondon

Real Estate

As pet owners suffer rental insecurity, perhaps landlords should think again

Pet owners grapple with rental insecurity, new research shows. Despite the popularity of pet ownership across countries such as <a href="http://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-2013-Summary-ONLINE-VER.pdf">Australia</a> (where 63% of households include a pet), the <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html">United States</a> (62%) and <a href="http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population-2014">United Kingdom</a> (46%), rental policy rarely recognises pets as important members of households. Instead, landlords and property agents typically restrict the right to keep pets.Reports from animal welfare organisations suggest these policies <a href="http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/home/push-to-make-landlords-respect-renters-right-to-keep-pets/news-story/f6c24acd2c716a20d308fb5dfed5fa3d">make it difficult</a> for pet owners to find rental housing. There is also evidence of connections between rental insecurity and <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/81572944/No-pets-allowed-Rental-restrictions-see-pets-abandoned-and-families-divided">poor animal welfare outcomes</a>. Research shows that insecure housing, including difficulties finding pet-friendly rental properties, is a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0601_04">key factor driving people to relinquish their pets</a>.<h2>The ‘no pets’ clause</h2><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2016.1210095">My research</a> shows that pet ownership can trigger feelings of housing insecurity for renter households. The research involved an open survey with 679 households that had rented with pets in Sydney, as well as 28 in-depth interviews.The majority of survey respondents rated finding pet-friendly housing in their suburb as difficult. They perceived that it became more difficult to find rental properties after they acquired their pet. About half of those who always declared their pets when they applied for properties had been given pet ownership as the reason their application was rejected. These figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of those who have been rejected for pet ownership as reasons for rejection are rarely provided. The <a href="http://www.domain.com.au/news/apartment-rents-continue-to-climb-in-sydney-domain-group-20160713-gq3lwu/">competitive nature of Sydney’s rental market</a>, which gives real estate agents a larger pool of tenants to choose from, was believed to have increased the challenge. A small number of households had even been offered rental housing if they got rid of their pet. These experiences led to a sense of rental insecurity and feelings of stress when participants wanted or needed to move house.<h2>Compromising on quality, cost and location</h2>In the in-depth interviews, households were asked how they found their current rental property. They explained how long lists of available rental properties would disappear when the “pet-friendly” filter was activated on popular property search websites. There was also a widespread perception that advertised pet-friendly housing was of a lower quality than housing that did not allow pets. Many described making compromises on property quality and cleanliness. Some purposefully chose less desirable properties to increase their chance of success.For example, one participant stated, "I think they call them ‘pet friendly’ because they don’t really care what happens to them. They’re probably going to pull them down eventually."Another explained, "It was quite heartbreaking when you looked at the properties, because they were pretty much all rundown and disgusting. Really sort of dark and dingy, bathrooms that you would see were, I suppose, just not up to scratch. Or houses that seriously probably haven’t had a lick of paint or anything done to them in 20, 30 years."Households also made compromises on property location and cost. These choices led to feelings of housing stress. For some it meant living in housing they considered sub-standard, including properties that were unclean or located in undesirable or unsafe areas. A number accepted longer work commutes or greater financial stress to secure a property. As one interview participant put it when explaining why they stayed in a neighbourhood they didn’t like, "My car is on the street and it’s been broken into several times and there are a few personal safety issues but they let me have the cat, so..."The vast majority of pet owners declared some or all of their pets when applying to rent a property. Those who had previously been rejected for a property because they had a pet were less likely to declare their pets. Why take this risk? In-depth interviews suggest that renter households were extremely concerned about housing security: they valued their rental property and wanted to live in it as long as they could. However, some felt that they could secure a property only if they didn’t declare their pets. Despite finding it extremely stressful to live in a rental property without permission to kept their pets, these households risked eviction so they could find somewhere to live with their pets.<h2>Are landlords’ fears justified?</h2>Tenant experiences in the research suggest that landlords are concerned about the risks to their properties that pets might bring. Sometimes these concerns are based on real experience. However, there is some evidence to suggest that landlord fears are just that. In one <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/089279305785594270">US study</a>, for instance, 63% of landlords who were concerned about pets in their properties didn’t have any firsthand experience of the problems they identified. Further, when damage did occur it was “far less than the average rent or the average pet deposit”.Indeed, somewhat counter-intuitively, having a pet-permitting lease may provide more protection for landlords than simply restricting pets. Pet-friendly leases do not mean all pets are automatically allowed. Landlords can ask for a “<a href="http://www.domain.com.au/news/renting-in-sydneys-a-tough-job-a-cv-makes-it-easier-20111021-1mc2d/">pet CV</a>” as well as references for the pet, such as from a local vet, neighbours or former landlord. This is a way of ensuring the pet applicant is appropriate to the property. Some jurisdictions in Australia allow for special provisions such as for <a href="http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2010/42">carpets to be steam-cleaned</a> if an animal such as a cat or dog lives at the property. In others, such as in the US and some states <a href="https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/pet-bonds">in Australia</a>, an additional pet bond can be charged to cover any potential damage.A pet-friendly lease may even bring benefits. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/089279305785594270">US research </a>suggests that households with pets stayed in rental properties longer than those that did not have pets. This brings longer-term, more secure rent to property owners. These factors are worth weighing up when landlords are making property management decisions.Image credits: Getty ImagesThis article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-pet-owners-suffer-rental-insecurity-perhaps-landlords-should-think-again-63275" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Real Estate

Comic makes headlines after taking on landlord

Australian comedian Tom Cashman is looking to start a trend that could help revolutionise the rental market.While on his search for a new apartment in Sydney, Tom was successful on an application for a property that “wasn’t my favourite”, but he decided to seize his opportunity. Tom emailed the real estate agent handling the rental property to request something he’s “never asked for before”. He went on to ask the agent for a “landlord reference”, which would involve the landlord of the property providing feedback from a past tenant. Tom argues that turning the tables on the rental application dynamic could make for a more honest and informed arrangement from both the landlord and prospective tenants. “It occurs to me I’ve never heard anyone ask for this, but they [the landlord] ask me for like three references to see if I’m a good guy; what about them?” Mr Cashman said in the social media post.“Are you [the landlord] a good guy? Are you going to fix stuff? Are you going to reply to my emails, or are you just going to ignore me once I’m in there?”Documenting the experience on his social media accounts, Tom updated his followers when he got a response from the leasing agent. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF;border: 0;border-radius: 3px;margin: 1px;max-width: 540px;min-width: 326px;padding: 0;width: calc(100% - 2px)" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZbDSh4lIDa/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"><div style="padding: 16px"><div style="flex-direction: row;align-items: center"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;flex-grow: 0;height: 40px;margin-right: 14px;width: 40px"> </div><div style="flex-direction: column;flex-grow: 1;justify-content: center"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;margin-bottom: 6px;width: 100px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;width: 60px"> </div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0"> </div><div style="height: 50px;margin: 0 auto 12px;width: 50px"> </div><div style="padding-top: 8px"><div style="color: #3897f0;font-family: Arial,sans-serif;font-size: 14px;font-style: normal;font-weight: 550;line-height: 18px">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0"> </div><div style="flex-direction: row;margin-bottom: 14px;align-items: center"><div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;height: 12.5px;width: 12.5px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;height: 12.5px;width: 12.5px;flex-grow: 0;margin-right: 14px;margin-left: 2px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;height: 12.5px;width: 12.5px"> </div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 50%;flex-grow: 0;height: 20px;width: 20px"> </div><div style="width: 0;height: 0;border-top: 2px solid transparent;border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4;border-bottom: 2px solid transparent"> </div></div><div style="margin-left: auto"><div style="width: 0px;border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4;border-right: 8px solid transparent"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;flex-grow: 0;height: 12px;width: 16px"> </div><div style="width: 0;height: 0;border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4;border-left: 8px solid transparent"> </div></div></div><div style="flex-direction: column;flex-grow: 1;justify-content: center;margin-bottom: 24px"><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;margin-bottom: 6px;width: 224px"> </div><div style="background-color: #f4f4f4;border-radius: 4px;flex-grow: 0;height: 14px;width: 144px"> </div></div><a style="color: #c9c8cd;font-family: Arial,sans-serif;font-size: 14px;font-style: normal;font-weight: normal;line-height: 17px;text-decoration: none" href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZbDSh4lIDa/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Tom Cashman (@tomcashman1)</a></div></blockquote>The agent asked for clarification on what Tom meant, and when he elaborated, the agent claimed the landlord did not want to provide a reference, saying it was “not a requirement”.After more back and forth via email, Tom was shocked when his previously successful application to rent the property was withdrawn. Since his experience has gone viral, the Real Estate Institution of Australia has backed Tom’s idea, saying a landlord reference is a “reasonable request”.“I think it's quite a reasonable request for a tenant to say, 'Look, I just want to get a bit of a feel for how the landlord is. Are they popping in all the time unannounced? Are they purporting to be looking at the garden or something like that?” Real Estate Institute of Australia president Hayden Groves <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-04/the-renter-who-asked-for-references/100802402">told the ABC</a>. Image credits: Getty Images / Instagram @tomcashman1

Real Estate

Landlord makes incredible gesture to tenant after selling house

A landlord has left an ex-tenant moved to tears after an incredible and unexpected act of kindness. Chris Robarge, from Massachusetts in the US, said he was randomly contacted by his former landlord to ask for his current address. After providing the information, he received a letter from the landlord who wanted to pay him back for the contributions he had made to the home. The landlord had recently sold the house, and said to Chris, “I firmly believe that the capitalist tradition of retaining that money after the sale of a property is exploitative and anti-ethical to a just society.” Enclosed in the letter was a cheque for $3,400AUD and a message explaining that the landlord had tried to keep rent “equivalent to the monthly expenses of keeping the house” for everyone who had lived there. The kind landlord wrote, “I calculated the amount of principal you paid each month you lived there, split it by who was living in the house at the time, and added 40 per cent (the increase in value of the home from when I bought it).” “While it’s not much, it’s yours! It was a great house and I’m glad I was able to share it with you.” The landlord also shared the same amount of money from the sale of the house to other tenants who lived there, saying, “some of the rent you paid each month contributed to paying off the principle of my mortgage.” Chris was shocked by the kind gesture, saying he had been thinking about the act of kindness for days. He said, “I am still completely beyond an actual way to describe what this act means to me.” “All that I can say is that there are people who talk about their values and there are people who actually live them, and the reason I wanted to share this is that I want to encourage us all to actually live our values.” “Do it off the clock, do it when no one is watching, do it always.” Image credit: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

Victory for terrorised tenants

A family who claimed their Christmas was ruined after their landlords began camping out in their backyard have had a surprising development. Nicky and William first made headlines when they spoke out about their landlord refusing to leave the backyard of their home, claiming it left them traumatised. However, local council have since come to the family's aid, advising the landlord their stay was no longer permissible and could result in an infringement notice. The council told 9News that the landlord has since returned to Sydney and does not plan to repeat their cruel conduct. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839492/landlord-tenant.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/bc13f56064644c8aa22aa23e179e33c7" /> The couple's fallout with their landlord Pascale Hubert and her partner began after Nicky received a shock text on Christmas night. Ms Hubert advised the family that the couple would now be occupying the backyard. "The text message said, 'Dear Nicky and William, I am the owner' … there was no names, no introductions, anything like that and it just said, 'as of tonight I will be occupying the rear yard'," Nicky told A Current Affair at the time. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839491/landlord-tenant-1.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/7b004ccc23ba42b286c0a83e2eede300" /> The couple soon found Ms Hubert and her partner near the rear end of the property with a camp set up. Nicky and William said the campsite at the back of the property had a shed, however there was no running water or toilet. It left the couple wondering where exactly they were leaving their bodily waste. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839492/landlord-tenant.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/bc13f56064644c8aa22aa23e179e33c7" /> "I noticed they've got a bucket, been doing poos and wees in the bucket. It's disgusting," William said. Nicky and William also claimed the landlord's partner was aggressive and that they had filmed the family in their own home. Not only that, but the couple claim their trampoline was dragged out of the backyard, and reinforcements were put in place when the couple tried to ask for help. Police had no idea how to handle the situation, and even the real estate agent managing over the property was stunned when they heard of the backyard bust up. Funnily enough, the backyard is not part of the lease, but it is all on the one title. "They can actually stay on the property in a tent for two days at a time, so they're allowed to stay here in the backyard for two days at a time but no more than 60 days in a 12-month period," Nicky said. In a statement to A Current Affair Clarence Valley Council said: "They were advised that occupying the property for longer than is permissible may result in Council issuing an infringement notice." "Mrs. Hubert contacted us immediately on receipt of the letter to advise she was unaware of the regulation and apologised for staying longer than permissible." The couple's lease ends in April and they're now looking for a new place to live. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7839493/landlord-tenant-2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/e484bc0a393041b796448c98e2916ae7" /> The full statement from Laura Black, the Acting General Manager of Clarence Valley Council, as provided by Nine News reads: “On Thursday 7 January we issued advice to the property owner of ... Clause 77 of the Local Government (Manufactured Home Estates, Caravan Parks, Camping Grounds and Moveable Dwellings) Regulation 2005, which states that 'The prior approval of the council is not required for: (a) the installation of not more than 2 caravans, campervans or tents on any land, so long as they are not occupied for more than 2 days at a time and are not occupied for more than 60 days (in total) in any single period of 12 months'. “They were advised that occupying the property for longer than is permissible may result in Council issuing an infringement notice. “Mrs Hubert contacted us immediately on receipt of the letter to advise she was unaware of the Regulation and apologised for staying longer than permissible. She and her husband had by then returned to Sydney and do not plan to return and repeat offend. “We also advised the tenants of ... of the action taken. “We will work together with local real estate agents to help them to better understand the rules around camping on private property. The attached fact sheet with more information is available to the community on our website.”

Real Estate

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

“Truly disgraceful”: Landlord cops backlash after posting photo of evicted tenant

“Greedy” landlord slammed for illegal act

Becoming a landlord while still renting? ‘Rentvesting’ promises a foot on the property ladder, but watch your step

Tenants forced to pay landlord after fleeing their “uninhabitable” rental

"You are the problem": Landlord slammed over rent increase just before Christmas

ATO cracks down on landlords submitting dodgy tax returns

Landlord slammed for listing $300-a-week "coffin"

Landlord rents out balcony for $300 a week

Calls to protect rights of tenants with animals

Do tenancy reforms to protect renters cause landlords to exit the market?

Leaked email advises landlords to increase rent amid housing crisis

If your landlord wants to increase your rent, here are your rights

Landlord overstays welcome sleeping in tent under tenant’s home

How an Aussie senior inherited her long-term home from her landlord

Landlord slammed for “dirty trick”

Tenant “living in hell” with nightmare landlord’s restrictions

As pet owners suffer rental insecurity, perhaps landlords should think again

Comic makes headlines after taking on landlord

Landlord makes incredible gesture to tenant after selling house

Victory for terrorised tenants

Our Partners