Search

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

<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>.

Money & Banking

Desperate rental times call for desperate rental note-taking

Renting can be difficult at the best of times, and as many around the world can attest, some landlords have little interest in the upkeep of the properties they’re letting, or in those paying hundreds to thousands of dollars a week to reside in them. And one renter has had enough, deciding it only right to warn whoever might take over their lease after them - a move that Councillor Jonathan Sriranganathan wholeheartedly backed, sharing the renter’s cheeky tactics to Facebook for all to see. “If you’re moving out of a rental and your landlord/agent is showing the property to new prospective tenants,” he wrote, “consider leaving some notes or posters like this in a few prominent locations around the home. “Legally, an agent or landlord shouldn’t be touching or interfering with them in any way.” He later edited the post to include that “this is an actual photo from a Brisbane renter”, and to tell everyone that “no, it wasn’t me - I live on a houseboat.” Attached was an image of the renter’s bold move - a series of notes stuck to what appears to be the inside of a door, each one highlighting a different issue they had faced while living there, with no solutions - or even attempts at one - mentioned. “NOTE TO SELF,” the first one announced, with the following going on to list everything from recurring mould (a common issue faced by renters), nearby construction and its consequent dust and noise, as well as “non-negotiable” rent rises. <iframe style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjonno.sri%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0MToFp2CzdfGPKD6fq9GYUiiG6H1Wxe8d2GJ9cpYtNP9qYusvm79eX4LaetnNVSptl&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="716" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> People were quick to join the discussion - most were on the side of the renter, with one popular comment suggesting that “there should be a system that black lists landlords for breach of agreements, the same way tenants can be black listed for damage. “We also need a website to rate our property managers, landlords and properties.” “Yep. For far too long Landlords have had free reign to abuse their power with no sort of recording or accountability of their behaviour,” wrote one. “I’ve had some wonderful ones and some horrendous ones.” “I used to pull prospective tenants aside and fill them in,” shared another. “A few nervous and cranky landlords in this thread,” quipped one. Meanwhile, someone only had one thing to run by everyone, “so an artistic ‘beware ye, all ye who enter here’ wouldn't be beyond doing?” Others failed to see so much as the funny side - without even mentioning the underlying problems the renter and councillor were begging people to address - and instead tried to scare any like-minded renters from trying something similar. “And good luck with getting a positive rental reference after pulling a stunt like that,” said one. “If you don’t like the rental property just move on,” one suggested, leading many to suspect that they had never - or at least not in a long time - attempted to secure a rental property. “What I don't get is.... if something is causing you this much grief..... do it yourself or pay someone, if the realestate don't pay.... meh you can at least move on with your life for a few hundred dollars,” someone else said, apparently unaware of the limitations many renters are faced with when it comes to touching their rental. Councillor Sriranganathan returned to the post to share comments he’d made to The Courier Mail, adding that “too often, landlords and agents fail to disclose serious property maintenance and amenity issues when a lease is signed so they can trick tenants into paying more rent than a place is worth. “I think it’s great when outgoing tenants can inform future renters of property defects so they know the issues before they sign the contract. Perhaps there should even be a publicly accessible register where tenants can list maintenance issues that haven’t been rectified in order to hold property managers accountable. “Unfortunately the minor reforms (to minimum housing standards) … won’t do much to address unrectified maintenance issues, because many tenants are still afraid that if they request repairs or make complaints, their lease won’t be renewed. “It’s ridiculous to blame chronic maintenance issues on a shortage of tradies. The problem is that landlords who hoard houses are collecting tens of thousands per year in rent, but don’t care enough about their tenants’ welfare to repair dodgy power points or leaking roofs.” Images: Facebook

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

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

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

Landlord charged for truly “underhand” act that cost tenants $3700

A man has been charged after listing his ex-girlfriend’s flat to rent, pocketing the cash and heading overseas. Phillip Allman and Lucy Sharp were in a relationship for six years before ending it last December. The pair remained friends and Sharp allowed Allman to move into her apartment temporarily after his last relationship ended. However, the 29-year-old man abused that generosity by listing Sharp’s flat as available for rental online. According to Wales Online, Jolanta Goniuch responded to the advertisement on Gumtree that listed the flat at £400 ($NZD 808) and required a £400 deposit upfront. Goniuch called Allman to arrange an inspection and was told that the flat would be available from late June. After the phone call, she then transferred £800 ($NZD 1616) into his bank account. Another victim, Natera Morris and her partner Sean Malone, fell for the scam the next day and paid a total of £600 ($NZD 1212). It wasn’t until later that another victim also paid £600. In total, Allman pocketed more than £2,000 ($NZD 4040) from the tenants. On June 10, Allman disappeared and Sharp only became aware of the con when Malone arrived on her doorstep. Sharp tried to contact Allman, but was ignored. He was eventually caught by the police and sentenced to one year behind bars. “The offences for which I have to deal with you are really mean and underhand offences of dishonesty,” he said, according to <a href="https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/phillip-allman-newport-jailed-court-17217610">Wales Online</a>. “They come from a man who has been committing offences of dishonesty for years and years. “You were fortunate enough to have a generous friend. You abused her friendship and trust to cheat people out of money.” Allman admitted to three counts of fraud in breach of a suspended sentence and all the victims were repaid the money they sent Allman via bank transfer. However, Morris and Lobina paid some funds in cash, which were unable to be recovered.

Money & Banking

The battle between landlords and tenants

Landlords have come in for a bashing following the publication of <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96017635/renters-unite-report-calls-for-caps-on-annual-rent-rises" target="_blank">the People's Review of Renting by Renters United.</a> The report contained extracts of tenants' bad experiences with landlords and damp, unhealthy houses. But seasoned landlords feel they are being demonised, and say tenants "who don't know how to live in a house" can turn an ordinary family home into a damp, mouldy mess in just a few months. Auckland landlord Peter Lewis gave the example of a friend who turned landlord by renting out the home he had lived in for 19 years, and had raised his family in. "Within six months the tenants were complaining it was damp and mouldy. That had to be the way the tenants were living," Lewis said. Just this week, Lewis said he visited tenants in a Pukekohe home he owns. It was a chilly day. The tenants were sitting huddled in the lounge wrapped in blankets, with condensation running down the windows. Lewis said he spent $6500 to insulate the house and install a heat pump. The tenants said they couldn't afford the electricity to run it. "I have done everything I can do, and to see the place as cold with condensation running down the windows. Yes, it is bad but they are not doing their part," he said. Lewis doesn't mince his words. "Some people are life incompetent." This includes people not understanding "how to live in a house", or managing their lives and finances to ensure there's money for necessities. Some, the Renters United report suggests, may simply not be fit for human habitation without landlords spending a great deal of money on them. But living in homes "badly", including not heating them, could rapidly result in mould appearing. Sharon Cullwick, a Hawke's Bay landlord, is involved in a state-funded programme to educate young people to be "Ready to Rent". Cullwick says in her own relatively new home she has to clean condensation off windows. "If I don't wipe down the windows, I get mould." Some tenants even have to be told not to dry clothes on racks in the house, to open the curtains during the daytime, and to air the house periodically by opening the windows, she said. Tenants using portable gas heaters, which can spew out a litre of water vapour in an hour, were also a problem, she said. All of this makes landlords feel nervous about calls from Renters United for a Warrant of Fitness (WOF) for homes. They fear homes could fail as a result of tenant behaviours. Graham Roper from Rental WOF has developed a system rating rental homes from A (excellent) to F (Very poor) which landlords, and tenants, can pay for. The idea is that landlords can use the WOF ratings, which are voluntary, to attract tenants. But Roper agreed with landlords like Lewis. "The way people are living can be a problem," he said. A home could be liveable when properly heated, and using dehumidifiers, Lewis said. But if a tenant did not do either, it could become cold and damp. Some tenants feared their landlord improving a property, in case they raised the rent, Roper said. Landlords may have made massive unrealised capital gains, but maintaining homes often built of wood is demanding and capital intensive. That can make landlords, who are often making an operating loss (capital gains excluded) on their properties, reluctant to spend money. Lewis has nine properties, and spent $41,000, not including his own labour, on maintenance last year. Another landlord, who asked not to be named, said excessive demands from tenants were unwelcome. She gave the example of a tenant who was demanding carpets be replaced. The carpets in question were stained by a previous tenant, not just in a few places, but in many with coffee, tea, and even raspberry sauce. The landlord had had them commercially cleaned, but not all the stains could be removed. Lewis said he valued a tenant who knew their rights, and was not afraid to assert them. Renters United concluded in its report that tenants feared challenging landlords over necessary maintenance, for fear they would be booted out using landlords' 90-day no fault eviction powers. Stories in the report included landlords taking months to fix unsafe wiring and light sockets, or pay to have faulty locks replaced. Lewis said there were arrogant landlords, and landlords who did not care about the law, but they were a minority, and tenants could fight them by going to the Tenancy Tribunal. He would like to see Tenancy Services slip information sheets into the bond receipt letters it sends out each time a new tenancy begins. Clearly some landlords could benefit from similar information. Tenancy Services' recently established investigations unit has so far done more than 400 investigations in less than a year of operation. Its findings make clear that it is not hard to find landlords who are failing in their legal duties. Who do you think has it worse, landlords or tenants? Written by Rob Stock. Republished with permission of <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank">Stuff.co.nz</a>.

Retirement Income

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

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

Desperate rental times call for desperate rental note-taking

Landlord rents out balcony for $300 a week

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

Leaked email advises landlords to increase rent amid housing crisis

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

Landlord charged for truly “underhand” act that cost tenants $3700

The battle between landlords and tenants