Non paying tenant - It's started.

I would never ask a tenant to do that.

 

So I can cash mine in ( or other investments at a loss) to cover my living expenses while giving someone else free accommodation. Yeah great idea. If people don't have a few months savings to live on that is their problem not mine.

 

Now suddenly the risk to the tenant of being evicted has been completely removed. Where is the risk to the tenant?

Regardless of whether the landlord owns the property or not the landlord has capital invested and as mentioned nobody is doing anything about stopping land tax, council rates and water rates. Maybe if the government was asked to reduce the statutory expenses they would be signing a different tune. Watch a recent question to Scomo re land tax and the like which he ducked and weaved on. So quite happy to throw the landlord under the bus.

On top of these expenses there are the many repair expenses which I assume we can still be taken to the tribunal for if not attended to.

As for rental reductions requests from tenants. Due to the publicity the tenants have a misguided belief that they should ask for a rent reduction first before going to talk to centrelink. My PM's have been instructed to direct them to centrelink and once they have been through that process present us with the paperwork.

I am not worried about the interim rental incoem loss until centrelink kicks in but I am certainly not going to wear a reduction when the tenant has actually increase his net income.

Also the Qld government has just announced an up to $500 a week rental assistance package. Same line you need to have done centrelink.

"In a live Q&A streamed on Facebook, Ms Trad said the state government had set up a grant program that offers an emergency rental assistance payment of up to $500 a week, for up to four weeks, for Queenslanders who cannot make rent."

 

A link to message from Leanne Pilkington, President of the RE NSW
A Message to Landlords from Leanne Pilkington

I use LS for my properties in Sydney, there’s a form they sent to Tenant calling in for free rent... interesting form

 

Of course that will be the first thing that pops into their head but ........

 

Just apply that logic to yourself. Tenant loses income, pays rent from savings. Landlord loses income, pays mortgage / living expenses from savings. Why would you need to dip into your super? You'll be fine to live off your obviously sufficient savings for a few months.

 

Most people (owners and tenants) don't have savings. Assuming otherwise is very flawed.

 

I don't understand why EBM doesn't have a way you can auto-renew your policy by giving them a credit card to store on file or to direct debit via a bank account. That way someone's policy can't lapse accidentally.

 

I agree, but it wasn't my assumption

 

Geez

He is the Mcdonald's off the furniture world. When he exited Super A Mart he made sure
a la the golden arches model he owned the bulk of the physical big box properties where his
franchisee's were sold a business as he grew his empire. Short memory.......

Some give and take will be required everywhere.

 

As mentioned in the past , most of are tenants don’t have a job to loose ....

cliff

 

Yeah it’s annoying. We didn’t know for that property either because they weren’t sending an invoice through the mail and it didn’t come through email either. I got my husband to call to update with our new address (our mail is being redirected) and they said it had lapsed.

 

Totally your call whether you ask a tenant to cash in their super or not.

But assuming a landlord should dip into their savings to prop up a tenant is also a bit unfair. Landlords aren’t being given any cash to help make up rental shortfalls, only a waiver of payments for up to 6 months while interest still accrues.

It seems ok to let tenants know their options in meeting their rental obligations, even give them options to help their cashflow like deferring rental payments (like banks have offered landlords) before offering a rental reduction.

 

Not in all states and not forever. Yes, there are plenty of rent relief programs but the fact is that the jobs market has completely collapsed and that's going to impact on the ability of millions to pay rent. That's also going to ultimately reflect on capital values as rents can't be realised.

Interesting times.

 

I agree. Personally, I wouldn't. That's where I draw the line.

Not much about the current situation is fair. The only sure thing is the banks will get paid.

 

They can do more business because deferred payments become loans at higher interest rates. Win win for big boys

 

I think the banks are more concerned about falling property prices and the associated bad debts when the proceeds do not cover the debt. There’s a good reason the banks’ share prices have been slammed over the last month.

 

For a long time I've been reading on this forum, and somersoft, people maintaining an uncompromising position that their property investments are a business, and like to gloat about dismissing tenant requests.

There's so much denial that there is a personal aspect i.e. people need the comfort of having a roof over their head. Each states tenancy authority has been slowly implementing more legislation favouring the tenant for many years, which has been making property investing less appealing.. The current rent reliefs offered by the government don't surprise me one bit..

For me the biggest lesson I'm learning is that if one chooses to invest in such a personal asset (a roof over someone else's head), the landlord is last in the pecking order when the poo hits the fan.

 

I agree there is a degree of that sentiment in these forums. But the situation as it stands now is more about trying to find an equitable solution between tenant and landlord (banks always win).

Its OK to try think of compromises that will minimise impacts to tenants livelihood such as deferring a portion of rent payments. It’s also OK to ensure that tenants are genuinely in need of such measures before offering such assistance. As other members have said, there has been a lot of welfare payments handed out to those unfortunate enough to loose their job. It’s reasonable to expect the majority (not all) can afford to pay at least part of their rental commitments without deferring all responsibility.

 

I think that's the most sensible thing that's been said in this thread.