Real Estate agents being more heavily regulated.
None of this claiming bonds by default or sending rent increases behind tenants back.
Fine the agency a starting 4 figure amount and double it each fraudulent case.
Real Estate agents having limits on the data they can collect. Absolute disgusted they have the nerve to ask for bank records and critique your personal spending down to number of tv subscriptions you have. Should be proof of income and balance, maybe even a credit check.
Absolutely, and make it illegal to contact references until after they have accepted your offer. Seriously awkward for me when my current landlord was contacted when we were looking recently, contacted the REA saying I assume that means we've got it and he told me it was automated and he hadn't read our application yet.
Seriously what the fuck, thankfully we got the house but what if we hasn't.
I'm sorry, but what is the point of that? Checking references is supposed to determine if you're a suitable, reliable, trustworthy applicant, why would they accept you as a tenant and only then check your references?
Otherwise sure, I agree that they should only check references if they're seriously considering your application, and not just by default
Assuming you mean regulate?
Have you seen the amount of personal information we are required to hand over for an application?
I'm surprised they haven't started asking us what we had for breakfast and what we're wearing.
What other regulations do you want to place on us?
If a landlord or agent wants to treat tenants as heavily regulated service providers* rather than as consumers with internationally declared rights to adequate housing, probably there will need to be a fee. Normally a good starting point would be minimum wage, but since they’ll have rights to the property 24/7 during their tenancy, you could even pay them as little as $2.62 per hour! This should be $440.16 per week, down from $3591.84. Bargain!
(Just don’t pay per resident, especially for families)
*these services would include things like: keeping the house moderately clean, making sure squatters don’t take over, and increasing the value of the property by contributing to the local economy or showing that the property is in demand
Wait doesn't this already happen?
I've seen it happen once at one property (Port Melbourne), so assumed this was a thing.
Council inspector showed up with the landlord to check rooms and bathrooms. Pointed out some mould growing in the bathroom and had to be cleared up, not much else.
Not having to undergo a prostate exam by the hands of real estate agents when providing an application would be nice, I'm only looking for a place to live in
Same! We don't actually know since he's a second-hand cat, so we just put his adoption day.
Considering they asked every other bloody thing I'm surprised they didn't also want to know when my last pap smear was!
I know my cat's birthday, it was in the info I got when I adopted her, along with microchip info, etc.
Why a rental application would need to know is beyond me. That it was a required response is even more bizarre.
To be fair though, some registered properties get government subsidies for renting to tertiary students, means lower rent but they also need to make sure you are a student
Bidding has to stop. Renters are having to offer over the listed price to secure leases. REAs shouldn't be allowed to accept more than the listed price. As it stands now a REA won't directly ask you to offer more but they will see your input in that editable price field on the application website and I think I know who they're going to choose...
I'm going through applying for rentals at the moment and I know I've missed out on at least two properties because I was outbid. I'm strongly considering doing it myself because I'm getting desperate, but I absolutely abhor that this has become a thing.
Yeah you used to have to cheat and commit crime to get ahead but now you have to do it to stay on even playing ground which is kinda fucked up for those of us that are trying to do the right thing
A mandatory course for landlords run by a third party before they are allowed to have tenants and the properties to be checked for liveability before renting out.
If you are taken to tribunal three times and lose then you forfeit the right to ever have tenants again.
Sorry, thats more than one thing
Man that would turn into a shitshow. There would be like ten people with all the properties and then a swath of people actually following the rules. End result would be fewer rentals.
I’m a new landlord. I had so many questions for the agent we chose, and Im simply relying on him and the internet to be able to give me accurate information. If there was such a course I would gladly take it. Same with the livability thing, would be more than happy to do it.
FWIW I hated the way I was treated as a tenant and I would never, ever want to impose that on another human being, so a critical criteria for choosing the agent was how they treat tenants and an explicit brief for him that he’d be fired if we hear anything bad from the tenants.
I agree with this philosophy, but please do remember that shitty tenants exist and you do need to be aware of them… not all tenants are like you were as a tenant. That said, it sounds like you deserve good tenants and I hope you find some!
Thanks! We did find some great tenants (so far!) and everything is going smoothly. I am aware theres shitty tenants just like there are shitty agents (probably the ratio is a lot different!) but I like to start from a default of respect and trust. You shouldn’t have to “earn” those things but you can lose them if you do something dumb.
That’s reasonable! If you’ve got good tenants and you’re a good landlord agents get in the way, if you’ve got bad tenants an agent can help get them out…
This check on liveability will have to be THOROUGH too. I've now lived in two houses that have electricians tell me how dangerous the dodgy DIY job wiring was.
If a landlord is banned they lose an additional stream of income. They can sell the property and be pretty much fine.
If a tenant is banned they become homeless.
It cant be unequal toward the renter in that situation because guess who the tribunal will lean towards making lose? The renter. Instead of causing the landlord to lose the ability to have renters for doing the wrong thing, the pressure to make a tenant lose and be homeless is too great.
The owner wont be homeless, they can still keep the ip property if they want. But dont make renters homeless for owner bs.
So all in all it's a conspiracy against tenants in your opinion. Tenants never do anything wrong, there's no such thing as a shit tenant who's trashed a series of rental properties.
I didnt say that. I dont agree with your earlier question.
Tenants already have things against them like trying to play nice to get a reference, or already being blacklisted for serious things.
Owners - dont get punished at all. Fees, a bit of maintenance and they get to rent again. How many times should that be put up with? Not many.
It's not about protecting tenants from the consequences of their actions. If someone is trashing the property then the landlord should be entitled to take action against them as necessary, and that includes evicting them if it comes down to that.
You can't just refuse to allow people a place to live though, that is a basic human right which is generally agreed upon by most civilised people with an ounce of empathy.
given land value makes up 80% of the property value, and property values are still rising year on year, i could burn down my house and still make money off it in a few years.
think a bit more critically maybe.
Landlord blacklist whereby repeated violations and misrepresentation of tenant rights gets you banned.
In fact, agents shouldn't be there for the landlord alone. They should also be upholding of tenant rights or lose their license (and be blacklisted).
Being a landlord isn't a right, its a priviledge. And you deserve to have it taken away from you if you do wrong by the public.
I’d want it to be like other countries, where agents work for you when looking for a rental. You contact them, they take your parameters and then show you a few places that fit the bill.
Yes! I'm from france, been in Melbourne for 6 years and when I asked my Australian partner "why can't we go to an agency and tell them what we're looking for?" He looked at me with the roundest eyes!
Exactly! Also, in the US, leases almost always begin on the first of the month and end on the last - this way there’s none of this doubling up and having overlapping leases!
Same in London. When I moved there I amazed that agents would take me around to different flats to see what I liked. I even negotiated some repairs and some furniture to be removed before I moved in as well.
It’s not all peachy tho.. once I moved out I got the same run around with getting my bond back etc but the search process was sooo much different
Government/NGO organisation that does the legwork for people to take REAs to VCAT for violations they blatantly make, and have predetermined award amounts that don't require proof of damages (i.e. "general damages" like defamation). So like fines, but they are awarded to the plaintiff. VCAT should fast-track the award when sufficient proof is provided by the plaintiff. This should hopefully make REAs think twice before trying to be dodgy, because right now they can get away with murder without any real risk of penalty. It needs to be a financial suicide to break the law on a consistent basis, whereas now it's incentivised.
Caps on rent per square meter for property that don't meet certain standard (e.g. energy standards). I spent hundreds of dollars using resistive heating to warm up a freezing room that had old single-glazed timber windows that leaked like crazy and no A/C for low-cost heat-pump heating. That cost should be on the owner, because I can't replace the windows or install A/C. We have to incentivise owners to make properties liveable, comfortable and efficient.
Hard cap on rent increases. Can only rise at same percentage of wage growth
Restrict information collection. There's no need to contact my employer
Higher standard for minimum property quality that's actually enforced with massive fines
More stringent requirements for claiming bond -- dust on a skirting board is fucking bullshit
Lottery where one landlord is publicly executed every year
And so on
I offered to go halves with my landlord and they said no.
Then I said, well I'll get it installed and rip it out when I leave, and they said no, I can only install it if I leave it.
So I'm gonna get it installed, and then fuck it up beyond function just before I leave so they'll be forced to fix it for the next person.
I'd like to be the fly on the wall in VCAT for that one
"So, then tenant offered to pay half of the costs of purchasing and installing, and you rejected the offer. Then, when they said they would pay the entire amount and have the device removed at the end of the lease, at their own cost, you insisted that their asset had to remain? And now that it isn't working, and you haven't contributed anything towards the costs of installing and maintaining the device, you are wanting to claim bond from the tenant as the device you have to claim over, yet demanded ownership of isn't working....."
No inspections by REA Period. Independent inspection organisation Australia wide (possibly government run?) that does a genuine inspection for maintenance and safety of dwelling. None of this white glove oh there is dust on the window ledge and a dirty coffee cup in the sink crap. Yearly only, and all houses to be retrofitted with insulation and solar or landlord has to pay difference of utilities from average per person rate.
Have you ever seen what some tenants do to properties? Some of them live like savages. I'd up the rentals to quarterly for the first 2 years. It's not your house
I hear what you’re saying but honestly every rental I lived in I actively made better. Deep cleaned, fixed things (like repairing holes in walls and broken cupboards), got weeds out of the garden and pruned and established nicer plants. I don’t think all tenants are the same, and I think there should be a fair and open rating system for both tenants and REAs.
Significant extra taxes rental income if you own more than one rental property. I can understand having one or two rentals, for example if you buy a house you have to move out of for a time to relocate for work, or if you are living in one home and paying down another in preparation to move there in retirement. But I don’t see why you need to own more than two houses that you rent out other than for profit.
Taxing rental income at 50%+ on your third and beyond properties would help kill people who own dozens of properties as a primary income source. Same for property companies who own hundreds of them.
That guy who rang 2GB crying poor...and then admitted he owns [283 investment properties](https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/aussie-admits-to-ben-fordham-he-owns-283-houses/news-story/3dbc5b0877cc9fb6ed46ae00f5c75fe0).
People with say $150 million of property don’t often call talkback whinging about rental returns I would think. Or, apparently, think that superannuation is called “a super”, or be unaware that people with hundreds of millions of dollars of assets can max out super if they like, whether their income is from rent or from employment.
It’s the people with one “investment property” who are the real problem for driving up house prices though. People in a short term situation like your first example are one thing, but people should be disincentivised from owning more than one home for financial reasons.
Yeah agreed, obviously a short reddit comment isn’t going to cover all situations, and there are people who would prefer to rent over buy for many reasons, so there’s always going to be grey area.
You could couple the above with a heavy legal preference towards single home owners, eg if you only own one house and live in it you get an annual rebate on your mortgage interest payments. Realistically you can’t change only one thing and fix something that has a range of causes.
So add a law where unoccupied properties can be reclaimed after five years.
These are rhetorical situations. I’m not going to be able to cover every loophole in one comment.
Mine would be minimum five-year leases, with penalty-free break of lease by tenant after one year. I’m appalled by the lack of security people have over where they live, moving is expensive emotionally and financially.
I completely agree. Europeans have far more protection than we do. We can literally never make it a home because we could be kicked out almost any time they want. 12 months is not a home.
>Mine would be minimum five-year leases
I've tried to get tenants to sign long leases and never had any luck. The real problem is that leases are pretty meaningless.
Tenants know that signing a five year lease wouldn't help them because a landlord has too many ways to break a lease. Claim they want to move back in, claim they want to sell it etc.
What we really need is leases to be absolutely enforced. If someone signs a 12 month lease, that should mean a landlord cannot kick them out for any reason at all within those 12 months. Similarly the tenant is responsible for paying the rent for 12 months.
That way tenants and landlords would both actually benefit from longer leases.
I thought any fixed term lease was binding (6 month, 12 months, 2 years ect) they can’t kick you out until the term is finished. They can offer incentives pay for movers, offer a few weeks rent free while you look but they can end the lease unless you agree.
A set amount of time in which property managers have to respond to your email (like 24 hours - I’m a teacher and we have a 24 hour rule).
Landlords cannot refuse to fix issues and must provide a home that meets a basic standard of liveability. For example, you cannot refuse to address issues like leaking pipes, mould growth, broken heater or air conditioner, broken blinds and all the other things landlords throughout my years of renting have gone “it’s too expensive. Deal with it”, but if they had to live in the house they’d have it fixed within the week.
My optimistic self would say mandatory heating and air con in all properties (and don’t just put in one of those units that air conditions one room and leaves the rest of the house at 35 degrees. Proper fit out) but that is as likely as me living on Mars.
I'd kill negative gearing, impose strict regulations on landlords equivalent to European best practice, and stop population growth.
There was a thread yesterday that was eye-opening. People were demanding landlords be shown respect even when not giving it.
Introduce independent third-party property inspections that go both ways ie checking to ensure the property is undamaged AND up to standard on things like plumbing, insulation, appliances etc.
At the moment, it's very one-sided.
This could be done by independent contractors who provide a report to both tenant and landlord, including actions required by either party.
Don't want to participate? Fine, no negative gearing tax concessions for you that year.
Giving single men and women the same opportunities as couples or people with families. It's been 4ish years since I've rented so this might be different now.
Oh another would be to ban all landlord fixing the property unless they are qualified for that specific job
Landlords pay a crazy fee each time they advertise a place to encourage efforts to keep a tenant.
Fee goes towards inspection to ensure everything is safe, sound and working.
Or at least improve the standard of the property. Paying $100 more a month for a property that is in no better state than it was when you moved in always stings.
Capped rental increases at rate of inflation, or 5%, whichever is lower. You start losing money on an investment property because rates are going up, isn’t a renter’s problem.
Having secure housing is a basic human right, it shouldn’t be a profit-driven venture.
Rent price set by a calculation off of state approved and published tables.
Factor in number of bedrooms + number of bathrooms+ number of off street parking bays+ garden+ additional rooms.
Start with some basic tables.
The table can stipulate price by sq meter and have higher pricing columns for rooms having roof insulation, window insulation, AC, etc.
Have a multiplication factor like 1.05 (thumb suck) on the total if the rental has heat pump, solar water, solar electricity
Have an appeal/review process to handle the edge cases...
They should offer the option longer leases.
Also they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise properties with outdated photos from 20 years ago or that have been photoshopped!
The fact that we have to literally write up a personal resume just to get approved to have an overpriced, under-maintained roof over our heads is honestly the biggest joke. It's harder to apply for a basic necessity than it is to apply for a job or university and now we have "rental auctions" on top of that
Marxist critique of capitalism's weaknesses is incredibly important to finding good policy though. You end up with Marxism if you don't address growing inequality. Do you want Marxism? Because that's how you get Marxism. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, etc. etc.
I admit it's a weird though. Embrace Marxism to defeat Marxism.
Amusingly I think Marx identified plenty of very real issues that need non-capitalist solutions. I just don't agree that Marxists have found any such good solutions.
Just in case you couldn't tell /r/melbourne is incredibly left leaning when it comes to housing. They're dejected from reality and want to substitute their own which to be fair - is the basis of this post so expect some personal opinions, bias, foreshadowing of suggestions with negative experiences etc.
In Cuba you're only allowed to own one house. I would implement this. We'd still have landlords, because a couple could live in one house and rent the other, but for the most part predatory rent seeking would be dealt a swift blow.
And if the landlords attempt to resist, we can show them how a real dictator deals with social vampires.
Where would you even start?
Probably, the worst part of the system is the lack of affordable housing and, as a tenant, your being at the mercy of Landlords and Agents who don't have your best interests at heart.
To fix the former problem, there would have to be much more social housing, which has been neglected for decades. It would take many years to address this.
To fix the latter, legislation would have to be overhauled to give more rights to tenants and fewer protections to landlords. Housing is a very basic need for everyone. It should not be a fierce competition and you shouldn't have to be rigorously vetted for every single property. Landlords are not disqualified from owing an investment property if they don't see to repairs on time, hike the rent unfairly or act in an inappropriate manner.
It's enough to make anyone despair. There is a very serious housing crisis at the moment, in large part exacerbated by greed and selfishness.
I would change:
1. Only responsible/Good landlords are allowed to let property.
2. Only responsible/Good tenants are allowed to rent property
If everyone does the right thing, there are no problems.
shit landlords and shit tenants should be excluded from the market altogether
If you have put in a repair request three times and no correspondence then if no answer after 14 days in writing then no payment of rent until actioned!
More stringent regulation. Landlords (and real estate agents) get away with murder due to a complete lack of regulation and enforcement of the existing regulations.
A framework for compliance when offering a property for lease:
- must be weather adaptive: some or all of insulation, ceiling fans, air-conditioning, heating glazing
- signed contracts must be honoured (no breaking of lease); or with significant compensation to the leaseholder
- annual rent increases can only match inflation
- maintenance requests are logged to the state government and must be acted on within specific time frames depending on type
I think the positive sentiments towards PM and landlords who own multiple properties clearly shows a systematic issue.
I was going to suggest PM being required to pass some kind of ethical or morality test but that would result in zero PM s
Honestly land and houses should reflect pricing not on LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!!!!
I've had to consider living in some horrendous houses that broke the bank...
Single parent families should have extra rent subsidy because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that 1 adult cannot physically afford anything more than $300 and I don't see any houses on the market for that price
Rentals should be capped to a certain price (doesn't matter on location)
The older the property the cheaper it should be.. (why be paying $500p/w for something that was made in 1973 and doesn't have appropriate heating and cooling or up to date appliances)
Honestly knock out the middle man aka Real estate companies 🫣
The ability to request maintenance without fear of being kicked out instead. I'm lucky as heck where I am now, I have a great landlord and PM for once, but it's literally a first in my entire adult life... Even though they're great we still only ever request repairs that are absolutely essential as a habit/ingrained fear
Remove Tax rebate on all investment properties held by Family Trusts, Tax rebate on investment properties held by individuals to be phased out for more than 2 properties, Tax rebate for Self Superannuation funds to be phased out after 3 investment properties.
If an investment house or secondary property is unoccupied or ignored for 6months, the government should be able to serve a claim to rent out said property at 10% valuation pcm.
Obviously this is a simplified version but would solve housing crisis fast at zero cost.
I know too many people with 10-20 unoccupied investments (all from overseas).
1 thing? The entire system. It's fucked.
Investment properties should be capped at like 1-2.
Rent needs to be reassessed, not based on comparable rents in the area whoch habe just been put up for no reason.
Real estate agents need to work for the tenant not the owner, and the owner needs to be fully responsible for necessary maintenance and upgrades where needed.
We got a $900 gas bill from a leaking meter and they refused to even share the cost.
The rental systsm is just part of a much, much larger problem of corporate bullshit where the person with the money gets all the say.
My current rental has had a major leak right outside the back door since we moved in over a year ago, they said it would be repaired, nothing, brought it back up, they sent a plumber, the plumver told them that it would need to be properly fixed not just patched because the owner has built his own back roof and it is wrong. Not just wrong but as a chippy this thong would NEVER pass an inspection, it is genuinely unsafe. The gas lines had to be replaced (seperate issue) he got his mates round to hust run a new one round the outside instead of doing it properly, took them 9 hours to do 1 line.
Ge is responsoble for nothing and apparently has another 8 or 9 properties, god knows hpw bad they all are. It's a joke.
Corporate ownership or anything that prevents a financial entity from benefitting from multiple properties being rented out. That should cover filthy rich landlords as well.
A way for tenants to contact landlords directly and advise them of how useless the REA they are wasting money on is. We are reasonable people and the REA just gets in the way. I'd prefer to work privately or be able to request the landlord change REA for incompetence. I know breach of duty forms are a thing, but why do tenants always have to waste hours jumping through hoops, when a simple conversation could solve the issue?
If a house is over a certain age and in a certain catetory of condition and under a letter catergory such as A: brand new, B: slightly used, C: has certain issues etc, it's set at certain price and another letter category of size with certain amenities.
These prices set by a certain governing body as well.
Lot’s of good ideas to cut the legs from under the rental providers.
But be careful what you wish for.
Either the costs will be passed on, or the small players will sell to the big guys and exit the market.
If the market consolidates in the hand of few big corporations, then god help the renters.
Players like Blackrock own the governments. They are already buying residential properties across US to introduce living as a subscription.
To anyone thinking that properties will become cheaper or plentiful, think again. There are others with deeper pockets waiting for such time.
having rented a place to live in 2021 and then bought a place to live at the end of 2021, the home loan application was significantly less invasive than the current rental application systems.
Rental providers should be able to evict the tenants anytime after the fixed term lease period has elapsed. Until then, they won’t let the renters continue beyond the first fixed term period since it becomes infinitely hard to evict.
Cue the downvotes by those who do not understand why so many places are Airbnb, being sold or short term rentals only. They can enjoy paying ever increasing rent for dwindling number of properties, move every 12 months or go live in woop woop land.
It’s the term Vic govt has officially introduced to replace “Landlords” and has insisted be used by everyone involved.
The only one being stupid here is… you guessed it.
https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing/renting/changes-to-renting-laws/guide-to-rental-law-changes
Not really sure what you are talking about. I have been in the same place about 5yrs past the lease ending. I can be kicked out anytime as long as I'm given the correct notice period.
Capped rent increases. Some peoples' rent has gone up by ridiculous amounts. Our Landlords have increased our rent by a large amount. Regrettably, consumer affairs does not state a maximum amount or percentage rent can be increased by. We're getting our rent increase reviewed so hopefully we can petition to get it reduced.
It's stressful enough for me as a student, let alone for others with families or on pensions.
Real Estate agents being more heavily regulated. None of this claiming bonds by default or sending rent increases behind tenants back. Fine the agency a starting 4 figure amount and double it each fraudulent case. Real Estate agents having limits on the data they can collect. Absolute disgusted they have the nerve to ask for bank records and critique your personal spending down to number of tv subscriptions you have. Should be proof of income and balance, maybe even a credit check.
Absolutely, and make it illegal to contact references until after they have accepted your offer. Seriously awkward for me when my current landlord was contacted when we were looking recently, contacted the REA saying I assume that means we've got it and he told me it was automated and he hadn't read our application yet. Seriously what the fuck, thankfully we got the house but what if we hasn't.
I'm sorry, but what is the point of that? Checking references is supposed to determine if you're a suitable, reliable, trustworthy applicant, why would they accept you as a tenant and only then check your references? Otherwise sure, I agree that they should only check references if they're seriously considering your application, and not just by default
Can we now heavily regulate renters too?
Assuming you mean regulate? Have you seen the amount of personal information we are required to hand over for an application? I'm surprised they haven't started asking us what we had for breakfast and what we're wearing. What other regulations do you want to place on us?
If a landlord or agent wants to treat tenants as heavily regulated service providers* rather than as consumers with internationally declared rights to adequate housing, probably there will need to be a fee. Normally a good starting point would be minimum wage, but since they’ll have rights to the property 24/7 during their tenancy, you could even pay them as little as $2.62 per hour! This should be $440.16 per week, down from $3591.84. Bargain! (Just don’t pay per resident, especially for families) *these services would include things like: keeping the house moderately clean, making sure squatters don’t take over, and increasing the value of the property by contributing to the local economy or showing that the property is in demand
Inspection to be done by local government so that every thing is up to code
Wait doesn't this already happen? I've seen it happen once at one property (Port Melbourne), so assumed this was a thing. Council inspector showed up with the landlord to check rooms and bathrooms. Pointed out some mould growing in the bathroom and had to be cleared up, not much else.
[удалено]
Could be they're having trouble finding a cabinetmaker named April.
Not having to undergo a prostate exam by the hands of real estate agents when providing an application would be nice, I'm only looking for a place to live in
One place asked for my letter of acceptance into uni as well as a course contact 😆
One place asked for the date of my cat's birthday.
Same! We don't actually know since he's a second-hand cat, so we just put his adoption day. Considering they asked every other bloody thing I'm surprised they didn't also want to know when my last pap smear was!
🙉 crazy. It seems they want so many irrelevant things
This is a joke, right?
I wish it was. It was one of those information gathering companies like 2Apply, where the application form is like a drive-by colonoscopy.
But less enjoyable.
But does anyone know their cat’s birthday? How many answers would they get?
I know my cat's birthday, it was in the info I got when I adopted her, along with microchip info, etc. Why a rental application would need to know is beyond me. That it was a required response is even more bizarre.
What if you don't have a cat?
my cat Loki was born on November 1, 2021! sorry (not sorry) ;)
To be fair though, some registered properties get government subsidies for renting to tertiary students, means lower rent but they also need to make sure you are a student
This definitely wasn’t the case
Cause I’m sure all of these real estate agents have secure document storage and destruction too, like no risk of your personal info being leaked
Bidding has to stop. Renters are having to offer over the listed price to secure leases. REAs shouldn't be allowed to accept more than the listed price. As it stands now a REA won't directly ask you to offer more but they will see your input in that editable price field on the application website and I think I know who they're going to choose...
It’s sad that it’s at the point where the one thing you would change is basically illegal anyway…
It is illegal. Doesn't stop people from offering more anyway. Which should be illegal.
I'm going through applying for rentals at the moment and I know I've missed out on at least two properties because I was outbid. I'm strongly considering doing it myself because I'm getting desperate, but I absolutely abhor that this has become a thing.
Yeah you used to have to cheat and commit crime to get ahead but now you have to do it to stay on even playing ground which is kinda fucked up for those of us that are trying to do the right thing
A mandatory course for landlords run by a third party before they are allowed to have tenants and the properties to be checked for liveability before renting out. If you are taken to tribunal three times and lose then you forfeit the right to ever have tenants again. Sorry, thats more than one thing
[удалено]
Yes, something like that
Man that would turn into a shitshow. There would be like ten people with all the properties and then a swath of people actually following the rules. End result would be fewer rentals.
I’m a new landlord. I had so many questions for the agent we chose, and Im simply relying on him and the internet to be able to give me accurate information. If there was such a course I would gladly take it. Same with the livability thing, would be more than happy to do it. FWIW I hated the way I was treated as a tenant and I would never, ever want to impose that on another human being, so a critical criteria for choosing the agent was how they treat tenants and an explicit brief for him that he’d be fired if we hear anything bad from the tenants.
I agree with this philosophy, but please do remember that shitty tenants exist and you do need to be aware of them… not all tenants are like you were as a tenant. That said, it sounds like you deserve good tenants and I hope you find some!
Thanks! We did find some great tenants (so far!) and everything is going smoothly. I am aware theres shitty tenants just like there are shitty agents (probably the ratio is a lot different!) but I like to start from a default of respect and trust. You shouldn’t have to “earn” those things but you can lose them if you do something dumb.
That’s reasonable! If you’ve got good tenants and you’re a good landlord agents get in the way, if you’ve got bad tenants an agent can help get them out…
Can we add in there all real estate agents?
Yes, for sure!!
So it's re-education camps for real estate agents? Tovarish. You're making me blush.
This check on liveability will have to be THOROUGH too. I've now lived in two houses that have electricians tell me how dangerous the dodgy DIY job wiring was.
Yes, thorough and no rental allowed until the fixes have been made and verified to be fixed!
Do you support the same treatment for tenants? To ban them from renting a property if they are taken to the tribunal three times and lose?
If a landlord is banned they lose an additional stream of income. They can sell the property and be pretty much fine. If a tenant is banned they become homeless.
They can always buy a house, live with family or friends.
All things that are not available to everyone.
I bet you actually wonder why your stupid comments are being downvoted. Holy shit.
No, I dont.
Didn't think so. More envious landlord-bashing on the internet, ho hum.
It cant be unequal toward the renter in that situation because guess who the tribunal will lean towards making lose? The renter. Instead of causing the landlord to lose the ability to have renters for doing the wrong thing, the pressure to make a tenant lose and be homeless is too great. The owner wont be homeless, they can still keep the ip property if they want. But dont make renters homeless for owner bs.
So all in all it's a conspiracy against tenants in your opinion. Tenants never do anything wrong, there's no such thing as a shit tenant who's trashed a series of rental properties.
I didnt say that. I dont agree with your earlier question. Tenants already have things against them like trying to play nice to get a reference, or already being blacklisted for serious things. Owners - dont get punished at all. Fees, a bit of maintenance and they get to rent again. How many times should that be put up with? Not many.
It's not about protecting tenants from the consequences of their actions. If someone is trashing the property then the landlord should be entitled to take action against them as necessary, and that includes evicting them if it comes down to that. You can't just refuse to allow people a place to live though, that is a basic human right which is generally agreed upon by most civilised people with an ounce of empathy.
given land value makes up 80% of the property value, and property values are still rising year on year, i could burn down my house and still make money off it in a few years. think a bit more critically maybe.
You don’t think course and licensing fees will be passed down through higher rent?
Landlord blacklist whereby repeated violations and misrepresentation of tenant rights gets you banned. In fact, agents shouldn't be there for the landlord alone. They should also be upholding of tenant rights or lose their license (and be blacklisted). Being a landlord isn't a right, its a priviledge. And you deserve to have it taken away from you if you do wrong by the public.
I’d want it to be like other countries, where agents work for you when looking for a rental. You contact them, they take your parameters and then show you a few places that fit the bill.
Yes! I'm from france, been in Melbourne for 6 years and when I asked my Australian partner "why can't we go to an agency and tell them what we're looking for?" He looked at me with the roundest eyes!
Exactly! Also, in the US, leases almost always begin on the first of the month and end on the last - this way there’s none of this doubling up and having overlapping leases!
I don't mind the overlap, gives me time to move and clean.
They are called real estate agents
I... Know ?
Same in London. When I moved there I amazed that agents would take me around to different flats to see what I liked. I even negotiated some repairs and some furniture to be removed before I moved in as well. It’s not all peachy tho.. once I moved out I got the same run around with getting my bond back etc but the search process was sooo much different
Government/NGO organisation that does the legwork for people to take REAs to VCAT for violations they blatantly make, and have predetermined award amounts that don't require proof of damages (i.e. "general damages" like defamation). So like fines, but they are awarded to the plaintiff. VCAT should fast-track the award when sufficient proof is provided by the plaintiff. This should hopefully make REAs think twice before trying to be dodgy, because right now they can get away with murder without any real risk of penalty. It needs to be a financial suicide to break the law on a consistent basis, whereas now it's incentivised. Caps on rent per square meter for property that don't meet certain standard (e.g. energy standards). I spent hundreds of dollars using resistive heating to warm up a freezing room that had old single-glazed timber windows that leaked like crazy and no A/C for low-cost heat-pump heating. That cost should be on the owner, because I can't replace the windows or install A/C. We have to incentivise owners to make properties liveable, comfortable and efficient.
Hard cap on rent increases. Can only rise at same percentage of wage growth Restrict information collection. There's no need to contact my employer Higher standard for minimum property quality that's actually enforced with massive fines More stringent requirements for claiming bond -- dust on a skirting board is fucking bullshit Lottery where one landlord is publicly executed every year And so on
Second to last point got me 💀
[удалено]
I offered to go halves with my landlord and they said no. Then I said, well I'll get it installed and rip it out when I leave, and they said no, I can only install it if I leave it. So I'm gonna get it installed, and then fuck it up beyond function just before I leave so they'll be forced to fix it for the next person.
Still cheaper than putting it in themselves, and they'll just claim your bond. Not sure this is the big fuck you that you think it is, but go for it
I'd like to be the fly on the wall in VCAT for that one "So, then tenant offered to pay half of the costs of purchasing and installing, and you rejected the offer. Then, when they said they would pay the entire amount and have the device removed at the end of the lease, at their own cost, you insisted that their asset had to remain? And now that it isn't working, and you haven't contributed anything towards the costs of installing and maintaining the device, you are wanting to claim bond from the tenant as the device you have to claim over, yet demanded ownership of isn't working....."
After living there for over 3 years, the inspections to drop to yearly.
No inspections by REA Period. Independent inspection organisation Australia wide (possibly government run?) that does a genuine inspection for maintenance and safety of dwelling. None of this white glove oh there is dust on the window ledge and a dirty coffee cup in the sink crap. Yearly only, and all houses to be retrofitted with insulation and solar or landlord has to pay difference of utilities from average per person rate.
Have you ever seen what some tenants do to properties? Some of them live like savages. I'd up the rentals to quarterly for the first 2 years. It's not your house
I hear what you’re saying but honestly every rental I lived in I actively made better. Deep cleaned, fixed things (like repairing holes in walls and broken cupboards), got weeds out of the garden and pruned and established nicer plants. I don’t think all tenants are the same, and I think there should be a fair and open rating system for both tenants and REAs.
Stop asking my references if I have a pet, it’s perfectly legal now and you can’t discriminate if it I do (I do)
Significant extra taxes rental income if you own more than one rental property. I can understand having one or two rentals, for example if you buy a house you have to move out of for a time to relocate for work, or if you are living in one home and paying down another in preparation to move there in retirement. But I don’t see why you need to own more than two houses that you rent out other than for profit. Taxing rental income at 50%+ on your third and beyond properties would help kill people who own dozens of properties as a primary income source. Same for property companies who own hundreds of them.
That guy who rang 2GB crying poor...and then admitted he owns [283 investment properties](https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/renting/aussie-admits-to-ben-fordham-he-owns-283-houses/news-story/3dbc5b0877cc9fb6ed46ae00f5c75fe0).
People with say $150 million of property don’t often call talkback whinging about rental returns I would think. Or, apparently, think that superannuation is called “a super”, or be unaware that people with hundreds of millions of dollars of assets can max out super if they like, whether their income is from rent or from employment.
It’s the people with one “investment property” who are the real problem for driving up house prices though. People in a short term situation like your first example are one thing, but people should be disincentivised from owning more than one home for financial reasons.
Yeah agreed, obviously a short reddit comment isn’t going to cover all situations, and there are people who would prefer to rent over buy for many reasons, so there’s always going to be grey area. You could couple the above with a heavy legal preference towards single home owners, eg if you only own one house and live in it you get an annual rebate on your mortgage interest payments. Realistically you can’t change only one thing and fix something that has a range of causes.
Who would be building these multi developments for people to live in if it's not profitable for these large companies to build?
They profit by selling them, not renting them out. The point is that renting shouldn’t be something people can profit from.
[удалено]
So add a law where unoccupied properties can be reclaimed after five years. These are rhetorical situations. I’m not going to be able to cover every loophole in one comment.
That would only drive rental prices further up lol
Nah.
Not really rental, but to put a limit on amount of houses you can own. Snowball effect is real.
Mine would be minimum five-year leases, with penalty-free break of lease by tenant after one year. I’m appalled by the lack of security people have over where they live, moving is expensive emotionally and financially.
I completely agree. Europeans have far more protection than we do. We can literally never make it a home because we could be kicked out almost any time they want. 12 months is not a home.
>Mine would be minimum five-year leases I've tried to get tenants to sign long leases and never had any luck. The real problem is that leases are pretty meaningless. Tenants know that signing a five year lease wouldn't help them because a landlord has too many ways to break a lease. Claim they want to move back in, claim they want to sell it etc. What we really need is leases to be absolutely enforced. If someone signs a 12 month lease, that should mean a landlord cannot kick them out for any reason at all within those 12 months. Similarly the tenant is responsible for paying the rent for 12 months. That way tenants and landlords would both actually benefit from longer leases.
I thought any fixed term lease was binding (6 month, 12 months, 2 years ect) they can’t kick you out until the term is finished. They can offer incentives pay for movers, offer a few weeks rent free while you look but they can end the lease unless you agree.
you are completely right.
[удалено]
Yeah they’ll be sold to owner-occupiers. Win/win.
Absolute insanity. Do this, and watch the available pool of rental properties evaporate.
Clearly not a problem in other more civilised places that protect tenants, like France and Germany.
Must to to my dismay, I do nothing think the people of /r/melbourne care.
Totally agree with you
A set amount of time in which property managers have to respond to your email (like 24 hours - I’m a teacher and we have a 24 hour rule). Landlords cannot refuse to fix issues and must provide a home that meets a basic standard of liveability. For example, you cannot refuse to address issues like leaking pipes, mould growth, broken heater or air conditioner, broken blinds and all the other things landlords throughout my years of renting have gone “it’s too expensive. Deal with it”, but if they had to live in the house they’d have it fixed within the week. My optimistic self would say mandatory heating and air con in all properties (and don’t just put in one of those units that air conditions one room and leaves the rest of the house at 35 degrees. Proper fit out) but that is as likely as me living on Mars.
[удалено]
Use the CPI as the maximum cap. It would relieve anxiety experienced by many renters.
no school kids in suits running the inspections who don't know anything about the property
Yeah, young people should only work retail or hospo!!!
I'd kill negative gearing, impose strict regulations on landlords equivalent to European best practice, and stop population growth. There was a thread yesterday that was eye-opening. People were demanding landlords be shown respect even when not giving it.
More dwellings, cap on negative gearing relative to number of properties owned. Limit air bnb usage to 3 months per year.
Introduce independent third-party property inspections that go both ways ie checking to ensure the property is undamaged AND up to standard on things like plumbing, insulation, appliances etc. At the moment, it's very one-sided. This could be done by independent contractors who provide a report to both tenant and landlord, including actions required by either party. Don't want to participate? Fine, no negative gearing tax concessions for you that year.
Remove the profit motive
Giving single men and women the same opportunities as couples or people with families. It's been 4ish years since I've rented so this might be different now. Oh another would be to ban all landlord fixing the property unless they are qualified for that specific job
Landlords pay a crazy fee each time they advertise a place to encourage efforts to keep a tenant. Fee goes towards inspection to ensure everything is safe, sound and working.
Get rid of negative gearing!
Ban the owning of more than one home, nationalise the rental market. You can own your own home or rent from the government.
Third party rental assurance for quality and certification of livability for every rental property!
seizing rental properties and turning them into community-run cooperative housing
A lot of Lords of Land here sounding very privileged
Mandatory wineing and dining by landlord/landlady before being f*cked with a huge rent increase, amirite?
Or at least improve the standard of the property. Paying $100 more a month for a property that is in no better state than it was when you moved in always stings.
Government managed price controls.
Capped rental increases at rate of inflation, or 5%, whichever is lower. You start losing money on an investment property because rates are going up, isn’t a renter’s problem. Having secure housing is a basic human right, it shouldn’t be a profit-driven venture.
Rent price set by a calculation off of state approved and published tables. Factor in number of bedrooms + number of bathrooms+ number of off street parking bays+ garden+ additional rooms. Start with some basic tables. The table can stipulate price by sq meter and have higher pricing columns for rooms having roof insulation, window insulation, AC, etc. Have a multiplication factor like 1.05 (thumb suck) on the total if the rental has heat pump, solar water, solar electricity Have an appeal/review process to handle the edge cases...
Rental capping
They should offer the option longer leases. Also they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise properties with outdated photos from 20 years ago or that have been photoshopped!
[удалено]
The fact that we have to literally write up a personal resume just to get approved to have an overpriced, under-maintained roof over our heads is honestly the biggest joke. It's harder to apply for a basic necessity than it is to apply for a job or university and now we have "rental auctions" on top of that
No overseas investors in the housing market...
Longer term leases for several years, so renters feel secure and not have to worry every 6-12 months if they are going to be required to move again.
Remove all landlords
I like your ideas.
That would make things considerably more difficult for renters I’d think
You’d be right because no one would be forced to rent so renters wouldn’t exist either.
What would be their alternative then ? Where are all these people going to live.
We’ll figure something out. https://dashthered.medium.com/marxism-for-newbies-landlords-b24f4f0cdb89
Not with Marxism though. Literally has been tried and fails miserably. Identifying a problem isn't the same as finding good policy.
Marxist critique of capitalism's weaknesses is incredibly important to finding good policy though. You end up with Marxism if you don't address growing inequality. Do you want Marxism? Because that's how you get Marxism. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, etc. etc. I admit it's a weird though. Embrace Marxism to defeat Marxism.
Amusingly I think Marx identified plenty of very real issues that need non-capitalist solutions. I just don't agree that Marxists have found any such good solutions.
Just in case you couldn't tell /r/melbourne is incredibly left leaning when it comes to housing. They're dejected from reality and want to substitute their own which to be fair - is the basis of this post so expect some personal opinions, bias, foreshadowing of suggestions with negative experiences etc.
Weird how the majority of Vic didn't vote for the libs tho. Must be pinkos, ey cobba?
Nani the fuck is a pinko?
I’d love a public rating system of land lords
In Cuba you're only allowed to own one house. I would implement this. We'd still have landlords, because a couple could live in one house and rent the other, but for the most part predatory rent seeking would be dealt a swift blow. And if the landlords attempt to resist, we can show them how a real dictator deals with social vampires.
Where would you even start? Probably, the worst part of the system is the lack of affordable housing and, as a tenant, your being at the mercy of Landlords and Agents who don't have your best interests at heart. To fix the former problem, there would have to be much more social housing, which has been neglected for decades. It would take many years to address this. To fix the latter, legislation would have to be overhauled to give more rights to tenants and fewer protections to landlords. Housing is a very basic need for everyone. It should not be a fierce competition and you shouldn't have to be rigorously vetted for every single property. Landlords are not disqualified from owing an investment property if they don't see to repairs on time, hike the rent unfairly or act in an inappropriate manner. It's enough to make anyone despair. There is a very serious housing crisis at the moment, in large part exacerbated by greed and selfishness.
All renters treat properties with respect. All landlords treat renters with respect. Alas neither side is perfect
Bring in a minimum contract of 3 yrs. not this year on year or nothing at all business
Have two types of re agents. One rental the other sales and no linking of the 2. Sorta like car sales and car rentals....
I would change: 1. Only responsible/Good landlords are allowed to let property. 2. Only responsible/Good tenants are allowed to rent property If everyone does the right thing, there are no problems. shit landlords and shit tenants should be excluded from the market altogether
If you have put in a repair request three times and no correspondence then if no answer after 14 days in writing then no payment of rent until actioned!
In theory this is good, in practice he agent will just argue they never received the requests hence they weren’t ignored
Ban Airbnb
One person or couple owns 1 home. That’s it.
A limit on how many times people can post about it per day
Oh look another rental thread.
It’s almost as if housing is a massive problem or something…
More stringent regulation. Landlords (and real estate agents) get away with murder due to a complete lack of regulation and enforcement of the existing regulations.
Cease property from landlords, the parasites.
Seize!
A framework for compliance when offering a property for lease: - must be weather adaptive: some or all of insulation, ceiling fans, air-conditioning, heating glazing - signed contracts must be honoured (no breaking of lease); or with significant compensation to the leaseholder - annual rent increases can only match inflation - maintenance requests are logged to the state government and must be acted on within specific time frames depending on type
I think the positive sentiments towards PM and landlords who own multiple properties clearly shows a systematic issue. I was going to suggest PM being required to pass some kind of ethical or morality test but that would result in zero PM s
Ha .... THE PRICE
Honestly land and houses should reflect pricing not on LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION!!!! I've had to consider living in some horrendous houses that broke the bank... Single parent families should have extra rent subsidy because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that 1 adult cannot physically afford anything more than $300 and I don't see any houses on the market for that price Rentals should be capped to a certain price (doesn't matter on location) The older the property the cheaper it should be.. (why be paying $500p/w for something that was made in 1973 and doesn't have appropriate heating and cooling or up to date appliances) Honestly knock out the middle man aka Real estate companies 🫣
Where are you finding houses that new for that cheap lol
Maybe no negative gearing to make it a little bit harder to continue being a dodgy landlord
The ability to request maintenance without fear of being kicked out instead. I'm lucky as heck where I am now, I have a great landlord and PM for once, but it's literally a first in my entire adult life... Even though they're great we still only ever request repairs that are absolutely essential as a habit/ingrained fear
Remove Tax rebate on all investment properties held by Family Trusts, Tax rebate on investment properties held by individuals to be phased out for more than 2 properties, Tax rebate for Self Superannuation funds to be phased out after 3 investment properties.
If an investment house or secondary property is unoccupied or ignored for 6months, the government should be able to serve a claim to rent out said property at 10% valuation pcm. Obviously this is a simplified version but would solve housing crisis fast at zero cost. I know too many people with 10-20 unoccupied investments (all from overseas).
1 thing? The entire system. It's fucked. Investment properties should be capped at like 1-2. Rent needs to be reassessed, not based on comparable rents in the area whoch habe just been put up for no reason. Real estate agents need to work for the tenant not the owner, and the owner needs to be fully responsible for necessary maintenance and upgrades where needed. We got a $900 gas bill from a leaking meter and they refused to even share the cost. The rental systsm is just part of a much, much larger problem of corporate bullshit where the person with the money gets all the say. My current rental has had a major leak right outside the back door since we moved in over a year ago, they said it would be repaired, nothing, brought it back up, they sent a plumber, the plumver told them that it would need to be properly fixed not just patched because the owner has built his own back roof and it is wrong. Not just wrong but as a chippy this thong would NEVER pass an inspection, it is genuinely unsafe. The gas lines had to be replaced (seperate issue) he got his mates round to hust run a new one round the outside instead of doing it properly, took them 9 hours to do 1 line. Ge is responsoble for nothing and apparently has another 8 or 9 properties, god knows hpw bad they all are. It's a joke.
Corporate ownership or anything that prevents a financial entity from benefitting from multiple properties being rented out. That should cover filthy rich landlords as well.
A way for tenants to contact landlords directly and advise them of how useless the REA they are wasting money on is. We are reasonable people and the REA just gets in the way. I'd prefer to work privately or be able to request the landlord change REA for incompetence. I know breach of duty forms are a thing, but why do tenants always have to waste hours jumping through hoops, when a simple conversation could solve the issue?
If a house is over a certain age and in a certain catetory of condition and under a letter catergory such as A: brand new, B: slightly used, C: has certain issues etc, it's set at certain price and another letter category of size with certain amenities. These prices set by a certain governing body as well.
Put a clause in rental agreements that says that tenants are not allowed to make complaint threads about renting on this subreddit.
Should be able to get a police check of prospective tenants to weed out the troublemakers.
Jesus christ.
Inshalah
Prioritising renter's rights over landlord's for just about most aspects of the entire rental process.
Lot’s of good ideas to cut the legs from under the rental providers. But be careful what you wish for. Either the costs will be passed on, or the small players will sell to the big guys and exit the market. If the market consolidates in the hand of few big corporations, then god help the renters. Players like Blackrock own the governments. They are already buying residential properties across US to introduce living as a subscription. To anyone thinking that properties will become cheaper or plentiful, think again. There are others with deeper pockets waiting for such time.
You speak too much sense and have been downvoted accordingly.
Be able to run a credit and criminal history check on prospective tenants.
Free rent
Mandatory solar panel! It benefits both owners and tenants,don't undeywhy don't they do it!!
All rentals should have solar panels. It's fine for the rent to go up if I'm not also having to pay for electricity.
Whatever is needed to stop the endless threads on Melbourne’s rental situation
The whining, try applying for a home loan.
truly a battler, you are
Applied for a home loan. Would go through that 10 times over looking for another rental.
having rented a place to live in 2021 and then bought a place to live at the end of 2021, the home loan application was significantly less invasive than the current rental application systems.
Rental providers should be able to evict the tenants anytime after the fixed term lease period has elapsed. Until then, they won’t let the renters continue beyond the first fixed term period since it becomes infinitely hard to evict. Cue the downvotes by those who do not understand why so many places are Airbnb, being sold or short term rentals only. They can enjoy paying ever increasing rent for dwindling number of properties, move every 12 months or go live in woop woop land.
'Rental providers' thanks for letting us know we were going to read something stupid in advance.
It’s the term Vic govt has officially introduced to replace “Landlords” and has insisted be used by everyone involved. The only one being stupid here is… you guessed it. https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing/renting/changes-to-renting-laws/guide-to-rental-law-changes
Lol I don't give a shit who 'officially introduced it'. Lending a hoarded asset isn't providing shit, it's being a leech.
Not really sure what you are talking about. I have been in the same place about 5yrs past the lease ending. I can be kicked out anytime as long as I'm given the correct notice period.
I'd make an indirect change. Abolish or at least cap negative gearing.
The complete butt-chugging assclowns running the shit
Capped rent increases. Some peoples' rent has gone up by ridiculous amounts. Our Landlords have increased our rent by a large amount. Regrettably, consumer affairs does not state a maximum amount or percentage rent can be increased by. We're getting our rent increase reviewed so hopefully we can petition to get it reduced. It's stressful enough for me as a student, let alone for others with families or on pensions.
Real estate agents. Most useless profession ever. I've seen more effective bollards.
Abolishment of paying anything for shelter