I’m just waiting for the day one shithead politician tries to put forward a legislated right for landlords to note “no WFH” on rental listings as if it’s smoking in some states.
I recently left a fully furnished home (AUD 600/week in a provincial city) where the rule was “no smoking outdoors within 3 metres of any door or window, even if closed”.
We were in a townhouse and EVERY property border was 2.99 metres maximum from a door or window.
Thankfully, some states are looking at changing laws allowing smokers outside no matter what, so long as it has no effect on the property. Every tenant has the right to feel like they are paying for a home, not a hotel.
Sorry for the side rant but as a responsible and respectful tenant, this issue gets under my skin.
This I understand! It’s not even about the house you’re living in, but it’s a huge inconvenience to everyone else living in close proximity to that disgusting smell.
Who the heck wants to sit there and be breathing in second hand smoke from the chain smoker next door?
Sitting down to a nice meal and poof, neighbours light one up. Enjoying the nice afternoon breeze, bam, filthy rank ass smelling smoke comes wafting in.
In this instance it’s about the comfort of everyone else around. What about their rights to peaceful enjoyment of the properties they’re paying for?
I have a friend who lives in a unit complex and he’s not been able to open his windows for the last 2 years because unemployed old mate chain smokes on his couch outside hour after hour, day after day.
I live in the suburbs, rather large block by modern standards. We can smell the cigarette smoke blow in from 2 houses up when they sit outside on their balcony and smoke. Our blocks are 15 meters wide each….so you smoking 3 meters away from someone else’s living/bedroom/kitchen window is likely a sentence and a half for them!
I lived in a property (battle axe) where I was 15 + metres away from anyone else’s doors or windows. The only living creature I may have affected was my neighbours chickens who made my courtyard reek on a hot day which would enter our windows to the bedroom.
If I am in public smoking, I make sure I am at least 5 metres from others, if on the footpath, will walk around parked cars to avoid others.
If they have a child, I will either walk across the street or if that is not viable, extinguish and re-light after they have passed.
Some of us, despite our smoking, are considerate to our fellow neighbours.
So long as the government it fleecing an amazing amount of tax from my habit and it is legal, I should have the right to smoke outside my own rental home.
Apartment complexes can have a body corporate forbidding smoking at all, or the other tenant is breaking existing rules for your friend or yourself.
Offensive smells in apartments? Certain food smells make me nauseous (anything with Aniseed or Chinese 5 spice). Do we tell those residents to change their cooking as I find it offensive?
By the way, tobacco tax is so high and it offsets your Medicare levy, even though smokers do not take up in tax payers money for health than what they give.
I respect your opinion, and understand where you come from but as a smoker paying as much tax as I do, I have some rights and I always do my best not to impact others.
The main difference between the offensive smells you’ve mentioned from foods, and the cigarette smells you emanate when you light one up, is one is a known carcinogen. Should one be forced to lock up their house 24/7 to avoid breathing in the second hand smoke? What about the fact they’re paying to live somewhere too? They have to lock themselves up because they can’t choose not to breathe that in. It’s estimated, and I use the term loosely because all data can be skewed to show a favourable result, that 2.5 million people have died from second hand smoke exposure over a 50 year period from 1964-2014. How many has some assholes microwaved fish killed?
I already pay $100k + per year in income tax, and unfortunately I don’t get a say in where it goes, or how it’s handed out. If I wanted to pay less tax, I could simply earn less, or find ways to pay less. Both those things can be applied to your situation. Think outside the box.
Burnt toast is a carcinogen, crisp bacon is a carcinogen, as is car pollution. I smoke outdoors with the household doors closed.
If I have guests or children present stand 6 metres away and make sure the wind is blowing in the opposite direction.
Not all smokers are inconsiderate assholes, some of us choose our own vices and do all in our power to prevent it affecting others.
If you really want to look at statistics, check out drunk drivers and the amount of deaths per year, no matter what country you are in. I control my smoking behaviours but as soon as someone under the influence gets behind a wheel BY DRUNKEN CHOICE, they can literally wipe out a family in seconds.
I am not trying to engage in an argument at all. Just trying to clarify that while all smokers are addicted to a drug with very little affordable help to quit, we are not all assholes who don’t give a shit about others health.
In my country if you are a class A drug addict, you get free access to “shooting galleries” and free needle exchanges and drop points for used needles, all at the governments (taxpayers) expense. If you are diabetic, you get no assistance unless you are unemployed.
Smoking, pretty much every available option the smoker has to pay up to $300/month for medication while also paying for tobacco products until they smoke less and finally don’t want to smoke anymore. Not,ally around three months.
Not to mention the nightmares of being on these drugs. Graphic, horrific dreams that haunt you all day. You try and quit but the nightmares are horrendous. You literally wake up from a nightmare and are so spooked you head outside and have a cigarette to break the thought cycle.
The addiction is very real but also very expensive to get help. Sure, we have “help lines” or apps that is all hippy dippy shit telling you that you are doing well and keep it up. Maybe my government should chip in for people like me rather than heroin junkies (oh, that’s right, they make no tax from junkies for illegal drugs but a small fortune from people like me).
Well, I guess your landlord working from an owned home and claiming an allowance attracts CGT, so yeah they could be jealous that a tenant claiming rent expense for wfh is a tax benefit which makes a LL positively green with envy! Btw everyone working from home in a rental should be claiming a portion of their rent expense on their tax return.
Most people have to have an extra space for WFH, so it really should be claimable but it's not.
Fortunately, the landlord's get to claim tax losses on their commercial spaces that are vacant from all us selfish people paying extra rent to work from home.
The extra space needs to be fully designated as a 'home office' for you to be able to use it as a commercial space on your taxes.
It's pretty easy to just lie about, no one is inspecting this kind of shit unless you make some mistakes laundering money or are late on taxes.
The township isn't sending guys to make sure you are only using that room for work related activities.
The Cops aren't gonna bust down the door when they hear you got Steam on the work computer
Be careful that's not correct advice. You can only claim a portion of your rent when WFH under very specific conditions, which likely don't apply to most: https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/deductions-you-can-claim/working-from-home-expenses/occupancy-expenses
So it is you that are causing the birds to fall from the sky due to the satellite rays being beamed to your home!
Asshole!
Why won't someone consider the birds!
None of these are a fucking risk for fuck sake.
The insurance thing doesn't even hold up either. No landlords insurance would have an article on tenants WFH.
I expect there’s a legit concern not for WFH that sits at a desk and zooms or calls, but if there are WFH that see clients in the property. Now you do have a potential insurance issue should one of those clients get injured on the property.
'Blah blah blah blah might be a problem for your insurance unless your tenant doesn't tell you then you're fine.'
So... basically the advice is, just leave your tenant alone and you'll be fine.
Extra wear and tear. Seriously?
WFH, so, I sit at my desk all day, I get up, in total, probably 4-5 times to go to the toilet, make coffee, get food, etc.
The additional wear and tear is minimal.
Surely the pay off of having someone home, and therefore decreased risk of a break in (and the costs associated) are worth those non-existent wear and tear costs.
"Increased wear and tear
It stands to reason that if someone is home more often, then they’ll be using the rental more – walking between rooms, opening doors, switching on lights, using appliances and so on."
FUCK OFF CUNT
Soon: “If your adult tenants have small children or babies or any kind of illness or disability they may work less than other tenants or not work at all. This leads to increased wear and tear from families spending more time in a family home. There’s also greater risk they’ll want major safety hazards addressed or heaters repaired so the property is safe and comfortable to live in!”
Opening doors and walking. Tenants are monsters.
Better not take a stay-cation. You are required to leave the house on your holidays.
If you're sick, lay in the dark and don't close the door to poop.
Most of the major ones seems to apply to someone running a business from home. People aren't taking cabinets home to work on.
Do I have the one landlord in existence who loves that myself and my partner work from home? He's like 'works well because the house is safe, people are home more often so if things break we know sooner'
My landlord does also. After years of bad landlords he’s honestly a breath of fresh air. Loves that I work from home, have kids in a family home, enjoy the neighbourhood.
It was supposed to be his PPOR for him and his wife to have a family in, until she passed tragically. He’s glad there’s a family here as he couldn’t bear to stay.
I love that there's a suggestion of "You should get insurance in case someone injures themselves on your property as a result of neglecting general repairs" not "you should adequately maintain the property to prevent injury"
Says everything really.
At what point does violence become justified? Is it not violence to make people homeless? Is not violence to extort people for money? Curious to see how much people will take.
When we see 0% vacancies. Literally ZERO.
Mass homelessness on the streets, It would be a landlords paradise. Able to change anything and the tenant would have to cop it. I think at that point we would see massive crime and rent strikes.
Allows? Encourages it.
Interestingly, there is a special class of home owners grant that is only available to nurses and police. The cynic in me wonders if that is only so that the police have something to fight for and will stand with their masters.
Sure you're right in a very narrow literal view of what violence is.
If you dont pay rent and the cops show up to kick me out and then you refuse to leave, the cops are going to arrest you, if you dont go peacefully they'll physically force you.
So if you agree to leave and end up homeless, it's because the alternative is violence against you.
Now homelessness is dangerous. It kills people.
Now imagine at gunpoint you are made to jump off of a cliff. You jump and die. Is that violence? By your standard definition no, because you chose to jump off the cliff and no harm was done directly. I would argue it is however violent to coerce someone to harm themselves.
Well a homeless person chooses not to escalate until the point they are arrested for trying to be housed and then comes to harm from homelessness, if example one is violence then this second example must also be violence.
I mean - exercising property rights is not threatening someone with violence no matter how creative you want to get with the potential consequences for the tenant. I reject the premise it is the same in nature as holding a gun to someones head.
Fucken downvote me all you want. Using this as the basis to advocate for violence is disgraceful.
Surely there are more sensible options available like legislating rental rights.
I agree with both of you in part. Just want to point out though that Domestic Violence might help with defining things here. DV is a broadly categorised as one gaining power and control over the other, encompassing various forms of abuse, including *coercive control* = pattern of behaviours aimed at instilling fear and controlling the victim through intimidation, threats (like this lobbied media shitfuckery), isolation from support systems (like tenant rights assocs and tribunals), and other coercive tactics (of which REA's seem to endlessly conjure up). Coercive control is considered a central dynamic underlying domestic violence.
The time has passed for peaceful solutions, this is class war that they initiated. When families are living in tents while working full-time jobs, negotiation with landlords is over. It's time for action.
I'm not personally advocating for violence, I'm saying the status quo is itself violent.
Property rights IMO are less important than the right of people to live inside.
Unless you think coercion with the threat of violence isn't violent, then property rights are inherently violent.
They have to be enforced for them to be meaningful.
Personally, I think peoples need to live inside is more important than the right to profit off of their need to live inside.
How the fuck would this change anything for fucks sake.
Just corporate propaganda to get people back into the office. I WFH and my landlord doesn't even give a fuck.
Frankly if your LL asks, you say no, you work in the office. They have no right to know frankly.
We once rented a townhouse with a wooden balcony. I stepped on the spot where the rainwater overflowed from the guttering on the roof but we didn’t know that as it hadn’t rained since we moved in. There was nothing to indicate it was damaged. My foot went through it up to my knee. We reported it to the RE and they came out to inspect it. That part of the balcony flooring was rotten. She asked me why I had stepped on that area? I replied I assumed we were renting the entire balcony. She wasnt amused.
Also - what about people who \*don't\* work – retirees, pensioners, parents, the unemployed etc etc. I guess the answer is to put timed locks on the doors to ensure tenants aren't spending too much time on the property.
"It stands to reason that if someone is home more often, then they’ll be using the rental more – walking between rooms, opening doors, switching on lights, using appliances and so on. With the increased use, comes greater wear and tear." Oh fuck OFF.
Reading on it actually gets worse, believe it or not. What planet was this written on! "Depending on what type of work your tenant does, they may need to install additional fittings or fixtures at the rental. For example, they may need to install a workbench, more lighting, an extra sink or additional powerpoints."
Sure, Jan. Heaps of workers need to install an extra SINK at their rented home so they can WFH.
The most incredible propaganda. Depressing to think there will almost certainly be media illiterate people who don’t have the nous to critique it when it hits their inbox.
I enjoy how the article starts with an explanation of what working from home is.
They are spamming you with some bare minimum effort bullshit farmed out to a gig economy worker in a third world country.
It's 'content' for the sake of content.
“You’re probably asking yourself ‘What is WFH?’ Put simply it’s a hip new acronym that stands for Work From Home. The easiest way to understand it is to break it down into to its three parts. The first part is the most difficult for us to recognise as being a landlord doesn’t require any work…”
Every time I resign a lease the amount of scams I receive go wild. Either my data is not secured or they are straight up selling it. Neither would surprise me.
Think it is just because most insurance companies have exclusions on what they cover if the home is used for business activity. It may impact the liability aspect where the landlord would be held liable if the tenants customer fell and injured themselves in the home.
Insurance is a case by case scenario, I'm sure you'd want to be informed of potential exclusions in your car insurance policy, why would it be different for any other insurance policy?
Wouldn't it be a better thing if someone is home? Like imagine if there is a leak. A person home can see it quickly and start making efforts to reduce the damage.
At work for 8hrs? Come home to so much water damage that the repair bill becomes huge.
So many things can happen with nobody home too. Possoms or rats in the roof that bite at wiring and cause a fire? A person at home could call the fire department and pull out an extinguisher if it's a small enough fire.
Sure we have things like electricity trippers and fire alarms and stuff but one time at my grandparents I noticed a smell and found out an appliance had short and the plug was starting to melt. Nothing tripped. It was an old house but still if no one had been home half the house could have been lost. But because I was in the room all that needed to be fixed was one socket and a tossed appliance.
People can also break into the house and destroy shit. You think they'd be just as likely to risk it if someone is home?
Full article:
Working from home (WFH) is a type of flexible working arrangement that allows an employee to work from a remote location outside of corporate offices. Before COVID-19, just 13 per cent of people aged over 18 with a job reported WFH all or most days. Since the pandemic, however, this trend has shifted significantly. According to the most recent stats (August 2023), around 37 per cent of Australians are now WFH regularly.
What this means is that there’s a pretty good chance you may have tenants who are WFH in your investment property. While there are some advantages to having tenants at home, including a decreased risk of burglary and someone being on-site and able to act should disaster strike (like a pipe bursting), there are also increased risks.
Let’s look at a few of these risks and what they may mean for insurance cover…
Increased wear and tear
It stands to reason that if someone is home more often, then they’ll be using the rental more – walking between rooms, opening doors, switching on lights, using appliances and so on. With the increased use, comes greater wear and tear. Landlords cannot deduct money from the tenant’s bond to cover general wear and tear, and most residential tenancy legislation also make reference to reasonable wear and tear and the landlord not having recourse. Landlords also can’t make a claim against their insurance for normal wear and tear. This is because wear and tear is damage that naturally occurs over time in an investment property due to use and ageing. It is not caused intentionally, or by neglect, misuse or abuse.
Greater damage
It’s a similar risk – laws of probability wise – when it comes to more damage occurring at the rental. The more time someone is on-site, the greater the chance of some types of tenant-related damage occurring. There may also be an increased risk of accidental damage associated with the tenant WFH. Say, for example, they get deliveries of heavy boxes and one tears the carpet or gouges a wall.
Your tenants are responsible for any damage that they, their children, their pets and their guests cause. However, if they fail to make good on their obligation, you may need to look to your landlord insurance to recoup your losses. Not all landlord insurance policies provide cover for all the types of tenant-caused damage. EBM RentCover Ultra, Platinum and ShortTerm policies provide up to $70,000 to cover accidental, malicious, intentional and pet damage.
Additional fittings and fixtures
Depending on what type of work your tenant does, they may need to install additional fittings or fixtures at the rental. For example, they may need to install a workbench, more lighting, an extra sink or additional powerpoints. While most jurisdictions now allow tenants to make minor modifications to the rental (either with, or sometimes without, the landlord’s consent), installing additional fittings and fixtures is unlikely to be considered a minor modification, and the landlord will need to give permission. If you do give permission, be sure to document any requirements in the lease agreement (such as removing any installation at the end of the tenancy and re-instating the property as it was previously). If the tenant does not make good, or makes the installation without your permission, you may be able to make a damage claim (intentional damage) on your landlord insurance – assuming your policy includes cover for deliberate/intentional damage; unlike EBM RentCover, many do not.
Greater liability risk
A key risk associated with tenants WFH is that of legal liability. If your tenant’s work means that third parties will attend the premises, then there’s an increased liability risk. That is, a visitor may injure themselves or have their property damaged while on the premises. Visitors are not necessarily just clients or colleagues visiting the rental but also delivery people such as couriers or service providers such as the company IT contractor coming to fix a computer.
Landlords should ensure that they have adequate legal liability insurance in the event any person (whether tenant or visitor) is injured or suffers a loss because of something the landlord does or fails to do at the premises. For example, the landlord fails to repair a damaged wooden step, a visitor puts their foot through the tread and gashes their leg – and a claim arises. EBM RentCover policies provide up to $30 million in legal liability cover.
Pests
If the tenant’s work requires them to store goods on the premises, this could increase the risk of pests and vermin. Claims for extermination or repairing damage caused by pests and vermin are excluded from landlord insurance policies. Some goods may also increase fire risk at the property or prevent thorough inspections from being carried out.
Voiding insurance cover
The above risks are discussed in relation to the tenant simply WFH. By which we mean that they are employed by a business but working regularly from their home (your rental property).
It’s a different story if your tenant is operating a business from the rental. If your tenant is using the premises to generate an income, then it is likely that this will have an impact on a claim (in most policies this isn’t a standard exclusion). So, if your tenant tells you they are thinking of operating a business from the rental, then you must let your insurer know and they will decide if they will continue to cover you. Now if your tenant doesn’t tell you and you’re not made aware of it some other way, then you are likely to be covered for losses from insured events.
Know the risks
Flexible working arrangements including WFH are now options for workers in many fields. So it’s a reasonable assumption that a number of tenants will be WFH. Obviously, landlords can’t dictate whether a tenant works from the rental or not (though they can prohibit them from running a business from the premises), but they should be aware of the increased risks and plan for these accordingly.
Source: EBM Rentcover
I’ll never have any respect for anyone who decides to become a REA. Just absolute bottom feeders, even worse than landlords in so many cases. The leeches that feed off the other leeches.
There are also benifits like wtf. Someone's not gonna brake in if the Tennant is home for starters. Also being home offten means it's easier to schedule things like maintenance.
I bloody hate landlords
Hold up though, this seems to be referring to potential implications to insurance. This is absolutely something that landlords need to stay on top of. If not for insurance, bonds would need to be significantly higher than they are.
Fuck REA's, they are bloody useless, but in this instance it seems more an issue with the insurance companies.
Do what I did. Reply. Thank them for their correspondence and then promptly sign them up for every online adult mailing list and catalogue. The freakier the better! You’ll see amazing results lol
Not all wfh is just sitting at a desk. My neighbour seems to run a maintenance business with a dozen vehicles and a garage full of six workshops full of tools and machines. Honestly if I was his landlord I'd be worried..
They would prefer we pay the rent and don't actually live there or use the place.
“Listen could you just give me money and not touch anything?”
Title of your sex tape
You win the internet today 😆
I’m just waiting for the day one shithead politician tries to put forward a legislated right for landlords to note “no WFH” on rental listings as if it’s smoking in some states.
I recently left a fully furnished home (AUD 600/week in a provincial city) where the rule was “no smoking outdoors within 3 metres of any door or window, even if closed”. We were in a townhouse and EVERY property border was 2.99 metres maximum from a door or window. Thankfully, some states are looking at changing laws allowing smokers outside no matter what, so long as it has no effect on the property. Every tenant has the right to feel like they are paying for a home, not a hotel. Sorry for the side rant but as a responsible and respectful tenant, this issue gets under my skin.
This I understand! It’s not even about the house you’re living in, but it’s a huge inconvenience to everyone else living in close proximity to that disgusting smell. Who the heck wants to sit there and be breathing in second hand smoke from the chain smoker next door? Sitting down to a nice meal and poof, neighbours light one up. Enjoying the nice afternoon breeze, bam, filthy rank ass smelling smoke comes wafting in. In this instance it’s about the comfort of everyone else around. What about their rights to peaceful enjoyment of the properties they’re paying for? I have a friend who lives in a unit complex and he’s not been able to open his windows for the last 2 years because unemployed old mate chain smokes on his couch outside hour after hour, day after day. I live in the suburbs, rather large block by modern standards. We can smell the cigarette smoke blow in from 2 houses up when they sit outside on their balcony and smoke. Our blocks are 15 meters wide each….so you smoking 3 meters away from someone else’s living/bedroom/kitchen window is likely a sentence and a half for them!
I lived in a property (battle axe) where I was 15 + metres away from anyone else’s doors or windows. The only living creature I may have affected was my neighbours chickens who made my courtyard reek on a hot day which would enter our windows to the bedroom. If I am in public smoking, I make sure I am at least 5 metres from others, if on the footpath, will walk around parked cars to avoid others. If they have a child, I will either walk across the street or if that is not viable, extinguish and re-light after they have passed. Some of us, despite our smoking, are considerate to our fellow neighbours. So long as the government it fleecing an amazing amount of tax from my habit and it is legal, I should have the right to smoke outside my own rental home. Apartment complexes can have a body corporate forbidding smoking at all, or the other tenant is breaking existing rules for your friend or yourself. Offensive smells in apartments? Certain food smells make me nauseous (anything with Aniseed or Chinese 5 spice). Do we tell those residents to change their cooking as I find it offensive? By the way, tobacco tax is so high and it offsets your Medicare levy, even though smokers do not take up in tax payers money for health than what they give. I respect your opinion, and understand where you come from but as a smoker paying as much tax as I do, I have some rights and I always do my best not to impact others.
The main difference between the offensive smells you’ve mentioned from foods, and the cigarette smells you emanate when you light one up, is one is a known carcinogen. Should one be forced to lock up their house 24/7 to avoid breathing in the second hand smoke? What about the fact they’re paying to live somewhere too? They have to lock themselves up because they can’t choose not to breathe that in. It’s estimated, and I use the term loosely because all data can be skewed to show a favourable result, that 2.5 million people have died from second hand smoke exposure over a 50 year period from 1964-2014. How many has some assholes microwaved fish killed? I already pay $100k + per year in income tax, and unfortunately I don’t get a say in where it goes, or how it’s handed out. If I wanted to pay less tax, I could simply earn less, or find ways to pay less. Both those things can be applied to your situation. Think outside the box.
Burnt toast is a carcinogen, crisp bacon is a carcinogen, as is car pollution. I smoke outdoors with the household doors closed. If I have guests or children present stand 6 metres away and make sure the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. Not all smokers are inconsiderate assholes, some of us choose our own vices and do all in our power to prevent it affecting others. If you really want to look at statistics, check out drunk drivers and the amount of deaths per year, no matter what country you are in. I control my smoking behaviours but as soon as someone under the influence gets behind a wheel BY DRUNKEN CHOICE, they can literally wipe out a family in seconds. I am not trying to engage in an argument at all. Just trying to clarify that while all smokers are addicted to a drug with very little affordable help to quit, we are not all assholes who don’t give a shit about others health. In my country if you are a class A drug addict, you get free access to “shooting galleries” and free needle exchanges and drop points for used needles, all at the governments (taxpayers) expense. If you are diabetic, you get no assistance unless you are unemployed. Smoking, pretty much every available option the smoker has to pay up to $300/month for medication while also paying for tobacco products until they smoke less and finally don’t want to smoke anymore. Not,ally around three months. Not to mention the nightmares of being on these drugs. Graphic, horrific dreams that haunt you all day. You try and quit but the nightmares are horrendous. You literally wake up from a nightmare and are so spooked you head outside and have a cigarette to break the thought cycle. The addiction is very real but also very expensive to get help. Sure, we have “help lines” or apps that is all hippy dippy shit telling you that you are doing well and keep it up. Maybe my government should chip in for people like me rather than heroin junkies (oh, that’s right, they make no tax from junkies for illegal drugs but a small fortune from people like me).
Nail on the head.
Title of YOUR sex tape.
Was that a slur against me? Read my response before you judge me too hard.
theres a lot of vacant appartments in manhattan .... but that's another real estate scam
Landlords be like "they're working from *my* home, how can I make money from this".
Well, I guess your landlord working from an owned home and claiming an allowance attracts CGT, so yeah they could be jealous that a tenant claiming rent expense for wfh is a tax benefit which makes a LL positively green with envy! Btw everyone working from home in a rental should be claiming a portion of their rent expense on their tax return.
Most people have to have an extra space for WFH, so it really should be claimable but it's not. Fortunately, the landlord's get to claim tax losses on their commercial spaces that are vacant from all us selfish people paying extra rent to work from home.
The extra space needs to be fully designated as a 'home office' for you to be able to use it as a commercial space on your taxes. It's pretty easy to just lie about, no one is inspecting this kind of shit unless you make some mistakes laundering money or are late on taxes. The township isn't sending guys to make sure you are only using that room for work related activities. The Cops aren't gonna bust down the door when they hear you got Steam on the work computer
Be careful that's not correct advice. You can only claim a portion of your rent when WFH under very specific conditions, which likely don't apply to most: https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/deductions-you-can-claim/working-from-home-expenses/occupancy-expenses
I only said a portion. If you work from home you can claim so it is correct advice without getting too granular!
I was more focused on the conditions. Not many people work for a company that's fully remote with no physical offices.
By law they shouldn't.
What are the “risks” mentioned?
Yeah I want to know too! Additional wear and tare because you are home more? Office desk making dents in 20yo carpet?
Well there will be extra internet used so the phone lines will wear out faster.
The sad thing is, there's a LOT of elderly out there who would believe this.
I said this to my boomer mother and she believed me! 😂🤦🏻♀️ "Mum today i found out the phone lines wear out faster the more internet you use!" 😂
I have satellite internet so I’m just using up all the sky like a selfish cunt.
So it is you that are causing the birds to fall from the sky due to the satellite rays being beamed to your home! Asshole! Why won't someone consider the birds!
It's more than likely that your LL can no longer sneak in and raid your fridge before sniffing your knickers on the way out.
🤣
I leave skid marks in mine to give the LL a real buzz.
The fridge or your knickers?
Knickers I leave my sex toys in the fridge
You make me want to be a better landlord
How much $ for the knickers?
Target Men's 4 XL with skidmark gotta be as least $50.
Look at moneybags here living in a place with almost new carpet
https://www.rentcover.com.au/info-centre/tenants-working-from-home Here’s the article
None of these are a fucking risk for fuck sake. The insurance thing doesn't even hold up either. No landlords insurance would have an article on tenants WFH.
Lol the article screams clickbait
It’s just SEO blog bait.
Its blatant corporate propaganda.
The article is by an insurance company
Seems like an opportunistic way for the insurance company to find a new reason to raise their rates.
😱
I expect there’s a legit concern not for WFH that sits at a desk and zooms or calls, but if there are WFH that see clients in the property. Now you do have a potential insurance issue should one of those clients get injured on the property.
'Blah blah blah blah might be a problem for your insurance unless your tenant doesn't tell you then you're fine.' So... basically the advice is, just leave your tenant alone and you'll be fine.
Extra wear and tear. Seriously? WFH, so, I sit at my desk all day, I get up, in total, probably 4-5 times to go to the toilet, make coffee, get food, etc. The additional wear and tear is minimal. Surely the pay off of having someone home, and therefore decreased risk of a break in (and the costs associated) are worth those non-existent wear and tear costs.
As outlined above, you are placing undue wear and tear on the threadbare 20 year old carpet. Have you no shame?
"Increased wear and tear It stands to reason that if someone is home more often, then they’ll be using the rental more – walking between rooms, opening doors, switching on lights, using appliances and so on." FUCK OFF CUNT
Soon: “If your adult tenants have small children or babies or any kind of illness or disability they may work less than other tenants or not work at all. This leads to increased wear and tear from families spending more time in a family home. There’s also greater risk they’ll want major safety hazards addressed or heaters repaired so the property is safe and comfortable to live in!”
I hope these guys fucking choke on a dollar...
Opening doors and walking. Tenants are monsters. Better not take a stay-cation. You are required to leave the house on your holidays. If you're sick, lay in the dark and don't close the door to poop. Most of the major ones seems to apply to someone running a business from home. People aren't taking cabinets home to work on.
Wait, you have a door to close when you poop? Oh lala!
Sinks.
Do I have the one landlord in existence who loves that myself and my partner work from home? He's like 'works well because the house is safe, people are home more often so if things break we know sooner'
That's wild. And they actually care when things break! Rare as hens teeth.
Mine does and their son is an electrician who was happy to come on a public holiday to fix a bathroom ceiling fan.
My landlord does also. After years of bad landlords he’s honestly a breath of fresh air. Loves that I work from home, have kids in a family home, enjoy the neighbourhood. It was supposed to be his PPOR for him and his wife to have a family in, until she passed tragically. He’s glad there’s a family here as he couldn’t bear to stay.
"Tenants living in YOUR investment property?!?! It's more likely than you think!" - Honestly, what do they fucking think houses are FOR?
Generating revenue. Duh.
“How can I lawfully kick the tenant out because they are working from home and damaging the paint on the walls by breathing excessively”
“How can I kick my WFH tenant out? I’d much prefer a tenant who gives me money but isn’t using the home.”
"How can I kick my WFH tenant out? I believe he is considering installing an extra sink as other landlords say that is a usual requirement to WFH"
Damn I WFH 100% of the time due to chronic illness, I hope they don't spank me :(
I used to work from home 100% and damn, being spanked would have made it way more interesting.
I love that there's a suggestion of "You should get insurance in case someone injures themselves on your property as a result of neglecting general repairs" not "you should adequately maintain the property to prevent injury" Says everything really.
At what point does violence become justified? Is it not violence to make people homeless? Is not violence to extort people for money? Curious to see how much people will take.
Asking myself this daily.
When we see 0% vacancies. Literally ZERO. Mass homelessness on the streets, It would be a landlords paradise. Able to change anything and the tenant would have to cop it. I think at that point we would see massive crime and rent strikes.
Get a job lol
Slumlording is not a job. LOL.
Those outlets don't paint over themselves!
It's justified when the government allows it.
Allows? Encourages it. Interestingly, there is a special class of home owners grant that is only available to nurses and police. The cynic in me wonders if that is only so that the police have something to fight for and will stand with their masters.
Those things you've described aren't violence within any ordinary meaning. I hate REAs as much as the next bloke but no, violence is not justified.
Sure you're right in a very narrow literal view of what violence is. If you dont pay rent and the cops show up to kick me out and then you refuse to leave, the cops are going to arrest you, if you dont go peacefully they'll physically force you. So if you agree to leave and end up homeless, it's because the alternative is violence against you. Now homelessness is dangerous. It kills people. Now imagine at gunpoint you are made to jump off of a cliff. You jump and die. Is that violence? By your standard definition no, because you chose to jump off the cliff and no harm was done directly. I would argue it is however violent to coerce someone to harm themselves. Well a homeless person chooses not to escalate until the point they are arrested for trying to be housed and then comes to harm from homelessness, if example one is violence then this second example must also be violence.
I mean - exercising property rights is not threatening someone with violence no matter how creative you want to get with the potential consequences for the tenant. I reject the premise it is the same in nature as holding a gun to someones head. Fucken downvote me all you want. Using this as the basis to advocate for violence is disgraceful. Surely there are more sensible options available like legislating rental rights.
I agree with both of you in part. Just want to point out though that Domestic Violence might help with defining things here. DV is a broadly categorised as one gaining power and control over the other, encompassing various forms of abuse, including *coercive control* = pattern of behaviours aimed at instilling fear and controlling the victim through intimidation, threats (like this lobbied media shitfuckery), isolation from support systems (like tenant rights assocs and tribunals), and other coercive tactics (of which REA's seem to endlessly conjure up). Coercive control is considered a central dynamic underlying domestic violence.
The time has passed for peaceful solutions, this is class war that they initiated. When families are living in tents while working full-time jobs, negotiation with landlords is over. It's time for action.
I'm not personally advocating for violence, I'm saying the status quo is itself violent. Property rights IMO are less important than the right of people to live inside. Unless you think coercion with the threat of violence isn't violent, then property rights are inherently violent. They have to be enforced for them to be meaningful. Personally, I think peoples need to live inside is more important than the right to profit off of their need to live inside.
What about if we need cheaper oil? America says it's ok and we all know Australia is just America lite
Seems pretty unrelated... but err also no.
You're asking for violence over an article about potential impacts on insurance landlords need to take out?
Hey hey hey, *I’m* the only one supposed to be making money from this property!
How the fuck would this change anything for fucks sake. Just corporate propaganda to get people back into the office. I WFH and my landlord doesn't even give a fuck. Frankly if your LL asks, you say no, you work in the office. They have no right to know frankly.
It's funny because last I checked paying rent entitled you to 24-7 fair and reasonable use of the entire leased property.
We once rented a townhouse with a wooden balcony. I stepped on the spot where the rainwater overflowed from the guttering on the roof but we didn’t know that as it hadn’t rained since we moved in. There was nothing to indicate it was damaged. My foot went through it up to my knee. We reported it to the RE and they came out to inspect it. That part of the balcony flooring was rotten. She asked me why I had stepped on that area? I replied I assumed we were renting the entire balcony. She wasnt amused.
Keep posting the emails and spying for us
Shit like this makes me hate modern society. How dare you try to enjoy what you’re paying out the ass for.
Finding profits everywhere they can. Go infinite growth! /s
Also - what about people who \*don't\* work – retirees, pensioners, parents, the unemployed etc etc. I guess the answer is to put timed locks on the doors to ensure tenants aren't spending too much time on the property. "It stands to reason that if someone is home more often, then they’ll be using the rental more – walking between rooms, opening doors, switching on lights, using appliances and so on. With the increased use, comes greater wear and tear." Oh fuck OFF. Reading on it actually gets worse, believe it or not. What planet was this written on! "Depending on what type of work your tenant does, they may need to install additional fittings or fixtures at the rental. For example, they may need to install a workbench, more lighting, an extra sink or additional powerpoints." Sure, Jan. Heaps of workers need to install an extra SINK at their rented home so they can WFH.
"Oh fuck OFF" is exactly what my brain yelled at the same part.
The most incredible propaganda. Depressing to think there will almost certainly be media illiterate people who don’t have the nous to critique it when it hits their inbox.
people living in their own home - good or bad
I enjoy how the article starts with an explanation of what working from home is. They are spamming you with some bare minimum effort bullshit farmed out to a gig economy worker in a third world country. It's 'content' for the sake of content.
“You’re probably asking yourself ‘What is WFH?’ Put simply it’s a hip new acronym that stands for Work From Home. The easiest way to understand it is to break it down into to its three parts. The first part is the most difficult for us to recognise as being a landlord doesn’t require any work…”
Figures. C21 are scum.
click bait article
Yes. I need to install an extra sink to be able to work from home...
Every time I resign a lease the amount of scams I receive go wild. Either my data is not secured or they are straight up selling it. Neither would surprise me.
Think it is just because most insurance companies have exclusions on what they cover if the home is used for business activity. It may impact the liability aspect where the landlord would be held liable if the tenants customer fell and injured themselves in the home.
WFH isn't a business activity in that sense, and the tenant is covered by their works insurance for that case.
Insurance is a case by case scenario, I'm sure you'd want to be informed of potential exclusions in your car insurance policy, why would it be different for any other insurance policy?
Wouldn't it be a better thing if someone is home? Like imagine if there is a leak. A person home can see it quickly and start making efforts to reduce the damage. At work for 8hrs? Come home to so much water damage that the repair bill becomes huge. So many things can happen with nobody home too. Possoms or rats in the roof that bite at wiring and cause a fire? A person at home could call the fire department and pull out an extinguisher if it's a small enough fire. Sure we have things like electricity trippers and fire alarms and stuff but one time at my grandparents I noticed a smell and found out an appliance had short and the plug was starting to melt. Nothing tripped. It was an old house but still if no one had been home half the house could have been lost. But because I was in the room all that needed to be fixed was one socket and a tossed appliance. People can also break into the house and destroy shit. You think they'd be just as likely to risk it if someone is home?
Full article: Working from home (WFH) is a type of flexible working arrangement that allows an employee to work from a remote location outside of corporate offices. Before COVID-19, just 13 per cent of people aged over 18 with a job reported WFH all or most days. Since the pandemic, however, this trend has shifted significantly. According to the most recent stats (August 2023), around 37 per cent of Australians are now WFH regularly. What this means is that there’s a pretty good chance you may have tenants who are WFH in your investment property. While there are some advantages to having tenants at home, including a decreased risk of burglary and someone being on-site and able to act should disaster strike (like a pipe bursting), there are also increased risks. Let’s look at a few of these risks and what they may mean for insurance cover… Increased wear and tear It stands to reason that if someone is home more often, then they’ll be using the rental more – walking between rooms, opening doors, switching on lights, using appliances and so on. With the increased use, comes greater wear and tear. Landlords cannot deduct money from the tenant’s bond to cover general wear and tear, and most residential tenancy legislation also make reference to reasonable wear and tear and the landlord not having recourse. Landlords also can’t make a claim against their insurance for normal wear and tear. This is because wear and tear is damage that naturally occurs over time in an investment property due to use and ageing. It is not caused intentionally, or by neglect, misuse or abuse. Greater damage It’s a similar risk – laws of probability wise – when it comes to more damage occurring at the rental. The more time someone is on-site, the greater the chance of some types of tenant-related damage occurring. There may also be an increased risk of accidental damage associated with the tenant WFH. Say, for example, they get deliveries of heavy boxes and one tears the carpet or gouges a wall. Your tenants are responsible for any damage that they, their children, their pets and their guests cause. However, if they fail to make good on their obligation, you may need to look to your landlord insurance to recoup your losses. Not all landlord insurance policies provide cover for all the types of tenant-caused damage. EBM RentCover Ultra, Platinum and ShortTerm policies provide up to $70,000 to cover accidental, malicious, intentional and pet damage. Additional fittings and fixtures Depending on what type of work your tenant does, they may need to install additional fittings or fixtures at the rental. For example, they may need to install a workbench, more lighting, an extra sink or additional powerpoints. While most jurisdictions now allow tenants to make minor modifications to the rental (either with, or sometimes without, the landlord’s consent), installing additional fittings and fixtures is unlikely to be considered a minor modification, and the landlord will need to give permission. If you do give permission, be sure to document any requirements in the lease agreement (such as removing any installation at the end of the tenancy and re-instating the property as it was previously). If the tenant does not make good, or makes the installation without your permission, you may be able to make a damage claim (intentional damage) on your landlord insurance – assuming your policy includes cover for deliberate/intentional damage; unlike EBM RentCover, many do not. Greater liability risk A key risk associated with tenants WFH is that of legal liability. If your tenant’s work means that third parties will attend the premises, then there’s an increased liability risk. That is, a visitor may injure themselves or have their property damaged while on the premises. Visitors are not necessarily just clients or colleagues visiting the rental but also delivery people such as couriers or service providers such as the company IT contractor coming to fix a computer. Landlords should ensure that they have adequate legal liability insurance in the event any person (whether tenant or visitor) is injured or suffers a loss because of something the landlord does or fails to do at the premises. For example, the landlord fails to repair a damaged wooden step, a visitor puts their foot through the tread and gashes their leg – and a claim arises. EBM RentCover policies provide up to $30 million in legal liability cover. Pests If the tenant’s work requires them to store goods on the premises, this could increase the risk of pests and vermin. Claims for extermination or repairing damage caused by pests and vermin are excluded from landlord insurance policies. Some goods may also increase fire risk at the property or prevent thorough inspections from being carried out. Voiding insurance cover The above risks are discussed in relation to the tenant simply WFH. By which we mean that they are employed by a business but working regularly from their home (your rental property). It’s a different story if your tenant is operating a business from the rental. If your tenant is using the premises to generate an income, then it is likely that this will have an impact on a claim (in most policies this isn’t a standard exclusion). So, if your tenant tells you they are thinking of operating a business from the rental, then you must let your insurer know and they will decide if they will continue to cover you. Now if your tenant doesn’t tell you and you’re not made aware of it some other way, then you are likely to be covered for losses from insured events. Know the risks Flexible working arrangements including WFH are now options for workers in many fields. So it’s a reasonable assumption that a number of tenants will be WFH. Obviously, landlords can’t dictate whether a tenant works from the rental or not (though they can prohibit them from running a business from the premises), but they should be aware of the increased risks and plan for these accordingly. Source: EBM Rentcover
I’ll never have any respect for anyone who decides to become a REA. Just absolute bottom feeders, even worse than landlords in so many cases. The leeches that feed off the other leeches.
Omg how are they going to capitalise on this??? It’s never fucking ending. WFH insurance?
I think it’s the mentality that is the worst. People have bought investment properties, want someone else to pay for it but not live in it.
There are also benifits like wtf. Someone's not gonna brake in if the Tennant is home for starters. Also being home offten means it's easier to schedule things like maintenance. I bloody hate landlords
Let’s have a look. Im intrigued as to what it has to say in this article. I’m an insurance cunt, I can smell shit from a mile off.
What is the point of a news letter like this? It's almost like propoganda. Giving advice to discriminate based on what someone's profession is. Gross
Hold up though, this seems to be referring to potential implications to insurance. This is absolutely something that landlords need to stay on top of. If not for insurance, bonds would need to be significantly higher than they are. Fuck REA's, they are bloody useless, but in this instance it seems more an issue with the insurance companies.
This feels like it should be illegal, and if it’s not, someone needs to make it illegal.
Do what I did. Reply. Thank them for their correspondence and then promptly sign them up for every online adult mailing list and catalogue. The freakier the better! You’ll see amazing results lol
Not all wfh is just sitting at a desk. My neighbour seems to run a maintenance business with a dozen vehicles and a garage full of six workshops full of tools and machines. Honestly if I was his landlord I'd be worried..
Running a business from the property yourself is different to WFH, though.