John Attwood writes: Re “Rent applications are increasingly dodgy. It’s time politicians stuck up for renters”: as with most human groups, there are some bloody bad landlords, those who will ride roughshod over the needs of their tenants. There are also bloody good ones, who maintain the property as if they were living there themselves, who keep rent increases to a minimum, and who value a good tenant.
Similarly, there are some bloody bad tenants, those who trash the place and leave a complete mess for the landlord to fix before allowing another tenant to occupy; those who make unreasonable demands on the time and resources of the landlord to fix stuff that could easily be done by themselves if they cared to. And there are some bloody good ones, who pay on time all the time, repair small issues without resorting to the call-out for a “trades” person to (for example) fix a leaking tap; those whose respect for the property is such that you’d be forgiven for thinking that they actually owned it and cared for it as such.
Garth Rothwell writes: As usual the media shows its ignorance of the real estate market and industry in general. The role of the agent is to select the best tenant for the property, information such as: income; employment; previous rental history; credit history (bad debts = bad tenants); children (financial commitment); pets; personal references (no-one has ever provided a bad one). All the above are required to make a professional assessment of a tenant’s application.
The approval process for a rental property is no different from the approval process for a loan to buy the property as the lease is no different from a mortgage taken one year at a time. The agent is effectively providing a line of credit for the period of the lease, i.e. a 12-month lease @$1000 a week = $52,000, approved by the agent to the tenant on behalf of the owner.
If the tenant defaults or becomes difficult or a problem, ultimately the owner blames the agent and moves the management to another agent — so the agent has to cover all avenues of attack and blame in such cases. The approval process has to cover the agent against any claims of negligence and possible litigation by the owner for approving a “bad tenant”, and with the power of social media, the ramifications of such claims can be significant and long-lasting in the marketplace. Everything the agent does is about CYA (“cover your arse”) and any impact upon the tenant is justified as self-preservation.
And with idiots like Max Chandler-Mather spouting false and erroneous misinformation, the situation will only get worse. The practice of “rent bidding” will never be eliminated as there are always ways to circumvent the laws and the psychology of owners who believe they are entitled to accept whatever is offered in the marketplace.
By the way, in the late 1980s to mid-1990s, rent returns were between 8% and 11% of the property value (I owned my own agency at the time). Today the rent return is 4% to 6% of the property value. Rent returns began falling in the mid-1990s due to the gradual change of supply created by investors and the fall in interest rates having a positive impact on the rental market. (Disclosure: Rothwell is a real estate agent.)
Grant Roberts writes: When reading and discussing most issues regarding housing, either renting or buying, there’s a tendency to circle around “this generation” of buyers and renters, i.e. how will people of this generation afford to buy a house in today’s market and the rental trap. But it’s not just “this generation” that is suffering. It’s also those of us of previous generations who are nearing retirement and, due to circumstances such as divorce, bankruptcy, long-term unemployment, health or other issues, are also renters caught in the same trap.
With little savings and little super, the prospect of renting in today’s environment on a barely liveable pension will be daunting for many people coming into retirement age. At our current uncontrolled rental inflation, retirees will be forced to move further away from urban areas to more remote communities, separated from loved ones and adequate elderly care.
My rent has risen $80 in the past two years, outstripping even the mandatory inflationary wage increases I received. Like many other working Australians, I have even less money to save, even with a pay rise, due to the uncontrolled rental increases. Rental affordability needs to be addressed by all advocate groups for the disadvantaged and needy members of society.
Ian Morrison writes: We landlords are not the enemy. As private owners, we have for decades (and longer) provided housing for those who can’t own their own home for one reason or another. Sure, we have seen over the years a small minority of private landlords who are simply bastards, hence the advent of agencies such as the Residential Tenancies Authority (RTA) in Queensland to protect tenants’ bonds, and rental laws to ensure decent standards apply to both parties.
The “rental crisis” has not been created by us, the private owners of rental property, who have carried the load for many years. It was failed government housing policies. Many years ago they began to sell off housing stock and didn’t replace it as private owners became more prevalent. So we inadvertently shouldered the load, and yes, aimed to make a profit, but in doing so public housing was left to lapse and now somehow we are the enemy!?
While the government-paid tenant support mobs spruik their case for “fairer” tenancy laws, ask yourself this: why would you ask a perfectly good tenant to leave your property? Why would you not maintain the property in good order? In some people’s view, the answer would be to circumvent rent cap-type restrictions or avoid costs of maintenance. I’d suggest most owners just do the right thing.
Again, we are not the enemy. We are just the poor bunnies who came into the picture as normal investors and now our rights of ownership are being eroded by failed policies. The upshot is that private investors are vacating the field, and this will only add to the problem. Not unexpected really, but just another consequence of failed policy. (Disclosure: Morrison is in the property management industry.)
Edwin McLean writes: As a private landlord for some 30 years, I have housed many, many underprivileged individuals. We have owned development properties, homes mostly that are low quality. The tenants we have had have been a hodge-podge of abused drug-affected individuals. Mainly single-parent families that just need a roof over their heads. I have always handled them directly and with compassion. I have had a few minor failures but a quick clean-up was all that was required.
I have always ensured that even my most modest property has a good hot water service, heating and a good kitchen. I still have a tenant of 20 years standing who had been living in her car after leaving an abusive relationship.
Rental companies are not in the business to take a risk on difficult tenants so they carefully winnow out difficult people. It is my job to treat my tenants fairly, help them get government assistance (reserved to knowing what agencies they can access) and signing the forms. Rental companies do not want a bar of this sort of thing.
I’ve been a landlord a couple of times, usually when I’ve been overseas and needed someone to fill my own residence. Experience has taught me that there is no problem that a real estate property manager can’t make WORSE for both tenant and landlord.
The last time an agent advised me to raise the rent – and thereby his own commission – I said I couldn’t ethically do so while he had failed to carry out required repairs for months. The endless excuses!! Yet his agency still had time to cancel all the automatic payments I’d set up for water, rates etc, move them to a manual fee-based payment and then be overdue with them!
Funny you should say you’ve never found a problem the property manager can’t make worse for both landlord and tenant. Our landlord gave me his phone number and asked me to call him directly because he was sick and tired of the property manager not passing maintenance requests on to him.
To paraphrase the nursery rhyme, “Landlord fleas have little flea managers upon their backs to bite ’em, Those littler parasites have lesser ones and so ad infinitum.”
shocked.jpg
Garth knows he wouldn’t be able to get away with any of that c**p were there not a calamitous shortage of rental properties, because potential tenants would rightly tell him to GFH and rent from someone else.
The reason rental returns started falling is because that’s when the property bubble started. Rents obviously cannot increase at the same rate of house prices as they are constrained by the wages people actually earn, rather than the amount of money banks are prepared to lend them.
Sound analysis there
It’s a shame we actually seem to require the services of Captain Obvious here
Landlords do not provide people with homes – they use people who need homes to make a profit, over and above the capital gain, and are subsidised to do so by negative gearing.
A government with the majority of the cabinet who are landlords and most MPs owning more than one property is no more likely to end the NG abuse than a chook looks forward to plucking.
The disingenuous wailing & crocodile tears that if house values stagnate then fall the landlord class will have to sell their losses which is claimed to mean fewer rental properties.
That may be true – for the very good reason that overextended greedheads will cause a ratrace to beat other GHs in forced sales of too many negative equity houses.
Those once condemned to a future life as renters would be able to buy those ever lower priced houses, especially if state governments (backed by federal guarantee) were to offer, not rent freezes but mortgage repayment insurance.
The newly propertied would be paying no more than previously the gouged rents – dead money which kept them in penury with no hope of saving.
Could not be more simple – all it needs is an outbreak of decency in government…. oh, wait…
As you were.
There’s quite a few misconceptions in Australia about the virtues of owning multiple investment properties….
The general view is that property speculators are doing renters a ‘solid’ by providing them with a roof over their heads (subject to some of the worst tenancy laws on the planet). The logic is that if the property speculators hadn’t used the equity in their other property to borrow 100% of the value of their investment property, outbidding people who actually wanted a home to live in, then, well, the tenant would be homeless-er.
But, no, all that is happening is the property speculators is reducing the supply of affordable housing in a country that is simply not set up for renting.
The Aussie Dream involves owning a home – not renting like those socialists in Europe.
If Australia had rental laws like in Europe, and property speculators provided long term, low cost living solutions then great. But it doesn’t. The housing market in Australia involves endless flipping properties and tenants. And each time a property is flipped, it creates another problem that needs solving – a person had a home and now doesn’t.
This activity also directly impacts the ludicrous cost of living in this country which is driving up wages to unsustainable levels all so working people can (barely) afford to put a roof over their heads – not spend money on useful stuff that might actually generate genuine economic growth.
And heaven forbid these property speculators could actually do something useful with their money like, I don’t know, invest in renewables or battery technology or some tech start up (before it has to move to the US and come back and buy a $100m – $ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS).
And don’t even get me started on the $2 trillion (don’t know how to write that) in household debt which is fueling all this!
A crash can’t come soon enough.
As a renter, I agree with a lot of this. The convenient farce that you’re only a true citizen if you own a place has to go. I put this in the Senate Inquiry into the Renting Crisis. At the risk of boring the buttocks off fellow commenters, if you rent, put in a submission. Every land agent and rogue landlord will be putting in theirs and flooding the inquiry. Look at who has responded in this Crikey Readers section.
I’m a minor landlord as well with one small rental. That doesn’t mean I don’t see they gross incongruency between private and publicly owned property. The govt will never be able to regulate privately owned property and the rent there of beyond making sure people are being treated fairly. In virtually the entire western world and beyond, except the US and Australia, there are a myriad of schemes to maintain a supply of affordable and social housing. Usually with public or public/ private investment. Local govt usually sets the rental according to capacity to pay. There’s security of tenure. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult problem for our govt to solve.