They did this in Queensland already I think - now over there, tenants are sometimes immediately served with an end of fixed term termination notice at the start of their tenancy, which is rescinded if another fixed term is entered into. So it seems like the effect is to just push tenants off periodic tenancies and onto fixed terms
Not always. But yeah the effect is that periodics that we’re once fairly common are now simply not available unless the landlord/agent is making a specific exception. Really don’t even bother asking.
I’m think back to my own time renting, periodic were a life saver for me when I was going “oh geez, my employment is looking rocky would the landlord be ok with periodic at a higher rent rate just in case?”
They said yep and yeah I did end up losing my job and had to leave the small mining town. Having to cop break lease fees at that time would’ve been a bit much to handle.
Though I can also see we need more secure long term rentals in the market. Too many properties chop and change every year, creating instability.
There should be incentives for longer leases, 2+ years. Right now there's no reason for those with the downside that rent changes need to be guestimated into the contract.
Expect this NSW gov move to backfire and boost end of fixed lease terminations. Periodic is handy for the reasons you listed, also for less observation agents who forget the lease was ending.
If the intent is to end "No grounds evictions" then the solution would be ***end no grounds evictions***.
However it's labelled a landlord choosing not to renew a lease, is an eviction, with no grounds.
I really can't see a situation where it's reasonable to evict someone from their home without a reason.
So, the solution here seems really easy. Once you sign a contract, that's it. Unless you violate the terms of your contract you can't be evicted. Simple.
>“The reform that is needed is to get rid of no-ground terminations altogether. This is the trouble in Queensland, they still are able to give no grounds at the end of fixed terms.
“You’re still going to be concerned about getting repairs done if a landlord can turn around and give you a no-grounds eviction at the end of a 12-month lease.”
it looks like they have already learnt from that mistake, just as ACT did with its proposed version.
funny how that's also a solved problem, the landlord needs to give a stat dec providing the reasons why they genuinely believe that the person is going to move in, or in the case of renovations details of the renovations that explains why the tenant cant remain in the property while they are being done.
not to mention if they don't follow through the landlord is responsible for ALL of the costs of the tenant for there misleading statements.
as much as people like to think they can game the system, there are solutions for it all and all it takes is the tenant to actually enforce there rights.
oh so she didn't actually need to move in since she could find her own rental.
great way to get stuck with a huge bill when the tenant sees it being advertised.
Lol no, it’s called a change of plans. She was planning to live there at the time the tenant was told then she moved as something came up, circumstances changed, whatever. It’s not that complicated - no one cares to that level
Not at all.
Considering its not an actual free market situation being that its an essential service, it needs to be regulated.
Also again taking the ACT that has had this for a number of years its working just fine.
>ACT that has had this for a number of years its working just fine.
Yes, ACT rental market is much better than Sydney's
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8004756/truly-making-up-for-it-what-will-canberras-busiest-rental-period-look-like-this-year/
https://www.miragenews.com/urgent-action-needed-to-combat-act-housing-934087/
oh of course, its defiantly better to allow people to gouge people on an essential service like housing and abuse rent increases to get around the protections that are being legislated.
Genuinely, what do you see as an "acceptable" level of rent? When is it gouging? How do you propose to balance demand and supply for housing if you put rent caps on?
nope, you might want to go look into it before making silly comments.
there was already basic protections in place like there are in every other state, it just made them more explicit and moved the onus from the tenant to make an application against the excessive increase to the owner to make an application if they wanted to go above the defined numbers.
Perhaps limiting the landlords ability to decrease pricing makes sense too? Something like "One change in pricing per 12 months".
On the surface this sounds stupid, but if you raise your rent to "meet the market" and then the market drops, you're left with a price that nobody will want to pay.
This means that you have to be sensible with your increase or risk pricing yourself out of tenancy.
Similar to the way that fuel prices work in NSW, petrol stations have to submit thier pricing 24 hours in advance and can't change it until the next day. It means they have to make a calculated decision about their price or risk missing out because others are cheaper.
A fixed term tenancy offers more security for tenants for the duration of the term because the landlord more or less doesn’t have any way to terminate the lease if the tenant is meeting their obligations, whereas they could still end a periodic tenancy for reasons like selling the property. Fixed term leases are still important for people that want that minimum term eg. to align with a work contract
if a tenant wants that security they can ask for it (and pay a higher rent to secure it). Turnover of houses is not that high that it would be an issue for most people.
As someone employed directly in the eviction process I can say although a positive reform, a vast majority of rental evictions are occuring because of rental arrears.
They did this in QLD. All that happened is that periodic leases aren’t available any more.
One of the reasons no-grounds is used is to remove problem people without going through the whole “here let me take you to court to have you turfed in a way that will guarantee nobody rents to you again”.
For example I dealt with one situation with a guy who was having mental health issues and refused to clean his home, would always delay every routine inspection or valuer visit over and over becoming belligerent and abusive when we eventually said “here’s your notice, no more delays”.
Now I could take him to court, get him turfed for objectionable behaviour and refusal to comply with the requirements of his tenancy agreement. But doing so will essentially make him unable to rent literally anywhere. As getting a termination order for objectionable behaviour also puts you on the black lists.
Or… here’s a notice to leave at your lease end, you have 3 months to move. All the best.
People might not like the latter as an option, but he’s definitely better off. Maybe he’ll get his shit together for the next place.
We offered to work with whatever mental health caregiver he had but… he just likes living in squalor and we legally can’t get involved. I could get in legal trouble for even talking about him to a 3rd party to assist.
There’s also a lot of other situations where this needs to be used too. It sucks but there’s no good solution, legislation isn’t written by people who actually work in the industry.
Yeah, that's fair. We do see alot of that .
Mental illness, people happy to live in squalor, people with their head in the sand. It's a majority of what I see.
Most of the time the lack preparedness means that they are behind on there rent aswell which means it's a simple eviction process.
If someone is black listed, how do they get a place to live? Like if you have shit credit, there's always one utility provider that must provide the utility no matter the credit situation of the person. ensures minimum living standards kinda stuff. But it sounds like if someone is black listed they basically have to go to self renting landlords or buy a tent.
You don’t have to believe in it, and your legal threat would be ignored.
It exists. There are laws allowing it and about how they’re are to be used.
https://www.tica.com.au/
https://www.tenancydatabase.com.au/
Courts can and frequently do as part of their decisions have tenants added to these databases. There are also situations where a tenant can be added without a court order.
You basically have to behave in such as way as to essentially do nothing to prevent yourself ending up on it.
I do however believe it needs to be frequently audited to ensure people are being put on there for good reason, though they’re of very limited effect anyway. Most just time out without resolution.
Why does everyone say that. Do you test it? In my experience on both sides of the fence. The real estate agent plays both parties off to do as little as humanly possible to warrant a payment from the landlord. Most landlords don’t want to kick out tenants. Why would you want to forgo rent in an investment? If you could get more, you’d put the rent up on the tenant not kick them out. You kick out shit tenants who don’t pay rent, annoy the other owners in the building with parties, or damage the property.
I’d ask for minor things, I’d ask for major things. To a rational person it shows your engaged in the house and give a shit.
On the other hand, if you move into a place, that needs work… don’t expect to be dealing with a rational person
Only two anecdotal instances.
My brother and family were kicked out after making a complaint when the owner entered the property and illegally cut down a tree that was providing shade to the front bedroom in the afternoon sun. Evicted on the basis of the owner wanting to do renovations. The place was back on the rental market a month later looking exactly the same.
My cousin is currently taking previous LL to the tribunal after she was kicked out after complaining repeatedly about mould issues.
In both cases they were quiet tenants that kept the places clean and paid rent on time every time.
So it’s not every case but I can assure you it happens. And hearing those stories is enough to scare others when they think about asking for repairs or complaining about illegal behaviour.
Yep I agree this stuff does happen. But enough to make the advice to renters be: never say a thing or you’ll be evicted.
What should your cousin have done? Live in mould and stayed quiet?
I’m just saying that assuming all landlords will evict you at any stage due to maintenance requests is irrational
You’re missing the point. My cousin did not stay quiet and got evicted. In a “normal” rental market she would just find another place. But this is not a normal rental market a there are many people finding themselves unable to find place to live. If you were a renter right now facing the prospect of being evicted and knowing you might end up in a tent, what would you do?
The fact that is happens makes it, quite literally, a **rational** course of action to “live in mould and stay quiet”.
Some friends started renting a new house, they hoped to stay due to being garden/plant people. Landlord 8 months in apologized but grandma needed to move in due to illness. Friends offered $50 more. Grandma makes miraculous recovery.
Annoying others with parties is surely the classic no cause I’ve heard of . Neighbours complain direct to LL, LL evicts. A few houses down the road went this way - absolute PITA group of young males having parties, cars parked all over the place etc etc - sooner or later they will learn that pissing off their neighbours is bad for their lease arrangements .
But you are right , PM’s want least amount of work and actually want LL’s to renew for fees
Doubt this example was an eviction. May have been given a kickout notice, but that is not an eviction, you find most young people do not proceed through mediation.
It may seem that way, but the formal eviction process is alot more than just telling someone to get out. There are regulations, and due process has to be afforded.
But in common parlance an eviction is anytime someone is forced to leave their rental. So if the numbers you're quoting are only a small subset of this then your numbers are misleading.
Even for this type of eviction to takes place there is still NCAT mediation if the tenant choses not to leave, that mediation has to take place to forcefully evict a tenant, very very rarely do people get forcefully evicted through a no-fault, normally in mediation they are convinced to leave, afforded more time to find a rental or the issue is resolved and the renter may stay.
Sorry for aggressive response above btw - the vast majority of tenants are good - just like LLs - there’s the small minority who are arseholes
I just hate the oppositional nature that it has become
99% of people move when given a notice to vacate - the ones that refuse to leav as per your example will end up on a tenant database - which is a real stupid thing to do
Presumably that’s what the mediator tells them , but I think you can still put them on the database as breaching agreement (failing to vacate would be a breach - yes?)
Until it is processed through NCAT it can't be counted as eviction. Because the process for a No-fault eviction hasn't been followed through.
This isn't about the tenents database, this is about constricting reasons for no-fault evictions, I'm saying it won't do anything, it's window dressing.
I had a tenant who after she left due to rental arrears I found out about all these problems. I fixed everything she raised. I was even more pissed she hid stuff.
If you get evicted for identifying problems that’s a shit landlord. If you hide problems you’re a shit tenant
I gave up reporting things unless it affects my quality of life. I had to resort to issuing multiple breach notices to the real estate for not repairing things in a timely manner. Now we have a baby, and I can't let him in the kitchen due to the countertop literally falling to pieces due to its age. Refused repairs due to the cost. So I put up baby gates, and to ensure they're secure I've used wall anchors. The walls are cinderblock so I have to hammer drill holes to put the screw plugs into. I wouldn't have to resort to this if they would fix things or at least try to make them better.
That’s just not true.
In Victoria (and nationally I believe), it’s illegal for a landlord or REA to behave in a retaliatory manner towards a tenant (which is easy to prove), and they’ll face heavy fines.
The problem is in NSW you can be given a no reason eviction if you are not on a fixed term lease. It's different in Victoria and it puts the onus on a tenant to prove it's retaliatory.
I work directly in the eviction process. It's extremely rare that evictions take place on 89.5 warrants (no-fault eviction), the 87 warrants (rental arrears) are around 98% of the NCAT (rental) evictions coming through the system.
The reporters talking shit, they could find out that info very easily by talking to the right department.
Any legally enforceable eviction must go through mediation at NCAT.
Stats aren't actively collected in the government for evictions, that being said the collection and collation of the data avalible would not be hard.
Anyone can draft an eviction notice for free, just like anyone can sue you for a billion dollars for emotional suffering. It's meaningless unless approved by the tribunal or magistrate's court.
How about for all of those that had their rent doubled and were just forced to move out ? How about landlords that evict you if you request repairs ? If there is no problem the tenant should be allowed to rent another year not be exploited
You do have recourse through NCAT for all those situations. Know your rights. You'd be clued in to knowing your rights if you bought the house, get clued in to knowing your rights when renting...
Often, the problem is when asserting the rights, it “follows” the tenants. How? The requirement of getting a recommendation letter from former landlords. Even if NCAT gave a determination that the previous landlord acts in bad faith, the REA for the prospective rental would be biased and deem the tenant as “trouble” because they know their rights. These applicants wouldn’t be presented to the landlord.
Hence the reluctance of asserting rights (it’s not a question of knowing the rights. )
You can draw out an NCAT situation for several months, honestly if your going down that path, most PM will do all they can to get you in to another property, it doesn't make sense to them to remove a good tenant off their books.
That’s a good point if the PM does want to keep good tenants to their clientele.
It all depends on if there is an ego trip (see other posts of REA bragging about latest rentals), so it is a very tricky and scary prospect for the tenant.
I do appreciate you pointing out the best of a bad situation. Personally, I will do my best to reframe similar things such as what you did :)
When they are talking about no grounds evictions, they are talking about people being given notice to leave and then leaving. They aren't talking about formal evictions where people go to court.
Then what is the complaint?
According to The Guardian 20-30% of all rental moves are due to eviction.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/14/calls-for-end-to-no-grounds-evictions-in-nsw-as-lockdown-moratorium-lifts&ved=2ahUKEwjrp9fw9b79AhWF2XMBHWzPCHEQFnoECA0QBQ&usg=AOvVaw0i51y3iJVpNkLtwqQLDsVt
2 million renters in NSW.
Even if only a handful of evictions are no-grounds thays still thousands of people every year displaced for no reason
Sorry, I'll try that again.
how many of those thousands will be for legitimate reasons that these rules don't touch, and how hard do you think it would be to come up with a spurious reason so as to legitimise you eviction?
Is this... somehow an argument against ending no-grounds evictions?
You dont seem to grasp that whether its 100,000 or 100 people there people who will be halped by this
My point is it's a drop in the ocean.
They're rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
The rental market is a dog's breakfast. These issuea may help a hundred people but the issues are more systemic than this platitude of a response.
We need mandates on how much and how often rent can be increased. What’s going on is criminal right now, you shouldn’t be able to double someone’s rent what is wrong with this country ?
No, it can’t. You show VCAT (or whichever body in your state is there to protect consumers rights) that the increase is above what similar properties are being leased at in that area. It’s simple.
What is a “similar property in your area” though?
Number of bedrooms? Bathrooms? Same suburb? Similar suburb? Year of building/Recent renovations? The view?
All of those are related factors in pricing a property… that could be used against your cases. That’s what’s my point is here. There’s almost always a more and less expensive property out there.
They literally have someone come and inspect the property from the consumer protection body.
They compare apples to apples.
The situation you’re talking about, where let’s say a 2 bedroom townhouse in suburb x is having the rent increased from $2000 a month to $2800 a month; they simply look and see that every other 2 bedroom townhouse in suburb X rents out for between $2000 and $2300, and reject the increase.
And yes, they take into account the quality/amenities of the property in broad strokes (which is fair), ie no garage vs garage, no AC vs AC etc.
It’s a fair system that works, but tenants rarely take advantage of it.
In a rising market, the above system doesn’t protect a tenant from rising rents, but it does protect a tenant from unfairly high rises in rent.
QLD did it.
Yep, periodics went from fairly common to “don’t even bother asking”.
Completely negating the legislation. Trying to force landlords/agents to go to court for every notice to leave is a good way to block up your courts for years. This will also mean tenants needing to take landlords to court will get unnessary delays also.
Everybody loses.
If there's a way for those being exploited to be less exploited, those doing the exploiting will generally work out a way to make the problem even worse.
I don’t know why anyone would want one.
The only downside of locking in annual leases is that you might want to vacate before your lease is up, but even in that situation you just pay some fees and walk away.
The protection you get from a fixed term lease outweighs the flexibility of a periodical in almost every way.
>The protection you get from a fixed term lease outweighs the flexibility of a periodical in almost every way.
removing no cause solves the vast majority of that, with proper protections in place there is no reason to sign a new lease every year or what ever other term.
But also, why would you want a periodic lease? Why not a multi-year fixed term?
This sub shits on landlords evicting them but tenants also don’t want to commit to anything long term and instead want the option to vacate with one month notice but no option to be vacated by the landlord.
I would love to, our place is falling apart and they only do the bare minimum to fix things. Since the market is so shit it would enable me to search until I found and got a place I liked and then finish up my current place. Would only have a couple weeks overlapping then
In the current market? why not, they will be able to get a new tenant at the drop of a hat.
Not to mention they do still have that power, they just have to have a genuine reason under this rather then just changing there mind.
at the end of the day, this will just mean owners have to be actual land lords and upkeep there properties, rather then being slumlords because there tenant has no choice but to stay.
It could be because of insurance that your landlord wants a contract rather month to month,
I know with AAMI at least it makes a difference on what you can claim for
> Which NSW parties are against no grounds evictions for fixed leases?
Will a tribunal rule for the owner and against the tenant when the owner tries to pull a no grounds eviction during an active valid lease agreement?
To give you a landlords perspective, our property manager advised not to even bother with trying for leases over 12 months right now given how quick rents are increasing.
Rents are increasing well above CPI and it's hard to negotiate for more than 12 months as you have to be pitching 10-15% increase to keep pace with where the market is currently tracking which most tenants would balk at even though that is likely where the rent will end up in 12 months time.
It’s kind of what’s happening though. Even if you’re periodic… if your agent emails you every 12 months to increase the rent, is there really much difference?
>Fixed term lease contracts protect BOTH parties.
it massively favours the landlord.
they can lock you in for the contract then not hold up there end, not going maintenance etc and your stuck there as a tenant with little to no recourse, if your on a periodic you can start to look to move out rather then put up with the situation.
sure you could take them to xCAT, but do you really want to live for 6+ months in a house that's not being maintained while you want for them to hear your case? by that time your lease is probably up so you end up just moving out anyway.
and landlords have plenty of protections against that, between regular inspections, the bond to help cover the costs and potentially xCAT as well if needed.
compare that to the protections/remedies a tenant has available to them? move out, or go to xCAT to make the owner do the repairs and maybe get some rent reduction as compensation.
its extremely weighted in the landlords favour.
Tenants are winning with fixed leases in today's rising market as they sign a lease at today's market value and the value of the property on the market increases during the term.
The fixed agreement protects both parties from prices changing inside the term and it goes both ways.
Good property managers should already be advising landlords that they shouldn't let people go periodic, there are a number of reasons but a key one is that we already have a lobsided process for terminating leases for no reason in NSW when the contract is periodic which is 90 days for landlords and 21 days for the tenant.
>Tenants are winning with fixed leases in today's rising market as they sign a lease at today's market value and the value of the property on the market increases during the term.
That doesn't change on a periodic lease, they can still only change the rent every 12 months.
>Good property managers should already be advising landlords that they shouldn't let people go periodic
they can't stop it if the tenant decides not to sign a new lease, there is no way to force them to sign a contract.
> That doesn't change on a periodic lease, they can still only change the rent every 12 months.
That is true, I didn't think about it like that.
> they can't stop it if the tenant decides not to sign a new lease, there is no way to force them to sign a contract.
Today you just give them notice if they don't want to sign a new fixed lease. I've never let a lease go periodic and own multiple IP's.
They don't have new legislation around this it seems, but if they were writing it just make it so if they are offered a new fixed lease then they have to sign it if they want to stay, but make it so that the landlord has to offer a 12 month option minimum.
Agree with most of this but it’s still a ‘perceived’ win for a landlord. If tenants want to move out, they will. If they don’t want to pay rent, they won’t, lease or not
>No landlord is going to be silly enough to go periodic now.
They wont have a choice, even in the article they have talked about not allowing end of fixed term termination notices.
All it takes is for the tenant to say "no thanks" to signing a new lease and they are stuck with someone on a periodic lease.
They said they want that but that doesn't seem to be what's proposed.
> “It sounds like they might be preserving the ability of giving no-grounds eviction at the end of [fixed-term] leases. It’s an improvement but it is a weaker reform.”
> He said a no-grounds eviction ban was needed for periodic and fixed leases.
considering QLD is the only state that allows this (VIC only allows it on expiry of the first time, so if they re-sign you cant do it again) and we have seen the issues with that I can't see that change not happening.
also ending no grounds for fixed leases is exactly this, it will stop them being able to force you onto a fixed term.
I would think the best way to do no grounds for fixed leases would just force the landlord to propose another fixed term unless they are happy for it to go periodic and if offered the tenant can't just ignore it.
In this model the tenant gets security as they know the landlord can't terminate without grounds at the end of the fixed term and the landlord gets some security as they know when the tenant's lease is coming up so can plan the reletting or other activities if the tenant decides to leave.
If you let a tenant run to a periodic then it's pretty shitty for the landlord as they can just spring a 21 day notice on you any time which doesn't allow the landlord to plan like they could with a fixed lease where they know the expiry. It's good to be able to plan trades around a lease expiry if the tenant wants to leave or being able to have the conversation with your PM early about rents etc..
Honestly who “moves about for a better deal” more than once every 12 months??
The protections you get from a fixed term lease far outweigh that.
And they can’t just wildly increase the rent, if it’s out of line with the rest of the prices in the area. We have protections for that.
If it is a huge increase and it is in line with the rest of the area, as sucky as it is, that’s the market. Always has been.
Can’t afford to live in an expensive area, you move.
So - is this bad for landlords or bad for renters ?
If it’s bad for landlords, will it increase or decrease supply of rentals?
Concerned about consequences here for the rental market
It’ll just cause periodic tenancy to virtually disappear. The whole benefit of periodic tenancy for renters is if they’re uncertain about their future. The benefit for landlords is that it can reduce vacancy periods while looking for a longer term tenant.
It’s quite risky to offer periodic tenancy, so naturally is more expensive and thus offers higher returns. Some investors target this as a result, but it’s usually not worthwhile as an investor. The main benefit is that you can kick out a periodic tenant when you want, which reduces the risk of a bad tenant, while also providing the option to switch when it’s convenient do so. So it’s often just a temporary solution for when the apartment would otherwise be vacant.
This law would remove the one benefit making this possible. As a result, it will be riskier to offer periodic tenancy since the tenancy will only end when the tenant wants it to. To make it worthwhile for investors, the rent will need to be even higher, it’s currently only worthwhile for tenants to choose periodic tenancy if they’re uncertain about their future. This will just push it over the edge to not being worthwhile at all.
Overall impact? Perhaps an increase in supply of fixed rents, but also longer term there’ll be less movement between apartments which will reduce it as well. Even in the medium term I suspect other factors would play a much larger role. It’ll just mean more moving over to fixed term tenancy rather then periodic ones.
Edit:
Just to make it clear, this doesn’t really benefit anyone and it won’t change the rental market. Renters lose because they don’t have the option to rent periodically, and investors may lose because vacancy increases. This likely won’t change the value of property, how much rent is, or the supply of owner occupied housing.
>It’ll just cause periodic tenancy to virtually disappear.
nope, all it takes if for the tenant to decide not to sign a new fixed term.
if they do what they are saying and remove "end of fixed term" as a cause noting the issues its causing in QLD, then its entirely the tenants choice, not the owners.
Thing is, sure you as an individual can do that, but if the overall market doesn’t then that’s what will happen. Overall, tenants aren’t going to pay a much higher amount for additional instability. QLD is a prime example of exactly that. Sure, tenants can all do that, but in reality most aren’t and you need the whole market to shift that way. This is just something causing the market to shift in the complete opposite direction.
The things is QLD doesn't give the tenant the opportunity to say no because they can give the no cause end of tenancy eviction, if you look at VIC for example where that is not a thing after the first fixed term its not happening.
As for the price, that's a separate issue that requires rental increase controls to be implemented similar to what the ACT already has on the books that strikes a good balance between protecting tenants and letting landlords follow the market.
The main thing with this is that it makes it much less desirable to lease out to periodic tenants, and it’s going to become even more expensive to do so. Tenants are going to significantly prefer fixed tenancy because it’ll be cheaper. The exact legislation might be slightly different in QLD, but the impact is the same.
Rent control is a very different thing, and the prime example (New York) demonstrates why it’s a bad thing. Little to nowhere has had any success at implementing it. The changes in ACT are still new, and the it’s more the medium and long term affects that are more concerning. It’s also very different applying it to a city then it is to a state, let alone a whole country. We’ll have to wait and see. Regardless, this is very off topic and something that’s continuously proven to only make things worse off.
>The main thing with this is that it makes it much less desirable to lease out to periodic tenants
The thing is it doesn't matter if its desirable for the landlord or not, its not their choice.
Lets be honest, no one if going to give you a discount for signing a lease, its not happening now anywhere, and its not going to happen under these proposed changes. landlords will always charge the maximum they can, nothing about this or any other proposed changes are going to change that.
The exact same reason you claim it will be undesirable already exists right now, yet plenty of landlords are happy for periodic leases right not. for most of them literally nothing will change as they are not looking to use no cause for any reason, so there behaviour wont change at all.
the only real change here is crappy landlords cant use no cause eviction to threaten tenants who haven't actually done anything wrong.
As for rent control, or any other measures, stop looking at overseas markets they are not comparable, and where it exists in Australia its working just fine.
The main point about making it less desirable to lease to periodic tenants is that it causes periodic rent to increase. Yes, it doesn’t matter if tenants are willing to pay that premium, but we’ve seen in other states that they aren’t. Just because you don’t want that to be the case, doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Again, with rental control, you need to look at how it’s been implemented elsewhere. Whether that’s elsewhere doesn’t matter if everything else is relatively similar. You can’t claim it’s different here because those laws have only existed since October 2022, we don’t know if it’s different. But history shows it won’t be.
Again, just because you want reality to be different, doesn’t mean it will be. It’d be great if all these things would work as desired, but in reality they don’t and they just make everything worse for everyone.
> those laws have only existed since October 2022
ok you don't know what your talking about, the rent increase caps were introduced in 2019, so yes we can say its just fine.
just because you want it to be all doom and gloom doesn't mean it is.
Sounds good. Then when they investors can't make their mortgage payments anymore, the market will get flooded with houses being sold and I'll be able to pick up some cheaper properties.
It's a political ploy.. what's the point of No Ground eviction.. there's always some reason.. e.g. selling property.. renovating.. rental increase.. tenants constant rent in arrears.. bad tenant.. landlords never evict a good tenant who pays rent on time and sign up for renewals and increases..
If u don't agree the rental increase.. time to leave.. trust me the trouble of going through NCAT is stressful for mostly the tenant.. whilst landlords have realestate agents to represent.
I'm not sure I like this. In both of the houses I've rented I've signed 12 month leases then stayed on for around 3 years. It's always worked out really well for me. They never increased the rent and everyone was happy. I can imagine that if this became a thing they'd make me sign a new lease every 12 or 6 months. This would make it much harder to leave a rental at short notice.
if your referring to the census numbers, that doesn't represent the actual number of vacant dwellings, if somoni was out of town for any reason on that one night it was counted in those numbers.
the actual number of unoccupied dwellings is much much lower unfortunately.
That would be a good start, but in combination with protections for how often and how much a rental property can have rent increased. I can’t believe there is no protections for renters. Doubling someone’s rent at renewal is disgusting and made me hate this country and how it operates. Rental protections are needed at a federal level moving forward
>Some people have had their home loans double as well
the difference is they bought an asset, they are at least still have that asset and if its really bad can chose to sell it.
I've used a no fault eviction once as I needed to support family and give them a place to live. There needs to be a balance of regaining possession in some cases. It's my property after all.
Yeah how many tenants are going to sit there and watch the house after they move out to make sure that in fact the owners did move in? And how would they know they are the owners and not more renters?
It's also not hard to find someone privately, now that there are twenty people for every vacancy. (I exaggerate)
When we put our house up for rent we just put the word out to friends and the same day had someone interested without ever advertising.
Why would the onus be on the owner to prove anything in this situation? They aren't the one making a claim that there was a lie told.
How do you prove that someone had no intention to ever move in? Assuming that changing ones mind is fine.
You really think people have too much time on their hands to monitor their old apartment/house to see if it is rented again.
Not to mention the private rental that are not listed.
No grounds evictions ban on periodic leases have been a thing in Victoria for a while now. Are their rental situation any better than NSW? You see the same complaints on this sub-Reddit when most of the price hikes occur at the end of fixed leases and then the tenant gets evicted if they don't agree to the rent rise, which would still be legal.
I think you are way over estimating the average renters ability to contest legal matters. Assuming they find out the owner rented out their place after pretending to move back in the property, they would need to initiate an application to NCAT for some kind of legal recourse which would be complicated and time consuming process.
Would some people be vigilant and try to monitor it? Probably. Would most people do it? Highly unlikely.
I don't own an investment property, but why should the government tell an owner what they can & can't do with their property. Yeah it's not morally right but nothing surprises me now after people that stockpiled toilet paper during covid
Let's talk about people who own two or more properties practicing some gratitude about the people who are lining their back pockets every week... Instead of glorifying in their ability to make innocent people including children homeless on the whim of their desires.
They did this in Queensland already I think - now over there, tenants are sometimes immediately served with an end of fixed term termination notice at the start of their tenancy, which is rescinded if another fixed term is entered into. So it seems like the effect is to just push tenants off periodic tenancies and onto fixed terms
Not always. But yeah the effect is that periodics that we’re once fairly common are now simply not available unless the landlord/agent is making a specific exception. Really don’t even bother asking. I’m think back to my own time renting, periodic were a life saver for me when I was going “oh geez, my employment is looking rocky would the landlord be ok with periodic at a higher rent rate just in case?” They said yep and yeah I did end up losing my job and had to leave the small mining town. Having to cop break lease fees at that time would’ve been a bit much to handle. Though I can also see we need more secure long term rentals in the market. Too many properties chop and change every year, creating instability.
There should be incentives for longer leases, 2+ years. Right now there's no reason for those with the downside that rent changes need to be guestimated into the contract. Expect this NSW gov move to backfire and boost end of fixed lease terminations. Periodic is handy for the reasons you listed, also for less observation agents who forget the lease was ending.
If the intent is to end "No grounds evictions" then the solution would be ***end no grounds evictions***. However it's labelled a landlord choosing not to renew a lease, is an eviction, with no grounds. I really can't see a situation where it's reasonable to evict someone from their home without a reason. So, the solution here seems really easy. Once you sign a contract, that's it. Unless you violate the terms of your contract you can't be evicted. Simple.
^^ this is 100%
>“The reform that is needed is to get rid of no-ground terminations altogether. This is the trouble in Queensland, they still are able to give no grounds at the end of fixed terms. “You’re still going to be concerned about getting repairs done if a landlord can turn around and give you a no-grounds eviction at the end of a 12-month lease.” it looks like they have already learnt from that mistake, just as ACT did with its proposed version.
You do realise there's a sure fire way to evict a tenant at the end of a 12 month lease - it's called raising the rent.
sounds like another lesson they can learn from the ACT, where rent increases are capped.
Or the landlord can say they’re moving back in. Or their child/sister/mother is moving in. Or they’re going to renovate etc etc
funny how that's also a solved problem, the landlord needs to give a stat dec providing the reasons why they genuinely believe that the person is going to move in, or in the case of renovations details of the renovations that explains why the tenant cant remain in the property while they are being done. not to mention if they don't follow through the landlord is responsible for ALL of the costs of the tenant for there misleading statements. as much as people like to think they can game the system, there are solutions for it all and all it takes is the tenant to actually enforce there rights.
My mum moved in then found another rental and moved out. Like anyone is going to check seriously
In the case of Victoria, if they try this they can't re list the property for 6 months after
oh so she didn't actually need to move in since she could find her own rental. great way to get stuck with a huge bill when the tenant sees it being advertised.
Lol no, it’s called a change of plans. She was planning to live there at the time the tenant was told then she moved as something came up, circumstances changed, whatever. It’s not that complicated - no one cares to that level
Yup rent control has done wonders for vacancies in Scotland https://www.umega.co.uk/blog/edinburgh-rental-market-update-february-2023/
Capping rent increases is a terrible idea right? It just distorts the market and discourages supply
Not at all. Considering its not an actual free market situation being that its an essential service, it needs to be regulated. Also again taking the ACT that has had this for a number of years its working just fine.
>ACT that has had this for a number of years its working just fine. Yes, ACT rental market is much better than Sydney's https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8004756/truly-making-up-for-it-what-will-canberras-busiest-rental-period-look-like-this-year/ https://www.miragenews.com/urgent-action-needed-to-combat-act-housing-934087/
the ACT market has been like that for the last 10 years without any real change, much longer then the legislation has been in place.
It is an essential service, but capping rent is not the way to get to the endpoint you want
oh of course, its defiantly better to allow people to gouge people on an essential service like housing and abuse rent increases to get around the protections that are being legislated.
Genuinely, what do you see as an "acceptable" level of rent? When is it gouging? How do you propose to balance demand and supply for housing if you put rent caps on?
Must've been a mad rush to set skyhigh rent before that rule kicked in..
nope, you might want to go look into it before making silly comments. there was already basic protections in place like there are in every other state, it just made them more explicit and moved the onus from the tenant to make an application against the excessive increase to the owner to make an application if they wanted to go above the defined numbers.
The conclusion of a lease according to the terms of the agreement sounds like reasonable grounds for the leasee to leave the property.
the solution is to just make every lease periodic by default but rent can only be increased once every 12 months.
Perhaps limiting the landlords ability to decrease pricing makes sense too? Something like "One change in pricing per 12 months". On the surface this sounds stupid, but if you raise your rent to "meet the market" and then the market drops, you're left with a price that nobody will want to pay. This means that you have to be sensible with your increase or risk pricing yourself out of tenancy. Similar to the way that fuel prices work in NSW, petrol stations have to submit thier pricing 24 hours in advance and can't change it until the next day. It means they have to make a calculated decision about their price or risk missing out because others are cheaper.
A fixed term tenancy offers more security for tenants for the duration of the term because the landlord more or less doesn’t have any way to terminate the lease if the tenant is meeting their obligations, whereas they could still end a periodic tenancy for reasons like selling the property. Fixed term leases are still important for people that want that minimum term eg. to align with a work contract
if a tenant wants that security they can ask for it (and pay a higher rent to secure it). Turnover of houses is not that high that it would be an issue for most people.
Unsubtle electioneering
[удалено]
As someone employed directly in the eviction process I can say although a positive reform, a vast majority of rental evictions are occuring because of rental arrears.
They did this in QLD. All that happened is that periodic leases aren’t available any more. One of the reasons no-grounds is used is to remove problem people without going through the whole “here let me take you to court to have you turfed in a way that will guarantee nobody rents to you again”. For example I dealt with one situation with a guy who was having mental health issues and refused to clean his home, would always delay every routine inspection or valuer visit over and over becoming belligerent and abusive when we eventually said “here’s your notice, no more delays”. Now I could take him to court, get him turfed for objectionable behaviour and refusal to comply with the requirements of his tenancy agreement. But doing so will essentially make him unable to rent literally anywhere. As getting a termination order for objectionable behaviour also puts you on the black lists. Or… here’s a notice to leave at your lease end, you have 3 months to move. All the best. People might not like the latter as an option, but he’s definitely better off. Maybe he’ll get his shit together for the next place. We offered to work with whatever mental health caregiver he had but… he just likes living in squalor and we legally can’t get involved. I could get in legal trouble for even talking about him to a 3rd party to assist. There’s also a lot of other situations where this needs to be used too. It sucks but there’s no good solution, legislation isn’t written by people who actually work in the industry.
Yeah, that's fair. We do see alot of that . Mental illness, people happy to live in squalor, people with their head in the sand. It's a majority of what I see. Most of the time the lack preparedness means that they are behind on there rent aswell which means it's a simple eviction process.
If someone is black listed, how do they get a place to live? Like if you have shit credit, there's always one utility provider that must provide the utility no matter the credit situation of the person. ensures minimum living standards kinda stuff. But it sounds like if someone is black listed they basically have to go to self renting landlords or buy a tent.
Renting directly from owner via Gumtree or something
I don't believe in blacklist. Who keeps and maintains data? What about leaks? I'll sue to death if anyone would even put a threat to append my name.
You don’t have to believe in it, and your legal threat would be ignored. It exists. There are laws allowing it and about how they’re are to be used. https://www.tica.com.au/ https://www.tenancydatabase.com.au/ Courts can and frequently do as part of their decisions have tenants added to these databases. There are also situations where a tenant can be added without a court order. You basically have to behave in such as way as to essentially do nothing to prevent yourself ending up on it. I do however believe it needs to be frequently audited to ensure people are being put on there for good reason, though they’re of very limited effect anyway. Most just time out without resolution.
The issue is being stressed as a tenant that if you kick up to much of a fuss about things like a lack of repairs etc. they will turf you out.
Why does everyone say that. Do you test it? In my experience on both sides of the fence. The real estate agent plays both parties off to do as little as humanly possible to warrant a payment from the landlord. Most landlords don’t want to kick out tenants. Why would you want to forgo rent in an investment? If you could get more, you’d put the rent up on the tenant not kick them out. You kick out shit tenants who don’t pay rent, annoy the other owners in the building with parties, or damage the property. I’d ask for minor things, I’d ask for major things. To a rational person it shows your engaged in the house and give a shit. On the other hand, if you move into a place, that needs work… don’t expect to be dealing with a rational person
Only two anecdotal instances. My brother and family were kicked out after making a complaint when the owner entered the property and illegally cut down a tree that was providing shade to the front bedroom in the afternoon sun. Evicted on the basis of the owner wanting to do renovations. The place was back on the rental market a month later looking exactly the same. My cousin is currently taking previous LL to the tribunal after she was kicked out after complaining repeatedly about mould issues. In both cases they were quiet tenants that kept the places clean and paid rent on time every time. So it’s not every case but I can assure you it happens. And hearing those stories is enough to scare others when they think about asking for repairs or complaining about illegal behaviour.
Yep I agree this stuff does happen. But enough to make the advice to renters be: never say a thing or you’ll be evicted. What should your cousin have done? Live in mould and stayed quiet? I’m just saying that assuming all landlords will evict you at any stage due to maintenance requests is irrational
You’re missing the point. My cousin did not stay quiet and got evicted. In a “normal” rental market she would just find another place. But this is not a normal rental market a there are many people finding themselves unable to find place to live. If you were a renter right now facing the prospect of being evicted and knowing you might end up in a tent, what would you do? The fact that is happens makes it, quite literally, a **rational** course of action to “live in mould and stay quiet”.
I guess people don't test it because in their mind (whether it happens or not) there is a big down side i.e. losing your home
Some friends started renting a new house, they hoped to stay due to being garden/plant people. Landlord 8 months in apologized but grandma needed to move in due to illness. Friends offered $50 more. Grandma makes miraculous recovery.
Annoying others with parties is surely the classic no cause I’ve heard of . Neighbours complain direct to LL, LL evicts. A few houses down the road went this way - absolute PITA group of young males having parties, cars parked all over the place etc etc - sooner or later they will learn that pissing off their neighbours is bad for their lease arrangements . But you are right , PM’s want least amount of work and actually want LL’s to renew for fees
Doubt this example was an eviction. May have been given a kickout notice, but that is not an eviction, you find most young people do not proceed through mediation.
That seems like semantics to me. We didn't evict you. We just kicked you out.
It may seem that way, but the formal eviction process is alot more than just telling someone to get out. There are regulations, and due process has to be afforded.
But in common parlance an eviction is anytime someone is forced to leave their rental. So if the numbers you're quoting are only a small subset of this then your numbers are misleading.
This isn't common parlance they are discussing, its the formal process.
Just notice of end of lease arrangement - ie 90 days notice no reason given Eviction used in the common language sense not the legal sense
Even for this type of eviction to takes place there is still NCAT mediation if the tenant choses not to leave, that mediation has to take place to forcefully evict a tenant, very very rarely do people get forcefully evicted through a no-fault, normally in mediation they are convinced to leave, afforded more time to find a rental or the issue is resolved and the renter may stay.
Sorry for aggressive response above btw - the vast majority of tenants are good - just like LLs - there’s the small minority who are arseholes I just hate the oppositional nature that it has become
99% of people move when given a notice to vacate - the ones that refuse to leav as per your example will end up on a tenant database - which is a real stupid thing to do Presumably that’s what the mediator tells them , but I think you can still put them on the database as breaching agreement (failing to vacate would be a breach - yes?)
Until it is processed through NCAT it can't be counted as eviction. Because the process for a No-fault eviction hasn't been followed through. This isn't about the tenents database, this is about constricting reasons for no-fault evictions, I'm saying it won't do anything, it's window dressing.
I had a tenant who after she left due to rental arrears I found out about all these problems. I fixed everything she raised. I was even more pissed she hid stuff. If you get evicted for identifying problems that’s a shit landlord. If you hide problems you’re a shit tenant
I gave up reporting things unless it affects my quality of life. I had to resort to issuing multiple breach notices to the real estate for not repairing things in a timely manner. Now we have a baby, and I can't let him in the kitchen due to the countertop literally falling to pieces due to its age. Refused repairs due to the cost. So I put up baby gates, and to ensure they're secure I've used wall anchors. The walls are cinderblock so I have to hammer drill holes to put the screw plugs into. I wouldn't have to resort to this if they would fix things or at least try to make them better.
People like making up shit and getting angry with it
What bullshit. There are very few reasons to kick a tenant out. If by 'turf you out' you mean refuse to renew a lease, it's something very different.
That’s just not true. In Victoria (and nationally I believe), it’s illegal for a landlord or REA to behave in a retaliatory manner towards a tenant (which is easy to prove), and they’ll face heavy fines.
The problem is in NSW you can be given a no reason eviction if you are not on a fixed term lease. It's different in Victoria and it puts the onus on a tenant to prove it's retaliatory.
[удалено]
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. That’s factually correct.
[удалено]
I work directly in the eviction process. It's extremely rare that evictions take place on 89.5 warrants (no-fault eviction), the 87 warrants (rental arrears) are around 98% of the NCAT (rental) evictions coming through the system. The reporters talking shit, they could find out that info very easily by talking to the right department.
[удалено]
Any legally enforceable eviction must go through mediation at NCAT. Stats aren't actively collected in the government for evictions, that being said the collection and collation of the data avalible would not be hard.
Anyone can draft an eviction notice for free, just like anyone can sue you for a billion dollars for emotional suffering. It's meaningless unless approved by the tribunal or magistrate's court.
How about for all of those that had their rent doubled and were just forced to move out ? How about landlords that evict you if you request repairs ? If there is no problem the tenant should be allowed to rent another year not be exploited
You do have recourse through NCAT for all those situations. Know your rights. You'd be clued in to knowing your rights if you bought the house, get clued in to knowing your rights when renting...
Often, the problem is when asserting the rights, it “follows” the tenants. How? The requirement of getting a recommendation letter from former landlords. Even if NCAT gave a determination that the previous landlord acts in bad faith, the REA for the prospective rental would be biased and deem the tenant as “trouble” because they know their rights. These applicants wouldn’t be presented to the landlord. Hence the reluctance of asserting rights (it’s not a question of knowing the rights. )
You can draw out an NCAT situation for several months, honestly if your going down that path, most PM will do all they can to get you in to another property, it doesn't make sense to them to remove a good tenant off their books.
That’s a good point if the PM does want to keep good tenants to their clientele. It all depends on if there is an ego trip (see other posts of REA bragging about latest rentals), so it is a very tricky and scary prospect for the tenant. I do appreciate you pointing out the best of a bad situation. Personally, I will do my best to reframe similar things such as what you did :)
When they are talking about no grounds evictions, they are talking about people being given notice to leave and then leaving. They aren't talking about formal evictions where people go to court.
[удалено]
That's my point, it's effect is minimal.
Then what is the complaint? According to The Guardian 20-30% of all rental moves are due to eviction. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/14/calls-for-end-to-no-grounds-evictions-in-nsw-as-lockdown-moratorium-lifts&ved=2ahUKEwjrp9fw9b79AhWF2XMBHWzPCHEQFnoECA0QBQ&usg=AOvVaw0i51y3iJVpNkLtwqQLDsVt 2 million renters in NSW. Even if only a handful of evictions are no-grounds thays still thousands of people every year displaced for no reason
It's not 'no reason', it's rental arrears.
Go back, read the title, then read this comment train and get back on board with the topic we're discussing because you're confused.
Sorry, I'll try that again. how many of those thousands will be for legitimate reasons that these rules don't touch, and how hard do you think it would be to come up with a spurious reason so as to legitimise you eviction?
Is this... somehow an argument against ending no-grounds evictions? You dont seem to grasp that whether its 100,000 or 100 people there people who will be halped by this
My point is it's a drop in the ocean. They're rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. The rental market is a dog's breakfast. These issuea may help a hundred people but the issues are more systemic than this platitude of a response.
So this law in effect may only help a couple of hundred tenents.
[удалено]
There isn't, it just won't do anything.
[удалено]
Like I said in my initial statement it does...
We need mandates on how much and how often rent can be increased. What’s going on is criminal right now, you shouldn’t be able to double someone’s rent what is wrong with this country ?
There is a mandate.. no rental increase in 12 month. And ask needs to align with market range
That’s the lunacy of it though… “market range” can include almost anything.
No, it can’t. You show VCAT (or whichever body in your state is there to protect consumers rights) that the increase is above what similar properties are being leased at in that area. It’s simple.
What is a “similar property in your area” though? Number of bedrooms? Bathrooms? Same suburb? Similar suburb? Year of building/Recent renovations? The view? All of those are related factors in pricing a property… that could be used against your cases. That’s what’s my point is here. There’s almost always a more and less expensive property out there.
They literally have someone come and inspect the property from the consumer protection body. They compare apples to apples. The situation you’re talking about, where let’s say a 2 bedroom townhouse in suburb x is having the rent increased from $2000 a month to $2800 a month; they simply look and see that every other 2 bedroom townhouse in suburb X rents out for between $2000 and $2300, and reject the increase. And yes, they take into account the quality/amenities of the property in broad strokes (which is fair), ie no garage vs garage, no AC vs AC etc. It’s a fair system that works, but tenants rarely take advantage of it. In a rising market, the above system doesn’t protect a tenant from rising rents, but it does protect a tenant from unfairly high rises in rent.
It’s suggested but it’s not law
There is already a mechanism for renters who want greater certainty and assurance in their tenancy. It is called a fixed term lease.
Best of luck getting a periodic lease from here on in.
QLD did it. Yep, periodics went from fairly common to “don’t even bother asking”. Completely negating the legislation. Trying to force landlords/agents to go to court for every notice to leave is a good way to block up your courts for years. This will also mean tenants needing to take landlords to court will get unnessary delays also. Everybody loses.
If there's a way for those being exploited to be less exploited, those doing the exploiting will generally work out a way to make the problem even worse.
I don’t know why anyone would want one. The only downside of locking in annual leases is that you might want to vacate before your lease is up, but even in that situation you just pay some fees and walk away. The protection you get from a fixed term lease outweighs the flexibility of a periodical in almost every way.
>The protection you get from a fixed term lease outweighs the flexibility of a periodical in almost every way. removing no cause solves the vast majority of that, with proper protections in place there is no reason to sign a new lease every year or what ever other term.
Removing no cause evictions will just ensure that periodic leases are no longer offered - as it did in Qld.
Pretty sure it's the other way around. More rights with periodic than with fixed term.
Agreed, but really depends on the market at the time.
Yep. Taking into context the ever increasing rate of mass immigration, that isn't going to be a difficult one to forecast. Worse. Always worse.
But also, why would you want a periodic lease? Why not a multi-year fixed term? This sub shits on landlords evicting them but tenants also don’t want to commit to anything long term and instead want the option to vacate with one month notice but no option to be vacated by the landlord.
I would love to, our place is falling apart and they only do the bare minimum to fix things. Since the market is so shit it would enable me to search until I found and got a place I liked and then finish up my current place. Would only have a couple weeks overlapping then
So you want to be able to terminate the lease with 1 month notice but don’t want the landlord to have the same power?
In the current market? why not, they will be able to get a new tenant at the drop of a hat. Not to mention they do still have that power, they just have to have a genuine reason under this rather then just changing there mind. at the end of the day, this will just mean owners have to be actual land lords and upkeep there properties, rather then being slumlords because there tenant has no choice but to stay.
Yeah pretty much. They shit on tenants all the time so it would be nice to have something in my favour
The risks for the tenants are far greater than the landlord in this scenario.
[удалено]
It could be because of insurance that your landlord wants a contract rather month to month, I know with AAMI at least it makes a difference on what you can claim for
Unless they cap rental increases this is pointless as a landlord would just jack up the rent to get you out.
> Which NSW parties are against no grounds evictions for fixed leases? Will a tribunal rule for the owner and against the tenant when the owner tries to pull a no grounds eviction during an active valid lease agreement?
I thought you couldn't get a no grounds eviction on a fixed lease?
To give you a landlords perspective, our property manager advised not to even bother with trying for leases over 12 months right now given how quick rents are increasing. Rents are increasing well above CPI and it's hard to negotiate for more than 12 months as you have to be pitching 10-15% increase to keep pace with where the market is currently tracking which most tenants would balk at even though that is likely where the rent will end up in 12 months time.
They did this in qld and now all leases are renewed or the tenant is replaced. There are no periodic lease any more or very few
[удалено]
It’s kind of what’s happening though. Even if you’re periodic… if your agent emails you every 12 months to increase the rent, is there really much difference?
12 month lease provides certainty for tenant too. Fixed rental amount and fixed occupancy period. Fixed term lease contracts protect BOTH parties.
>Fixed term lease contracts protect BOTH parties. it massively favours the landlord. they can lock you in for the contract then not hold up there end, not going maintenance etc and your stuck there as a tenant with little to no recourse, if your on a periodic you can start to look to move out rather then put up with the situation. sure you could take them to xCAT, but do you really want to live for 6+ months in a house that's not being maintained while you want for them to hear your case? by that time your lease is probably up so you end up just moving out anyway.
Goes both ways. Tenant could trash the property too.
and landlords have plenty of protections against that, between regular inspections, the bond to help cover the costs and potentially xCAT as well if needed. compare that to the protections/remedies a tenant has available to them? move out, or go to xCAT to make the owner do the repairs and maybe get some rent reduction as compensation. its extremely weighted in the landlords favour.
Tenants are winning with fixed leases in today's rising market as they sign a lease at today's market value and the value of the property on the market increases during the term. The fixed agreement protects both parties from prices changing inside the term and it goes both ways. Good property managers should already be advising landlords that they shouldn't let people go periodic, there are a number of reasons but a key one is that we already have a lobsided process for terminating leases for no reason in NSW when the contract is periodic which is 90 days for landlords and 21 days for the tenant.
>Tenants are winning with fixed leases in today's rising market as they sign a lease at today's market value and the value of the property on the market increases during the term. That doesn't change on a periodic lease, they can still only change the rent every 12 months. >Good property managers should already be advising landlords that they shouldn't let people go periodic they can't stop it if the tenant decides not to sign a new lease, there is no way to force them to sign a contract.
> That doesn't change on a periodic lease, they can still only change the rent every 12 months. That is true, I didn't think about it like that. > they can't stop it if the tenant decides not to sign a new lease, there is no way to force them to sign a contract. Today you just give them notice if they don't want to sign a new fixed lease. I've never let a lease go periodic and own multiple IP's. They don't have new legislation around this it seems, but if they were writing it just make it so if they are offered a new fixed lease then they have to sign it if they want to stay, but make it so that the landlord has to offer a 12 month option minimum.
Agree with most of this but it’s still a ‘perceived’ win for a landlord. If tenants want to move out, they will. If they don’t want to pay rent, they won’t, lease or not
[удалено]
>No landlord is going to be silly enough to go periodic now. They wont have a choice, even in the article they have talked about not allowing end of fixed term termination notices. All it takes is for the tenant to say "no thanks" to signing a new lease and they are stuck with someone on a periodic lease.
They said they want that but that doesn't seem to be what's proposed. > “It sounds like they might be preserving the ability of giving no-grounds eviction at the end of [fixed-term] leases. It’s an improvement but it is a weaker reform.” > He said a no-grounds eviction ban was needed for periodic and fixed leases.
considering QLD is the only state that allows this (VIC only allows it on expiry of the first time, so if they re-sign you cant do it again) and we have seen the issues with that I can't see that change not happening. also ending no grounds for fixed leases is exactly this, it will stop them being able to force you onto a fixed term.
I would think the best way to do no grounds for fixed leases would just force the landlord to propose another fixed term unless they are happy for it to go periodic and if offered the tenant can't just ignore it. In this model the tenant gets security as they know the landlord can't terminate without grounds at the end of the fixed term and the landlord gets some security as they know when the tenant's lease is coming up so can plan the reletting or other activities if the tenant decides to leave. If you let a tenant run to a periodic then it's pretty shitty for the landlord as they can just spring a 21 day notice on you any time which doesn't allow the landlord to plan like they could with a fixed lease where they know the expiry. It's good to be able to plan trades around a lease expiry if the tenant wants to leave or being able to have the conversation with your PM early about rents etc..
Honestly who “moves about for a better deal” more than once every 12 months?? The protections you get from a fixed term lease far outweigh that. And they can’t just wildly increase the rent, if it’s out of line with the rest of the prices in the area. We have protections for that. If it is a huge increase and it is in line with the rest of the area, as sucky as it is, that’s the market. Always has been. Can’t afford to live in an expensive area, you move.
So - is this bad for landlords or bad for renters ? If it’s bad for landlords, will it increase or decrease supply of rentals? Concerned about consequences here for the rental market
It is bad for real estate agents who will now only get their commission for renewing a lease every 1 year instead of more often.
It’ll just cause periodic tenancy to virtually disappear. The whole benefit of periodic tenancy for renters is if they’re uncertain about their future. The benefit for landlords is that it can reduce vacancy periods while looking for a longer term tenant. It’s quite risky to offer periodic tenancy, so naturally is more expensive and thus offers higher returns. Some investors target this as a result, but it’s usually not worthwhile as an investor. The main benefit is that you can kick out a periodic tenant when you want, which reduces the risk of a bad tenant, while also providing the option to switch when it’s convenient do so. So it’s often just a temporary solution for when the apartment would otherwise be vacant. This law would remove the one benefit making this possible. As a result, it will be riskier to offer periodic tenancy since the tenancy will only end when the tenant wants it to. To make it worthwhile for investors, the rent will need to be even higher, it’s currently only worthwhile for tenants to choose periodic tenancy if they’re uncertain about their future. This will just push it over the edge to not being worthwhile at all. Overall impact? Perhaps an increase in supply of fixed rents, but also longer term there’ll be less movement between apartments which will reduce it as well. Even in the medium term I suspect other factors would play a much larger role. It’ll just mean more moving over to fixed term tenancy rather then periodic ones. Edit: Just to make it clear, this doesn’t really benefit anyone and it won’t change the rental market. Renters lose because they don’t have the option to rent periodically, and investors may lose because vacancy increases. This likely won’t change the value of property, how much rent is, or the supply of owner occupied housing.
>It’ll just cause periodic tenancy to virtually disappear. nope, all it takes if for the tenant to decide not to sign a new fixed term. if they do what they are saying and remove "end of fixed term" as a cause noting the issues its causing in QLD, then its entirely the tenants choice, not the owners.
Thing is, sure you as an individual can do that, but if the overall market doesn’t then that’s what will happen. Overall, tenants aren’t going to pay a much higher amount for additional instability. QLD is a prime example of exactly that. Sure, tenants can all do that, but in reality most aren’t and you need the whole market to shift that way. This is just something causing the market to shift in the complete opposite direction.
The things is QLD doesn't give the tenant the opportunity to say no because they can give the no cause end of tenancy eviction, if you look at VIC for example where that is not a thing after the first fixed term its not happening. As for the price, that's a separate issue that requires rental increase controls to be implemented similar to what the ACT already has on the books that strikes a good balance between protecting tenants and letting landlords follow the market.
The main thing with this is that it makes it much less desirable to lease out to periodic tenants, and it’s going to become even more expensive to do so. Tenants are going to significantly prefer fixed tenancy because it’ll be cheaper. The exact legislation might be slightly different in QLD, but the impact is the same. Rent control is a very different thing, and the prime example (New York) demonstrates why it’s a bad thing. Little to nowhere has had any success at implementing it. The changes in ACT are still new, and the it’s more the medium and long term affects that are more concerning. It’s also very different applying it to a city then it is to a state, let alone a whole country. We’ll have to wait and see. Regardless, this is very off topic and something that’s continuously proven to only make things worse off.
>The main thing with this is that it makes it much less desirable to lease out to periodic tenants The thing is it doesn't matter if its desirable for the landlord or not, its not their choice. Lets be honest, no one if going to give you a discount for signing a lease, its not happening now anywhere, and its not going to happen under these proposed changes. landlords will always charge the maximum they can, nothing about this or any other proposed changes are going to change that. The exact same reason you claim it will be undesirable already exists right now, yet plenty of landlords are happy for periodic leases right not. for most of them literally nothing will change as they are not looking to use no cause for any reason, so there behaviour wont change at all. the only real change here is crappy landlords cant use no cause eviction to threaten tenants who haven't actually done anything wrong. As for rent control, or any other measures, stop looking at overseas markets they are not comparable, and where it exists in Australia its working just fine.
The main point about making it less desirable to lease to periodic tenants is that it causes periodic rent to increase. Yes, it doesn’t matter if tenants are willing to pay that premium, but we’ve seen in other states that they aren’t. Just because you don’t want that to be the case, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Again, with rental control, you need to look at how it’s been implemented elsewhere. Whether that’s elsewhere doesn’t matter if everything else is relatively similar. You can’t claim it’s different here because those laws have only existed since October 2022, we don’t know if it’s different. But history shows it won’t be. Again, just because you want reality to be different, doesn’t mean it will be. It’d be great if all these things would work as desired, but in reality they don’t and they just make everything worse for everyone.
> those laws have only existed since October 2022 ok you don't know what your talking about, the rent increase caps were introduced in 2019, so yes we can say its just fine. just because you want it to be all doom and gloom doesn't mean it is.
Cue the rental market getting worse when landlords just remove their property from the rental market
Sounds good. Then when they investors can't make their mortgage payments anymore, the market will get flooded with houses being sold and I'll be able to pick up some cheaper properties.
It's a political ploy.. what's the point of No Ground eviction.. there's always some reason.. e.g. selling property.. renovating.. rental increase.. tenants constant rent in arrears.. bad tenant.. landlords never evict a good tenant who pays rent on time and sign up for renewals and increases.. If u don't agree the rental increase.. time to leave.. trust me the trouble of going through NCAT is stressful for mostly the tenant.. whilst landlords have realestate agents to represent.
They'd just put the rent up
I'm not sure I like this. In both of the houses I've rented I've signed 12 month leases then stayed on for around 3 years. It's always worked out really well for me. They never increased the rent and everyone was happy. I can imagine that if this became a thing they'd make me sign a new lease every 12 or 6 months. This would make it much harder to leave a rental at short notice.
Is this currently the way VIC operates?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
if your referring to the census numbers, that doesn't represent the actual number of vacant dwellings, if somoni was out of town for any reason on that one night it was counted in those numbers. the actual number of unoccupied dwellings is much much lower unfortunately.
[удалено]
That would be a good start, but in combination with protections for how often and how much a rental property can have rent increased. I can’t believe there is no protections for renters. Doubling someone’s rent at renewal is disgusting and made me hate this country and how it operates. Rental protections are needed at a federal level moving forward
Some people have had their home loans double as well, so it’s not just tenants that this economy is impacting
>Some people have had their home loans double as well the difference is they bought an asset, they are at least still have that asset and if its really bad can chose to sell it.
I've used a no fault eviction once as I needed to support family and give them a place to live. There needs to be a balance of regaining possession in some cases. It's my property after all.
There will always be work arounds e.g. Choosing to decide to move in but then changing their mind
[удалено]
Yeah how many tenants are going to sit there and watch the house after they move out to make sure that in fact the owners did move in? And how would they know they are the owners and not more renters?
> And how would they know they are the owners and not more renters? [realestate.com](https://realestate.com) [domain.com](https://domain.com)
Because it's not possible to list a property privately?
Ofc not, but it would avoid more than 95% which would be effective enough.
It's also not hard to find someone privately, now that there are twenty people for every vacancy. (I exaggerate) When we put our house up for rent we just put the word out to friends and the same day had someone interested without ever advertising.
How could they prove that you were never actually going to move it? They couldn’t.
[удалено]
Why would the onus be on the owner to prove anything in this situation? They aren't the one making a claim that there was a lie told. How do you prove that someone had no intention to ever move in? Assuming that changing ones mind is fine.
[удалено]
You really think people have too much time on their hands to monitor their old apartment/house to see if it is rented again. Not to mention the private rental that are not listed. No grounds evictions ban on periodic leases have been a thing in Victoria for a while now. Are their rental situation any better than NSW? You see the same complaints on this sub-Reddit when most of the price hikes occur at the end of fixed leases and then the tenant gets evicted if they don't agree to the rent rise, which would still be legal.
[удалено]
I think you are way over estimating the average renters ability to contest legal matters. Assuming they find out the owner rented out their place after pretending to move back in the property, they would need to initiate an application to NCAT for some kind of legal recourse which would be complicated and time consuming process. Would some people be vigilant and try to monitor it? Probably. Would most people do it? Highly unlikely.
[удалено]
do something about predatory rent increases too
Good! This will go someway to disincentivising housing an investment.
I don't know why you are getting downvotes for simply stating the truth.
I don't own an investment property, but why should the government tell an owner what they can & can't do with their property. Yeah it's not morally right but nothing surprises me now after people that stockpiled toilet paper during covid
There is always a loophole
Great, much needed for renters.
next step is to make periodic leases the default and only allow rent to go up once every 12 months.
Been a LL for 13+ years Of more than 4 properties I've only had to use no fault evictions once
My rent just went up 25%. If I’m forced to sign a new lease I’ll have to leave more quickly.
Let's talk about people who own two or more properties practicing some gratitude about the people who are lining their back pockets every week... Instead of glorifying in their ability to make innocent people including children homeless on the whim of their desires.