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!