Search

Outrage after renters confronted with cleaning “scoring system”

An Australian real estate agent has come under fire for their “demoralising” scoring system for tenants during routine inspections. One fired up renter said they were shocked to receive a scorecard from the agent after they complied with an inspection, and shared their feedback on Reddit. The scorecard rated the tenant’s efforts cleaning the property in 17 different rooms and areas, marking them on cleanliness, and if the areas were damaged or required maintenance. The renter was then also given an overall rating out of five stars, based on the upkeep of their rental home. The Reddit user showed that they received just three and half stars, despite being marked down in only one area due to a light globe not working. In their post, the tenant said they had made every effort to clean the home, adding that the rating was “demoralising”. “I’ve been renting a long time, and my deep cleaning routine is based around inspections,” they explained. “I go all out - every room in my little 3x2 villa is given a spring clean, every surface is washed including walls, doors, lights, windows, carpets etc.” “Had my latest inspection a few weeks ago and just received the report. Despite the agent commenting once again that she never sees houses as clean as mine, and taking 112 (!) photos of every single thing that shows how great the condition of the house is - having one light globe not working is so terrible that I’m scored three and a half out of five.” The renter went on to say that they had only recently discovered that the broken light globe was the real estate’s responsibility to replace, and does not warrant such a severe marking down in their “score”. “The globe in question is a downlight fitting. We have so many downlights that I don’t even use this particular one,” they continued. “I can’t replace the globe itself, I need to get into the roof to replace the whole unit. Thanks to people here I’ve learned this isn’t even my responsibility to fix!” The renter’s post sparked a huge outrage online, with many up in arms over the current state of the rental market and unrealistic expectations of estate agents. One person said, “I fully believe that the average renter keeps a home to a higher standard than an owner, and it seems deliberately demoralising that someone could be marked down for having a light out.” Another added, “This is ridiculously petty, and more importantly, totally irrelevant to the purpose of a periodic inspection. Which is to identify whether any maintenance is needed.” A third person took their anger out on the entire system, summing it up by writing, “I sort of wonder what little lightbulb clicks in your mind and you wake up one day and ask yourself, ‘How can I be a massive c*** who offers no value to society? I know! I will get into real estate.’” Image credits: Getty Images / Reddit

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

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

Woman “harassed” over previous tenant’s 78 cent bill

A furious Sydney has slammed energy provider Dodo for “harassing” her over an unpaid energy bill belonging to the previous tenant. Since moving into her new rental apartment just two months ago, she has received several urgent notices concerning the “outrageous debt” of just 78 cents. “Who the f*** is running this company?” she wrote in a fuming post to Facebook on Friday, answering her own question, “A pack of f**kin dodos”. “I’ve been in this apartment two months, this is the third – that’s THREE – letter of demand for the outrageous debt of 78 cents owed by the former tenant,” she wrote. The woman then speculated that it cost the energy provider more than the amount owing on the bill to send the letters in the first place. “It’s cost them a sh**tonne more than that in postal costs, let alone the wages of the person I gave an ear bashing to,” she wrote, instructing the company to “bog off”. She then included a photo of the bill in question, which read, “This notice is to advise you that your final electricity amount remains unpaid and is overdue, as a result of your Pay on Time discount has been removed and the total amount of $00.78 is now overdue.” The company’s persistence caused many online to react in a similar way to the recipient of the letter, with many in disbelief at why they don’t just let it go. The woman clarified in a comment she called Dodo after receiving the invoice for a second time, but it seemed her effort had been wasted. “I have called them after the second letter to inform them the dude was no longer living here. They wanted to know my name … and eventually said they’d fix it up,” she wrote. “Maybe they thought they’d give it one last go – after all, it’s the princely sum of 78 cents at stake! Next time I will demand a recompense.” Image credits: Facebook

Real Estate

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

House listing includes ex-husband “up for grabs as tenant”

A woman’s house listing has drawn a lot of attention after she included a very unusual bonus feature in her advertisement. The three-bed, two-bath pad in Panama City, Florida, has been listed for sale for $967,000AUD, as the listing is complete with a series of hilariously unusual photos starring a potential occupant. The man confidently poses in the photos, as the listing says, "Wonderfully rehabbed ex-husband up for grabs as tenant." The listing advertisement could almost be seen as focusing more on selling the vendor's ex than the house itself, as the description gives potential buyers an insight into their new life. "This dream man in the kitchen is a personal chef and server cooking up perfect meals on a new stove with updated countertops you can make memories on," the ad states. The tongue-in-cheek listing makes light of the former spouse's physical appearance as a segue to mention the local wildlife and nature of the area. "Head covering is well worn, mostly balding, like the eagles soaring in the sky above S. Lagoon steps from your massive driveway." The ad also alludes to the fact the ex-husband is quite handy, with his "XL ears" picking up creaks, while also "mak[ing] sure WD40 is applied to your new fixtures". The listing also includes the seller’s children in addition to their former spouse, which is left out until the last sentence of the advertisement. "Superhuman strength will save your back years of hard work lifting your hot tub cover where you can fall in love listening to our two young boys splashing in the pool." The bizarre listing has gone viral since it hit the market, with commenters online equally perplexed and intrigued. "I have so many questions and I'm desperate for answers," one said. Image credits: Zillow

Real Estate

Renter leaves hidden warnings to future tenants

A fed-up tenant has left hidden warnings for the future occupants of a Melbourne rental property to tip them off about the home’s issues. The notes, which went unnoticed by the real estate agent, were designed to prove the $600-a-week rental asking price was extreme, given the ongoing issues in the house that had not been adequately fixed. The person viewing the house found the notes and shared them to Reddit, saying the leasing agent hadn’t bothered to inspect the property. In the kitchen, a note was found attached to the exhaust fan above the stove and reads, “Rangehood doesn’t work, but window over sink fills house with bugs”. Another hidden note warned that the laundry window was the only way to ventilate the room, but there was no fly screen attached. “Water pressure has been fixed twice but still low,” said another note. The previous tenant also pointed out that cracks in the roof and walls had been “patched up” over time in one note inside the house. The person who found the hidden messages said it was “the most fun” they had at an inspection, as they searched the property for more secret notes. “The old tenant is a legend,” they said. Many online users celebrated the tenant’s gutsy move, describing it as “awesome”. “That tenant deserves a medal,” wrote one person. “This person is a true hero,” a user commented. “This is great. Wish we could see this more often. I know agents would remove notes left in the house. But get sneaky with it. Hide them in drawers and in dishwashers. House hunting is exhausting without having to worry about slimy real estate agents,” said another. One commenter even suggested starting a website “where tenants can leave a truthful report of a house, agent and landlords for the benefit of prospective future tenants”. Image credits: Getty Images / Reddit

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

COP26: what the draft climate agreement says – and why it’s being criticised

Having led the delegates at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow to believe that the first draft of the final agreement would be published at midnight Tuesday, the UK presidency will not have made many friends by delaying it till 6am Wednesday morning. There will have been plenty of negotiators – not to mention journalists – who will have needlessly waited up all night. In fact, COP26 president Alok Sharma will not have made many friends with the <a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Overarching_decision_1-CMA-3.pdf">text itself</a> either. As the host and chair of the summit, it is the UK’s responsibility to pull together all the negotiating texts which have been submitted and agreed over the last week into a coherent overall agreement. But the widespread consensus among delegates I have spoken to is that the draft they have produced is not sufficiently “balanced” between the interests and positions of the various country groupings. And for the chair of such delicate negotiations, that is a dangerous sin. Let’s recap. This COP (the conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is the designated moment under the 2015 Paris Agreement when countries must come forward with strengthened commitments to act. There are two main areas for this. One is emissions cuts by 2030, the so-called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs. The other, for the developed countries, is financial assistance to the least developed nations. The problem facing the COP is that we know already that, when added together, countries’ emissions targets are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-sets-course-for-disastrous-heating-of-more-than-24c-says-key-report">not nearly enough</a> to keep the world to a maximum warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial times, as the Paris Agreement aims for. And the financial promises don’t even reach the US$100 billion (£74.1 billion) a year that was meant to be achieved in 2020, let alone the much larger sums the most vulnerable countries need. So what have the poorest countries – and the vociferous civil society organisations demonstrating in Glasgow – been demanding? First, that NDCs should be strengthened before the scheduled date of 2025. And second, that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3">at least US$500 billion</a> should be provided in climate finance over the five years to 2025, with half of this going to help countries adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing. <h2>Urging – not requiring</h2> So what does the UK draft text say? It merely “urges” countries to strengthen their NDCs, proposing a meeting of ministers next year and a leaders’ summit in 2023. But “urges” is UN-speak for: “You may do this if you wish to, but you don’t have to if you don’t.” That is not enough to force countries to get onto a 1.5℃-compatible path. The text must require them to do so. On finance, the text is even weaker. There is no mention of the US$500 billion demand, although it does call for adaptation funding to be doubled. There is no mention of using the <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/08/23/how-the-world-can-make-the-most-of-new-special-drawing-rights">special drawing rights</a> (a kind of global money supply) which the IMF has recently issued for climate-compatible development. And there is insufficient recognition that the most vulnerable countries need much better access to the funds available. Of course, developing countries do not expect to get all their own way in the negotiations. But commenting on the overall balance of the text between different countries’ positions, one European delegate said to me: “This looks like it could have been written by the Americans.” It is of course true, as Alok Sharma emphasised in his afternoon press conference, that the text can still be changed. There are several issues on which negotiations are continuing and the text has yet to reflect their progress. Sharma has asked all parties to send in their suggested amendments to the draft and to meet him to discuss their reactions. He will find himself asked for a lot of meetings. But it matters how this early text is drafted, for two reasons. First, the lack of balance means that it is the least developed countries which will have to do the most work to change it. In Paris the French presidency worked the other way round. They drafted an ambitious text and dared the biggest emitters to oppose it. Second, the perceived imbalance could affect the trust in the British hosts. Sharma has built himself a strong reputation over the past couple of years preparing for the COP. He will not want to lose that in the crucial last days ahead. This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world. Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. <a href="https://page.theconversation.com/cop26-glasgow-2021-climate-change-summit/">More.</a> <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; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171632/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-jacobs-840558">Michael Jacobs</a>, Professorial Fellow, Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI), <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> 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/cop26-what-the-draft-climate-agreement-says-and-why-its-being-criticised-171632">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

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

New Zealand to Australia travel bubble to begin in two weeks

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text ">New Zealanders will get the opportunity to travel quarantine-free to Australia in the first stage of a travel bubble deal between the two countries in two weeks. Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack says that the quarantine-free travel will begin from midnight on Friday, October 16. New Zealanders will be allowed to fly into NSW and the Northern Territory. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Breaking! Australia and New Zealand agree on an air travel bubble within weeks!! — Stephanie Hunter (@EliteStephanie) <a href="https://twitter.com/EliteStephanie/status/1311889612390891522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2020</a></blockquote> It is expected that Australians will be given the opportunity to head to New Zealand at a later date. Prime Minister Scott Morrison smoothed out all the details of the arrangement with his New Zealand counterpart Jacinda Ardern on Friday. “This will allow New Zealanders and other residents in New Zealand who have not been in an area designated as a COVID-19 hot spot in New Zealand in the preceding 14 days to travel quarantine free to Australia,” Mr McCormack said at a press conference on Friday afternoon. Mr McCormack said that the Commonwealth definition of a COVID-19 hot spot was three locally acquired cases over a rolling three-day average. However, there was no date yet for when Australians would be able to travel to New Zealand. “Certainly if (Ms Ardern) wants to have Australians going to New Zealand, then that will be up to her and New Zealand as to how those arrangements can be put into place and under what conditions they can be put into place,” Mr McCormack said. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Australia and New Zealand announce first stage of travel bubble between the two countries <a href="https://t.co/va69e62x8s">https://t.co/va69e62x8s</a> — abaskswhy (@abaskswhy) <a href="https://twitter.com/abaskswhy/status/1311888320838815745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2020</a></blockquote> “But as I’d say, Northern Territory and New South Wales — very much open.” Mr McCormack said the trans-Tasman travel bubble was the first stage of the government’s plan to “open up Australia to the world”. South Australia has since opened up its domestic border but will not be part of the first travel bubble Mr McCormack said. However he says it is expected to be the “next cab off the rank”. He said other states could follow if they accepted the Federal Government’s COVID-19 hot spot definition. There are no plans to expand the international bubble beyond New Zealand yet, but the option may be a possibility soon. “We may well extend this. We want to open up Australia to the world. This is the first part of it,” McCormack said. “We will wait and see how this unfolds, we will wait and see the success of this. “I know Foreign Minister Marise Payne is working with many of our Pacific island friends at the moment, but for the Pacific Islands that want to go to New Zealand (and) be there for a fortnight, they can avail themselves of this opportunity.” Sydney Airport chief executive Geoff Culbert said that the announcement has given the travel industry “a welcome injection of hope”. “We applaud the Federal Government for driving this through,” Mr Culbert said. “Pre-COVID New Zealand was Sydney Airport’s second busiest passenger route behind the USA. We’ve been preparing for the ramp up of international passengers from the day restrictions came in and we’re looking forward to giving our Kiwi cousins a safe and warm welcome from October 16.” “I hope very soon to see New Zealanders coming and holidaying in Australia,” Mr Morrison told the National Press Club in Canberra this week. “I can’t tell you Australians will be able to holiday in New Zealand, but that’s their problem. I’m happy for Kiwi tourists to come here and spend money in NSW and South Australia. They’re very, very welcome.”</div> </div> </div> <div class="post-action-bar-component-wrapper"> <div class="post-actions-component"> <div class="upper-row"> <div class="right-box-container"></div> </div> </div> </div>

News

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

Why Prince Harry refused to sign a prenup

Prince Harry has reportedly refused to sign a prenuptial agreement ahead of his May 19 wedding to Meghan Markle. According to a friend of the couple, the 33-year-old royal, who has an estimated £30 million ($54 million) fortune, rejected the opportunity to sign the document because he is determined to make his marriage last. Meghan is believed to have a £4 million ($7.23 million) fortune of her own. “There was never any question in Harry’s mind that he would sign a prenup,” the friend told the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5511861/Prince-Harry-rejects-chance-safeguard-30million-fortune.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail</a>. “He’s determined that his marriage will be a lasting one, so there’s no need for him to sign anything.” The decision comes after weeks of reports suggesting a prenup was being drawn up. “Both Harry and Meghan have assets to protect,” society columnist Sophia Money-Coutts wrote in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/fear-not-meghan-harry-prenup-wont-kill-romance/" target="_blank">The Telegraph</a>. “Given divorce rates, it’s worth couples having a frank discussion about what each is bringing to the party before signing that marriage register.” But Harry and Meghan wouldn’t be the first couple to refuse a prenup. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge also decided against one, as did the princes’ late mother Princess Diana, who fought hard to win £17 million ($30 million) plus £400,000 ($722,000) each year in her divorce settlement with Prince Charles. Tell us in the comments below, do you think Harry and Meghan made the right decision? Did you sign a prenup before your wedding? Image credit: Kensington Palace/Twitter.

Legal

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

Outrage after renters confronted with cleaning “scoring system”

Calls to protect rights of tenants with animals

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

Landlord overstays welcome sleeping in tent under tenant’s home

Woman “harassed” over previous tenant’s 78 cent bill

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

House listing includes ex-husband “up for grabs as tenant”

Renter leaves hidden warnings to future tenants

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

COP26: what the draft climate agreement says – and why it’s being criticised

Landlord makes incredible gesture to tenant after selling house

New Zealand to Australia travel bubble to begin in two weeks

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

Why Prince Harry refused to sign a prenup

The battle between landlords and tenants