No. I'm not a landlord, landlord hater or a tenant.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-25/should-heating-and-co…
Heating and Cooling Be Mandatory for Rentals? This May Cost Landlords Money
CurlCurl on 26/07/2024 - 00:31
Comments
Not quite true. That's exactly what happened when several states deregulated the market for energy. Costs went up.
Inspect the property… if it doesn't have air con, don't apply!
Just apply for properties that do (that are probably more expensive, but they have what you want).
Let the market dictate minimum standards, because some people are very happy to rent the cheapest house with no air con!
Forcing all properties to have air conditioning is not a "basic human right".
No leaks, no pests, good hot water, clean and tidy condition, insulation, security/lockable etc… yes, should of course be mandatory to have a certain level.
Comfort items (air con, dishwasher etc) is a 'feature'… not a mandatory inclusion.
Plenty of people around the world live perfectly fine without air con- a modern CONVENIENCE.But ok… lets force all properties to get it.
$5000 supply and fit for a large split system in a 4 bedroom home.
$5k over 5 years at 8.5% = $24 a week to be fully paid off.
As a landlord, I'd be increasing the rent at that property by $25pw. Simples.The government keeps jumping in and tightening things up on landlords, so they keep leaving the market.
Lack of supply = higher demand = higher rents. There are LESS properties for rent than this time 5 years ago. With landlords being unable to control pets kept on property or even to get rid of an unfavourable tenant, who in the world would rent out their property these days!Keep punching on landlords though, I'm sure it'll work out well for renters :) :) :)
And just to be clear, I'm not a landlord. No way I would be these days!
Its not just the install cost, you've then got to pay someone to come out and bag clean. Depending on your climate and how much tenants use it, that's potentially every year. For a 3-4 bedroom house thats probably adding atleast $10/week in cost if you have a split in each room.
Every landlord that leaves the market is a new person getting their own PPOR. It's brilliant! Thank you Dan Andrews
It's sad how so many people actually think that!
They really do think that the renter that couldn't afford to buy (hence renting), has now miraculously and automagically got a deposit and buys that house?Nope… that same renter, with the same low bank account, simply applies for a rental elsewhere… competing with other renters for the same property.
What has automatically happened however, is their chances of getting a place to live has now halved.
Then desperate people offer more rent for those properties to try and secure them. Then those rents become 'market rent' and then the next lot of applicants all pay more. And so the cycle goes.And people wonder why rents are now through the roof. It's not "greedy landlords"… a landlord can't just demand $1000 a week for a 1 bedroom unit. The market still sets the price. The market rent is what renters are prepared to pay. Why would a landlord discount that achievable price? They aren't a charity. I'm very thankful I got my own place (rented for nearly 20 years)… but no way on Earth I would ever rent my property out these days.
You state: a renter is too poor to be able to afford to buy, so will forever stay a renter.
You also state: you were a renter for 20 years, but somehow (through magic?) you became a homeowner.
Does not compute! Beep boop!
Some renters will rent forever, others rent while they wait for the right house to hit the market.
Investors leaving the market is a good thing for those looking to buy their first home. This is bare bones economics 101.Let's all do our part to make landlords sell up! I personally put a little super glue on the PowerPoint outlets when I'm viewing a home before auction. Every little act of landlord hate helps us all!
@railspider: Wow. I umm…. I'm not sure where to begin with all that. Your leaps of logic are, well… unique.
"Let's all do our part to make landlords sell up!"
Looks like your dreams will come true soon enough. But hey, lets not worry about all those renters who can't afford to buy, and actually need to rent out of necessity. We'll scare away all the investors in the meantime (they are already leaving in droves), and then hey presto, everyone will just buy their own properties with unicorn poop and rainbow dreams! yay!
My goodness. Your grasp on "economics 101" is not as strong as you think mate.
@UFO: Who are these Investors selling to if not new home owners? Explain it please, my simple mind cannot comprehend these sold houses evaporating into the ether.
Do they just burn them down after the landlord sells? I am so confused!
I've offered to have a split system installed at my cost and leave it when vacate the property and have still been denied by the home owner. Honestly, I'd do anything to take more control of a property away from the owner and empower the people living there as much as reasonably possible. Should this not be like the recent pet laws where a home owner can't deny it blankly anymore though?
You've got the wrong landlord or more likely your agent is not passing the message onto the landlord.
Landlords have no rights anymore regarding pets. A friend of ours owns a property and every time pets are found at the property. Flyscreens are torn to pieces and or blinds the same condition. Urine stains through the floor boards often if dogs are present.
Tenants even make structural changes to add up fences putting holes through pipes and drains resulting in major plumbing bills.
Damage usually in the thousands and VCAT won't usually take action on damage by pets, plus most landlord insurance policies exclude cover for damage by pets or limit it to the point its not enough. Landlords have no rights, all the power is for the dog.
Its another example of a new cost no one saw coming. Replacing flyscreens, blinds having to then lease the property to the next tenant realising the floors now smell permanently like dog urine. What is the point to being a residential property investor if every 12 months have to deal with that and know you can't even offer a lovely home to the next tenant?
There has to be a balance not just to ensure fair treatment of both the investor and renter but so that subsequent renters don't have to deal with stupid laws that mean they're going to get a home that has been abused by bad tenants.
@ tetsuma, Why not tell the landlord you will give them something in writing proving you are happy to pay for all and any upkeep/repairs etc as well?
Worth a try I'd say
The corollary would be should builders be forced to install heating and cooling in houses they built?
Or having proper insulation.
I'm so glad I am not a landlord or a tenant or builder.
Another stupid ill-considered Victoria thought bubble going into law. Rental prices are high enough. The government thinks it's doing the right thing but the cost will go straight onto rents. Just let the world be.. stop trying to control everything - adding controls just increases costs.
If there is a consideration of a requirement for reverse AC it sounds like a lot of landlords like to buy the 'starter homes' that they keep saying first home buyers should be buying to get their foot in the door..
The UK has a decent and safe homes standard for heating, cooling, and a few other things. The theory is it would reduce the societal burden of massively unsuitable places being used by unscrupulous landlords as housing. Decent landlords would ensure the property is fit for human habitation. Then again, decent tenants wouldn't trash places. No skin in the game for this one either way but I can see why a basic standard of suitability is needed, and why landlords could benefit from reduced damage from damp etc from unheated houses.
When government gets involved costs go up and freedom goes down…