6 Months Moratorium on Evictions (Poll)

Trying2SaveABuck on 31/03/2020 - 22:50
Last edited 31/03/2020 - 22:55

6 months moratorium on evictions (Poll)

Am i the only person who thinks this is stupid? essentially the government is turning landlords in the charities without giving them anything in return.

I get small businesses and commercial leases but im sorry that is the cost of doing business and the risk of starting a small business.

Why on god earth do landlords both commercial and domestic have to fit the bill?

WTF is the government thinking? how can they offer no reimbursement for landlord? at the very least! the government should say any losses inured can be used as a tax write off for future investments.

Poll Options

  • 425
    I support the ban on evictions for six months
  • 868
    i dont support the ban on evictions for six months
Home & Garden

Comments

            • TheMindsetTraveller on 02/04/2020 - 09:59

              @ozBFM: Then you might have to consider getting a better paying job* so you can beat the two hundred thousand people who migrate here and buy 30% of housing stock.

              If you have six million bucks in the bank right now, you wouldn't be complaining.

              *I was taught JOB stands for Just Over Broke.

              Personally, if I can't afford something for whatever reasons, it is absolutely my fault - nobody elses. If I want something bad enough, I'll try to find a way to make it happen. Again, these are my decisions, one by one, so I can pursue what I want, if I fail, I will get up and try again. Fail by trying is better than failing by default and complaining it is someone elses fault. It's not, it's our own.

  • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 08:17

    What I found interesting about the voting for the poll when I work up at 5 this morning the ban is bad side were ahead by a third.

    And now the ban is good side are ahead.

    • capslock on 01/04/2020 - 08:24
      +5

      It must mean that tenants generally have to wake up early to earn money to pay rent so that landlords can stay up all night spending that money.

      • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 08:34
        +2

        Landlords don't work…? :/

        Wonder how they became landlords …

        • darkmoss on 01/04/2020 - 11:45
          -1

          Inheritance usually

      • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 11:58

        Looks like landlords are back after spending al that money. /s

  • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 08:18
    -4

    Just another (indirect) ploy on getting landlords to sell their properties.

  • indeedido on 01/04/2020 - 08:21
    +19

    Ffs, it's so people don't end up on the street. Get over yourselves.

    • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 08:22
      +2

      And when landlords can't pay the mortgage and have to sell; where will said renters go to ?

      Tough situation on both sides of the story

      • capslock on 01/04/2020 - 08:32
        +8

        The house doesn’t disappear. It is still there. Either the tenants can now afford to buy that house or they pay rent to a new landlord.

        • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 08:37
          +6

          Oh really?

          They can't afford to pay the rent so how will they afford to buy the house?

          And lets assume the new buyer decides to live in it?
          Or decides to not rent it out until they find renters who can pay the rent?
          A lot of what ifs that haven't been thought of/explained

          • capslock on 01/04/2020 - 08:47
            +10

            @Danstar: If cashed up investors weren’t pushing prices up with their negative gearing benefits and ever increasing equity then more tenants will be able to buy their own home. There wouldn’t then be as much of a need for rental properties.

            • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 09:07
              +5

              @capslock: You say that with such conviction, as if the reason for renters not being able to buy their own property is everyone elses fault

          • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 21:32

            @Danstar: how about the gov pays a rent allowance instead?

        • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 18:48
          +1

          So many tenants claim to have so little savings they can't afford to pay rent after just a few weeks of unemployment, yet they will be able to afford to buy a house even if the house price came down by a couple hundred thousand overnight?

          And what landlord is going to buy that house and rent it out whilst these laws are in place?

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 09:56
        +2

        If the LL can't pay the mortgage then they need to talk to their bank.

        Why doesn't the LL have savings for unexpected events like this?

        • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 09:58
          +16

          Why don't renters have money saved up for events like this ?

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 10:06
            +5

            @Danstar: Because the cost of living index for Australia is terrible and has been for some time.

            A lot of tenants live week to week.

            A lot of landlords can't pay their mortgage of their investment without rent and live month to month. The general "outrage" just confirms this.

            • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 10:08
              +1

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: A lot of landlords aren't as wealthy as you think. A lot of them are just trying to set themselves up / their kids up to have a better future.

              Yes they have equity, but they don't have cold hard cash on hand

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 10:10
                +8

                @Danstar: That's literally exactly what I said.

                They tried to set themselves up with an investment and lucked out. Same would have happened with shares. Investments are never a guaranteed win.

                Your posts generally hate on tenants like this is somehow their fault a pandemic occurred?

                • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 10:20
                  +3

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: You could easily say your posts are hating on landlords.

                  It's shit for both parties (and the whole world)

                • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 13:19
                  +3

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: With shares you purchase it at a price and it either goes up or down (or get paid dividends)

                  With a house, you buy it and expect people living in it to pay rent. You don't buy it an expect people to live in it for free off your hard work. Also, even with loss of rent and asking the bank to put mortgage on holiday mode. What about rates? Body Corp. fees? What if something goes wrong in the house while under this 'rent free' time? Insurance? Real estate agent fees? Who pays for that ?

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 13:50
                    +6

                    @Danstar: Landlords accepted this risk when they purchased real estate.

                    Tenants don't live in it for "free". Stop flogging that false horse. It's simply a temporary policy to stop people getting evicted through no fault of their own. They still owe that money.

                    Who pays for that ?

                    Landlord pays. Of all the investments methods they decided to buy real estate. Every investment has risk and pitfalls. Landlords thinking there is no risk is just downright niave, stupid, or both.

                    Too risky? Buying something safer..

        • Ghost47 on 01/04/2020 - 12:04
          +2

          They probably have very little money left after negative gearing one property and paying another mortgage. Please won't somebody think of the landlords!

    • one man clan on 01/04/2020 - 11:00
      +9

      DING DING DING

      Ignore the clickbait headlines and emotive poll.

      Would you prefer hundreds of thousands of people to be evicted, living on the streets with no income? Where do you think they'll go when they get hungry or cold? All of the landlords here are so egocentric, only concerned about their tenant and income. This pandemic has affected so many people that the society constructs we are used to don't work, otherwise society would collapse.

      • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 11:09
        -1

        Where will they go when landlords need to sell?

        I guess they can claim squatters rights after 12 months and will no longer be renters

        Win win for tenants

        • one man clan on 01/04/2020 - 11:16
          +1

          Why will landlords need to sell? Ask for a mortgage holiday from your bank. Also squatters rights are 12 years not 12 months mate

          • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 11:17

            @one man clan:

            I guess they can claim squatters rights after 12 months and will no longer be renters

            Edit: I guess they can claim squatters rights after 12 years and will no longer be renters

          • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 11:19
            +1

            @one man clan: Cos they rely on rent for income? Going on a holiday from the bank still means interest in accruing, so when it when the holiday ends, might not be able to meet to repayments? Needing to sell because of unemployment? The list can go on.

            • one man clan on 01/04/2020 - 11:41
              +2

              @Danstar: That's the associated risk with investing in housing.

              Or you boot your tenant, don't get a new one for 6+ months and then have no rent coming in at all. This isn't free housing for 6 months - it's a moratorium on evictions. As discussed above, tenants will still have to pay rent once they have some income, but it might be on a payment plan.

              The alternative scenario is hundreds of thousands of evictions and you really don't want to see the consequences of that.

              • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 12:12

                @one man clan: The thing is; I'm not siding with Landlords; it's just that no one seems to be thinking of the long term consequences. In particular to the landlords.

                • one man clan on 01/04/2020 - 13:32
                  +1

                  @Danstar: I am 100% certain the government took into account the long term consequences to landlords. They weighed the risk that some landlords might have a rent freeze, take a mortgage holiday, and pay slightly more interest over the life of the loan with the potential other risk being lots of homeless people (and then landlords being unable to take in ANY rent).

              • Xastros on 01/04/2020 - 19:37
                +1

                @one man clan: That is good in theory but in reality trying to claw back 6 months' worth of rent from a tenant will be near impossible if the tenant doesn't want to pay. Landlords only have 4 weeks rental bond as security and pursuing tenants through the courts is more costly than the rent you will get back. That's IF the tenant can even afford to pay.

          • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 18:51
            +1

            @one man clan: You do realise there are a great deal of costs other than loan repayments to running a property? Land taxes, rates and body corporate fees can be hundreds a week, then there is insurance, and of course the non paying tenant still expects the broken hot water system to be replaced overnight don't they?

    • Rolling245 on 01/04/2020 - 23:42

      Tenants will be on the street anyway once the banks start foreclosing those rental properties and putting them on auction. What do you expect residential investors to pay taxes and mortgages? With money grows on trees?

      • one man clan on 02/04/2020 - 08:09

        Ask for a mortgage holiday. It's clear what the intention of the policy is - tenants in financial hardship have a rent holiday (and have to pay it back) while landlords have a mortgage holiday (and resume after 6 months).

        Again i ask would you rather be able to evict your tenant and have the place empty? I really doubt there is going to be a line of suitable tenants jumping to join

        • Rolling245 on 02/04/2020 - 08:42
          +3

          Here is a thing. The banks still charge the interest on the deferred mortgage repayments. The local government still sends out bills for taxes. I can't and won't charge the interest on the deferred rent. I could exercise my option and charge my tenants a late payment fee, but it would be an ass of me expecting them to pay that in dire times.

          All I am asking with many other landlords is everyone should share the financial burden. I am happy to reduce my rents for 6 months. Both the (local) government and the banks should share the pain by drastically reducing both the interest rates and taxes to appropriate levels for 6 months.

          Again, I ask would you rather see landlords go bankrupt and many investment properties get foreclosed? I really doubt you would insist the same when many more tenants are thrown out from foreclosed rental properties and employees from the real estate & construction industry join the queue at Centrelink.

          • one man clan on 02/04/2020 - 09:12
            +2

            @Rolling245: I sincerely doubt that paying 6 months extra interest is going to send landlords bankrupt. If so, they have planned terribly. I'd also suggest that if your only source of income is from rental property(s) you've severely exposed yourself not just to this unexpected pandemic but any other downturn.

            I have no sympathy for banks and given their outrageous profits they should be forced to do more. I just feel like the rhetoric in this thread coming from landlords ignores the reality of the situation and the alternatives. No one has explained how the ability to evict a tenant now will be of benefit, or how having a proprety vacant for 6 months is better than having a tenant take a rent holiday for 6 months. Likewise, no one has explained how the alternative (mass eviction, which seems to be the landlord's option) is better.

            Landlords also seem to think that tenants that don't pay are going to dissappear into the wind and get off scot free after 6 months. That's almost deliberately disingenuous.

            • Danstar on 02/04/2020 - 09:49
              +2

              @one man clan:

              I'd also suggest that if your only source of income is from rental property(s) you've severely exposed yourself not just to this unexpected pandemic but any other downturn.

              So can easily blame LL's for 'not planning', but renters come off scot free for not planning for this unexpected pandemic ?

              • one man clan on 02/04/2020 - 10:10
                +2

                @Danstar: They don't come of scot free, they still have to pay the rent, it's just deferred while hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed. If they don't (and don't have an agreement with the landlord to reduced rent) a debt accrues which can be pursued in Court.

                What part of this is hard to understand?

                • Danstar on 02/04/2020 - 10:20
                  +2

                  @one man clan: The part where renters will some how magically have money to pay 6 months (inclusive of future rent) of rent after being unemployed for the last 6 months.

                  I'm literally not on either side. It's a tough situation for both parties (more so for people who can't pay the rent I can admit); but not all landlords are rich magnates who can survive giving away free rent for 6 months.

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 10:26
                    +1

                    @Danstar: Maybe property wasn't the best investment choice for those landlords then. Why did they over leverage themselves and expose themselves to risk?

                    • Danstar on 02/04/2020 - 10:44
                      -1

                      @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Maybe people not working hard enough and expecting to leech off the Government is a bigger issue to look at over taking aim at hard working (middle class) who have saved up enough to get into the investment game

                    • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 12:27

                      @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                      Maybe property wasn't the best investment choice for those landlords then. Why did they over leverage themselves and expose themselves to risk?

                      Because they have been able to evict non-paying tenants.

                      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 13:08
                        +1

                        @ozhunter: I guess Landlords learnt nothing from the GFC, fires and floods of the past decade or so.

                        Shit happens.

                        If you rely solely on the incoming rent then you are no better than the tenant you purport to hate.

                        • ozhunter on 02/04/2020 - 13:28

                          @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I don't hate tenants. lol

                          If someone is paying to use your property and then they don't, you should be able to evict them/take it back.

                          With all the financial hardships plans that other companies offer and the gov handout, paying rent shouldn't be hard.

            • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 19:29

              @one man clan: Having the property vacant is much cheaper and less riskier than having a non paying tenant.

              Non paying tenant knows they will lose bond due to non payment, so treats property like rubbish and fails to clean when they do leave.

              Non paying tenant still demands repairs done urgently/after hours.

              Non paying tenant will cause extra wear and tear and perhaps damage.

              Non paying tenant still uses water, which presumably they also cannot be evicted for not paying where they are required to pay water usage.

              Being unable to evict non paying tenant causes various insurance issues.

              Property managers can't really do routine inspections at the moment thus increasing landlords risk.

              House cannot be sold at reasonable price whilst non paying tenant remains in it.

              Also a tenant who claims to be unable to pay anything at all with all the expanded welfare payments is almost certainly taking advantage and will do everything further to try take advantage.

              Also as for tenants being able to get off scot free, it would not be at all surprising if the government banned landlords from listing these tenants on tenant databases so they could just move on to the next victim, there are already rumours they will do this.

  • b0rnwithabeard on 01/04/2020 - 08:42
    +4

    it’s a ban on evicting them, it’s not a ban on paying rent.

    Also, are we sure there aren’t separate structures in place to ensure that landlords are being supported too?

    • Rolling245 on 01/04/2020 - 23:49
      +4

      There is no ban on the banks making investors bankrupt if they fail to pay their mortgages on time. The banks are still charging the interest on deferred repayments and the local government is still collecting taxes. How are landlords supposed to pay all the costs?

      There is hardly any financial support for landlords.

  • eXo on 01/04/2020 - 08:46
    +3

    I'm so glad I turfed my bad tenants in Jan, this would have been their mecca! rent free for 6months.
    they used every excuse under the sun and layed out many poor educated legal threats so I'd hate to think how things are for landlords who are currently dealing with bad tenants atm in this environment.

  • mskeggs on 01/04/2020 - 08:54
    +2

    I am not sure the eviction moratorium covers all situations, I think it will just be where the tenant is in financial hardship. So I think you will still be able to evict tenants who are damaging the property or whatever.
    As for whether it is fair?
    I think most people would think that it is wrong to make somebody homeless for increased profit. A safe place to live is more important that the financial health of the landlord.

    I appreciate there will be some landlords who took high risks, became over leveraged, and may face ruin - but not very many.
    What the moratorium is saying is that there will be some tenants already in financial ruin - so bad they can't even pay rent. In these circumstances, the government is asking landlords to share some of the pain. If this is by mortgage pauses, the extra interest will be tax deductible (so as a tax payer, I am helping too).

    If a landlord has no source of income except rents, and they stop, they always have the option to sell some assets. Many people losing their jobs now don't have that option.

  • Brendoo on 01/04/2020 - 09:02
    +10

    Everyone is taking a hit. Landlords are not some special people excluded from what the rest of us have to cop. Typically a landlord will be someone with assets and income higher than average and will certainly have much more than people with no assets, no savings and no money in their bank account.

    As a comparison, what about the millions of non-landlords who are all taking a massive hit, often significantly worse than landlords, with massive loss of income (even with Govt support) due to being stood down from their job. e.g. someone earning $130,000 net p/a ($2500 net per week), which is a typical mid-level corporate salary, who has been stood down on zero pay. Double it if a husband and wife are in a similar position. Say their company cannot get jobkeeper because the company is not 30% or 50% down yet. That person can now get $550 maximum per fortnight (equiv of $28,600 per year) on jobseeker. If this goes for 6 months they are out of pocket approx $50k, if it goes a year they are out of pocket approx $100k (double if a couple is on similar salaries).

    This person also has bills to pay and usually a mortgage, proportionate to their salary. But they have to cop it sweet and take the hit like everyone, request a 6 months holiday on their mortgage and the things we are allowed to do. Landlords can do the same.

    A landlord is no "special case", they just earn their income in that manner because that's what they chose to do. We are all taking massive hits and if we all have to then they do too.

    At least a landlord is in a better position than most people - they have a large asset in reserve - the property they own. If things get really bad they can sell the property and be able to survive reasonably well, what about the millions who cannot do that?! They should think of that.

    Landlords should therefore stop being selfish and entitled (yes I know most are being good people) and take the hit like the rest of the nation and world has to right now. They are one of billions copping huge hits to their life with many paying for it with their life. As the PM says, we all have to feel the pain, there's no choice.

    • isthisreallife22 on 01/04/2020 - 10:24
      +5

      who are all taking a massive hit, often significantly worse than landlords, with massive loss of income (even with Govt support) due to being stood down from their job. e.g. someone earning $130,000 net p/a ($2500 net per week), which is a typical mid-level corporate salary, who has been stood down on zero pay. Double it if a husband and wife are in a similar position. Say their company cannot get jobkeeper because the company is not 30% or 50% down yet. That person can now get $550 maximum per fortnight (equiv of $28,600 per year) on jobseeker. If this goes for 6 months they are out of pocket approx $50k, if it goes a year they are out of pocket approx $100k (double if a couple is on similar salaries).

      Re-read that paragraph, but assume the person you are referring to is the landlord rather than the tenant. MANY landlords would fit that description perfectly

      • abb on 01/04/2020 - 13:19

        If things get really bad they can sell the property

        • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 21:07

          Sale in this market make a huge loss!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Landlord could owe bank more than the value of the property and be in debt for the rest of their life and make them worse than a tenant for sure

          • abb on 07/04/2020 - 09:31

            @jowu15: "leveraged investments have a high risk", is what I hear you saying. I agree completely.

  • slow on 01/04/2020 - 09:05
    +3

    There are idiots on both sides with no empathy with try to take advantage of any situation for their personal benefit.

    Many landlords get marginal benefit from negative gearing, there is a misconception among many tenants that all landlords are wealthy and are given pots of free money by the government

    • Danstar on 01/04/2020 - 09:08
      +2

      I have found that's the biggest problem with people renting. Everyone else is to blame for their misfortunes / lack of money

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 09:50
    +10

    Why on earth is this so hard?

    Tenant loses job. They keep a roof over their head. They have to try and get a job and pay the rent back.

    Landlord loses rent. They go to their bank for a pause. They have to pay interest back.

    It's estimated 600k+ hospitality workers lost their job last week. Probably 1 million+ in tourism or travel related industries. Stand downs in nearly all industries. Retail stand down easily 300k plus. It's more important that we don't create millions of homeless than the poor sad LL paying a bit of interest.

    Investment properties are an investment. Sometimes you profit. Sometimes you lose. Ask everyone with shares and Super.

    Everybody loses here. Except the banks of course.

    • leiiv on 01/04/2020 - 10:23
      +4

      Yes, so why not make the banks pay the interest?

    • mrvaluepack on 01/04/2020 - 12:25
      +7

      You missed something.

      Tenant loses job but does not lose income because of stimulus package - job seeker/keeper allowance.

      Only Landlord loses income.

      • Ghost47 on 01/04/2020 - 12:29
        +5

        Any honourable tenant should pay the rent using the allowance, at least some if they can't cover it all.

        But plenty of people don't know how to manage money and will probably buy booze and parmas instead of paying for necessities first. Straya!!!

        • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2020 - 12:42
          +3

          Agreed.. The Tenant should pay what they can, whilst having enough left over just to cover cost of food etc during this period. Sadly, Many Landlords & Tenants will attempt to extort the alternate party for every cent they can during this time.. So logic and fairnes will get thrown out the window on many accounts.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 13:51
        -5

        You are the one who missed something.

        It's a policy to prevent evictions. It's not a policy to "not pay rent"

        • mrvaluepack on 01/04/2020 - 13:57
          +4

          Why do evictions usually happen? Because they dont pay rent. So the underlying policy is encouraging people not to pay rent. DUH!

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:13
            +2

            @mrvaluepack: Why do foreclosures usually happen? Because Landlords don't pay their mortgage. So the underlying policy of a 6 month "pause" from the Banks is encouraging Landlords not to pay their mortgage is it?

            • mrvaluepack on 01/04/2020 - 14:34
              +1

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Yes, but all banks have said in their policy that this is a DEFERMENT not waiver. So interest is still accumulating and is due at the end of the "pause". Banks also hold the title of the property as collateral and can foreclose if landlords dont pay up.

              No such policy for this moratorium. After this period renters could be "scot-free" as they dont really have any collateral other than their bond.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:39
                +1

                @mrvaluepack: This moratorium is also a DEFERMENT not a waiver.

                Your argument sucks.

                • mrvaluepack on 01/04/2020 - 14:40

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: No, it has not been defined yet. You are dreaming.

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:45
                    +1

                    @mrvaluepack: Dreaming? You're the one who thinks the Landlord is the only one who "loses" during this pandemic. You said that in your very first reply.

                • Xastros on 01/04/2020 - 19:41

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Difference is the bank is much more likely to be able to recover the deferred interest than the landlord's chances of recovering 6 months' worth of back rent. The bank has security over the property, likely your personal home, personal guarantees etc. Landlord just has 4 weeks rental bond.

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 08:58

                    @Xastros: No different if you leased a property to a shit tenant. That's the risk you take. There's always the risk that rent won't get paid.

                    Maybe landlords should open a dialogue with their tenants and establish the facts first before fear-mongering that every tenant is going to "skip out" in 6 months time.

                    • Xastros on 02/04/2020 - 12:14

                      @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: It is a bit different because in case the government is forcing you to allow a tenant to accrue a 6 month debt rather than evict them (which would take much less than 6 months. In a normal case the bond would cover most of the loss rent over the eviction period. Not so if allowed to run for 6 months. Also denies the landlord the opportunity to find a new paying tenant, even if at a fraction of what the previous rent was.

                      I'm not saying that this measure is not good but everyone saying this is part of the risk of buying an investment property is not correct. In this case the government is forcing extra risk for the landlord by forcing them to allow up to a 6 month arrears.

                      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 13:09
                        +1

                        @Xastros: Have you actually read the proposed policy?

                        • Xastros on 02/04/2020 - 14:27

                          @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: No I have not, at the time when the OP posted this, there wasn't much detail released yet. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how I am incorrect (genuine question).

            • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 21:14

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Landlords cannot cut and run because bank told the title of the property, many tenants would run when rent owing is high.

    • ozhunter on 01/04/2020 - 16:06
      +2

      It's not hard, the 6 months moratorium disincentives tenants to prioritize paying their rent. If you're out of work, you'd be getting a government handout.

      Landlords would be careful evicting anyone out with so many people out of work. Landlords have already lost out just like everyone else due to the economy.

  • chumlee on 01/04/2020 - 09:56

    Government doesn't want people living in their cars because they lost their job.

    Will landlord insurance cover non payment of rent?

    • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 21:16
      +1

      Government should pay for it, they should not design a policy to get someone else to pay for it

  • 82norm on 01/04/2020 - 10:00
    +3

    Given the govt is splashing money like there’s no tmrw and not even means testing it, why didn’t they consider offering rent assistance and basically pay for a portion of the rent or the whole amt? That way no one loses out……well technically we all lose out as the country will be in debt for at least 1-1.5 generations!

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 10:08
      +4

      If landlords are offered assistance, then why not shareholders? Investment properties are an investment.

      • leiiv on 01/04/2020 - 10:26
        +3

        Businesses got wage assistance, $1500 per fortnight per employee..

        • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 10:39

          That’s a good point.

        • moph on 01/04/2020 - 13:00

          Why is that relevant? For businesses that invest in property, if they employ people, they would be able to access the Job Keeper payment.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 13:53

          The workers get that wage assistance. It's provided via the ATO portal. The business never ever gets their hands directly on that cash.

      • 82norm on 01/04/2020 - 12:07
        +1

        I don’t think u can compare the 2. With a property rental, you enter an agreement/contract. Whereas with trading shares, you’re basically gambling on the premise a company performs and there is no contract for that, unless it’s written into somewhere.

        • moph on 01/04/2020 - 13:26
          +6

          You can absolutely compare the two and he just did. With a property rental, you are basically gambling on the premise that the government continues to prop up the housing market as it has done for decades, and that you will be able to find good tenants that are able to reliably pay the rent. These are risks that have been unfairly papered over by our society. The fact that you haven't noticed the paper doesn't mean that the risks weren't there.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 13:55
          +1

          You definitely can compare the 2.

          Buying an investment property, you hope property prices rise and you receive rental. Pitfalls are property prices falling, periods of no rent, and signing your rights away to your property to a living, breathing person - the tenant.

          Don't like the risk? Buy into a different investment scheme.

          • 82norm on 01/04/2020 - 22:30

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: some landlords don’t really care if their property rises or not, as long as they get steady income and rent. If you have a rental within 5-10km of Sydney CBD, you’ll have tenants.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 08:59

              @82norm:

              some landlords don’t really care if their property rises or not,

              Not very good investors then lol

              • AuSlade on 02/04/2020 - 13:11

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I love how you're talk as if an authority on everything, but seem to have very little clue.
                Property investment is a long term strategy, generally speaking greater than 10-20 years. Shares are not.

                If I buy shares, and they market tanks, there is no loss until I sell them. If I'm not required to sell the shares, working on an assumption that I have not borrowed to buy said shares, then the risk is minimal. If the company is relatively secure, then the share price will likely eventually rise. I have potentially no tax, loan or other liabilities on shares purchased (again, based on the assumption that you haven't borrowed vast sums of money to buy a share portfolio). If it all goes to crap, then yes, I've potentially lost everything.

                However, properties, generally cost significantly more money and require a much larger initial investment than shares, so few people have that initial capital to buy a property. They usually leverage existing capital in their principal property and fund the rest through a loan. If the tenant stops paying, the implications for the mortgagee don't just magically disappear.

                It would only be a small portion of the investor market that outright own more than one property. And to them, well done. I hope they're doing a good thing and looking at rent reductions, etc. The rest of the people will be royally stuffed.

                Especially if they've purchased property since around 2017. The market has gone backwards in a vast number of locations around the country. If you purchased in 2017, borrowing 80%, there's a damned good chance your loan is now close to parity with the property value. Six months of not paying that loan means you will likely have a loan to value ratio (LVR) of greater than 100% for some people.

                If that property owner cannot meet those repayments in 6 months, the bank will eventually start Mortgagee in Possession proceedings.

                Now, how do I know any of this ? 21 years working for a bank and a property valuer for the past 13.

                The next 12 months will make the GFC look like a fun time. This is going to hurt the Australian economy like nothing any of us have ever seen.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 15:56
                  +1

                  @AuSlade: So, you're essentially saying an investment property involves higher risk than shares and Landlords are more than likely heavily leveraged?

                  Thanks for confirming exactly what I've been saying.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join