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

      • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 21:17

        because government did not interfere with shares

  • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 10:38
    +4

    I wish we could do this survey again. But with yes and no choices be qualified with either your a residential property investor.

  • regretfulshopper on 01/04/2020 - 10:44
    +4

    Firstly, large swathes of our society are greatly affected by COVID 19. My housemate got stood down and is ineligible for any bonus payments due to the length of time she's worked in her role & the business losses not meeting the threshold.

    Secondly, my landlord lost his job and is now having to navigate welfare as well.

    We've always paid our rent on time and in advance; now we're in a situation of completely uncharted waters.

    From what I've seen amongst many of my friends who rent,is that majority are facing pay cuts/ job loss and are asking for temp rent reductions. Not attempting to avoid paying rent all together!

    I've seen some suggestions that rent reductions should be followed with a rent increase once the 6 months is up and I'm flabbergasted! Do people think that a blow like this to the economy will just resolve itself once Covid 19 will be under control and that people who had NO money ( bar welfare) will no longer be stood down and suddenly earn MORE to pay for increased living costs?!

  • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2020 - 11:38
    -6

    I am not going to pay rent for 6 months they can boot me out after i pay over 2k a month it would cost me 400-500 to move houses overall it is a net save of 11.5k why would i pay rent im a contractor i can easily say there is little to no work due to COVID19

    I feel for OP because he is 100% right but that is the cost of doing business.

    Chances are the money i save will give me the ability to buy my own place and get out of the rent trap or simply find another rental cheaper with all the other people who will get booted out at the end of this 6month ban.

    Happy days for me

    Thank you SCOMO!!

    • isthisreallife22 on 01/04/2020 - 12:04
      +2

      that is the cost of doing business

      Out of curiosity, if this bankrupts mums and dads around the country who have already lost their source of income, and puts them on the streets, would you see this as a reasonable outcome for society?

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 13:57
        +3

        Technically the "mums and dads" who decided to choose an investment property as their key investment still have a significant asset they can sell.

        would you see this as a reasonable outcome for society?

        Actually. Yes. Landlords and government schemes have raised our cost of living skyhigh and artificially inflated real estate prices for a very long time.

        "Mum and dad" landlords selling investment properties will provide greater stock for others to buy their own primary residence.

    • 82norm on 01/04/2020 - 12:17
      +2

      It depends on what your moral convictions are like and whether u enjoy screwing someone over.

  • Caped Baldy on 01/04/2020 - 11:42
    +4

    If we have a downturn in shares why shouldn't we have one in property?

    People invest in shares because housing is increasingly unaffordable.

    • isthisreallife22 on 01/04/2020 - 12:05
      -2

      Paper losses are not the same as having your IP repossessed and potentially being bankrupted

      • Vote for Pedro on 01/04/2020 - 12:10
        +6

        Same thing. A loss is a loss. Just because a share investor hasn’t over extended and may be able to afford a market shock doesn’t make it any better.

        Australia has a problem with property investing where people take it as rivers of gold and are astounded when it isn’t always the case.

        If you can’t afford the risk, you can’t afford the investment.

        • Ghost47 on 01/04/2020 - 12:19
          +4

          It's like property investors think they are entitled to millions just because they secured the mortgage. Get real.

          Although these are very unusual times, but in any case, get real. /eyeroll

        • Xastros on 01/04/2020 - 19:46

          It's not exactly the same in this situation because the government is effectively saying you can't evict a tenant to get a chance at a new paying tenant. I.e. artifically killing your chance at earning an income from the investment.

          • Vote for Pedro on 01/04/2020 - 21:51
            +1

            @Xastros: A chance at a new paying tenant? Who are you kidding. You’ve seen the centrelink queues?

            That’s just a throwaway line people are using to justify poor planning and overextending on the investment.

            There is between zero and no chance of getting a new tenant now who is in a better situation.

            Smart investors will work with the existing tenants to find the least worst option. Arrogant landlords, well, you reap what you sow.

            • Xastros on 02/04/2020 - 12:45
              -1

              @Vote for Pedro: This is completely untrue. A friend of mine literally signed up a 6 month lease last week for a residential property. You should test the market before making claims such as "zero" chance.

              We don't know but let's say right now the unemployment rate has risen to 10%. Amont the other 90% that don't own their own place, there are still potential tenants. I'm sure you'd have to meet the market with lower rent but it is still better than nothing.

      • lunchbox99 on 01/04/2020 - 12:28

        Oh yeah, nobody has lost money in the share market crash. Literally everyone is able to just sit and ride it out until the market recovers /s

      • moph on 01/04/2020 - 14:13
        +1

        Just curious, would you have the same sympathy for someone who borrowed money to invest in the stock market and who now had less value in their portfolio than they borrowed?

        • isthisreallife22 on 01/04/2020 - 16:44
          +1

          I didnt suggest sympathy I just said it was a false equivalence.

          An equivalent to the OP i replied to would be houses losing half their value.

          If a share trader loses income they simply cannot buy more shares. Paper losses.

          If a IP owner loses income they lose their IP, and quickly. Banks reposses, quickly. And if it's lost half it's value since they purchased, they likely go bankrupt.

          This has nothing to do with renters. The income I'm describing is their wage.

          But your scenario is a good one. I don't know much about margin lending. What is normally used as security in this scenario?

          • AuSlade on 02/04/2020 - 13:30

            @isthisreallife22: Just a quick clarification. It can take around 12 months for a bank for enforce Mortgagee in Possession. There are a lot of legal hurdles for the bank/mortgagor to overcome. There are also issues with this which can cause it to drag out for years.

            Secondly, margin lending is secured by the shares themselves. A charge is taken over the CHESS number issued by the ASX.

  • JCrown9 on 01/04/2020 - 11:47
    +12

    from all the posts of landlords cracking up; what do you expect? you want a 100% risk free investment? there is risks in all investments and this is one of them.

    Its no different to everyone who invests in the stock market. no one is covering their (paper losses), the governments not freezing the market, yet no one is complaining about their investments or how to get their money back. And alot of people will be getting margin calls as well and interest on those loans doesnt stop yet no one is winging like landlords who may not receive their rent.

    Nothing is set in stone yet, its a difficult topic which is why the government is taking their time on releasing details. Housing / landlords are not the only issue here, there is tons of other investments and products in the same or worse positions than a landlord paying a little interest while potentially receiving no rent.

    Lets just wait and see!

    • Ghost47 on 01/04/2020 - 12:07
      +12

      But it's property. There is no risk, and it also doubles every 7 years.

      /s lmao

    • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 13:41

      So if you're owner of a business and you're forced to keep open by the government even though you're losing hundreds of dollars..you'd be fine with that right?

      • JCrown9 on 02/04/2020 - 16:49

        I do operate my own business.
        and the government has stimulus and packages in place to help "soften the blow".

        The above; at time of writing did not. thats the difference.

    • jowu15 on 06/04/2020 - 21:20
      +1

      Landlord did not complain went property market went down, we cope it but why should landlord to take our lifehood away without compensation

  • Vote for Pedro on 01/04/2020 - 12:02

    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.

    Any rental property is a business, be it commercial or residential.

    • lunchbox99 on 01/04/2020 - 12:24
      +6

      Apparently some LL think the "system" should be structured to guarantee no loss. Unlike every other investment in existance.

      • AuSlade on 02/04/2020 - 13:42
        +1

        I'm sure some do, but I don't believe that was the intention of the OP.
        It's more of the inequity of the situation. The only organisation that is not likely to miss out, will be the lenders. They're still accruing interest on the outstanding debt. The tenant has a potential to limit rent payments (and I get why), but the Landlord has full liability, all because the Govt made a knee jerk reaction in an overnight snap decision. If you don't pay rent for 6 months on an average $500/week property, that's $13k you potentially owe the property owner. Let's assume things go well, and after 6 months you have a decent enough job and can afford to pay your rent, plus more. So you pay an extra $50/week. It will take you ($13,000 / 50 = 260 weeks / 52 weeks) 5 years to pay that additional, outstanding rent. If you move out, you might lose your bond of a few grand… There's also the assumption that there won't be any rent increases in that potential 5 year period.

        It takes weeks to boot tenants out for late / non payment. The Govt. could have easily taken a short amount of time and provided a proper strategy that didn't necessarily disadvantage one party over the other.

        FWIW: I don't own any investment properties. It's more of looking at the situation from both sides. Yes, mass evictions would be bad, but this blanket rule will cause them eventually anyway, without proper support for all involved.

      • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 13:42

        when investing i don't expect the government to seize my investment for 6 months….

        they could just have easily frezzed mortgage payments..but i see scomo is in the banks' back pockets

  • redforever on 01/04/2020 - 12:03
    +2

    Ok. A tenant got stood down because of COVID 19. They then stop paying rent and can't be evicted.
    Applied and got paid the job keeper allowance, should they at least use part of the allowance to pay for rent?

  • whoopdeedoo on 01/04/2020 - 12:04
    +1

    whats to stop a tenant from disappearing after 6 months free rent? LOL nothing

    • ChillBro on 01/04/2020 - 13:50

      I've heard they'd pretty much be blacklisted from renting elsewhere.

      • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 13:43

        i'm sure the gov will stop that from happening in crisis situations

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:00

      What's to stop a tenant moving into your property and disappearing after a period of free rent? LOL nothing. It's an investment. That's the risk you face.

      • AuSlade on 02/04/2020 - 13:45

        What period of free rent ? This isn't a commercial / retail property.

        Tenants pay a rental bond, usually equivalent to 4 weeks (in NSW), and then usually pay 2 weeks in advance.
        The tenants are initially out of pocket quite a bit. Which tenant is going to move in, and not pay any rent for 6 weeks ? The management company will issue you a vacant notice quite quickly.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 20:15

          Have you ever evicted somebody from a residential property? It takes far longer than 6 weeks in total. Especially if they fight it. Ends up in *CAT generally for a prolonged period of time.

    • Yotta00 on 01/04/2020 - 19:36

      I have landlords disappear (selling or abandoning) when I paid the rent on time and in advance. 3 times in fact.

      When you are renting you never feel stable.

  • lunchbox99 on 01/04/2020 - 12:22
    +6

    Some LL are morons. Go evict your tenants who are temporarily unable to pay and see how easy it is to lease the property. Either way you have no rent, keeping the tenants at least means the possibility it will be recovered vs receiving nothing for this period.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/04/2020 - 13:04
      +2

      6 months isn't temporary it is half a standard lease…

      • lunchbox99 on 01/04/2020 - 13:10

        Well then have an empty property. I can't see how that's a financially better option to possibly being able to recover the rent later.

        • Third_Gear on 01/04/2020 - 13:44
          +3

          Well an empty property is actually better than tenants living in it rent free… Rent won’t get recovered later. What if the lease is one year and the tenants leave right after they have to start paying rent? No one will chase them down…What will a land lord charge? An extra $200 a month to recover lost rent that will take a couple years to get back?

          Seems like there are more questions than answers. As a LL who has a positively geared property I am happy to work with my tenants but would advise against them not paying any rent just to have a HUGE bill later. Gov. Support is enough to cover most people who are renting anyways… I think it’s all too early at the moment to get excited and enter debate as the situation is changing daily.

        • funnysht on 02/04/2020 - 13:45

          The point is that the
          gov can do better than this plan…like freezing bank payments, so tenant doesnt lose out, the landlord doesnt lose out(or make money either which is fine),

          except that the banks don't make money…and we see whose back pocket is full

  • ZloyKrys on 01/04/2020 - 12:31
    +2

    Not taking any side here but:

    • In TAS they already banned evictions for 3 months with an option to extend. If you read the message around it, it's only for those affected by the virus and in distress (this has to be proven to the tribunal, not LL - good luck to those eligible for Centrelink or with 20+k in their super)
    • As a renter, I have no protection after 6 months from getting booted and the record in the bad tenants' database sits for 3 years. Try to find a reasonable accommodation after 6 months with this black mark. I am sure most LL will make it priority #1 for property managers to get applicants checked with the database
    • Some basic logic says that the rental pool will shrink if evictions are banned, good luck finding a cheaper place. Many landlords will pull properties from the market to avoid being locked in for 6 months with no rent coming - an empty house will suffer less wear and tear and also no responsibility for maintenance
    • I read a few FAQs from landlord insurance companies and they all state that for rent default benefit to be paid, a tenant needs to be served with an eviction order, so if tenants push it hard, LLs will kick them out after 6 months, insurance will pay but tenants will get a black mark in the database plus potential debt collectors chasing them on behalf of the insurance company, is it worth it?

    Unless a HECS-like system where tenants can get help is introduced, it will be quite hard for the tenants themselves to rebuild life after 6 months.

  • squaredonut on 01/04/2020 - 12:44

    I have a genuine question does this eviction ban for any eviction at all? I'm asking because I had intentions of living in a place I'm renting out but in 2021. But I need to get the place back about 2 months before the end of the year as the stupid state govt's land tax is calculated at the end of the year.

    Sure I understand unreasonable evictions etc makes sense, but evicting on the grounds that I need to have my own house back, is that considered evicting?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/04/2020 - 12:49

      Our useless government didn't clarify this

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:05

        They've said over and over again further details with emerge when decided during National Cabinet meetings. The very next being in 2 days time.

  • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 12:50
    +3

    Since the dawn of time renters have accepted the #1 premise behind renting, if you don't pay rent you are out. This should not change here. I don't want to see people homeless, but I don't want to see private citizens have to offer free housing to people who have not saved money aside for rainy days.

    • Ghost47 on 01/04/2020 - 13:06

      If that's the case then you could easily say something such as:

      "Since the dawn of time homeowners have accepted the #1 premise behind owning a home, if you don't pay your mortgage you forfeit the house."

      But no, banks are freezing mortgages for now, which landlords should consider as a great act of charity but instead are complaining they'll have to pay the interest back.

      These are not usual times and I think that concessions should be made for both parties.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:06
        -2

        "Since the dawn of time investors have accepted the #1 premise behind investing is that all investments have risks and not all investments profit."

    • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 13:11
      +2

      Im sympathetic to some of your arguments. However, if tenants should have saved for a rainy day should landlords have too?

      • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 13:20
        +2

        I actually don't care about the LL's mortgage repayments, I agree that they should also have saved and if they haven't they deserve to lose their property.

        My primary concern is that renters who don't pay should not block LL's from finding tenants who can.

        There are many other options before leeching off the landlord.

        • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 13:29

          I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the government’s strategy is to encourage LL to take a reduction in rent. There are lots that are doing this already but this would encourage those who are reluctant to reduce rents. Better to get 50-70% then zero. They might have wanted to evict to try and get 100% from someone else but now…

          Also where are these replacement tenants going to come from. It’s not like we can import them there is only the existing pool.

          • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 13:47

            @GoldenDragon888: If the tenant and the LL wish to renegotiate for mutual benefit thats fine, thats very different from allowing tenants to live rent free though.

            In such cases tenants don't need to negotiate, they can just sit pretty for 6 months and up and leave after.

            The replacement tenants whether they are found quickly or not are not the concern, the primary concern is being free to do so. Right now the option is not even there.

    • moph on 01/04/2020 - 13:20
      +3

      Since the dawn of time investors have accepted the #1 premise behind investing - sometimes your investment falls over. This should not change here. I don't want to see people lose value on their investments, but I don't want to see people homeless especially during a time of global crisis, because people who have not saved money aside for rainy days expected they would continually receive an income simply due to the fact that they jumped on the property investment pyramid scheme a little earlier than some others.

      • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 14:02

        But this isn't about a drop in capital gains. All investors accept the peaks and troughs.

        I am not even suggesting the LL must earn an income from a property at all times, it is a risk that one cannot find tenants and the property remains vacant.

        This is different because the government is enabling tenants to a) not pay, b) stay in the property so that the LL cannot even look for new tenants. a) not paying alone would actually be fine and a small hit, but they should at least be removed from the property.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:07

          You want 2+ million Australians homeless? Really? Just because Landlords will incur a little extra interest from their bank?

          • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 14:20

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Will they be homeless? The equilibrium price of rent will move, potentially making it more affordable.

            Again I don't care about the landlords mortgage payments and interest, they should continue to incur interest as per the agreement they signed.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:41

              @tsunamisurfer: 2+ million Australians who cannot afford to pay rent are suddenly going to find a tenancy elsewhere are they?

              If Government is "enabling tenants to not pay" then it is likewise enabling landlords to not pay their mortgage. Banks have accepted this.

              • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 15:46
                +1

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: They are being gifted gov hand outs hand over fist.

                Rents will drop from this I is my educated guess.

                Again you are linking those 2 issues when they are separate.

                Don't worry about the LL's mortgage payments, they are his business and if he cannot afford to pay thats his problem.

                The focus of this topic is the tenant/LL relationship where the tenant will likely not fulfil their end of the agreement.

        • moph on 01/04/2020 - 14:08
          +3

          It's more comparable to a drop in dividends rather than capital gains, but the analogy holds up because there are many investors (particularly retirees) who live off dividends.

          I don't agree that the government is enabling tenants to 'not pay'. Tenants are still under the same obligation to pay as before. It's just that the consequences of not meeting those obligations are different - and I don't event think they are that different in practice, since an eviction process could often take several months under normal circumstances, and really if this issue becomes widespread, the idea that the property owner could just find new tenants is probably false.

          Property investors can ALWAYS make the choice to sell one of their properties if they are unable to afford to service their debt.

          • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 14:34

            @moph: When you remove the consequences the behaviour will change accordingly.

            Again I am not suggesting they will find tenants straight away nor that they must be guaranteed tenants. I will let the market decide that. I only want the LL's the option to find tenants where their current ones are delinquent with rent.

            Property investors can ALWAYS make the choice to sell one of their properties if they are unable to afford to service their debt.

            Yes…I am happy to let such things happen in a normal situation. But the government is enabling bad tenants to stay with impunity.

            • moph on 01/04/2020 - 14:39

              @tsunamisurfer:

              When you remove the consequences the behaviour will change accordingly

              That's a fundamentally pessimistic view of human nature. And while it might be true for some people, personally I don't think it will be widespread, and I don't think it will have large societal impact. I also don't think the consequences are that different, as I said above. Evicting tenants takes time and if they're actually bad actors then it can take a very long time.

              It sounds like the thing you are actually worried about is "Some tenants will exploit the situation and avoid paying rent when they possibly could". While I don't disagree that this might happen in a minority of cases, on a social scale it's a much smaller problem than "Many honest tenants, who would pay rent if they could, will be unable to and will end up homeless".

              • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 15:06

                @moph: That is the safe view, which is why we have controls in Society.

                The Controls make it transparent the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

                • moph on 01/04/2020 - 15:27

                  @tsunamisurfer: The "safe view" is that people are basically bad and will try and exploit others?
                  OK, I guess this conversation is over since we have fundamentally differing understandings of how the world works. Thanks for outing yourself.

    • JCrown9 on 01/04/2020 - 13:20

      would that not be the same as the landlord having put aside his rental income / profits for a rainy day???
      or at least enough to cover the interest if thats still what the banks may charge in all this???

      whats the difference between the landlord and the tenant here?

      • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 14:17

        Yes see my response above.

        I hold both LL and tenant to the same level of accountability.

  • Herbse on 01/04/2020 - 13:53
    +2

    Investment properties are an investment, with inherit risks.

    If you've sunk all your life savings into one investment because everyone was doing it and everyone on forums told you to buy a house because the housing market is the best yield and safest to do, then that's not the tax payers responsibility to protect you from.

    Poll will give us an idea of how many people have an investment property and how many don't.

  • DaneD on 01/04/2020 - 13:57
    +6

    I note most arguments against landlords say "why didn't the landlord consider this a risk" or "they should realise an investment is not risk free". However, they also ignore the fact that maintaining a job is also a risk and not a guarantee nor is seeking gainful employment.

    So the arguments are somewhat self defeating by saying "owning and investment is a risk you should have planned" but entirely ignore the fact that people who have jobs should also plan for a future where they may not have one as no job is guaranteed in perpetuity.

    Do I sympathise with people (and businesses) who have lost out due to government regulations absolutely. However, this does not exclude them from saving when they are employed. The same also applies to landlords - many are overcapitalised and barely making or not making profit during the lowest period of interest rates in history which is correlated with the highest housing prices in history. Notably, prices are high due to a large portions of overseas investors and government policies.

    However, both situations could be mitigated by prudent actions from both parties and saving for an unknown future. Although admittedly it is extremely difficult to predict or save for sporadic/random government decisions.

    TLDR - Both holding a job & investing carries risk (neither are guaranteed). People should realise this and save money for times like this.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:09
      -4

      Nobody on either side predicted a global pandemic in 2020.

      Housing is a basic human right. Investment income (rent) is not.

      • echizen on 01/04/2020 - 14:22
        +17

        Housing at other people's expense is not a basic human right. If it was, then you're quite welcome to go to a homeless shelter. Taking/Using without paying is what I call stealing. How about I go to your place and take whatever I want from you without asking?

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:42
          -3

          Well you better take up your "stealing" argument with your federal member. You'll get laughed out of their office.

        • tsunamisurfer on 01/04/2020 - 15:42
          +9

          Exactly…housing is a human right therefore I will take 'your' house?

          WTF.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 09:01
            -1

            @tsunamisurfer: Nobody is 'taking' anything. It's a temporary restriction on evictions due to a global pandemic.

            • AuSlade on 02/04/2020 - 18:03
              +4

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: The ability to live rent free is taking something without paying for it, therefore, theft.

              Go walk into your local KMart, Target, Big W, David Jones, Myer, where ever (that is left open) and take some clothing off the shelf. Walk out with it, proclaiming loudly that you're only going to use it for 6 months and will bring it back. Make sure to let them know you have been stood down from your job and cannot afford to pay, and you'll be back next week for more clothes.

              I'm sure no one will mind at all, especially if let them known that the PM said it's fine.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 20:14
                -2

                @AuSlade: It's not rent free. It's a deferral. Shall I grab a dictionary?

                Why is every populous nation in the world offering similar deferrals to their citizens?

      • DaneD on 01/04/2020 - 14:28

        You also failed to acknowledge the basic premise of my argument 1. that jobs or rent are not guaranteed in perpetuity and therefore that both tenants & landlords should save money.

        Secondly, you are correct accommodation is deemed a basic right. But you fail to consider what level of accommodation is a basic right and what is surplus to this right. For (example) is an inner cityish dwelling (depending on where you live) in costing $600-800 p/w a basic right, a $300-500 p/w home in the burbs a basic right, or is a homeless shelter providing accommodation a basic right?

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:43
          +1

          I acknowledged your premise in my very first sentence.

          I disagreed with your reasoning. Protecting 2+ million Australians far outweighs any investment loss.

          • DaneD on 01/04/2020 - 15:02
            +3

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: The fact that no one predicted COVID19 is a somewhat irrelevant. If tenants are already unable to pay their rent (what are we like 2 weeks in from major job cuts / forced closures) then ANY temporary loss or disruption of income would have placed the in exactly the same situation. So they simply had nil or very minimal savings going back to my first point if they had savings this could be mitigated.

            The issue that (most) posters seem to have is with the policy. If the government wished to subside tenants then they could have directly subsidised them but instead pushed the risk & cost directly onto landlords. It is hard to argue that this is equal to both parties.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 14:10

      Property managers doing work? Lol. Good one :)

      Their average day consists of SMSing a tenant to remind them of their rent due date, spending 20 mins driving to a rental for an inspection, and forwarding emails from the tenant to the LL and vice versa :)

  • TEER3X on 01/04/2020 - 14:06
    +8

    Looks like there's a lot of tight arse landlords on ozb

    • echizen on 01/04/2020 - 14:18
      +4

      And there are also alot of bludgers here too.

    • GoldenDragon888 on 01/04/2020 - 14:22
      +2

      Opposite on the AusFinance subreddit. Though realestate investment is looked down on over there.

  • cainen on 01/04/2020 - 14:11
    +5

    I am a commercial tenant and my shop has been forced to close down through no fault of my own. I can no longer trade for the foreseeable future and my rent is around $10k a month. How long do you think I would last if I had to pay full rent whilst having literally zero turn over. I might as well close the shop for good and layoff my 6 staff. Multiply that by the 100's of thousands of other businesses in the same boat and you have an even bigger economic disaster than now once the virus passes and the welfare dries up. I don't particularly care about the no eviction thing - if I come out the other side of this owing $50k in rent I'll put it into administration and walk away.

    Any commercial landlord that thinks they're clever by continuing to charge full rent to their retail tenants (other than supermarkets etc which are booming) while the government has told people to not leave their houses is a shortsighted idiot. And any tenant that thinks they can just not pay anything for 6 months without consequence also needs to wake up to themselves. Everyone has to suffer together to come out the other side alive.

    Fortunately I am 99% certain there will be some kind of mandated rental relief.

    • wimphrel on 01/04/2020 - 15:38
      +1

      I'm a residential landlord, and I don't understand why commercial landlords aren't able to reduce rents to keep businesses afloat.
      I mean 'some' money is better than 'no' money right? I don't think they'd find new tenants that easily in the next 12 months to be honest.

      And if you're wondering, yes I've approached my property managers already to say I'm willing to negotiate rent reductions early if there's any signs of income-loss from the tenants (i.e. before tenants go broke).

    • Tasmaniac on 01/04/2020 - 15:50

      Have you looked into the doctrine of frustration of purpose ?. If your not obtaining any benefit from renting the property then you may be excused from performing.
      I might be way off, that's just my understanding though.

    • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 19:49
      +3

      I do think commercial tenants are in a completely different situation where it has been made actually illegal by the government to use the property they are leasing for it's intended purpose, so commercial tenants are going to be outraged by having to pay any rent (regardless of whether they can afford to), whereas residential tenants are still using their property and expecting to get it for free even if they have no hardship.

  • echizen on 01/04/2020 - 14:14
    +1

    If the government wants to help people, go help them with the funds they have already collected off taxpayers. What the government is doing is STEALING from people who worked hard to try to better themselves. So you give to the renters, but who's to help those who struggle to pay their mortgages etc? The banks? Hah! it's only for Owner-occupied. STEALING, that's what this disgusting inept government is doing instead of fixing the real problem. You want to help, then help but not by Stealing. And here I thought China was bad, but at least they didn't steal from their own citizens.

  • No ONE on 01/04/2020 - 14:28

    It's a can of worms.

    Everyone is 50/50 on it.

  • hikaru78 on 01/04/2020 - 14:40
    +8

    I had a chat with a real estate agent today as I've been stood down. Advised them that as far as I'm concerned I will still be paying rent and asked what the process for renegotiating rent was. I told them I will continue paying until I can no longer sustain then we will renegotiate. They have a rent roll of about 700 and have already started getting people who are refusing to pay ant rent at all. over 50 apparently

    The policy is crap and lacks information

    What I think will happen is that people will use this as an excuse to pay nothing and wind up owing $$$ at the end of the six months get evicted and wind up on TICA.

    Some people are short-sighted

    Just because you can't pay your rent doesn't automatically release you from your obligations. grown-ups sit down and negotiate reductions and payment plans I personally find the idea people expect to pay zero mind-blowing

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/04/2020 - 18:37
      +1

      Just because you can't pay your rent doesn't automatically release you from your obligations. grown-ups sit down and negotiate reductions and payment plans I personally find the idea people expect to pay zero mind-blowing

      Literally nobody is suggesting this. All the landlords are saying this in this thread en masse.

      • hikaru78 on 01/04/2020 - 19:26
        +2

        like I said I spoke to my agent this morning out of a roll of 700 fifty have said they won't be paying rent anymore

        • GUYANDSON on 01/04/2020 - 22:29

          There's job losses all over the shop. Let's look at the time frames here, I'd say a month would be optimistic before a newstart/jobseeker application gets fully processed given centrelink's understaffing.

          Details for the job keepers program are still slim and they are still nutting it out but with a view to start processing payments May 1. Business will likely know/get confirmation of eligibility for it within the next week or two.

          1-4 weeks at the least before a person who was let go due to the virus knows whether or not they'll have any form of income. That's already on top of the 2/3 weeks where businesses were shuttering off staff.

          For the person living paycheck to paycheck, 3-7 weeks+ is a very long time to not have any income. For the more established, that would likely be long enough to seriously drain whatever savings they have. There's uncertainty on all sides here but I'd bet heavily on that out of those 50 the majority will be back on their feet within the next month or two and will be back paying rent. Only a handful will have gone the full 6mo without sending a single dollar out.

          • hikaru78 on 02/04/2020 - 08:15
            +1

            @GUYANDSON: I process a centerlink application as a fallback when I got stood down. 2 weeks processing.

            some people will be good and make arrangements and renegotiate in good faith. which is what everyone should do.

            the point I don't like about the policy is there is no detail.

            there are some people before this was even announced who were running around with the #rentstrike. I know personally people who intend to use this as a reason to pay zero. they also expect to not have to pay any of it back at the end of the six months.

            remember once they get benefits they also are likely to qualify for some rent assistance so the idea they should be paying zero baffles me. if you get rent assistance thats not more money for you to spend that should go to paying your rent. this is also backdated and back payed to your application date

            people here saying housing is a basic right. where do you draw the line. surely someone living in a 1000 a week property fails the basic right test?

            with everything the devil is in the detail.

            all the government seems to be doing to putting out headlines to make people go away but there is zero actual detail.

            most people will be good, make sacrifices, adjust their budget and spending. these people will be fine.

            the people who expect the government to pay for everything without any changes to their standard of living whilst in the minority are they ones who will make this a bad idea.

            the way I see it there is no reason to pay zero rent for six months.. if you pay nothing you should be kicked out. if the landlord has to reduce rent to get a second tenant in thats a decision for them to make for their property. in these cases we are forcing the landlord to 100% take zero. where the landlord if they kicked the person out the at least have the opportunity to find a new tenant. sure finding a new tenant may be hard but I'd I owned something its my choice.

            the idea of a eviction morotorium is fine as long as they hash out the actual detail. as it stands nobody knows exactly what it means.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 09:03

          like I said I spoke to my agent this morning out of a roll of 700 fifty have said they won't be paying rent anymore

          Won't or can't due to job loss/stand down?

          Latest prediction is 2+ million are out of work. That's approx 8% of our population.

          50 out of 700 is 7% :)

          I'd side with can't.

          • hikaru78 on 02/04/2020 - 09:35
            +1

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: the point I am making is becuase the policy is so lacking in information there are people who expect to pay zero for 6 months and have it written off.

            can we agree on these things. if someone goes on benefits and gets rent assistance people should at the very least pay that in rent?

            people should make adjustments to their standard of living and reduce costs and make an effort to contribute to their obligations.

            people don't realise that the banks aren't freezing the loans. they are deferring payments. this goes onto the principle amount and then you have to pay interest on it as well. the pain should be shared.

            I am all for people making a conscious effort to reduce their living costs and renegotiating in good faith.

            what I'm not a fan of is I lost my job so I won't pay rent at all for six months.

            and before you say anything I know of people who absolutely intend on paying zero over the next six month who expect it to just be written off. by failing to articulate the detail this is what you get

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 10:19

              @hikaru78:

              the point I am making is becuase the policy is so lacking in information

              …because it's not policy yet. You do realise this, right?

              Your outage is completely premature.

              • hikaru78 on 02/04/2020 - 11:14
                +1

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: thanks for skipping over my post.

                they announced a policy without detailing. thats a problem.

                I know people who based on the announcement have stopped paying rent and have the expectation the won't be liable for it at all. no details makes things like this happen.

                I do like how you didn't answer any of my questions
                1. rent assistance should be not be kept by the tenant agree or disagree?
                2. how do you define basic human right. surely a $1000 a week apartment in the middle of the CBD doesn't count.

                when you make an announcement you should provide detail otherwise people will make assumptions rightly or wrongly to suit themselves.

                some people think I am pessimistic and think the worst. people have outright said that's what they intend to do based on the announcement

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/04/2020 - 13:14

                  @hikaru78: I didn't skip over your post. I skipped your blatant hypotheticals and heresay "I heard something from someone who's an agent who heard something from a tenant" that you purport as fact. When it isn't.

                  when you make an announcement you should provide detail otherwise people will make assumptions rightly or wrongly to suit themselves.

                  Because those imbeciles are reading OzBargain and the Herald Sun for their information - instead of the official treasury updates that specifically state the policy is being nutted out and the next National Cabinet meeting is today and next Wednesday :)

                  All their fear mongering when the exact potential issues being raised are no doubt being discussed in those Cabinet meetings.

                  • hikaru78 on 02/04/2020 - 14:05

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: It not a blatant hypothetical.

                    There are two people I personally know who have decided on the basis of the announcement that they will no longer be paying rent. They honestly believe they are entitled to live rent-free for 6 months and shouldn't have to pay it back at the end.

                    Some people are good.. there are also people in the real world who are self-entitled and expect everyone in the world to suffer just not them.

                    Like I have said it's stupid to announce a policy without announcing the details.
                    Leaves it open for people to assume

                    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/04/2020 - 10:14

                      @hikaru78: Hypothetical - involving or being based on a suggested or fictional idea or theory

                      2 peeps telling you they aren't paying rent ≠ 2+ million Australians out of work not paying rent.

      • aboogee on 01/04/2020 - 22:40

        I think the poll asks about the quality of policy that was set by the government.
        I agree that people should have basic rights to housing
        But a poorly formed policy would be subject to abuse

        Given the current environment I don’t think landlords gain anything evicting tenants. Do you they stand a better chance looking for a rent paying tenant who needs to also fork out 4weeks bond upfront? So it’s a lose-lose situation of eviction happens. Knowing that, what’s the best solution to keep both sides going.

        Going back to the poll, the moratorium as it stands, without further details, is a half thought through policy. There would be a middle ground where it’s fair for both parties.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join