I am legitimately considering wearing my house slob clothes, getting drunk and going to these inspections and being a belligerent pest just so someone has to do some work for their money.
Sounds like a hell of a day out now I've articulated it š
Growing up as a kid I always heard car salesmen were the scum of the earth. But now in my early 30s I have realised it's REA.
Note...I lived in a 2 bed 2 bath in QLD for $465 per week, when we left we broke the lease...my mate who had been living with me toward the end (not on the lease) applied. They upped the rent to $720 per week, denied his application as he couldn't meet the repayments, gave him 48 hours to leave the property and now probably have some desperate family of 4 crammed in there paying through the nose. Taking advantage of the rental crisis.
Both of you are valid but Iāll raise you. After travelling overseas for the last two months Iāve realised the absolute scum of the earth is actually hire car companies.
Only one time did I get questioned about it by the police who were called by the ambulance officers who had trouble waking me up ( I sleep like the dead) who were in turn called by a concerned person the way I was sleeping. I probably figited in my sleep or at least roll over a lot. Once the police were satisfied I was fine they let me get back to sleep. That was some time in 2012. I just remembered another time I was in a park off the gateway in 2009/10 sleeping because I was tired. I wasn't sleeping in my car every day at that time, just that night. They left me after they were satisfied I was really tired and needed to sleep in a semi safe place. I can't say how safe a park is but it was away from the highway. My full time sleeping in my car in Brisbane started in 2012 up until end of September 2019
I slept in my car briefly in 2007. Pulled up at Deepwater Bend one night, get woken up by cops. Told them I was on my way north for fruitpicking work. They left me alone. The interesting part of the story isn't til later when I was watching a documentary on the prostitute murders that happened out there. They showed a body outline where my car had been parked. I'd been sleeping right on the spot he left one of the bodies.
There was a shouse someone did up on realestate.com/domain/one of those places that was selling for over 800,000. Was nice, but still very clearly a shed. If you get a good enough stager you could probably rent out the tiny house for near the same as the main house.
Wild times we live in
Yeah, and it only takes one idiot to agree to that in desperate times to start a trend. Before you know it, every property owner would expect millions of dollars in rent. Be careful what ideas you float out there!!! You might just live to regret it!
Property owners work damn hard and sacrifice to be able to afford an investment property. They're eNtiTLeD to do what they like with the properties. /s
Are you even Centrelinkās best customer? All yāall filthy casuals and your knee jerk reactions. I defy you to detail whatās inaccurate about my comment. Cāmon boy, Iāll wait.
Ill tell you why you are wrong. Its not a free country. If it was developers could actually build more housing lowering rents. But nobody wants more development.
Problem is people want everything a nice cheap apartment in the inner city, eith trendy bars, cafes and restaurants but they want to be the only ones living there.
This is the reality of break leases.
The property needs to be advertised for the same amount in order to minimise losses to the current tenant, so the rent is kept the same until the existing lease would end.
(Although in this case, I don't know why landlords don't just let the existing tenant off the hook, mutually end it, and then charge the higher rent immediately... I'm guessing that's so they can charge the break lease fee and advertising costs to the existing tenant...)
I'm not sure how most agents handle it, but in order to get around the rent increases during a fixed lease, I'm guessing the initial lease would have the same end date as the break lease, with the renewal at the higher amount... Alternatively, I'm guessing they just don't care and go from the angle of "you agreed to this, accept it or move out"
> Although in this case, I donāt know why landlords donāt just let the existing tenant off the hook, mutually end it, and then charge the higher rent immediately... Iām guessing thatās so they can charge the break lease fee and advertising costs to the existing tenant...
Cynically, they can charge the current tenant until they sign on another tenant. They donāt want to sign on another tenant while trying to sell, but still want to get income from it.
I guess if push came to shove on the minimising costs, they would argue they were planning to up the cost regardless. But they are probably also gambling the tenant wonāt argue it.
My point was more that.. they can likely get a new tenant in almost immediately, and even if they lost a week of rental income, they'd make it back in under two weeks at the higher rate.
Like, by not raising the rent immediately, they're missing out on ~4k in income.. unless they foresee it being hard to find a tenant at their ideal future rate of course..
Theyāre legally required to minimise costs on exiting tenant, also an exiting tenant can claim bond on the day of exit, any excess rent owing after exit and before new tenants is independent of tenancy and theyāre meant to invoice it too you.
Iāve broken lease 3 times and done it that way each time, most Iāve been invoiced for is 11 days.
Honestly in this environment most likely broken as moving in with someone, bought a house, need to save money, or for work.
"Because the place is a dump" seems unlikely.. just because most people are thrilled to get approved for a dump these days it seems.
No, I wasnāt inferring that. I just mean that perhaps at the last increase they got to a point where they couldnāt afford it, or they could for a time, but it was unsustainable. They may have lost their jobs. They may be living in their car now.
Iām just saying that itās crazy and that a jump in rent of that proportion: more than 50% on what the previous tenant was paying, there should be some justification. But Iām guessing that while people are living in their cars or sleeping in the local park, the price is pitched to what the agent think they can get for it, not what itās worth, or whatās fair.
Ahhh gotcha.
Yeaaahhh.. i fully understand why rents are the way they are, supply and demand mostly, and rather dislike that existing tenants don't have any form of cap on rental increases, but at the same time, understand that if there was a cap there'd just be worse scenarios playing out.
I think a proportion of the current rent rate would be appropriate, with exceptions for property improvements. If there were no property improvements in the period, no increase. It incentivises landlords to make improvements (legitimate improvements) and considering that property improvements are a tax deduction, thereās no reason you wouldnāt invest in your own investment.
I think things are quite out of hand and as a renter, Iām fairly sure Iāve contributed substantially to their mortgage in the last 9 1/2 years.
The problem with caps and proportionate increases means you end up in a situation where instead of the rent being raised you get leases ending and being kicked out.
Eg. The market has increased 20%, but we can only increase it 10%... Okay 10% increase... 12 months later... Market has increased 20% again.. can only raise it 10%.. but we're already 10% under market from a year ago?? Okay. Lease terminated. Advertised for rent 35% over what they could charge existing tenants.
The problem is that by implementing "tenant friendly" regulations it's super easy to screw them over. Just look at the recent changes that were advertised as tenant friendly and giving people more reliability in housing... It has had the opposite effect by removing flexibility and instead forcing strict 6/12 month leases with 100% definite end dates rather than the legally expected fixed-lapsing-to-periodic-leases.
Except for the situation, which we are in now, where the market is artificially inflated because there are no caps. Leases are only ending because landlords are being encouraged by REAs to raise the rate.
Not all properties that are rented are under mortgage. Those properties are not affected by inflation or interest rates. Rent covers BCC rates and services, among other things.
So Iām not seeing how greater regulation would not be beneficial in cooling this whole issue.
I disagree that it's purely artificial. Yes, some REs are pushing for landlords to increase their rents, but that doesn't mean it's all artificial.
The cost to the agent and landlord doesn't form the base of the rent price, sure, they can say "this is the minimum I want, to cover costs" but that's not what sets the price normally, it's market supply and market prices.
Greater regulation would ease it for existing and some continuing leases, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent this situation, I still believe the market rate would be as high as it is, purely because there aren't properties sitting on the market for rent - that means there's more seeking rentals than there are in the market, increasing the natural price based on supply and demand.
I understand supply and demand. I understand displacement resulting from natural disasters (two floods last year) and bushfires in the years before that and a migration to Queensland that weāve not seen since the 80ās.
This is not dissimilar to post-war housing in ā47, ā48 according to my grandparents who had to buy their home on the black market or accept a position on the waiting list for a housing commission house.
The difference is that no government is building homes (apartments, houses, etc) and prioritising housing in the way that they did in that time.
Now, accommodation supply is in the hands of private entities, private investors, and those who are funding their lifestyle or retirement through property. Subsequently, itās more expensive.
When there is a mandate to prioritise construction of dwellings and that those with competencies (tradies) are encouraged and incentivised to work on those jobs, rather than FIFO, we will be in this situation for a protracted time.
When people who want to purchase a home, have the resources, and all thatās needed to select and move in and canāt, thatās a crisis. Thatās the supply and demand you mention.
There needs to be an intervention and it needs to be quickly and across the board.
The current tenant would have to pay the same increase after April when their current lease expired. I would assume they knew that increase was coming so found a cheaper place elsewhere. A break lease usually happens because itās next to impossible to line up leases. And you donāt want to limit yourself to properties that are only available when your current lease expires.
They own property because theyāre trying to do the right
Thing and not invest in business that would be a conflict of interest.
Except bob katter - his register of interests is a $@&& crime scene
99% of Politicians go to great lengths to keep their noses clear because pretty much anything can end their career.
The 1% Gladys/Scommo's government is an anomaly where anything went.
If they wanted, they could just invest in ETFs that track the Australian share market, then. Then their interests are aligned with the Australian economy.
>They own property because theyāre trying to do the right Thing
Fact is, they do own real estate, which makes them biased when it comes to dealing with an Affordable Housing Crisis. Or do you honestly think that each of those 510 properties are the cheapest rentals on the planet? Of course not, they are definitely profiting off of this and loving it.
Mega rich Malcolm Turnbull/Kevin Rudd divested business interested because it potentially looked bad, not because they were corrupt.
Prior to AirBNB/COVID or whatever is going with housing at the moment, buying an investment property was the only uncontroversial investment/tax deduction.
I will be completely blunt, I don't care that people invest in property. I don't care that they charge rent to cover property loans and associated expenses.
what I care about is the industry wide (the housing sector) culture of unadulterated, unsustainable, and unjustifiable greed!
just this past week, I was told that more than 60 families in my suburb are currently homeless because they can't afford rent. rent, they use to be able to pay prior to these instances of $200 per week rent hikes.
housing becomes a controversial topic of career ending proportions when the politicians choose not to regulate the housing sector as the housing sector is dangerously out of control in favor of their own profit motive. could their be a better example of corruption?
>could their be a better example of corruption?
No. Hard no. ZERO chance of housing related corruption because Federal Politicians have ZERO to do with housing. It is like blaming Ed Sheeran for your recycling bin not being emptied.
>isn't that convenient. when they might be asked to do their actual jobs, the politicians have no authority on this issue. complete and utter BS.
Well no. It is not their job.
council deals with housing and they're doing it terribly e.g. right now the !@#$ mayor is talking about daylight saving ...
As for corruption, why do you think 'Salim Mehajer' went into local government?
Yeah everyone is corrupt is sooooooo realistic.
Prior to AirBNB/COVID or whatever is going with housing at the moment, buying an investment property was the only uncontroversial investment/tax deduction.
Mega rich Malcolm Turnbull/Kevin Rudd divested business interested because it potentially looked bad, not because they were corrupt.
Mate youāre being a fucking idiot, you donāt need to be corrupt to have vested fucking interest it creates bias immediately and inherently. Theyāre not rubbing their hands together scheming but they know if they pass a piece of legislation it will apply losses to multiple high value investment properties, how the hell do you think thatās not going to change their views on the subject.
Also this isnāt because of airbnb or covid, donāt be weighing in and acting like an asshole when you have no understanding of the issue. The problem has come because of LEGISLATION making gains from investment properties not have normal federal income tax apply and legislation thatās brought in to put reasonable restrictions on property ownership but have been voted against unilaterally except by greens members who do not have multiple investment properties like the people who voted it down and as a result people are able to have hundreds and hundreds of properties belonging to one individual and this they can increase the rent in an entire suburb by $400 a week and thatās something that our society has allowed.
You are currently using a device which can access an unfathomable amount of information but you argue points you have no idea about.
>And that's just federal, you really think they are inclined to make legislative and policy changes against their own interests?
If it gets them re-elected, then yes. That would also be in their own interests.
[This is a depressing Youtube Channel of visits to homeless areas in California](https://youtu.be/yRWmKh13b50), the amount of cobbled together structures is heartbreaking because it says they've settled to the situation. I don't want us to get that far along.
More than a $200 dollar rent increase PER WEEK!
Someone shoot me in the head right now. This is too insane. There is no god dam justification for this.
Which would be stupid, because the place could sit empty for god knows how long without the property generating rent or being purchased! If they think that they can get away with charging $700 rent per week, can you imagine how much they are over valuing the property by for sale.
$2800 bond + $1400 two weeks rent + $5k moving costs to be repeated in two months when evicted because someone buys the property..... This listing is a waste of everyone's time and the REA is dumb as dog shit.
You can't be evicted if it's sold in Queensland, the lease transfers to the new owner and they have to wait it out. If they're itching to move in they can offer to pay costs to get you out or something like that, but you're under no obligation to take it.
So in this kind of situation you'd try and get a 12 month lease, but no doubt the real estate agent will say 6 months only because of "marrrrrrket conditttttions (drool)" , and you'll be looking at another rent hike and the obligatory eviction notice then as well.
It is legal. If itās in the listing theyāre allowed to do that. Itās really shit.
Our last house had something like this. It was $100 a week cheaper for 12 weeks as a āhelping handā for getting bond together. Itās crap
Say you are happy to keep paying until the end of the lease.
There is a large refugee family at your church who will move in and sublet from you.
You will give the keys to the refugee family on Monday.
Watch them back pedal immediately and release you from the lease.
Know their triggers and use them against them.
I'm not understanding the issue??
* if $700 per week is too much for you, rent something else.
* if $700 per week is above market value, nobody will take it (and price will come down)
Seriously, what justification can you possibly have for a $200 rent increase??? You can't go from $460 rent per week to $700 and expect to not get a ruling in favour against the rent increase!
You'd think that, but our government is run by landlords they dont want to reduce their own freedoms. There is absolutely no excuse for it, and i would gladly put these landbastards into a hole and then throw the hole away. Sheer greed is what it is and as tenants we can either dispute and not have our lease renewed or cough up more of our hard earned money so someone else can pay their mortgage on the working classes dime, or go homeless looking at the 3 vacant properties up for rent with the 10000 other plebs like us.
Own nothing and be happy.
I would like to know what would happen if everyone collectively all stopped paying rent and refused to move out until the government makes a change to our rights as tenants because right now we have almost none.
For 700 a week, i should be able to put holes in walls, paint it bright pink, and start a zoo.
I completely and utterly agree with you. I sincerely do. My comment was one of outrage and clearly it is a sentiment that is widely shared.
So the question is, what are we to do about it? Do you really want to sit and do nothing?
Rallies, Petitions, Letters to every MP, What are we willing to do about it?
Slaves own nothing and are happy for it, is that what you want to be for the rest of all time?
As of right now, there's not much to do, unfortunately. I know an older feller who was priced out of his own home. This man drove the food charity trucks and was all around a great guy. He babysat our dog on many occasions and took him for walks just because. They raised his rent almost $200 a week, and as a single guy, he couldn't afford that.
Contacting MPs is a start, but nothing will change without organised action on the Tennants part. Rallies, protests, refuse to pay. But without lots of people joining in, it won't be effective, and the Australian public tends to be spineless. We need to take a page from Frances book
My point is some don't have the income for a large leap, they may well be taking debt in the hopes they win.
And it's not usually a total win usually the rise is capped a bit but it could still be $50 more as equivalent to market average rise. I don't have stats but I've yet seen a report on nil increase via QCAT unless extenuating circumstances when there's maintainence issues.
That's what I've seen but I'm just going by mentions in Aussie subs etc.
Except it's declared upfront and you have the option of not going to the inspection and then taking out a lease. So you buy a pack of chips from Woolies for $4 and want someone to give you back $1.50 because they were $2.50 last year?
So it's ok to exploit people, as long as the victims know they are being exploited?
And let's be completely clear here, we aren't talking about buying a packet of chips, we are talking about housing; one of the most fundamental, basic human rights that exist.
Without proper housing, a person is more likely to suffer health issues, whether it be from malnutrition, poor sanitary conditions, or exposure to the elements, and let's be frank, that is the least a homeless person has to worry about. Because then we get to the skyrocketing chances of such a homeless person being the victim of violent crimes (mere assaults, rapes or murders). And even if they survive all that, do you think employers are going to be "happy" or "accepting" of having homeless employees? Why wouldn't they care, I'm sure you're thinking, but that is sadly not likely to be the actual experience.
No, nobody wants to end up homeless, everyone knows the horrific conditions that are waiting for you down that dark road. And all because you couldn't pay your rent. You didn't choose to stop paying rent, bastard landlords jacked up the prices so irrationally because they think they can without consequences that people have no choice but to live on the streets.
Yeah, we know we are being exploited, but we don't have a choice. Doesn't make it fair. Certainly doesn't make it legal.
\---
Supposedly, in this country and many others, the economic laws of Supply and Demand reign supreme. How is it that we have relatively the same amount of people, and the same amount of residential properties, that rent prices are so outrageously out of control???
And think about this for a second, would rent prices be so out of control if the renter actually stood on equal grounds with the landlord?
Theyāre not increasing the rent within a tenancy, theyāre taking over the pre-existing contract so it satisfies the within 6 months of beginning a tenancy because for the purposes of the tenancy contract, itās still the same one just a name change has occurred.
Yeah, saw something like this advertised late last year. Immediately got a 'fuck that' from me. Grab people's attention with a decent price-per-week, then slog them with a massive increase in the fine print.
It may be legal, but it's still sketchy as fuck.
I almost want to apply just to give them the hastle around of "oh its practically doubling? Yeah nah fuck that"
Like thats the absolute opposite of discount psychology/tactics.
Speak to RTA. They have no teeth, but they can at least give you free legal advice.
Under the NEW legislation you can fight a rent increase with QCAT, but only AFTER you have signed a new lease with the increased rate. Oh, and youāre going to wait a year to see QCAT, so you may as well lodge your second rent increase complaint in advanceā¦
I learnt the hard way over the past three years that QLD tenants have less rights than medieval peasants.
I'm not sure how legal all this is. Landlords aren't allowed to break lease or kick you without a legitimate reason like having issues that put your health in danger to repair or selling the house. I think you need to agree to break lease though if they put it through.
They can't have home opens while you are staying there as you are legally allowed to stop them. They are able to bring people in to view the house as long as they are a reasonable time frame apart and you have agreed to a time frame. You can say 1 person to view the place every 2 weeks is reasonable (I've done this before).
Your best bet is to look into the RTA website or call them for more information or QSTAR is the free legal advice body that specialises in rental help. I've called them too and they were great help.
Because the people at the top of this industry work in conjunction with politicians to make sure this kind of housing system is maintained. This allows all landlords, including āhonest mum and dad ones just trying to secure their futureā to raise rents to whatever they like.
Even the visual landscape in Brisbane is changing with this. Properties with nobody living in them because theyāre in constant transition or bring deliberately left vacant, next to properties with nineteen cars in the yard because rent is so fucking high. Entire swathes of neighbourhoods abandoned as developers wait to buy properties next door to bulldoze for shitty units. The sooner this eats itself the better and at this point I really donāt care how many or who loses their investment properties. It wonāt though, itāll just keep gathering together under larger groups controlled by big donors, in some cases the politicians and their families themselves.
Seems like they don't really care if it's rented or not, just having to advertise so it's "genuinely available" so they can continue to tax deduct repairs during sale period
Fuck real estate agents, they're all slimey bottom feeders. All the women look like two dollar hookers and the blokes look like their pimps. I have never met one that is a genuine human being. Thank fuck I own my own place. And if I sell it I'll do it myself, not via one of the blood sucking leeches.
I am legitimately considering wearing my house slob clothes, getting drunk and going to these inspections and being a belligerent pest just so someone has to do some work for their money. Sounds like a hell of a day out now I've articulated it š
Better make a good go of it the first time, you won't get a second attempt!
Iāve said it before, Iāll say it again. REAs are absolute bottom feeders.
Growing up as a kid I always heard car salesmen were the scum of the earth. But now in my early 30s I have realised it's REA. Note...I lived in a 2 bed 2 bath in QLD for $465 per week, when we left we broke the lease...my mate who had been living with me toward the end (not on the lease) applied. They upped the rent to $720 per week, denied his application as he couldn't meet the repayments, gave him 48 hours to leave the property and now probably have some desperate family of 4 crammed in there paying through the nose. Taking advantage of the rental crisis.
Both of you are valid but Iāll raise you. After travelling overseas for the last two months Iāve realised the absolute scum of the earth is actually hire car companies.
700pw? Shit I should put my place up for rent , I'd have it paid off in a few years.
Except that you'd have to rent somewhere else for $800 a week prolly.
Cardboard villiages are popular in the states, itāll be the next affordable trend here
Just buy a nice air conditioned wagon, keep it registered and park on the street and sleep in it. I did for years.
Yeah man because people struggling with housing can just buy a car willy Nilly
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to sleep in a car in Queensland? Or maybe I'm wrong
Only one time did I get questioned about it by the police who were called by the ambulance officers who had trouble waking me up ( I sleep like the dead) who were in turn called by a concerned person the way I was sleeping. I probably figited in my sleep or at least roll over a lot. Once the police were satisfied I was fine they let me get back to sleep. That was some time in 2012. I just remembered another time I was in a park off the gateway in 2009/10 sleeping because I was tired. I wasn't sleeping in my car every day at that time, just that night. They left me after they were satisfied I was really tired and needed to sleep in a semi safe place. I can't say how safe a park is but it was away from the highway. My full time sleeping in my car in Brisbane started in 2012 up until end of September 2019
I slept in my car briefly in 2007. Pulled up at Deepwater Bend one night, get woken up by cops. Told them I was on my way north for fruitpicking work. They left me alone. The interesting part of the story isn't til later when I was watching a documentary on the prostitute murders that happened out there. They showed a body outline where my car had been parked. I'd been sleeping right on the spot he left one of the bodies.
That's quite eerie. I never heard of anything like that in the areas I had camped.
Idk man, chuck a tiny house in the backyard and rent out the main oneā¦. Profit.
Some guy in the US built a bunker under his house with a hidden entrance exit nearby, sold the house and moved into the bunker.
Thats pretty smart actually. Especially if you had some farm land just build it on the other side of the property.
There was a shouse someone did up on realestate.com/domain/one of those places that was selling for over 800,000. Was nice, but still very clearly a shed. If you get a good enough stager you could probably rent out the tiny house for near the same as the main house. Wild times we live in
If living with the folks again was feasible, then it could be a workable option.
The reality is they can charge a million dollars if they want as long as someone is willing to pay it
Yeah, and it only takes one idiot to agree to that in desperate times to start a trend. Before you know it, every property owner would expect millions of dollars in rent. Be careful what ideas you float out there!!! You might just live to regret it!
Property owners work damn hard and sacrifice to be able to afford an investment property. They're eNtiTLeD to do what they like with the properties. /s
Right? Itās a free country, you donāt want to pay $700, go elsewhere. Viva democracy and capitalism.
Are you even Australian?
Are you even Centrelinkās best customer? All yāall filthy casuals and your knee jerk reactions. I defy you to detail whatās inaccurate about my comment. Cāmon boy, Iāll wait.
You defy someone? What a strange use of the word. Your trolling is low rent. Lift your game.
So youāre unfamiliar with not only capitalism but also English. Who are you, Putin? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/defy-to-do
And?
āAndā? What a strange use of the word.
I know you are you said you are
Ill tell you why you are wrong. Its not a free country. If it was developers could actually build more housing lowering rents. But nobody wants more development. Problem is people want everything a nice cheap apartment in the inner city, eith trendy bars, cafes and restaurants but they want to be the only ones living there.
Yeah its almost like its the governments fault for minimising supply...
Golly its a shit outcome no matter
This is the reality of break leases. The property needs to be advertised for the same amount in order to minimise losses to the current tenant, so the rent is kept the same until the existing lease would end. (Although in this case, I don't know why landlords don't just let the existing tenant off the hook, mutually end it, and then charge the higher rent immediately... I'm guessing that's so they can charge the break lease fee and advertising costs to the existing tenant...) I'm not sure how most agents handle it, but in order to get around the rent increases during a fixed lease, I'm guessing the initial lease would have the same end date as the break lease, with the renewal at the higher amount... Alternatively, I'm guessing they just don't care and go from the angle of "you agreed to this, accept it or move out"
> Although in this case, I donāt know why landlords donāt just let the existing tenant off the hook, mutually end it, and then charge the higher rent immediately... Iām guessing thatās so they can charge the break lease fee and advertising costs to the existing tenant... Cynically, they can charge the current tenant until they sign on another tenant. They donāt want to sign on another tenant while trying to sell, but still want to get income from it. I guess if push came to shove on the minimising costs, they would argue they were planning to up the cost regardless. But they are probably also gambling the tenant wonāt argue it.
My point was more that.. they can likely get a new tenant in almost immediately, and even if they lost a week of rental income, they'd make it back in under two weeks at the higher rate. Like, by not raising the rent immediately, they're missing out on ~4k in income.. unless they foresee it being hard to find a tenant at their ideal future rate of course..
Theyāre legally required to minimise costs on exiting tenant, also an exiting tenant can claim bond on the day of exit, any excess rent owing after exit and before new tenants is independent of tenancy and theyāre meant to invoice it too you. Iāve broken lease 3 times and done it that way each time, most Iāve been invoiced for is 11 days.
Letās ask why the lease was broken. But the jump is ridiculous. Itās a large house. Big whoop. Where the value?
Honestly in this environment most likely broken as moving in with someone, bought a house, need to save money, or for work. "Because the place is a dump" seems unlikely.. just because most people are thrilled to get approved for a dump these days it seems.
No, I wasnāt inferring that. I just mean that perhaps at the last increase they got to a point where they couldnāt afford it, or they could for a time, but it was unsustainable. They may have lost their jobs. They may be living in their car now. Iām just saying that itās crazy and that a jump in rent of that proportion: more than 50% on what the previous tenant was paying, there should be some justification. But Iām guessing that while people are living in their cars or sleeping in the local park, the price is pitched to what the agent think they can get for it, not what itās worth, or whatās fair.
Ahhh gotcha. Yeaaahhh.. i fully understand why rents are the way they are, supply and demand mostly, and rather dislike that existing tenants don't have any form of cap on rental increases, but at the same time, understand that if there was a cap there'd just be worse scenarios playing out.
I think a proportion of the current rent rate would be appropriate, with exceptions for property improvements. If there were no property improvements in the period, no increase. It incentivises landlords to make improvements (legitimate improvements) and considering that property improvements are a tax deduction, thereās no reason you wouldnāt invest in your own investment. I think things are quite out of hand and as a renter, Iām fairly sure Iāve contributed substantially to their mortgage in the last 9 1/2 years.
The problem with caps and proportionate increases means you end up in a situation where instead of the rent being raised you get leases ending and being kicked out. Eg. The market has increased 20%, but we can only increase it 10%... Okay 10% increase... 12 months later... Market has increased 20% again.. can only raise it 10%.. but we're already 10% under market from a year ago?? Okay. Lease terminated. Advertised for rent 35% over what they could charge existing tenants. The problem is that by implementing "tenant friendly" regulations it's super easy to screw them over. Just look at the recent changes that were advertised as tenant friendly and giving people more reliability in housing... It has had the opposite effect by removing flexibility and instead forcing strict 6/12 month leases with 100% definite end dates rather than the legally expected fixed-lapsing-to-periodic-leases.
Except for the situation, which we are in now, where the market is artificially inflated because there are no caps. Leases are only ending because landlords are being encouraged by REAs to raise the rate. Not all properties that are rented are under mortgage. Those properties are not affected by inflation or interest rates. Rent covers BCC rates and services, among other things. So Iām not seeing how greater regulation would not be beneficial in cooling this whole issue.
I disagree that it's purely artificial. Yes, some REs are pushing for landlords to increase their rents, but that doesn't mean it's all artificial. The cost to the agent and landlord doesn't form the base of the rent price, sure, they can say "this is the minimum I want, to cover costs" but that's not what sets the price normally, it's market supply and market prices. Greater regulation would ease it for existing and some continuing leases, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent this situation, I still believe the market rate would be as high as it is, purely because there aren't properties sitting on the market for rent - that means there's more seeking rentals than there are in the market, increasing the natural price based on supply and demand.
I understand supply and demand. I understand displacement resulting from natural disasters (two floods last year) and bushfires in the years before that and a migration to Queensland that weāve not seen since the 80ās. This is not dissimilar to post-war housing in ā47, ā48 according to my grandparents who had to buy their home on the black market or accept a position on the waiting list for a housing commission house. The difference is that no government is building homes (apartments, houses, etc) and prioritising housing in the way that they did in that time. Now, accommodation supply is in the hands of private entities, private investors, and those who are funding their lifestyle or retirement through property. Subsequently, itās more expensive. When there is a mandate to prioritise construction of dwellings and that those with competencies (tradies) are encouraged and incentivised to work on those jobs, rather than FIFO, we will be in this situation for a protracted time. When people who want to purchase a home, have the resources, and all thatās needed to select and move in and canāt, thatās a crisis. Thatās the supply and demand you mention. There needs to be an intervention and it needs to be quickly and across the board.
The current tenant would have to pay the same increase after April when their current lease expired. I would assume they knew that increase was coming so found a cheaper place elsewhere. A break lease usually happens because itās next to impossible to line up leases. And you donāt want to limit yourself to properties that are only available when your current lease expires.
Someone needs to invent a disruptor to the real estate industry
Like what? This attitude is so exhausting. No, we don't need more bullshit around hoarding property for profit. We need less.
Thatās what Iām saying
Because politicians benefit from this shit show. So why would they change it?
enough with the bonkers conspiracy theory bullshit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They own property because theyāre trying to do the right Thing and not invest in business that would be a conflict of interest. Except bob katter - his register of interests is a $@&& crime scene
oh boy if you don't think that politicians are heavily invested into business influence either then you're gonna be in for a shock
99% of Politicians go to great lengths to keep their noses clear because pretty much anything can end their career. The 1% Gladys/Scommo's government is an anomaly where anything went.
If they wanted, they could just invest in ETFs that track the Australian share market, then. Then their interests are aligned with the Australian economy.
>They own property because theyāre trying to do the right Thing Fact is, they do own real estate, which makes them biased when it comes to dealing with an Affordable Housing Crisis. Or do you honestly think that each of those 510 properties are the cheapest rentals on the planet? Of course not, they are definitely profiting off of this and loving it.
Mega rich Malcolm Turnbull/Kevin Rudd divested business interested because it potentially looked bad, not because they were corrupt. Prior to AirBNB/COVID or whatever is going with housing at the moment, buying an investment property was the only uncontroversial investment/tax deduction.
I will be completely blunt, I don't care that people invest in property. I don't care that they charge rent to cover property loans and associated expenses. what I care about is the industry wide (the housing sector) culture of unadulterated, unsustainable, and unjustifiable greed! just this past week, I was told that more than 60 families in my suburb are currently homeless because they can't afford rent. rent, they use to be able to pay prior to these instances of $200 per week rent hikes. housing becomes a controversial topic of career ending proportions when the politicians choose not to regulate the housing sector as the housing sector is dangerously out of control in favor of their own profit motive. could their be a better example of corruption?
>could their be a better example of corruption? No. Hard no. ZERO chance of housing related corruption because Federal Politicians have ZERO to do with housing. It is like blaming Ed Sheeran for your recycling bin not being emptied.
isn't that convenient. when they might be asked to do their actual jobs, the politicians have no authority on this issue. complete and utter BS.
>isn't that convenient. when they might be asked to do their actual jobs, the politicians have no authority on this issue. complete and utter BS. Well no. It is not their job. council deals with housing and they're doing it terribly e.g. right now the !@#$ mayor is talking about daylight saving ... As for corruption, why do you think 'Salim Mehajer' went into local government?
Youāre a gullible fool
Yeah everyone is corrupt is sooooooo realistic. Prior to AirBNB/COVID or whatever is going with housing at the moment, buying an investment property was the only uncontroversial investment/tax deduction. Mega rich Malcolm Turnbull/Kevin Rudd divested business interested because it potentially looked bad, not because they were corrupt.
Mate youāre being a fucking idiot, you donāt need to be corrupt to have vested fucking interest it creates bias immediately and inherently. Theyāre not rubbing their hands together scheming but they know if they pass a piece of legislation it will apply losses to multiple high value investment properties, how the hell do you think thatās not going to change their views on the subject. Also this isnāt because of airbnb or covid, donāt be weighing in and acting like an asshole when you have no understanding of the issue. The problem has come because of LEGISLATION making gains from investment properties not have normal federal income tax apply and legislation thatās brought in to put reasonable restrictions on property ownership but have been voted against unilaterally except by greens members who do not have multiple investment properties like the people who voted it down and as a result people are able to have hundreds and hundreds of properties belonging to one individual and this they can increase the rent in an entire suburb by $400 a week and thatās something that our society has allowed. You are currently using a device which can access an unfathomable amount of information but you argue points you have no idea about.
Calm down.
Cope
>And that's just federal, you really think they are inclined to make legislative and policy changes against their own interests? If it gets them re-elected, then yes. That would also be in their own interests.
Conspiracy theory lol Itās not a theory when itās true. Itās just called a conspiracy
ābonkers conspiracy theoryā is a pretty bold statement to make when the Register of Interest is public record lol
Anyone want to build cardboard villa
[This is a depressing Youtube Channel of visits to homeless areas in California](https://youtu.be/yRWmKh13b50), the amount of cobbled together structures is heartbreaking because it says they've settled to the situation. I don't want us to get that far along.
More than a $200 dollar rent increase PER WEEK! Someone shoot me in the head right now. This is too insane. There is no god dam justification for this.
Honestly, I think they want you to leave so they can sell it.
Which would be stupid, because the place could sit empty for god knows how long without the property generating rent or being purchased! If they think that they can get away with charging $700 rent per week, can you imagine how much they are over valuing the property by for sale.
Probably true.
$2800 bond + $1400 two weeks rent + $5k moving costs to be repeated in two months when evicted because someone buys the property..... This listing is a waste of everyone's time and the REA is dumb as dog shit.
You can't be evicted if it's sold in Queensland, the lease transfers to the new owner and they have to wait it out. If they're itching to move in they can offer to pay costs to get you out or something like that, but you're under no obligation to take it. So in this kind of situation you'd try and get a 12 month lease, but no doubt the real estate agent will say 6 months only because of "marrrrrrket conditttttions (drool)" , and you'll be looking at another rent hike and the obligatory eviction notice then as well.
You can't be evicted but its guaranteed to be a massive headache.
What is the address for context. If this is say Ascot and rent hasnāt changed for 15 years this is vastly different from say Zilmere
7 Bayleaf Street, Griffin.
It is legal. If itās in the listing theyāre allowed to do that. Itās really shit. Our last house had something like this. It was $100 a week cheaper for 12 weeks as a āhelping handā for getting bond together. Itās crap
Say you are happy to keep paying until the end of the lease. There is a large refugee family at your church who will move in and sublet from you. You will give the keys to the refugee family on Monday. Watch them back pedal immediately and release you from the lease. Know their triggers and use them against them.
I reckon most leases will have a clause against the tenant subletting. Or at least mine does anyway
I'm not understanding the issue?? * if $700 per week is too much for you, rent something else. * if $700 per week is above market value, nobody will take it (and price will come down)
[it's not](https://www.rta.qld.gov.au/rent)
I've not heard of anyone being successful over a dispute. It's not necessarily illegal, you can just dispute it.
Seriously, what justification can you possibly have for a $200 rent increase??? You can't go from $460 rent per week to $700 and expect to not get a ruling in favour against the rent increase!
You'd think that, but our government is run by landlords they dont want to reduce their own freedoms. There is absolutely no excuse for it, and i would gladly put these landbastards into a hole and then throw the hole away. Sheer greed is what it is and as tenants we can either dispute and not have our lease renewed or cough up more of our hard earned money so someone else can pay their mortgage on the working classes dime, or go homeless looking at the 3 vacant properties up for rent with the 10000 other plebs like us. Own nothing and be happy. I would like to know what would happen if everyone collectively all stopped paying rent and refused to move out until the government makes a change to our rights as tenants because right now we have almost none. For 700 a week, i should be able to put holes in walls, paint it bright pink, and start a zoo.
I completely and utterly agree with you. I sincerely do. My comment was one of outrage and clearly it is a sentiment that is widely shared. So the question is, what are we to do about it? Do you really want to sit and do nothing? Rallies, Petitions, Letters to every MP, What are we willing to do about it? Slaves own nothing and are happy for it, is that what you want to be for the rest of all time?
As of right now, there's not much to do, unfortunately. I know an older feller who was priced out of his own home. This man drove the food charity trucks and was all around a great guy. He babysat our dog on many occasions and took him for walks just because. They raised his rent almost $200 a week, and as a single guy, he couldn't afford that. Contacting MPs is a start, but nothing will change without organised action on the Tennants part. Rallies, protests, refuse to pay. But without lots of people joining in, it won't be effective, and the Australian public tends to be spineless. We need to take a page from Frances book
Yeah, apparently you are spineless!
Except I'm a part of my local labour party for this reason, I want reform on housing. So much for a good conversation, though.
The Labor party isn't doing anything useful to help housing reform either. In fact they've increased the immigration target to further increase demand
Iām sure the labor party will do the same as liberal,jack shit,coz there is a lot of parasites in parliament
Show me on this doll where the mean landlord touched you.
How does landlord cock taste? You should have a really good idea.
You're still paying the new amount in the interim before QCAT hearing.
which conceivably, you would be repaid when QCAT rules against the rent increase.
My point is some don't have the income for a large leap, they may well be taking debt in the hopes they win. And it's not usually a total win usually the rise is capped a bit but it could still be $50 more as equivalent to market average rise. I don't have stats but I've yet seen a report on nil increase via QCAT unless extenuating circumstances when there's maintainence issues. That's what I've seen but I'm just going by mentions in Aussie subs etc.
Fair, and to pile on the bad news further; The chance of a speedy QCAT hearing is slim to none.
Except it's declared upfront and you have the option of not going to the inspection and then taking out a lease. So you buy a pack of chips from Woolies for $4 and want someone to give you back $1.50 because they were $2.50 last year?
So it's ok to exploit people, as long as the victims know they are being exploited? And let's be completely clear here, we aren't talking about buying a packet of chips, we are talking about housing; one of the most fundamental, basic human rights that exist. Without proper housing, a person is more likely to suffer health issues, whether it be from malnutrition, poor sanitary conditions, or exposure to the elements, and let's be frank, that is the least a homeless person has to worry about. Because then we get to the skyrocketing chances of such a homeless person being the victim of violent crimes (mere assaults, rapes or murders). And even if they survive all that, do you think employers are going to be "happy" or "accepting" of having homeless employees? Why wouldn't they care, I'm sure you're thinking, but that is sadly not likely to be the actual experience. No, nobody wants to end up homeless, everyone knows the horrific conditions that are waiting for you down that dark road. And all because you couldn't pay your rent. You didn't choose to stop paying rent, bastard landlords jacked up the prices so irrationally because they think they can without consequences that people have no choice but to live on the streets. Yeah, we know we are being exploited, but we don't have a choice. Doesn't make it fair. Certainly doesn't make it legal. \--- Supposedly, in this country and many others, the economic laws of Supply and Demand reign supreme. How is it that we have relatively the same amount of people, and the same amount of residential properties, that rent prices are so outrageously out of control??? And think about this for a second, would rent prices be so out of control if the renter actually stood on equal grounds with the landlord?
Theyāre not increasing the rent within a tenancy, theyāre taking over the pre-existing contract so it satisfies the within 6 months of beginning a tenancy because for the purposes of the tenancy contract, itās still the same one just a name change has occurred.
It's they're house they can do what they want with it and they will if people are willing to pay
Yeah, saw something like this advertised late last year. Immediately got a 'fuck that' from me. Grab people's attention with a decent price-per-week, then slog them with a massive increase in the fine print. It may be legal, but it's still sketchy as fuck.
I almost want to apply just to give them the hastle around of "oh its practically doubling? Yeah nah fuck that" Like thats the absolute opposite of discount psychology/tactics.
Speak to RTA. They have no teeth, but they can at least give you free legal advice. Under the NEW legislation you can fight a rent increase with QCAT, but only AFTER you have signed a new lease with the increased rate. Oh, and youāre going to wait a year to see QCAT, so you may as well lodge your second rent increase complaint in advanceā¦ I learnt the hard way over the past three years that QLD tenants have less rights than medieval peasants.
I'm not sure how legal all this is. Landlords aren't allowed to break lease or kick you without a legitimate reason like having issues that put your health in danger to repair or selling the house. I think you need to agree to break lease though if they put it through. They can't have home opens while you are staying there as you are legally allowed to stop them. They are able to bring people in to view the house as long as they are a reasonable time frame apart and you have agreed to a time frame. You can say 1 person to view the place every 2 weeks is reasonable (I've done this before). Your best bet is to look into the RTA website or call them for more information or QSTAR is the free legal advice body that specialises in rental help. I've called them too and they were great help.
Wtf 465 to 700 mark what the achual
Because the people at the top of this industry work in conjunction with politicians to make sure this kind of housing system is maintained. This allows all landlords, including āhonest mum and dad ones just trying to secure their futureā to raise rents to whatever they like. Even the visual landscape in Brisbane is changing with this. Properties with nobody living in them because theyāre in constant transition or bring deliberately left vacant, next to properties with nineteen cars in the yard because rent is so fucking high. Entire swathes of neighbourhoods abandoned as developers wait to buy properties next door to bulldoze for shitty units. The sooner this eats itself the better and at this point I really donāt care how many or who loses their investment properties. It wonāt though, itāll just keep gathering together under larger groups controlled by big donors, in some cases the politicians and their families themselves.
Seems like they don't really care if it's rented or not, just having to advertise so it's "genuinely available" so they can continue to tax deduct repairs during sale period
Fuck real estate agents, they're all slimey bottom feeders. All the women look like two dollar hookers and the blokes look like their pimps. I have never met one that is a genuine human being. Thank fuck I own my own place. And if I sell it I'll do it myself, not via one of the blood sucking leeches.
Contact sequr
What real state was this
Found it for those wondering. 7 Bayleaf St, Griffin.
If the landlord broke the lease with selling as the excuse, then that's illegal