VIC Rent Reduction Consumer Affairs Vic

Free ride as in living at home with parents (the landlord). Probably why VCAT determined the reduction affordable to him/her.

And you almost correct, the banks have been instructed to 'wear it'. The hardship measures the banks are handing out at the expense of shareholders are not charitable initiatives on thier part.
I consider that to be somewhat a parallel to the VCAT logic.

 

I have no dount he/she is not happy, but the inability to come to a mutual agreement has obviously neccesited VCAT to make a determination for the respective parties.

I suspect they are more interested in a socially acceptable outcome rather than protecting ones investment thesis, afterall housing is still a social issue for society as a whole.

 

I hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong here, but loan deferrals will still be paid back later + interest so it's just delayed gratification for the bank. While for the landlord, these rent reductions won't be clawed back later, it's simply accepting lower income than stipulated on original contract.

So from that perspective it might be a bit rich to call it a parallel to VCAT logic (but again I might be mistaken on some assumptions).

 

The assumption error being that a deferal will result in the loans being paid back with interest.
Ideally that would the case but we all know a number of these mortgage holders are not going to recover and the banks would have been better foreclosing in the first place, particularly where negative equity is an issue.

I realise that we live in a society so I'm not going to get uptight about a hit to the bottom line of the banks (of which I am a shareholder) if it means most people end up mostly ok.... even though it will cost me directly.

I assume the VCAT logic is similar but replace bank shareholders / mortgage holders with landlords / tenants.

The concept of being entitled to original contract is irrelevant as goverment has changed the rules.
An investment of any sort is subject to regulatory risk. Some industries are familiar with it, some property investors less so it seems.

To pose the question, who would you rather be in scenario above? The rentvestor loosing some rent money while living at home with parents, or the tenant with no job. I wouldnt feel like winner if I was either, but much less the latter.