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

  • Duram on 05/04/2020 - 15:57
    +3

    My dividends have decreased, shit happens. Investments carry risk, don't invest if you can't handle potential down turns or legislative changes.

    • bargainparker on 05/04/2020 - 16:03

      As if people think of that. It's not like living in third world countries.

      • Duram on 05/04/2020 - 16:04
        +1

        Last year it was franking credits, this year it's land Lords next year it's god knows what. As I said all investments carry risk.

    • funnysht on 05/04/2020 - 18:37
      +2

      Do you hear LL complaining about real estate prices decreasing because of this…or complaining that the gov is bascially forcing them to give out charity.

      To put it simply, it's like saying your dividends have now been taken by the gov for the next 6 months to pay for other ppl.

      • Duram on 05/04/2020 - 18:52
        +2

        As I said legislative risk. Governments can and will do their best to screw up our investments. Unfortunately land Lords decided to use housing as an investment vehicle, the government has decided that having a bunch of homeless people is more risky then having land Lords carry the load for a few months.

        I didn't ask the government to force businesses to shut down and lower my dividend return but I'm also not crying foul because I haven't leveraged to the wall because it's unsafe to do so.

        This is a lesson for everyone to decrease their risks in the future.

        • funnysht on 05/04/2020 - 18:54
          +2

          Let's be clear here….The government did not lower/take your dividend return. I wonder how you would feel if the gov actually took your dividends.

  • Jumpup on 05/04/2020 - 20:42
    +7

    This is the dumbest PM, makes no sense.
    Landlord here, early 30s, worked very hard and saved every dollar to buy an investment property and work part time to look after my child.
    Everything was fine until this stupid PM made this rule.
    My job is at risk we have no work but I can’t claim Centrelink because of the Asset test.
    My tenant is on the dole and got double income for no reason and wants free rent now.
    I’m absolutely doomed. I never thought this would happen in Australia WTH!
    Yes I planned for risk as in getting made redundant but not when I have a 12 months lease and insurance policy in place. Can’t even claim insurance now.
    We are left to die now and others are having a party at my expensive.

    • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 20:48

      You will be eligible for the JobSeeker payment. Asset test doesn’t apply.

      • Jumpup on 05/04/2020 - 20:50

        Are you sure that Asset test doesn’t apply?

        • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 20:52

          Yeah for sure mate. Was announced. Give it a search. Will try and find a link for you now.

          Edit: Confirmed here: https://www.business.gov.au/risk-management/emergency-manage…

          • Jumpup on 05/04/2020 - 21:08

            @Pratty: Doesn’t look like I can apply.

            “Income testing will still apply to the person’s other payments, consistent with current arrangements”

            Proving my job is gone is easy but how about tenant not wanting to pay ?

            • Pratty on 05/04/2020 - 21:15

              @Jumpup: Mmm interesting. Not sure on that one. I suppose you’d just have to apply and see what the decision is. No use trying to ask them a question first… by all reports they’re completely overloaded with enquires. Hope it works out for you.

    • horice on 05/04/2020 - 20:57
      +2

      Congratulations on being

      The Last Greater Fool in the Great Australian Ponzi Home Prices to the Moon Scheme!

      No doubt you out bid the other Infestors and took advantage of much Taxpayer Moneys

      Good luck in your next Business en devour

      Maybe this is the correction to bring Home and RENT prices to some sort of sense

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 05/04/2020 - 22:56
      +1

      Jumpup i feel for you man i honestly do the best thing you can do now is refuse any drops in rent and over no maintenance on the property until rent it upto date however with evictions gone if you cant afford the property you will be forced to sell i hope that isnt the case but if ti is you wont be the only one

    • Eeples on 10/04/2020 - 09:51
      +2

      The risk was buying an investment property.

      You might be able to access your Super.

      Job keeper should be available to you.

      Your tenant should still be paying some rent.
      They ought to owe you the rent they haven’t paid you.
      Just because you can’t kick them out doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pay you rent or owe you rent.

      Were they on the dole before ?
      If not they should get jobkeeper too.

  • chiefbodge on 05/04/2020 - 23:43
    +5

    Ok so my take on it as someone who doesn't have skin in this game (owner occupier and owner of a commercial building but not a renter or property investor):

    • Commercial landlords: If you are a shopping centre owner or any other retail type landlord you should be negotiating with your tenants and be prepared to take a decent hit, if you don't you're stupid. Having an empty shopping centre at the end of this is not going to do you any favours at all so it's in your best interest to spread the pain, causing your tenants to go broke would look very bad for your centre in the long run.
    • Residential landlords: This is a bit more complex, I don't think residential landlords have a right to never have a distressed tenant, this is part of the risk of being a property investor and something that should be factored in before investing.
      Investing is never a risk free exercise, however if your tenant is still employed or receiving jobkeeper then I don't think they have any right to not pay rent. If they have lost their job and only have jobseeker payment as an option then depending on the price of the rental it may be appropriate to consider reducing their rent by an amount you can afford or at least letting them defer some of it. In most cases eviction would not be in the LLs interest anyway because good luck finding another tenant during this crisis.

    In summary investments have risks and just like business owners and employees are being hit massively hard I don't think landlords, especially commercial landlords should / will be immune to this pain. I do think that we have created a worrying narrative in this country about investing in property and how it's as "safe as houses" without anyone thinking about the consequences of believing that property is 100% safe. This has potentially created a culture of entitlement around property that it should be something that never losses anyone any money.

    • Pratty on 06/04/2020 - 07:57

      Agree with you. Logical and accurate. Backs are against the wall (in some cases) and knives are being thrown. It’s showing the illogical and selfish sides of all people. Investments, in houses or otherwise, are not guaranteed to make money. Simple as that really.

      Also isn’t it interesting how rational people can be (your response being a great example), even in the face of your own adversity? Good people can take a moment to consider other people’s perspectives. Many of you could learn a thing or two. This situation is bigger than yourself and your property. People have become so self-centred (not just LLs, by the way) and it’s a disheartening look at our society.

      • funnysht on 06/04/2020 - 09:27
        +3

        Chief you raise some valid points but …no landlord here is complaining about house prices going down. They're complaining that the gov has asked them to keep their business open, at a loss and still pay council/water rates/fees.

        ..it's easy to call people selfish, illogical, and self centered and ask ppl to be charitable when it's not your money.

        I wonder how you'd feel if there was a 40% levy coming out of your paycheck each week to pay for allowances. Still charitable and on your high horse I assume?

        • chiefbodge on 06/04/2020 - 09:50
          +1

          It really sucks I agree but the alternative is seeing people kicked out on the street, we just can't have that.

          I've been a business owner for 15 years and this is the worst I have ever seen it, it's really hard right now for businesses. If my customers don't pay at the moment I can cut them some slack because thankfully just like landlords I can call up the bank and ask for a deferment on my loans.

          Pretty sure councils will be offering rates deferment etc.. as well.

          My point is that landlords, especially commercial ones can't realistically expect business as usual with their usual incomes. Sure you might be lucky to have an unaffected tenant but if you don't then just like any other business there's going to be pain. A non-essential retailer, especially one that is forced to close by the government just wont have the funds to pay their lease, that's the reality and evicting them just makes the problem worse for everyone involved in my opinion.

          Thanks to generous government handouts most residential landlords should be unaffected but those that are whilst I feel sympathy that's the risk of "doing business" so to say. Business owners are used to changes to government regulations affecting their businesses, it's a regular thing. Historically property investors have been immune from this (look at negative gearing for example, anyone who tries to remove it has a political death wish).

          Interest rates are at record lows right now which increases landlords margins quite decently as well - landlords don't generally drop rents when interest rates drop so over the last few years most landlords will have seen an increase in profits from their investments which puts them in a good position to weather this.

          • funnysht on 06/04/2020 - 09:55

            @chiefbodge: I don't think there is only one alternative. There are better ways the gov could handle this, including having a sole rental allowance that goes direct to paying the rent.

            The problem is these generous gov handouts are going straight to tenants, and some unscrupulous tenants are not asking for a sensible rent reduction.

            • chiefbodge on 06/04/2020 - 10:09
              +3

              @funnysht: I totally agree that anyone not acting in good faith should still be able to be evicted, maybe the government needs to tweak the message a bit. There's no excuse for example to stop paying rent, maybe temporarily for a few weeks if you've lost your job and are waiting for jobseeker payment to land but that's about it.

              There's going to be examples of tenants / landlords / businesses / employees all trying to take advantage during these crazy times but I do think that most people are decent and wont try to rort this. I think those that do will certainly end up penalised when this is all over (whether that's via an empty house / bad rental reference etc..).

      • funnysht on 06/04/2020 - 09:44
        +2

        Pratty, by your previous comments you seem to relishing in the situation experienced by some landlords. That my friend is the real disheartening fact.

        • juzz88 on 06/04/2020 - 10:16
          +4

          Tall poppy syndrome. My generation (Gen Y) seem to be the worst too. We've been given just about every advantage imaginable, yet many still think we've been given the short end of the stick. Cue someone saying "we can't afford to buy a house" (in the yuppie suburb of our choosing).

        • Pratty on 06/04/2020 - 10:16
          +1

          If it has come across that way, it is not my intention. It’s all about the approach of the LL and the way things are being written. I get that tensions are high right now, but surely there’s a better, kinder way to proceed without demonising all tenants (or all landlords). To me, it’s showing a cruel side of people (tenants and LLs) and that is what is concerning.

  • T1OOO on 06/04/2020 - 10:22
    +1

    if landlords evict tenents, who dot hey think they will rent it out too? no one? or other poeple evicted ?

    • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 20:05
      +4

      no pay , no use.

  • poochi on 06/04/2020 - 10:41
    +3

    Landlords complaining about fairness when they've been subsidized for decades by the taxpayer through negative gearing?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 06/04/2020 - 10:43
      +4

      This is more a Victorian argument but i would argue that stamp duty accounts for 40-60% of the state governments revenue….. LL paid there fair share of tax

    • juzz88 on 06/04/2020 - 11:15
      +7

      You're assuming that all landlords are negative geared, they're not. Also, the taxpayer is not subsidising anything with negative gearing, it just means landlords are not overpaying in tax.

      Negative gearing means if you make a loss on your investment, it reduces your income. e.g. If someone makes $100k per year working full time, but loses $10k on their investment, they only pay tax on $90k (a whopping $3,700 tax refund - but they are still $6,300 out of pocket). It's no different than if a company sells Product X for $1M profit and Product Y for a $100k loss, they only pay tax on $900k.

      You can't pay tax on negative income.

      • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 06/04/2020 - 11:31

        What a load of rot. Negative gearing allows speculators to reduce their personal exertion income tax, all the while they'll get a 50% discount on the profits when they sell.

        Tax losses should form part of the asset tax base, not be allowed to reduce the personal exertion income tax of the wealthy. What you've said would be dismissed by any disinterested person who understood the fundamentals of taxation.

        • GoldenDragon888 on 06/04/2020 - 12:51
          +1

          I wonder how many of these landlords (negatively geared ones) also complain when companies pay next to nothing in tax?

          • juzz88 on 07/04/2020 - 08:07

            @GoldenDragon888: Paying no tax means they made a loss. Same logic applies. Year 1 - make $1M, pay $300k tax. Year 2 - lose $1M, pay no tax. Year 3 - make $700k, you're still $300k in the hole from last year, pay zero tax. Year 4 - make $500k, pay $60k tax. In the last year you only pay tax on the last $200k, because the first $300k is still making up the loss from Year 2. Nothing unreasonable about this at all.

        • juzz88 on 07/04/2020 - 08:23

          "Tax losses should form part of the asset tax base". In either case, the loss still reduces the investor's tax burden eventually. It just means the tax payable upon sale of the property will be lower, in favour of slightly higher tax ($3,700 in the above example) during holding years. But it will be the same amount of tax saved at the end of the day.

          "What you've said would be dismissed by any disinterested person who understood the fundamentals of taxation." Alright buddy.

      • redslert on 06/04/2020 - 16:16
        +1

        Taxpayer is subsidising negative gearing.
        Australia budget requires $x, with negative gearing ATO is receiving less money, as per your example $3700 less. To compensate other areas needs to be taxed higher.

        • zealmax on 07/04/2020 - 07:18
          +2

          You made a loss of 10k. Somebody made a gain of 10k. In most cases the banks. They will be liable for the tax. I personally don't like negative gearing. At the end of the day you are making a loss. Also I find it hard to believe that significant number of investors think depreciation is free money. When you depreciate the IP you will end up paying more CGT when you sell.

        • juzz88 on 07/04/2020 - 08:15
          +1

          It's not subsidising, you would be overtaxing without negative gearing. If you lose $10k, you should pay $3,700 (depending on your tax bracket) less in tax. Otherwise you're taxing somebody on $100k worth of income, when they only made $90k.

  • OzCheapo on 06/04/2020 - 12:38

    OP you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Moratorium. Tenants will have to pay rent due when the Moratorium is over so as the landlord, you're not missing out on rent or at least not supposed to. It is possible with the loss of jobs and the struggle with the economy that you will lose out on income.

    At the end of the day, you chose the tenant so hopefully the tenant will be a fair dinkum bloke or gal and pay what is owed. If you have rent default insurance, you may be able to claim on that. The Moratorium is not happening because we're trying to reduce ourselves to a communist state but rather because in case you haven't noticed, COVID-19 put a lot of people and businesses literally out of business. And out of life.

    Would you rather (big generalisation here but) a society where there is high unemployment and homelessness which increases the spread of the virus as there are more contact potentials with infected people or a society where there is people who are able to struggle but survive and more control over the virus by keeping them in homes.

    At the end of the day, Australia is in the most part, a democratically run country. If you don't like it, you can go to America with no universal healthcare and a president who cares more about his vanity than the community. Or you can wait until the next election to boot the mob out, as they say. It's not the ideal solution for everyone but it is a compromise which many Australians can stomach, albeit bitterly on a temporary (6 month) basis.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 06/04/2020 - 12:43
      -3

      Moron comment on of the year 'hopefully the tenant will be a fair dinkum bloke or gal and pay what is owed.' - No sh!t but the problem is every single one that isnt 'fair dinkum' has a legal way to rot the system for a stupidly long period of time. So far my tenants have all been good but i know ALOT of other LL that this policy might sink and to hide stupid policy making behind COVID19 is just a joke..

      As for your commet you have totally misunderstood or just blatantly not read my post i honestly cbf even explaining it too you read a few other comments get the jist over why a 6 month ban on evictions is a bad policy FOR ALL - if you dont understand that then ignorance is bliss i guess

      As you said we live in a democratic country which doesnt give the right to fcuk people over because they cant run a country this isnt China or Russia.

      • OzCheapo on 06/04/2020 - 12:49
        +1

        Rather than venting your problem out on the biggest cheapskate forum in the Southern Hemisphere, try to negotiate with your tenant - Yes, that's right. Did you or did you not approve of the tenant when presented by the RE Agent?

        And to answer your question, yes, there is a legal way to postpone paying rent, but not everyone is a selfish scumbag.

        • funnysht on 06/04/2020 - 13:43
          +3

          Yes i approved of the tenant.

          But i did not get a chance to approve/disapprove this moratorium and ironically you're the one saying this is a democratic country.

          You can't claim on insurance if you can't evict. If you're callling OP selfish…why don't you stand up and be willing to share your pay check with the tenant to pay his rent ?

          • OzCheapo on 07/04/2020 - 03:27
            +1

            @funnysht: Because I'm OzCheapo not Bill Gates or Mother Theresa. Besides I have enough mouths to feed at the moment :| and Australia should never be a soup kitchen.

            If we had a referendum on every policy change we wouldn't get anywhere. You'll be able to vent at the next election.

            Yes, it's not great for the landlord but from a public health and economy standpoint, it is a considered response, even if not ideal for all sides.

            As a business owner, I rather take a temporary hit so we can all get back to making the community a wealthier and safer place. The alternative is makeshift morgues in the CBD and worrying whether family and friends are exposed to COVID-19 every time they go out. But that's just a personal opinion.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 13:28
            -2

            @funnysht: "WhY dOnT yOu ShARe YoUr PaY ChECk wItH My TeNanT"

            I'm loving how this is the only comeback thrown around by certain members on here.

  • abuch47 on 06/04/2020 - 20:56
    +1

    Next on buried alive: wealth hoarders

  • poochi on 06/04/2020 - 20:57
    +1

    Let's be honest here. Even if you could evict tenants, how easily can you find another tenant in the current environment? Whoever is looking to rent would be able to dictate rental price.

    Just think of the current situation as your tenant minding your property for you that would otherwise sit empty for months :)

    • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2020 - 22:23
      +4

      how easily can you find another tenant in the current environment?

      If we flip that: How easily can a tenant find another property (that they'll want to live in) in the current environment?

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 13:32
        -4

        Not easy at all. 10-30% have no income and will rely on a government subsidy. 1% (still a huge amount of people) are estimated to not qualify for any subsidy at all.

        I bet you super savvy investor Landlords on here would absolutely consider a rental application by someone on a subsidy NOT.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 16:50
          -2

          Really, so by the negs I take it I was wrong - Landlords WOULD accept new tenants on a subsidy!

          ….so why wouldn't you keep your existing tenants on a subsidy?

          • ozhunter on 08/04/2020 - 17:53

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: If I was as LL, I would be open to it.

            If I had a house up for rent for $400/w and now I only get applicants that are willing to pay $200/w, I'd probably take it. Having an investment house with no tenants is the last thing LL want. Receiving some rental income is better than none at all.

            That said, if the tenant doesn't pay the agreed price, I still should be able to kick them out.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 18:06

              @ozhunter: So you're happy to boot someone out, just to get in a new tenant that has the same odds of "not paying rent for 6 months" that all the Landlords on here are fear mongering about?

              • ozhunter on 08/04/2020 - 18:35
                +1

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: You make it seem like all LL would evict their tenants the second they are able to.

                I would definitely think twice about evicting a tenant during these circumstances, because if I did, it would be hard to find a better tenant considering so many people are out of work and are on welfare.

                It could be weeks before finding another tenant and I may have to reduce the price. It's a choice a LL has to make, and due to the eviction process and finding a new tenant, the LL would probably just try to compromise with the current tenant.

                Would I drop the rent from $400 to $200? Probably not. $400 to $300? Yes, maybe $275 as that would be half the jobseeker payment.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 18:49

                  @ozhunter:

                  You make it seem like all LL would evict their tenants the second they are able to.

                  Have you been reading the comments on here? lol

                  Many screaming about evictions being prohibited.

                  • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 21:29
                    +2

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: The issue isn't with tenants who are legitimately unable to pay now, but will do so when they are on their feet. It's only fair that they'll pay back the amount in arrears at a later date when they can afford to do so. Landlords also know that tenants can apply for Centrelink (or a "subsidy") and that the household can potentially "earn" a significant amount that is more than enough to cover the rent amount. So I'd say it's fair that rent reductions are not required in that case. However, landlords may agree to reduce the rent amounts to help tenants figure out their cash flows in the short-term if the landlord can afford to either shoulder or waiver the difference. It's a case by case basis and it's up to the landlord. Communication is key. If you're ineligible for any "subsidies" then talk to your landlord. But know that you still have a legal obligation to pay.

                    The issue is with the opportunists who won't pay now or perhaps later, or who want a rent reduction "just because".

                    If the landlord can't (or won't) reduce the rent, for whatever reason (their house, their say), then the tenant is free to leave and find another property that is within their budget. There's no moratorium on occupancy. For the opportunists, I'd say: think about what happens after 6 months. Do you want to lose the tenancy and/or risk getting blacklisted on TICA?

                    If LLs know that the current climate is difficult, then it is in their best interests to be fair.
                    If tenants know that the current climate is difficult, then is in their best interests to be fair.

                    And to the original comment of this thread, no, the tenant is not in a position to "dictate" the price. They're free to leave :)

                    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/04/2020 - 09:30
                      -1

                      @[Deactivated]: So, basically you're basically worried about issues that are very, very likely being discussed (The Libs are in power after all) at cabinet meetings before legislation is passed to the houses?

                      We haven't heard anything further as the JobKeeper legislation was top of their list of priorities. Their other key priority was prohibition on bankruptcies and statutory demands for 6 months, Libs need to keep their rich pals in business :)

                      Like I said. Fear mongering.

                      • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2020 - 13:06

                        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                        you're basically worried about issues that are very, very likely being discussed

                        Yes, I'm hoping they do discuss it! Why wouldn't I be? And why wouldn't any party in power discuss relevant issues affecting multiple stakeholders?

                        Like I said. Fear mongering.

                        What fear? Real/possible or imagined/impossible?

                        What do you want?

    • Livert on 06/04/2020 - 23:22
      +7

      I agree. Let the market balance itself out. We don't need stupid eviction bans.

    • ozhunter on 08/04/2020 - 17:46
      +1

      All LL would realize that and think twice before trying to evict someone. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to.

  • Dubsys on 06/04/2020 - 21:54
    -1

    You purchased a property as an investment and now your investment is going south, consider selling it if you can't afford to keep it.

    • juzz88 on 07/04/2020 - 08:30
      +8

      It's only (hypothetically) going south because the government is mandating that you lease it out for free. It's not the same thing as the market indicating that your investment is failing because nobody wants to live in your property.

      If it were market forces that caused your investment to go south, your argument would be perfectly valid.

    • Damiola on 07/04/2020 - 17:28
      +3

      can not because have tenants there who can not be evicted

      • Pratty on 07/04/2020 - 19:33
        -1

        You are able to sell a tenanted property. Is a common occurrence. Not saying you should, for the record.

        • abc123z on 07/04/2020 - 21:00
          +4

          No one is going to buy a property with a non paying tenant in there who can't be evicted. You also can't get landlord insurance now they have pulled it off the market so new investor is even less likely to buy it. If there is a mortgage you probably can't sell it for enough to cover the loan with the non payer in there so the bank won't let you sell it unless you actually default and they take it back.

    • onigirii on 07/04/2020 - 21:10
      +6

      Given it is my asset, I should be able to decide what I want to do with it.
      What I don't like about this situation is that it has somehow become landlords obligation to look after the tenants. Now if the tenant is having financial difficulties then I, as well as I hope many landlords, will be willing to help out within our capability. But that should be recognise for what it is, we are helping, not because we owe it to anyone.
      I wish the government can define the exact rules soon. There will always be people who take advantage when things are not clear. Just saw an article about a rent strike campaign being organised in VIC and NSW.

      • ozhunter on 07/04/2020 - 21:25
        +1

        Well said.

  • godofpizza on 07/04/2020 - 09:50
    +1

    Not a landlord, but one of family members is. They're received emails from their PM that tenants need to be able to prove of lost of income because of the virus and they should apply for the assistance packages from centrelink to repay their rent.

    • poochi on 07/04/2020 - 20:35
      +1

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-03/asic-warns-against-re…

      ASIC's executive director of financial services enforcement, Tim Mullaly, warned in the letter that the actions of real estates could breach the Corporations Act.

      "Tenants facing financial difficulty need sound financial guidance and potentially debt counselling. Specifically pointing them to and recommending them to consider the specific possibility of accessing superannuation is … likely to amount to a breach of the act," he wrote.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 13:36
      -2

      There is currently no legal premise requiring tenants to "prove" loss of income.

      My observations so far is that it's a pointless exercise by property managers to "look like they're doing something" to the landlord.

  • godofpizza on 08/04/2020 - 12:07
    +3

    So if the tenant is on a month to month lease, would these eviction rules still apply?

    • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 08/04/2020 - 12:10
      +2

      Yes, good question. Do notices to vacate to move in get caught up in this?

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 13:37

        It's been said repeatedly in this thread - there is no policy yet. Wait and see what the government passes in the houses. Questions like this cannot be answered yet unfortunately.

      • abc123z on 09/04/2020 - 10:28

        Yes, notices to vacate for most reasons are stopped if you look at what has been passed in Tasmania so it isn't unreasonable to think the other states will do the same.

    • ZloyKrys on 08/04/2020 - 13:45
      +5

      a NTV is not an eviction order, if a contract is over, which is what it means, the tenant has no legal reason to remain in the property.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 16:52

        A tenant can still challenge a NTV.

        • ZloyKrys on 08/04/2020 - 16:56

          on what grounds sorry?

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 08/04/2020 - 18:05

            @ZloyKrys: Have a peek

            Very complex issue.

            A fairly common issue is tenant has nowhere else to go. Tribunal will normally side with tenant - allow them extra time to source alternative accommodation.

            • ZloyKrys on 08/04/2020 - 20:44
              +3

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: No chance to even have a tribunal hearing. A landlord returning to live in their home with lawful notice period would not require a tribunal and even if a tenant demands one, it will be a waste of time and money (and tenant willpay the fees), owners entitled to live in the property they own, the 60 days' standard notice period is more than sufficient for anyoneto find an alternative accommodation. In Victoria the owner will be provided with possession order the same day and the tenant will likely to find themselves in all sorts of trouble including listing in the TICA if rent arrears are involved and legal fees to boot

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/04/2020 - 09:34
                -3

                @ZloyKrys:

                A landlord returning to live in their home with lawful notice period would not require a tribunal

                Completely incorrect.

                the 60 days' standard notice period is more than sufficient for anyoneto find an alternative accommodation.

                Happens all the time. Why do you think VCAT has a dedicated webpage to that one very specific issue?

                In Victoria the owner will be provided with possession order the same day

                Nope.

                You've basically shown to everyone you have absolutely no idea how to possession process works. Like, you didn't even bother to use Google to even attempt to sound right.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/04/2020 - 12:14
                  -2

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Haha, cheers for the negs Landlords. I'm assuming you won't be posting anything to counter the facts above (because you can't) :)

                • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2020 - 13:16
                  +1

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                  Completely incorrect

                  How do you know?

                  What if the "grounds" is insufficient?

                  edit: I just had a read. In the end if the "challenge" is unsuccessful, the tenant needs to pay the landlord's application fees.

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/04/2020 - 18:11

                    @[Deactivated]: I find it hilarious you responded and didn't read the official info until afterwards :)

                    • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2020 - 19:08
                      -3

                      @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I find it hysterical that you would respond to this "corrected" comment instead of addressing the question I posed to you in a comment above.

                      True, I didn't read properly the first time because I was simultaneously focusing my attention elsewhere.

                      • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2020 - 11:00
                        -2

                        @[Deactivated]: I find it even more hysterical (lol-worthy) that this comment was down-voted!

  • Levathian on 10/04/2020 - 10:14
    +6

    Our non-paying tenant is still refusing to pay anything, providing no proof of loss of revenue and likely isn't going to pay the rates (which is part of the rental agreement). Lawyer time?

    This decision by the pm and cabinet has screwed so many people over. It's ridiculous.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 10/04/2020 - 10:42
      +3

      Yet the media is still pushing the 'poor tenant' articles every chance it gets whoever says the media is anything but ULTRA left wing is fcuked

      I feel for you bloke i reckon the tenant is pocketing the difference and you prob wont see a $ until you boot him out in 6 months

      • Levathian on 10/04/2020 - 12:04
        -1

        It's a commercial tenancy and they're still operating as far as we can see.

        I'm hoping this tenancy code provides something for landlords in cases like this. How are we supposed to 'talk it out' when the other side isn't providing any proof and is acting in bad faith?
        It's all well and good to protect tenancies but there has to be something to protect landlords too.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 10/04/2020 - 16:46
          +1

          Generally commercial tenancies are 'more' in favour of the land lord unlike residential - however with a 6 month ban on evictions there is a good chance this 'business' is a sinking ship and will milk as much of the 6 months and bail at the end - i donno how long they have had them as tenants but if they havent been there long i wouldn't be surprised if they are just going to bail pocketing the rent you own them - and good luck getting it off them once the business is gone

          • Levathian on 10/04/2020 - 17:11

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Only been there a few months and our relationship has been mildly tenuous. Hopefully the nsw govt clarify it soon!

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/04/2020 - 07:46
              -2

              @Levathian: It's hilarious. You mention the Code of Conduct, but it doesn't appear you have actually read it. You've made 2 comments that contradict the Code. Another question you've raised is answered directly in the Code as well.

              Good "Landlord'ing" right there.

              • Levathian on 11/04/2020 - 11:12

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: They haven't actually released the finer detail so in the meantime we're left in the dark.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/04/2020 - 15:38

                  @Levathian: Don't require finer details when the proposed Code states exactly what I said above.

                  You're not in the dark. It literally states answers to all your questions. I daresay you're just unhappy with those answers.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 14/04/2020 - 12:34

              @Levathian: Ill be honest Levathian dont be suprised if these tenants do a runner you can chase them via the courts but it will likely cost you a lot more money and likely result in you not getting any of your $$ back

              It is unfortunate but without evictions you are up ship creek without a paddle but you are not the only LL who is hopefully your insurance will mitigate some of the losses

  • abc123z on 11/04/2020 - 13:36

    These are the qld government proposals (although they are presented to renters as if law already):

    https://www.covid19.qld.gov.au/the-hub/for-renters

    Any rent reduction cannot contain a requirement that the rent difference be paid back later

    Landlord is forced to agree to a new fixed term if a fixed term expires during the period (I am not sure how they plan to actually force the landlord to sign this)

  • Ash-Say on 13/04/2020 - 18:35
    +1

    It’s important to note that tenants in Queensland have no obligation to supply financial information under the latest rules announced on Thursday by Minister for Housing and Public Works Mick De Brenni.

    “Tenants are not required to pass on personal financial data to their property owner or to an agent, but they may be required to give it to the Residential Tenancies Authority,” he said.

    This is ridiculous and makes no sense. I can see lot of tenants rotting the system and not paying a cent. This is BS law where the landlord hands have been cut and they can't see any evidence from the tenants.

    • abc123z on 13/04/2020 - 18:57
      +3

      This is why landlords are forced to not agree to rent reduction and let it go to tribunal where the tribunal can see the tenants evidence and then tribunal makes a ruling.

      Tribunals will not be able to cope.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 14/04/2020 - 15:57
      -4

      @Tipu Landlords are qualified to give financial advice to tenants are they?

    • [Deactivated] on 14/04/2020 - 20:44
      +2

      In NSW, you can start the eviction process if the tenant can't prove that they've been affected by COVID-19.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/04/2020 - 20:51
      +2

      But wouldn't it be in the tenant's best interest to show that they've been financially affected by the pandemic? What other reason is there to renegotiate rent?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join