Tenant is free riding new non eviction policy

Just signed up ,Datto be careful with the AMG'S first insurance then the maintenance and from what i'm seeing on the Mercedes price index they are the first cab off the rank during periods like this ,one minute you working for a high flying company next your stacking shelves in a supermarket ..

 

Yes, no evictions in Tasmania for any reason, as I posted before:

Changes to residential tenancies in Tasmania during emergency period (COVID-19)

Presumably tenant can trash your property, you can't do anything.

So not speculation, if they have done it in Tasmania why won't they do it in all states?

And I keep suggesting, if the tenant pays no rent and therefore the property is not income producing, why would we be entitled to claim a tax deduction? Requires an opinion from the ato before we can assume we can do so.

 

All States are being asked to consider policy that is mutually identical that supports landlords, tenants and lenders. The PM and Premiers meet each night or more frequently

There are two camps. Landlords fear tenants who may not (or may !!) pay rent and affected tenants needing a safety net from reprisal and unfair acts to see them homeless. There are a lot of people who will need support and ever more possibly who wont. It appears Premiers are struggling to find a suitable compromise and all parties may need to lose something. Scomo and Treasury are all part of this daily meeting of the minds. Along with another 20+ major issues. Jobs and income are #1, Health #2. Everything else is secondary but still important.

There are no new tax deductions available. Owners with unpaid rent may well have enhanced tax losses. And higher refunds. If the tenant pays it back next year it could also mean more tax next year. A property genuinely available for arms length rent with a tenant unable to pay full rent doesnt impact deductions.

I am reading a lot of posts based of "what if" and not real issues. When facts become available it will likely be uniform nationwide and may involve Centrelink, ATO or other agencies.

 

Do we know this with certainty unless the ato provides a public view.

I don't think the tax law was written with the thought that paying rent would suddenly have no viable means of enforcing its payment and a zero income position would continue indefinitely.

When interest rates go up, government fails to recognise the obvious when deductions go up, and announces a crackdown on the dodgy tax rorting landlords.

So what is going to happen when all these tax returns come in with zero rent and large deductions, with the budget shattered too, ato might decide to interpret the law in a way that favours revenue as they usually do. Of course, government can just change the law too.

And what about landlords who won't put a tenant in right now because they cannot be expected to lease their property under conditions that do not protect their basic interests, if they are trying to claim deductions then the ato is going to come after them won't they? But would ato expect someone in normal times to say put in a tenant with terrible rental history wanting to rent it for a dollar if that was the only tenant available? Because that would be a similar decision that landlords with vacant properties right now are being asked to make?

 

The PM specifically stated that they're looking to suspend evictions during the crisis where the tenants are experiencing financial hardship.

If tenants are out of a job and experiencing hardship, their new job now is to get government assistance, which includes rental assistance. The landlord will get something.

If they're not experiencing hardship and still in their job, they can be evicted.

 

The financial year is almost over with only a few months remaining, so why would rent be at zero when the eviction freeze has only just started.
And with all due respect this problem started over 2 months ago before spreading worldwide, its not like it just happened overnight.
Our silly government was only saying last month that it was an health problem,not an economic problem.
Looking back to the lockdown around Wuhan , how can it not be an economic problem if every shop and business has to shut down and people forced to stay at home.
I think the final scenes of "Contagion" the movie showed how quickly a virus can spread around the world through our air travel and airports.
One infected traveller at a major airport will push it all around the globe .
Our government and Border Force completely missed that and allowed infected travellers to return from the U.S, and is shown with the Sydney infection rate around the wealthy areas of Sydney.

 

Do we know this with certainty unless the ato provides a public view. The ATO WONT suddenly revise decades of case law and about face. The Commissioner would be immediately dismissed from office by ScoMo if he even said it. But thats not the Commissioners job - making law is a Government job. It undermines confidence and is just not true. The view is quite...irrational.

When interest rates go up, government fails to recognise the obvious when deductions go up, and announces a crackdown on the dodgy tax rorting landlord
Who knows in the future a Lib or ALP Governmnet may seek to limit IP gearing but it wont be in the deferred September budget even if things look better. Its going to take time. And the value of investors supporting a housing emergency now will be recognised as a factor. The Libs did say its not policy but I argue all the cards will be on the table in the recovery. Someone's gotta pay the cost. All of us will share that. Its not a issue for now.

And what about landlords who won't put a tenant in right now because they cannot be expected to lease their property under conditions that do not protect their basic interests
This is well governed by existing tax law. Its non deductible if landlords make stupid decisions like that. Its like quitting your secure job because you think a employer may stand you down. Or burning down your IP because you are worried a tenant may not pay the rent.

I am 100% certain of what the existing law says. Can you imagine Parliament being recalled to vote on such a ridiculous idea ? Morrison would be hung in Martin Place like Mussolini. Seriously. Sit down and chill. You are literally making up things that arent realistic.

Rents are still 100% a legal liability to the tenant.

 

I don't see how it is stupid. Tenants can't be evicted even if they trash your property according to the Tasmania law. They can't be evicted for any reason. They can't be made to pay any rent except by threat of future civil action, they don't have to show they can't pay. The landlord is expected to hope for some theoretical rent payment in return risks their asset being trashed over a period of time and they can do nothing?

 

The Tasmania law bans evictions for any reason not just non payment. There is absolutely no obligation on the tenant to show hardship either. People are believing the spin that the pm is putting on it that it is just protecting tenants in genuine hardship against evil landlords but it is a complete removal of our rights.

 

Better not let anyone into your shop - they might trash it. Same with hiring a handyman - they might just break the thing you've asked them to fix - and all you can do is take civil action against them. Better not get anything delivered to your house - the postman might use the opportunity to break your gate right?

Better just sit at home and not contract with anyone ever, just to be safe.

 

Not the same at all, if someone trashes your shop you have the right to remove them and tell them not to come back, if the handyman breaks something you don't hire him again. The tenant who is trashing your property you are forced to continue dealing with whilst they trash your property.

The damage to your property could be obviously malicious too, but the police will usually take the position of a civil matter if there is no body and it is too much effort.

 

Its the same because in all those scenarios there's no normal interest in the other party trashing your place. Sure there's always an outside chance that "anything could happen" - but if you want to make commercial decisions based on paranoia, then go for it.

Just don't complain when others don't see it your way and you wonder why the laws or policies aren't changed to suit your fringe world view.

 

Well I wouldn't really consider having the ability to remove a tenant who is obviously doing the wrong thing a fringe world view. There was no good reason for the government to remove such rights, perhaps they were so rushed they just made it a blanket ban because it was easier, perhaps they saw landlords as being a target to wear the cost for the benefit of society, I don't know.

If we made all current crimes no longer a crime, how long do you think it would take before people who normally did the right thing, started to commit these previous crimes, even for trivial reason? I guess this will be what happens here where we just have to trust tenants to do the right thing?

When some states changed the laws so that tenants could bring in pets, it seems many more landlords were concerned about their rights and thinking it was the end of world than are concerned here.

 

Owning a perfectly capable property that can produce rent and you leave it vacant .... from paranoia?. Its like suggesting food is is demand so just steal it. Its still a crime. The fundamental issue of a lease representing a contract is NOT at question. No state seeks to do that. Nobody has ever suggested this. Leases remain enforceable including eviction. After the danger period for dangerous landlord reprisals has passed. The fundamental issue is most people want to pay rent and keep a home and will given opportunity. Nobody is saying the system allows non-payment to be ignored. Hey if you have existing centrelink renters they will have more cash than ever. You may be referring to hardworkers without work at present who are probably humiliated and seeking help so they can work things out.

Good tenants need protection from some bad landlords. But if you dont manage the issue you will find a tenant that will go out of their way to avoid helping.

I'm suspecting you want it all your way. And have a job. And cant imagine what it woud be like to be your own tenant. You want your money now right ? Or they can leave right ? So thats what the law suspenion seeks to stop.

A crisis can bring out the best in some people and....

 

If the law was designed to stop that, then it would have also come with some form of obligation for the tenant to show they were actually in hardship and were contributing something that they could. I would have no problem with that. But there is no such thing, just a blanket ban on all evictions, landlords are being sacrificed because it is quick and easy to just make a blanket ban and sacrifice us for the benefit of the community.

Well I wouldn't leave my wallet lying around in public unattended and I don't think that is paranoid, I don't see how this is any different, just trusting the tenant to do the right thing with no means of enforcement?