There is a growing trend for tenants to put pressure on landlords to raise the standards of lower end rental properties as they the tenants have had a few win falls with the rental board of late whereby landlords have been forced to perform maintenance to what is essentially a ‘future knock down’ property in many cases.

Now let’s not get confused between repairs and improvements. If something breaks then that’s fair enough, it should be repaired, but to replace floor coverings or broken screens after the renter has agreed to rent the property, that’s not fair!

Spend $5,000 on a property that is ear marked as a knock down within two years and the rent must go up by $50 per week just to recoup the capital alone.

Smoke alarms are a classic example. As a landlord, not only am I responsible for the installation of smoke alarms but I also have to make sure they are in working order at the commencement of each new rental agreement.

Now this may seem fine on the outside, but if you own properties in another region then you have to pay someone to perform these checks and this is yet another cost that must be passed on.

At a mere $9.95 each, surely tenants can have their own smoke alarms that they take from place to place and are responsible for themselves. After all, we are their landlords, not their carers!

Now I am the first to agree that everyone is entitled to a comfortable dwelling to reside in, however, one must understand that if this trend continues then rents will increase as further policing of the minimum standard for a rental property would mean that bottom end rents will either increase, or many of these lower level properties will be withdrawn from the rental market. Something the already stretched rental market can ill afford in my view.

So think very carefully before you go and lodge that complaint about the property you rent, as you may not like the outcome.

There's a growing trend for land lords to continually complain about the costs that inevitably comes with owing a property and blaming tenants. It is not only an issue of repair, but also maintenance.

Before going into the property market make sure you can afford it. Be grateful to your tenants that because they cannot buy their own property they are helping you to greater wealth.

Because that's why you bought a rental property in the first place, not because of some altruistic reason to provide housing. To make money for yourself.

If maintenance of property is not somenthing you're into, or cannot afford because you've financially so overcommitted yourself that a $9.95 smoke alarm becomes too much, then invest your money in a share portfolio.

Butcher, you sound like you could happily be a slum lord. Those days are long over.

Oh, come on rehctub. My heart bleeds for you.

Yeah, I'm with the rest of them. Don't like it?, sell the property Butcher.

I'm kinda shocked you'd even try and rent the place out that NEEDS screens and flooring replaced. Maybe ya shoulda done when the last tenants asked ya too.

I can't afford my own and you're whining about having more then one?.

(expletives deleted to appeased the sensitivities of the locals)

RECCY.. ur spot on mate.. fair is fair.. and if people rent a property as 'thus and so' and then want it refurbished because:

a) They have abused it.
b) They just don't like it now.

Then.. they can go take a running jump.

There is an absolute difference between 'repairs' and 'improvement'.

The fact that bishop Morgan does not appear to see this, is in perfect harmony with his inability to see many other 'reasonable' things :)
and explains why his reaction to many common sense issues is.. 'most strange' to say the least.

But.. the principle which should apply between tenants and landlords is the 'ol faithful'.. "do for other as you would have them do for you".

Would you reasonably take a property in a specified known condition and then want it improved? Hardly..because you wouldn't (unless you had a thought process problem) want such a thing done to YOU if you were a landlord for what, to all but the most recalcitrant head in sand brigade, are obvious reasons.

I'd consider the smoke detectors a pretty small issue.. and can't see that the cost of getting some service person to do it at a cost which is factored into the rent is an insurmountable problem. I agree though it might be a hassle.

What an odd Christian you are, Porky. Not content with extolling the virtues of kicking dogs, beating children and discriminating against gays, you're now leaping to the defence of a slum landlord who's whingeing about the costs of installing mandatory smoke detectors.

What would Jesus do in this situation, Porky?

Now let’s not get confused between repairs and improvements. If something breaks then that’s fair enough, it should be repaired, but to replace floor coverings or broken screens after the renter has agreed to rent the property, that’s not fair!

Thought this might hit a nerve or two. Now settle down, re-visit my thread and you will see that I made a distinct quote that there is a real difference between 'repairs and improvements'

There's a growing trend for land lords to continually complain about the costs that inevitably comes with owing a property and blaming tenants. It is not only an issue of repair, but also maintenance.
Ok, Anansi, let’s take a quick glance at landlord expenses that tenants, in many cases take for granted..
1. GST on all fees, charges repairs. Now unless you are registered for GST this is money lost in additional taxes.
2. Indemnity insurance has increased up to 500% in some cases. Often as a result of a tenant suing a landlord because they tripped on torn floor coverings. And guess what, the tenant tore them.
3. Increased fire levies yet most fires in houses are caused by resident negligence.
4. Increased landlord insurance
5. Increased management fees resulting mainly from increased workload imposed on letting agents.
And the list goes on.

Because that's why you bought a rental property in the first place, not because of some altruistic reason to provide housing. To make money for yourself.

Well YOU GOT ME THERE

If maintenance of property is not something you're into, or cannot afford because you've financially so over committed yourself that a $9.95 smoke alarm becomes too much, then invest your money in a share portfolio.

One only wishes to put so much into shares.

Butcher, you sound like you could happily be a slum lord. Those days are long over.

Oh what would a thread be without a personal insult.

Continued

STG
I'm kinda shocked you'd even try and rent the place out that NEEDS screens and flooring replaced. Maybe ya shoulda done when the last tenants asked ya too.

So if all houses have shiny new screens and floor coverings, how then to you propose to house the less fortunate who can’t afford the increased rents?

HELLO! There is a rental shortage out there you know!

you're now leaping to the defence of a slum landlord who's whingeing about the costs of installing mandatory smoke detectors.
Oh CJ, why do you take these threads so personally. I have not attacked you. I have simply warned that if tenants continue to push they may not like the outcome.

Butcher, you are making a pathetic little leap of judgment with your little list insinuating I may not know the costs of maintaining a property. Investment or otherwise.

It does sound like you are overcommitted financially. Rental properties at the lower end of the market do not translate into putting up with broken screens or poor floor covering. Mosquitoes and flies do not only like to bother those who live in the top end of town. Decent floor covering is not a luxury, but an issue of health.

Repairing screens, floor coverings, electricals and curtains, as is painting, is part of MAINTENANCE. Whereas building say, a pergola or erecting a fence is an IMPROVEMENT.

It is very likely that your tenants also know the difference and did not for a minute think that you do not.

You borrowed too much money or paid too much for said property if you are going backwards financially. That is not your tenants fault but your financial ineptitude.

You can put any amount of money in a share portfolio, there is no limit. You can also borrow money to build up a share portfolio.

Having experience with both, I know that the ability to make more money in real estate in the shorter term is greater. That's why I get really nauseous with the kind of whining that you and landlords like you indulge in. Greed is good went out last century in the 80's, nevertheless it is still possible to make good money fairly and ethically now.

Treat your clients, your tenants, with respect. They are making you money.

Anansi
You really are taking my thread the wrong way.

I am not complaining about any of my tenants, in fact, all of my properties are carefully maintained with exception to one. This is an old farm house in the middle of nowhere and costs the tenants $100 per week. Perhaps the cheapest rental property in QLD and THEY LOVE IT.

The point of my thread was to warn that if tenants keep pushing for better improvements, and yes, screens are improvements if they were non funcional of non existant when they moved in, then they will ultimately pay the price.

One the other hand, if a tenant was to install screens themselves then I am sure no one would object. They could even do it in such a way that they take them with them when they leave. No problems there.

There was a recent incident where tenants were relased from their lease as the property was considered not fit. Now did they agree to a lower rent because of the state of the property in the first place?

You see, you can't have your cake and eat it.

My question remains, where do the battlers live if the lower end of the rental properties dry up due to 'big brothers' inforced laws?

Please note: I would preffer that you don't respond if you have to revert to personal attacks again.

Two things:

1. $100 for a crappy old house out in the sticks? You're lucky
anyone will rent it. Either lower the rent or make it livable - that is, it should be to a standard that you would live in yourself if you were on comparable income. Some people on benefits only get about $460 per fortnight. To rent cheap out where ever that house is, they would need to keep a vehicle running and pay for petrol. You are taking near 1/2 their benefits and whinging about spending a pittance on maintaining a property that is accumulating in value anyway.

2. For various reasons we chose and needed to spend quite a few years renting; in the past we have both owned property and rented our home out (to awful tenants through an unscrupulous agent, but nevermind). Recently we settled and bought a house again. I have felt first hand the effects of the surge of low income earning people into the market - pushed by government's withdrawal from housing services. Agents and landlords are having a field day picking and choosing who they want and in jacking the prices up regularly, for increasingly substandard property. The last house we lived in - for well over 3 years - was falling down around us, but the rents still went up.

Has anyone heard of a landlord dropping rent as the house and fixtures etc deteriorate ?

No, thought not.

Welcome to a new class of investor - as someone said previously - the slum lords.

Has anyone heard of a landlord dropping rent as the house and fixtures etc deteriorate ?

Well, in fact YES!

The old house I rent for $100 per week could fetch well over $250 per week if I spent say $3000 on it. It has power, TV reception and telephone,is situated 10Km from town, which has both a primary and high school, three pubs, two supermarkets, a hospital and medical centre, two banks and is the the middle of a mining boom. All this just 2 1/2 hours from Brisbane.

So why don't I spend this money and collect the extra rent I hear you say.

Well this will shock you but quite simple, I happen to like the tenants and I know they can't afford anything else. They fix things that need to be fixed, I provide the materials, they keep an eye on the 1700 acres and treat it as their own. They love it and they know they are welcome to stay as long as they like. We don't even have a lease, nor have I requested a bond. If and when they leave I will fix this house and build another few to take advantage of the mining boom. But I stress they are welcome to stay on at $100 per week as long as they wish. Their rent has not changed for 4 years and will not change.

Back to topic, or more so the part that you blood hounds don't get, it has nothing to do with me personally.GET IT!

I just see things unfolding before they become reality and try to point out the obvios. I live in a very modern house, wake up every morning looking at the bay, therefore none of this effects me personally. So please don't brand me as a 'slum lord' as I can assure you I am far from it.

On the other hand if you wish to keep pushing for better without wanting to pay, then good luck.

So rehctub's not really complaining about what these awful ungrateful tenants of substandard housing are demanding, rather, he's imagining how it might work out badly if the tenants (whom he really likes and are good tenants) decided to assert their rights - or something.

It's hard to know what your problem actually is here, rehctub. Have you not heard of negative gearing?

Does this thread have a point? Other than to let us know how well rechtub is doing in the property market?

Oh by the way, thanks for letting the world know how well you're doing there, we really care. We do, really.

From your last post, I am flummoxed what your issue is. Your initial posting I took to be a complaint about demanding tenants.

Tenants, no matter what end of the market, are entitled to a particular standard in housing. The higher end of the market expects better position, larger premises, pool, basically extras. You mentioned screens and flooring. They are basic requirements in my opinion. There didn't seem to be a request for a spa bath for instance. That's an improvement.

I still do not understand why you think you would be entitled to put up the rent after spending some money on maintenance and repairs. Those kind of costs are part and parcel of maintaining a property. Costs are part and parcel in any business for the purpose of making money.

If you took anything I said as personal attacks, that's a shame.

I'm relieved to note your good relationship with your tenants. That's how it should be. Too many landlords are quick to whinge about their tenants, but without a tenant their potentially money making property is a financial nightmare. There is no Real Estate Investment without tenants and landlords should not forget that.

To clear up where I stand. Paying off own house. Have rental property. Have rented for quite a number of years at different times. So have seen it from both sides. Like Pynchme. And let me tell you, some landlords are quite extraordinary in how much they think they can fleece out of tenants for doing less than the absolute minimum, which is done kicking and screaming after endless requests.

It's hard to know what your problem actually is here, rehctub. Have you not heard of negative gearing?
Oh dear, some of you realy should attend those free seminars. Negative gearing offers little relief from repairs, it merely allows you to offset interst payments and non-improvement related expenses. Screens and new floor coverings are capital expenses and are not imediate right offs.

What's this?
Agents and landlords are having a field day picking and choosing who they want and in jacking the prices up regularly, for increasingly substandard property. The last house we lived in - for well over 3 years - was falling down around us, but the rents still went up.

Interesting point you make here, I missed it the first time.

Now the law prevents rents from being unfairly increased, especially if you have a lease in place. So either you are telling porkies to make your point or you have been ill informed.

If a landlord advises that the rent is to increase by a considerable % then tenants have a right to appeal, or didn’t you know that.

Tenants have far more rights than landlords and an unfortunate outcome of all these restrictions having been placed on landlords is they often terminate leases at the end of their term so that they can legally increase the rent to meet the market. Brought about by tenants challenging landlords over what is often moderate rent increases.

The subject of this thread is yet another situation whereby tenants are pushing for more but not wanting to pay for it.

Now there is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a nice comfy home, just don’t expect to pay a low rent then push for more than you agreed on.

As for repairs, what cost $100 five years ago now can cost up to $500. That's if you can find a tradie to do the work. Gone are the days when one could fix it themselves, now it has to be fixed by a qualified person or all hell can break loose.

My heart's still bleeding.

Don't you dare accuse me of telling "porkies" you appalling clod.

http://www.tenants.org.au/publish/rent-increases/index.php

Besides, now you're saying I should have been aware of my 'rights' and 10 minutes ago you were saying that if tenants unreasonably keep pushing for their rights they'll face ominous outcomes.

Each time a lease terminates the landlord can lawfully increase the rent and sometimes that's fair enough (but see link below re: how much beyond inflation that rents have been increasing).

Alternatively, the landlord only need give 60 days notice and unless the tenant can prove that it's excessive the landlord will have the upper hand on that one.

Besides which, you know tenants have a life too. They shouldn't have to constantly guard their rights and appeal to statuatory bodies at every turn.

http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/4660204/money/evictees-starting-pension

http://newmatilda.com/2008/07/28/why-are-rents-going-through-roof

Btw I don't think it's reasonable to expect rental income to pay for mortgages. It's an impossible load that low income people; even moderate income people, can't afford. If they could afford it they'd have their own mortgage. It's fair enough for the rent to cover maintenance of a property, rates and the like - because the damned thing is an asset that is accruing value.

Quite apart from all of that, I think renting is such a sad thing. Especially for aged and disabled folk - how are they to constantly negotiate, and every 12 months or less their lease is up and they can be put out or have their rents increased. It's just cruel.

Pynchme,
A few points.
Firstly I can see how you feel I am on both sides of the fence. There is a difference between your rights and seeking improvements to a property after you accepted it in the state it was in.

As for leases, they never terminate, they simply go onto a month to month arrangement unless a new lease if signed or the old one is terminated.

As for wanting rents to pay for mortages, well that's a joke.

A $400,000 property in outer Brisbane I guess would rent for say $350 to $400 per week. The interest alone can be as high as $700 per week. Then ther is rates, repairs etc.

And of cause what would a reply be without the old personal insult.

I will not bother to repond to you again as you just can't help yourself. Game over mate!

I can actually see rehctub's point. I think you phrased it badly (though I am not sure I could do any better). Not every tenant wants or can afford to pay the rent for a McMansion (its much the renters version of the problems home-buyers face). There are a range of properties out there from executive style at $400/week (I live in the country), to $150/week for a small flat or a 3 bedder in vegemite valley. The style and standard of the fittings vary between the two. A renter has the right to expect a certain standard for the amount of rent that they are prepared to pay (and to clarify here I am and have been prepared to pay an average rent for an average house). Whilst minimum standards are required for health and hygiene purposes, a tenant accepts the condition of the property at the commencement of the lease, and the rent is expected to reflect that. In rehctub's case he/she is being somewhat altruistic in allowing a (presumably) good tenant to remain in a house that could return more income. Yes, landlords need to respect tenants rights and requirements, but tenants also need to remember that landlords ARE there to make money. If we want to dampen the sharp increases in capital value that can happen and remove the "unfair" capital gain that landlords chase, then rents must at least reflect the costs associated with obtaining the income in the first place. No-one expects anyone else to throw good money after bad.

Well it appears that a lot of you don't understand how investment properties work.

True investors invest in anything that will make money for them. Now some investments may produce high direct incomes, such as many commercial proerties, while others may make less direct income yet gain in value, e'g an old house that the land one day may become a multi story unit site or a commercial lot.

The underlying fact is that as the value of a home increases, the income usually increases with it, resulting in higher rents, however, in the case of an older home, in poor state of repair, the land value may increase but the house doesn't. Hence the reason for many old houses being rented at low rents in comparison as they are a 'future knock down'. The problem is that some of the tenants in these older homes are now pushing for improvements, which in return requires injected funds and these are seen as a waste as the house will be leveled in a year or two.

Now I hope this helps you to establish where I come from with this thread. Most houses with cheap rent are cheap for a reason. If you want neat and tidy, then rent neat and tidy. Don't rent cheap then request that it be brought up to speed otherwise we risk having no cheap rentals left. Then What?

Remember, this does not effect me, I am just trying to help by pointing out what I see as a looming problem.

Now if you can't repond without taking a cheap shot at me, then I would preffer this thread comes to an end.

CJ...

"Now let’s not get confused between repairs and improvements."

says it all :)

"slum lord" :) urrrr kidding.. what a base politicization of a tiny issue of 'improvements vs repairs'

Now.. I understand why you want 'assylum seekers' to be given 5 star accommodation :) and oh.. thinking of that.. notice how Benbrickhead was an illegal immigrant..and the lefty lawyers managed to keep him here at the last gasp... now he has 7 dependant children..lived on welfare for most of his time and then...tries to BLOW US UP....

Yes CJ.. we know your mind now :)

Porkycrap: << Yes CJ.. we know your mind now >>

In your dreams, you hypocritical goose. Fascinating how you turn even this dumb thread into a whack-a-Mozzie exercise.

What on earth do "assylum" (sic) seekers and Muslim nutters have to do with this topic?

Sorry to divert your rant poly but the slum housing I am about to talk about have no mozzies.
Oh well one street is called midge so maybe?
A real difference exists between land lords not all are bad, personally if I did not own my own I would monster rechtub to rent that bush home, and never call for improvements.
However $280 a week in a country village for 50 year old timber shack?
Trawling for tenants who have no other choice, who know its the last chance, who are bonded to pay the rent or get out.
Well ten such shacks exist near me, tank water out door dunnys, leaking roof.
I think the tenants from hell are well matched by the land lords from the same place.
No idea what rechtub is like but can assure you its true this winter such a shack with 5 kids asked for a wood burning stove, got it too.
Second hand installed by another tenant and rent went up to $300!

CJ
I can't see how you class this as a dumb thread. This issue has the potential to put an end to affordable housing for many struggling families. Can you not see that?

There is already talk about a revert back to the 30's 'tent city'. Scarey stuff hey!

Rehctub - I think this is a dumb thread because it consists of little more than a mealymouthed whinge by a relatively wealthy slum landlord who is happy to rent out substandard housing to disadvantaged tenants.

I agree, however, that the current rental system sucks - particularly for tenants. In my opinion, it's high time that governments got back into providing public housing for disadvantaged tenants, thus providing redress for the current situation in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer by funding the rich.

I've always found the Australian rental system very unfair.
There should be fairer guidelines about the amount of rent increases.
Probably the fairest rental system in Australia would be the ACT where I believe rents go up in accordance with the CPI.

Here in Sydney we've seen rent jumps between $70 and $150 per week. It's wrong that the market is able to set the amount of rents. Rents should be capped- no more increases than the CPI allows for.

Tenants should also pay according to their ability and be subsidised by the govt if rental amounts take too big a bite out of their wages and other income.

All rental properties should remain in good repair and offer all the basic needs. Aren't repairs tax deductible anyway? Improvements can attract depreciation.

I can agree that home improvements (NOT repairs or maintenance) may attract a higher rent if tenants agree to the improvement.

Smoke alarms are the responsibility of the landlord and are compulsory- at least here in NSW.
Smoke alarms not only benefit the tenants, landlords should protect their assets as well as their tenants by providing smoke alarms and a safe living environment.

Celvia you raise some interesting points and without insults, I appreciate that, however CPI adjustments could only work if ALL expense increases are governed by the CPI method. In a perfect world this would be great as the owner could also plan better as they would know how much their property is going to cost in advance.

As for making ALL PROPERTIES in good order, well this would simply see the demise of cheap rentals and add to the frustration of an already failing market.

As for smoke alarms, yes they are compulsory in QLD as well. However, although they may only cost less than $10 each and assuming a rental house has two, this is another $20 that has to be found. But the real issue with smoke alarms is not so much the cost, more so it's the fact that at the beginning of each lease they must be checked and in working order. This is where the costs can escalate and someone has to pay the bill.

As for my old mate/enemy CJ, well I doubt anything I do would please him/her so who cares! Sounds very much like your typical UNDER-ACHIEVER who suffers from TALL POPPY SYNDROME.

Sorry for working so hard and being successful CJ.

Well you did ask, rehctub.

<< Sounds very much like your typical UNDER-ACHIEVER who suffers from TALL POPPY SYNDROME. >>

Actually, I have considered investing in rental properties in the past, but I haven't done so because of the sort of person it might make me - you know, the kind of miserable soul who complains about installing and maintaining $20 smoke detectors.

Hardly a 'tall poppy' - more like a Scotch thistle, I reckon.