I found this article interesting, detailed application of the new laws by VCAT.
https://www.theage.com.au/property/news/a-landlord-wanted-ap…
I’m not a landlord, but if I were I’d only want the most desirable tenants, anything less and I’d be concerned.
Like any other business you don't get to pick and chose which rules you think should and should not apply to you.
You can pick and chose who you do business with though…
I’m not a landlord as I said,but what I’m saying is this has unintended consequences, one of which is people whom are disadvantaged are even more less attractive as tenant now.
I thought these laws were relatively new, didn’t realise it’s been in place for 6 years.
It's not an unintended consequence, it's the intended consequence. People shouldn't be arbitrarily kicked out of homes they're currently living in simply because the landlord has a change of heart. Once you put your property out into the rental market you have a social obligation to provide the family you are leasing the property to some stability.
And landlords are already bending over backwards to avoid letting properties to disadvantaged tenants, as the article makes abundantly clear. It's not like landlords were letting properties via the local homeless shelter and somehow now, because of this law, they're no longer doing that.
Also, there's nothing whatsoever in the article you linked to imply that the people who have been successful in using the current law are anything other than perfect tenants paying their rent in full every month. All that's happened is that they can't get a new tenancy despite actively trying for many months, meaning that being kicked out of their home would leave them completely homeless.
"People shouldn't be arbitrarily kicked out of homes they're currently living in simply because the landlord has a change of heart."
Did you read the article? The lease ended and the landlord issued a notice to vacate because the landlord wanted a family member to move in. Neither of those two factors is arbitrary. You talk shit as if the landlord broke the lease halfway through for a capricious reason.
"And landlords are already bending over backwards to avoid letting properties to disadvantaged tenants"
Because it is clear now that VCAT will sometimes not enforce a notice to vacate even where it's validly issued.
I read the same article as well. The fact that it did happen means it could happen to you and the rest of others so I don't think "law remains firmly on the side of landlords" hold any currency. This is now the issue of sovereignty.
If you read further, you will notice the two examplified tenants are unable to find alternatives, you would have to ask the question yourself as to why. I certainly picked that up and will think of that for future references.
If you read further, you will notice the two examplified tenants are unable to find alternatives, you would have to ask the question yourself as to why.
Not taking sides here but the LL's dad is also in the same boat. The father had not applied for any rentals because he expected to be able to move into his daughter’s property and didn’t think he’d be successful in the private market. (quote)
There's literally no difference between them two as applicants. Both have long term illnesses and are not considered ideal tenants. However the dad has not even applied but "April" has and been rejected. The quandry is, do you make one person homeless to help another one stop being homeless.
Except that the difference is that the dad didn't even try on the expectation that he would be able to be a tenant in his daughters property. The article also further goes on to indicate that he might be more likely to get one as he had a job and significant savings ($250k)
Interesting article.
As a landlord, you take the risk of things like this and need to make sure you understand that real estate isn't just free money forever with no downsides.
In this case it did seem like the young lady would be much worse off (homeless) and the dad did have $280,000 in savings, so it's not like it's impossible for him to find some short-term accommodation. As far as I understand it, the landlord just needs to wait out the remainder of the contract and then can evict the person and let their dad move in, so it's not exactly end of the world. Just need a bit of patience and to abide by the contracts you sign.
I'm a landlord and personally don't see an issue here. Again, you just need to actually understand what you're signing and doing and if you don't it's on you. I wouldn't have an issue taking on a person with a disability/single mum or anything unless there were concerns they may not be able to financially support themselves.
the landlord just needs to wait out the remainder of the contract
Wrong. This is victoria, where it is impossible to evict a tenant even after the lease finishes. Its not a case of the landlord attempting to end the lease early, its a case of trying to get the tennant out after the initial lease period has finished.
Correct. As a VIC landlord you have one chance to vet the tenant - the first lease. If any problems or uncertainties arise during that first lease it's better to cut the cord and then move onto another tenant at market rates. Don't get stuck in the situation this LL found herself in.
Yeah this creates a perverse incentive to evict tenants after the end of the first year over and over again. My situation below has me seriously wondering if it's worth the risk of not evicting the perfectly good tenants I have in my home when their lease is up. If I let the lease roll over all these unknown (and potentially devastating) risks fall on me, the consequences of which could cost far more than a few weeks or months of lost rent if I just got new tenants. This is obviously living up to the "evil landlord" stereotype but the way the law is written it's the only legal way to protect yourself as an owner which sucks for both owners and tenants.
It's terrible that the government has put people in this situation as it neither helps landlords or tenants and increases stress all round.
In Victoria, you cannot evict a tenant based on expiration of contract. This is a major point of difference.
Ope… gotta go out and find a tiny violin deal now, the old one is worn out from the negative gearing abolishment post.
And 100% this is a bullshit story where a typical landlord is loopholing the laws to evict someone so they can bump the rent 120% and move other tenants in. They cry “but my dad has to move in… he’s sick” but at the last minute, dad doesn’t need too and they just happen to find other tenants that will pay double the last… how “convenient”.
Apparently the LL has already tried this!
April said it was not the first possession order she had fended off before the tribunal. She said she had been handed a notice to vacate months earlier; the reason given was intent to sell with vacant possession.
If the landlord could bump the rent 120% and move others in, that means the original tenant was getting the deal of the century. Don't you think?
Guess seeing the other side of the coin isn't one of your superpowers champ.
Guess seeing the other side of the coin isn't one of your superpowers champ.
You think I GAF about greedy landlords?? I mean (fropanity) this girl, yeah, just so long as the landlord gets their cut, amirite.
Wont someone think of the landlords???
*A tiny violin plays in the distance…*
I get it. You operate off nothing more than emotion. Logic isn't your strong suit. This explains a lot of your life outcomes, doesn't it?
Logic isn't your strong suit
You clearly don't score well on empathy. Apparently, profits are the only thing that matters in life. Who cares if a woman and her teenage son are made homeless for a few dollars. Screw them for not being rich, right?
This explains a lot of your life outcomes, doesn't it?
And how much do you know about pegaxs's life to make flippant comments like this? Stop getting triggered when ONE greedy landlord is criticised, it doesn't mean all landlords (you and me) are bad.
@soan papdi: Your empathy clearly doesn't extend to the father of the landlord who also doesn't have any accomodation.
It's not the landlord's job to provide social housing.
"And how much do you know about pegaxs's life to make flippant comments like this?"
Have seen enough of the other poster's drivel.
" it doesn't mean all landlords (you and me) are bad."
The landlord in question has actually been ridiculously accommodating.
The tenant is like a barnacle, refusing to let go.
Your empathy clearly doesn't extend to the father of the landlord who also doesn't have any accomodation.
The reasons my empathy for him is reduced
- he has a part time job as a tradie where he will obviously have to meet strangers on a regular basis
- the reason for wanting to live alone is that he cannot risk getting infected due to an ongoing illness
The two don't add up. How can he continue working as a tradie if he cannot risk getting infected? Plus he has 250K in savings to show a real estate agent when applying for a rental but he hasn't even tried but prefers couch surfing. Also, the landlord has already tried evicting with intent to sell.
Given this history, this LL just seems to be trying every trick to get the tenant kicked out. The dad is the latest rouse. Who know what she will think of next.
@soan papdi: Maybe next time the landlord will learn her lesson and not rent out to no-hopers.
The fact that you think the landlord can't even move in her ailing father says a lot about your value system.
The landlord has to resort to what you call 'tricks' because the sponge tenant cries "poor me" at every opportunity.
I reserve my empathy for people who actually try to do something with their lives instead of playing victim at every opportunity. I've known adversity and I've known plenty of people who aren't useless (profanity) who have also dealt with it and moved on.
The landlord has to resort to what you call 'tricks' because the sponge tenant cries "poor me" at every opportunity.
Looks like we agree the LL is trying every possible trick.
I reserve my empathy for people who actually try to do something with their lives instead of playing victim at every opportunity. I've known adversity and I've known plenty of people who aren't useless (profanity) who have also dealt with it and moved on.
I don't know what adversity you have faced but I am glad are financially successful. However not everyone has the means or good fortune to be in a situation like yours, no matter how big or small their adversity is. Some people can be dealt a bad hand in spite of doing everything right, so just calling them no-hopers is a bit harsh in my opinion. Anyway, good luck to you.
Residential Tenancy Act section 330A has definitely changed how the order is made in VCAT. Despite from the fact of reasons on the notice to vacate, i have seen cases that half year arrears over $20k, VCAT still dont believe it's reasonable to vacate the renter.
Only advice can give to landlords is to choose a agent who knows how to choose a good tenancy.
What 20 years of shiddy policy making results in.
A country where basic necessities are the plaything of the rich.
Just do what I do - only rent to good tenants (strong financial history, good previous reference), treat them well and don't take a risk on a tenant who doesn't have a strong income profile with good financials. Pick tenants like you pick shares.
yep pick the shares that will provide the best returns. easy!
This is why I think there’s unintended consequences, LL may rather have an empty property than one that probably pays most of the time but once they are in, you lose some degree of control of your property
It is what happens when property ownership is road to riches and meant to be a one way street where landlords pay over the odds (capital wise) for an asset that yields very little.
This article terrifies me.
I have rented out my "dream home" in Victoria as I had the oppurtunity to work overseas temporarily. It's always been 100% my intention to move back into my home when I return to Australia (I continue to pay Australian taxes too). Obviously I'll provide the tenants the required notice (likely more than) and work with my agent to help them get a new property.
But these rulings say that if they are unable to get a new rental (any number of things could affect this like job loss, pets, legal issues) they could potentially prevent me from returning to my own home? That's outrageous. They say that the property owners "haven't applied for any rentals" and this counts against them. Why should it? They own the home!!! It's absolutely ludicrous that a home owner could be required to rent someone else’s rather than live in theirs because of the inability of the renter to secure accommodation due to no fault of the owner.
Makes me wonder if there are people who would rather just leave a property empty than to risk it!
Yet another potential unintended consequence in a rental shortage.
Like any other business you don't get to pick and chose which rules you think should and should not apply to you.
If you're not interested in proving homes for people start a different small business instead, or buy some shares.
This is just more real estate agent hysteria. The relevant laws have been applied a handful of times, at best, over the last six years. As a tenant it's incredibly hard to fight eviction at the best of times.
Don't worry, the law remains firmly on the side of landlords in the vast majority of cases.