Since The Tenant Can Negotiate on Rent, Should You Be Able to Negotiate on Council and Utility Rates?

spc12go on 16/04/2020 - 10:05
Last edited 16/04/2020 - 10:30

Got me thinking since the tenants can re-negotiate on rent. Why shouldn’t I be able to negotiate on council rate and utility charges.

Not talking about deferred payment or payment schedule but actual reduction on the charges based on your rent reduction. The government is able to mandate this, they should be able to mandate the same for the charges. We all have to share the love, it’s only fair. After all council and utility companies are in better financial position than 99% of us. Bare in mind a reduction in rent, doesn’t mean you get a reduction on out going. Rates and charges, strata and repair & maintenance still have to be paid in full.

Has anyone tried and is there a way to voice this to the government.

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Poll Options expired

  • 160
    Yes, should applied to landlords
  • 181
    No, landlord should harden up
  • 25
    Should be applicable to everyone
  • 21
    Bikies
Financial

Comments

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/04/2020 - 07:31
            +1

            @Binchicken22: The government stepped in to avoid potentially 2-3 million people becoming homeless and on the street, through absolutely no fault of their own.

            This is further compounded by the hundreds of Landlords on Ozbargain alone confirming they would basically do exactly that.

            • Binchicken22 on 18/04/2020 - 20:07

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: By your same logic, "they are poor money managers, they shouldn't have just expected to have an income at all times. Jobs can come and go"…

              It appears that's the logic you are applying to landlords, at least be consistent…

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 15:51
                -1

                @Binchicken22: How does your brain think that is the same logic as what I used?

                Why are all your posts simply made up? The government is not "stepping in and saying he has to "give away" his "asset" for the next 6 months at least, whilst still being required to foot the bill on mortgage, maintance, rates etc.". Nobody who has read the early proposals would think that is the case.

                • Binchicken22 on 20/04/2020 - 20:32

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Eh, obviosuly I'm referring to specific situations.

                  The original question OP posed was if tenants can do a "pay want you want" style system, why can't landlords. (though now a few days later as I write this, the proposal has been updated to at least requiring a Tennant to show proof, previously it was just, "I can only afford $10 a week" and landlords were powerless to do anything for the next 6 months, so yes effectively forcing landlords to "give away" their asset.

          • Dingo on 19/04/2020 - 20:52
            +1

            @Binchicken22: That's not what the government has done at all. They've asked landlords and tenants to negotiate. If your tenants have not lost their jobs you can retain the full rent.

            After reading all these comments I'm really glad the government has taken the action they have.

            • Binchicken22 on 21/04/2020 - 13:39

              @Dingo: We are talking about different things here.

              You are talking about a comment scomo made in a press conference, which really doesn't mean anything and makes no difference, it basically comes down to him saying "play fair kids".

              What I'm talking about is the government legislating that tenants could, without any proof, just say sorry can't afford rent, not paying and landlords couldn't do anything about it.

              At least now the government has backtracked a bit and required proof of income reduction, which seems a fairer way of doing it.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 21/04/2020 - 15:19

                @Binchicken22:

                What I'm talking about is the government legislating that tenants could,

                Nothing has been legislated yet.

                Again, you're posting absolutely pure speculation on your part.

                • Binchicken22 on 22/04/2020 - 06:43

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: It was proposed legislation, hardly speculation, of course its going to be discussed.

                  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 22/04/2020 - 09:17

                    @Binchicken22: Your quote:

                    "What I'm talking about is the government legislating that tenants could, without any proof, just say sorry can't afford rent, not paying and landlords couldn't do anything about it."

                    That statement is completely false. That's not discussion. That's pure made up nonsense, speculation, outright lie whichever way you look at it. Your posts make a habit of this.

                    Is it because you are completely blind to what is going on? or are you making stuff up in a vain attempt to assist your weird point of view?

                    There has been no backtracking. Nothing. has. not. been. legislated. yet. All there has been is a moratorium, by each of the states and territories, on evictions until all issues are addressed, processes established and legislation passing in the houses.

                    • Binchicken22 on 23/04/2020 - 14:52

                      @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I should have put, proposed government legislation yes, however I thought that was obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the situation.

                      Me "speculating" on that, is a lot less of a reach than you "speculating" that 2 to 3 million people would have been homeless if the government didn't step in. That's some bs if I've ever heard it.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/04/2020 - 19:27
        +1

        Why is it that non-homeowners want landlords to sell their property?

        Is it envy? Crab mentality? Something else?

        And I never realised that selling a property incurred $0 sales costs, discharge of mortgage balance, and associated taxes. Is that right?

        If you take such issue with landlords that much, what about public housing?

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/04/2020 - 07:32
          -1

          Why are landlords such poor investors?

          If you can't afford to maintain an asset then liquidate the asset.

          Investing 101

          • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 11:35
            +1

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: So…to answer the question, it's a crab mentality at work then.

            Why are landlords such poor investors?

            Sure, there are poor-planning investors out there who hadn't considered the risks and their financial situation closely enough. But no-one anticipated a coronavirus pandemic. Under normal circumstances, tenants would be evicted for not managing their finances responsibly and the landlord anticipates the risk of a vacant property, which they can then lease back out. The moratorium on evictions (something new) has completely changed the usual route and landlords could not have anticipated a new risk: the inability to take back their property.

            Note that I am not directing my answer toward good tenants in genuine financial distress (due to a reduction in income amounts that are insufficient to cover the full rent and necessities) and who want to pay but can't. I think that this is where a moratorium is fair. The tenant will still have to pay back the amount in arrears unless a different arrangement was made with the landlord.

            If you can't afford to maintain an asset then liquidate the asset.

            If you can't afford the rent then move to a cheaper (and likely less nice) property, if a rent reduction can't be done.

            If you can't afford the rent then inspect your spending habits. Is that PS4, Nintendo Switch, entertainment subscription, alcohol or whatever else, or iPhone 11 "necessary"?

            If you want a freebie or free ride at the expense of someone else then… I have no words for you that would pass a moderator's approval.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/04/2020 - 15:09

              @[Deactivated]:

              But no-one anticipated a coronavirus pandemic.

              No one anticipates a lot of things. I don't anticipate someone hitting my car tomorrow, leaving my a paraplegic, and resulting in me being unable to work in my field. Shit happens.

              However shit happens far, far more regularly with investments.

              Nobody with shares, cash etc. are asking for government handouts.

              The tenant will still have to pay back the amount in arrears

              Unlikely. You obviously aren't up to date with the proposals being discussed.

              If you can't afford the rent then move to a cheaper

              The government shut down many, many industries resulting in a LOT of people being unable to earn an income. How do you expect them to suddenly pay for removalists, pay a bond, pay for rent somewhere else?

              The fear mongering is crazy. Sure there will be some tenants unaffected and won't pay rent. That's a risk landlords ALWAYS take. It was always a risk pre-COVID-19. It'll be a far, far minor amount compared to the estimated 2-3 million out of work.

              Nearly every first world government on the planet has implemented similar tenancy protections. I'm unsure why a small bunch of landlords think they "know" better than literally everyone else.

              • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 16:40
                +1

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                No one anticipates a lot of things

                Rental risk: vacant property, damage to property, no payment, changing market. Not an inability to take back the property if agreement is not upheld. Irrespective of what happens in the market, this was still within the landlord's control on a normal day. Landlords don't have to sell if they can take back the property and lease it out to a paying tenant.

                Nobody with shares, cash etc. are asking for government handouts.

                When you buy shares you know what the risks are and the market is beyond anyone's control on any normal/pandemic day.

                You obviously aren't up to date with the proposals being discussed.

                Then please enlighten me.

                You don't get a free-ride. There's still every chance that eviction notices and payment obligations still apply to people who are not impacted and want to take advantage of the situation. Welfare recipients are not likely to be impacted given that their "income" has increased.

                The moratorium seems to apply to people in genuine financial distress: ABC.
                Different states apply it differently: SBS.
                Nothing is set in stone.

                How do you expect them to suddenly pay for removalists, pay a bond, pay for rent somewhere else?

                Exactly. It's not $0 cost for a move/sale is it? How burdensome.

                It'll be a far, far minor amount compared to the estimated 2-3 million out of work

                What are their options? Who is responsible for their situation? And what's your proposed solution?

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 14:28

                  @[Deactivated]: Lmfao, why are you asking such immature questions. Vent. Whatever. But you and I both know I'm right. I repeat - nearly every first world government on the planet has implemented similar tenancy protections. I'm unsure why a small bunch of landlords think they "know" better than literally everyone else.

                  • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:23
                    +1

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                    why are you asking such immature questions

                    How are they immature? Because you can't answer them?

                    You seem to have a problem with deflection and avoidance toward answering questions that counter your perspective and/or involve consideration of complex issues.

                    It's okay to say, "I don't know" or "I'm not sure because this is a complex issue that involves multiple stakeholders".

                    But you and I both know I'm right

                    lol, no.

                    Repeating yourself doesn't make what you're saying right.

                    That's what kids do. They repeat without making a cogent case for their argument. What are you trying to say?

                    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 15:57

                      @[Deactivated]: "Who's responsible?" "What's your proposed solution?"

                      Nonsensical questions like this is immature.

                      Many parties are responsible.

                      There is no perfect solution that can be put into a few sentences.

                      Throwing questions like that around is ridiculous and immature. It's doesn't advance your argument. It's just throwing words and questions for the sake of it.

                      As for "deflection", lol, you avoided all the key points in my previous post and focused on 3 minor points which didn't even relate to your original post. You also countered another point of mine with a response that shows you completely misread the point :)

                      Instead of throwing around pointless questions how about you add something to advance your argument? (See I can bold things as well!) Because nobody but a proportion of other Landlords agree with your views. Again - refer to my point that nearly every nation is implementing similar schemes :)

                      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 16:56
                        +1

                        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: My question is not "Who's responsible?". It's "Who is responsible for their [2-3 million unemployed people's] situation"?

                        Answer is: not the landlord's. The landlord has a role to play to help where possible, but they're not babysitters nor charity-workers.

                        There is no perfect solution that can be put into a few sentences.

                        I agree. Yet, you keep offering the same solution.

                        how about you add something to advance your argument?

                        I initially replied to your comment wanting landlords to sell as a "solution" to the situation (financial burden).

                        I asked you, "Why is it that non-homeowners want landlords to sell their property?"

                        You wrote:

                        "If you can't afford to maintain an asset then liquidate the asset."

                        etc etc. This is what I have been querying, but the discussion went off tangent.

                        Advancing my argument… Okay, you mean a "counter-argument" to yours? I have been doing that plenty. If you had answered my questions directly, I would have offered my replies in a more straight-forward manner for why landlords do not have to sell. My points are in my replies, just ordered a bit everywhere, following extracts of your replies and questions.

                        Your "argument" seems to be: if sellers are in financial trouble because of this situation, then they have to sell or should sell. If I'm mistaken, then please correct me.

                        I've been arguing against that and explaining that landlords don't have to sell or should not sell because it's not their responsibility to cover for tenants.

                        Regarding your repetition of "Nearly every first world government on the planet has implemented similar tenancy protections. I'm unsure why a small bunch of landlords think they "know" better than literally everyone else."

                        Yes… And it's in place here too. So what's your point?

                        What do landlords supposedly "know" better?

                        I'm still waiting for you to "enlighten me" as to the proposals discussed since I apparently know nothing and you know everything.

                        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 21:58
                          -2

                          @[Deactivated]: That's a lot of words. You still haven't advanced your argument. Remember - you are replying to my viewpoint. My statement. Rebut it or shut it as they say.

                          Go back to my first post. If an investor cannot maintain an asset then they should liquidate it.

                          I'm still waiting for you to "enlighten me"

                          Rental amnesty. Being implemented for commercial tenants. Will be implemented in some form for residential tenants. A lot of tenants will not have to "pay back the amount in arrears" as you claim. Keep up.

                          So what's your point? "same solution."

                          Simple solution for landlords. Investments involve risk. Risks can be unplanned and unseen…that's why they're called risks.
                          If an investor cannot maintain an asset then they should liquidate it.

                          I have absolutely no idea what your point is tho. You're arguing over semantics. Who's "fault" it is. BS that landlords have the ability to foresee specific risks. They do not. Your utter failure at understanding what a moratorium is also hilarious. Are you arguing landlords should hold onto assets they cannot maintain? Actually, I really no longer care lol.

                          Governments will side with residential tenants over landlords. Always have and always will. Go along with the ride or jump off. I predicted you were venting a few posts ago. Go ahead. Vent. Elsewhere tho please :)

                          • [Deactivated] on 20/04/2020 - 00:01

                            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                            Rental amnesty. Being implemented for commercial tenants. Will be implemented in some form for residential tenants

                            Cannot find this anywhere. Source please?

                            A lot of tenants will not have to..

                            No, I did not say this. Practice your comprehension and re-read.

                            If an investor cannot maintain an asset then they should liquidate it.

                            Sure, I agree. And I've already replied the same previously.

                            And since you have problems with comprehension. I'll re-iterate here, again: My point is that landlords (the owner of the property) should/would not have to sell the property if the moratorium was not in place. Because the onus should not be on landlords to cover for tenants.

                            You know what "onus" means, right?

                            Are you arguing landlords should hold onto assets they cannot maintain?

                            No, again, please re-read one of my earlier replies to you if you're still having comprehension problems.

                            Who's "fault" it is

                            lol stop re-interpreting questions you can't/won't answer. That's not I was asking. Or if you're still having comprehension problems, sorry, I'll stop using such difficult words. Here, have a hug.

                            Your utter failure at understanding what a moratorium is also hilarious

                            A moratorium (noun) is a piece of paper. Or in today's context, it's text on a computer screen. Sometimes, it's used as an adjective. Like, "Hey, Mike, you are very moratoriumy".

                            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 20/04/2020 - 07:43
                              -2

                              @[Deactivated]:

                              Sure, I agree. And I've already replied the same previously.

                              No you didn't. You went off on a tangent. "Tenants should move", "tenants should inspect their spending habits". Rubbish responses. Your posts are right there for everyone to see.

                              Now that you have agreed, your entire argument is null and void. Why are you arguing for the sake of arguing when you concede you agree with the very first post you started arguing against! Hahaha

                              • [Deactivated] on 20/04/2020 - 09:37

                                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                                No you didn't.

                                I did, in the text before it.

                                "Tenants should move", "tenants should inspect their spending habits"

                                Yes. They're not mutually exclusive events. It's related to my argument if you can comprehend what it is.

                                Landlords can sell, tenants can move, tenants can inspect their spending habits.

                                Just because you think landlords should sell (your crab mentality desire), doesn't mean that would (landlords may have other options). Landlords shouldn't have to sell because it's not their responsibility to cover for tenants.

                                your entire argument is null and void

                                How so? What's my argument? Did you even comprehend it?

                                Even the commenter below this gets it.

                                Anyway, I'm done. Clearly, I know nothing and can't produce sources to back up what I'm saying.

                                Your posts are right there for everyone to see.

                                Yes, they are.

          • BestofOZB on 18/04/2020 - 23:23

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I think they can afford it when rent is actually paid.

  • CyberMurning on 16/04/2020 - 16:17

    i wish i can negotiate with JBHF… when i try to price match they will always say sorry it is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy below our cost….

  • SlavOz on 16/04/2020 - 21:23
    +6

    Where do you draw the line? Should I also get a reduction on my petrol and my weekly groceries? What about my car payments?

    Seems that we threw the majority of money at those who were likely living outside of their meqns to begin with.

    • Vote for Pedro on 17/04/2020 - 23:21
      +1

      I’ve agreed with you twice now, I must be getting sick. Australians personal debt is one of the highest in the world.

      I blame the ones with brand new iPhones, loans etc but no money in their bank rather than those really struggling to make ends meet.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 11:52
        +2

        Agreed. This applies to both landlords and tenants alike.

    • SlavOz on 18/04/2020 - 01:14
      +1

      I can understand people wanting nice everyday commodities. The real problem is people wasting their money on the LUXURY of living/renting in fancy areas. If you're living paycheque to paycheque in Marickville or Redfern, you have nobody to blame but yourself when shit hits the fan. The fact that the taxpayer is now subsidising people's harbourside views and metro hipster lifestyle in prime locations is absurd.

  • MontyMacaw on 17/04/2020 - 08:58
    +1

    It’s like comparing Donald Trump to Steve Jobs. You can’t compare Apples with Oranges.

    • dbun1 on 17/04/2020 - 13:20

      Nice dig at Trump's fake tan

  • bobwokeup on 17/04/2020 - 11:13
    -4

    No point in doing a toll as majority of people voting are tenants or have no idea what it’s like to be a landlord.

    • spc12go on 17/04/2020 - 12:29
      -2

      This is purely for fun. Can’t go out unless it’s shopping or exercise.

      May as well enjoy the commentary from the keyboard warriors.

      I don’t think there is a big economic disaster as portrait. The amount of deal that’s been ozbargained, where website grind to a stop due to traffic overload.

      If we truely are in a crisis these things shouldn’t happen.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 17/04/2020 - 15:49
      +2

      What's it like to be a landlord billybob1978?

    • Vote for Pedro on 17/04/2020 - 23:22
      +2

      Here’s the thing, I don’t care. I choose to be a tenant because I don’t care. You chose to buy an investment property. Why is that my problem. Business is tough.

      • Ughhh on 21/04/2020 - 01:17
        +1

        Should the lack of caring go both ways? Ie. Tenant not caring about landlords Investment and landlord not caring about tenants housing/financial situation?

        • Vote for Pedro on 21/04/2020 - 12:03

          As a tenant, I pay for a product. It’s none of my business “what it’s like to be a landlord.”

          Every business is hard. Every business has horrible customers. That’s a cost of business. It should be taken into account.

          Having an investment property is a business. On top of that, it’s the only business I know where you can offset losses against your personal income. So it’s business subsidised by the taxpayers - you and me.

  • abb on 17/04/2020 - 13:17
    +7

    A tenant is a human seeking essential shelter.

    A rental property is an asset seeking a paying customer.

    If the costs of holding an asset mean the income generated is insufficient for the investor, the investor is able to sell (and should!)

    • spc12go on 17/04/2020 - 15:06

      How do you sell a property where you can’t terminate the lease or ask the client to move? As the potential purchasers are not investors?

      • abb on 17/04/2020 - 15:14
        +3

        How do you sell a property where you can’t terminate the lease or ask the client to move?

        You can give notice to terminate the lease, you can sell the house with tenant, etc. Special covid measures allegedly prevent eviction due to covid-related financial hardship only (and may not even be legislated yet).

        As the potential purchasers are not investors?

        They may be investors, they may be occupiers.

        • spc12go on 17/04/2020 - 15:33

          Thanks, however I am not referring to normal circumstances

          There is now a whole set of process to follow in the interim. This is per NSW fair trading. So it is not as simple as you want to sell then you can sell.

          https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00…

          • abb on 17/04/2020 - 16:30
            +3

            @spc12go: Like I said, you can't evict them due to covid-related non-payment. You can still terminate for other reasons, and you don't need to terminate to sell.

            • spc12go on 17/04/2020 - 16:55
              +1

              @abb: You can try to terminate and ask the tenant to vacate. However the tenant can refuse due to hardship, and this will be taken up by the tribunal.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/04/2020 - 07:34
                +2

                @spc12go: It's like you didn't even read abb's post and your fingers just starting typing whatever.

                • spc12go on 19/04/2020 - 22:46

                  @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Those are certainly all words. Formed into a sentence. That has nothing to do with my previous post, nor my original post

      • Vote for Pedro on 18/04/2020 - 15:43

        Peddling misinformation must be your strong point

  • Duram on 17/04/2020 - 15:06
    +10

    Mummmmmmmy my investment didn't work out like I planned. Mummmmmmy.

  • Sinful on 17/04/2020 - 15:24
    -1

    Real Estate Agents were allowing tenants to use their superannuation to pay the rent.
    Talk to your Real Estate Agent about getting them to do this.

    • spc12go on 17/04/2020 - 15:38

      I think they should talk to you. Insert your drivers license and your financial adviser license number.

      • Sinful on 17/04/2020 - 15:46

        I am not in that situation yet.
        I will talk to the real estate agent when the time comes.

        You should too.

        • spc12go on 17/04/2020 - 15:52

          Unfortunately my tenant are doing well in high paying jobs.

          I would still like to pass your details to the relevant stake holders. So they can draw on your sound financial advise.

          • abb on 17/04/2020 - 16:40
            +4

            @spc12go:

            Unfortunately my tenant are doing well in high paying jobs.

            How terrible!

          • Never Pay RRP on 18/04/2020 - 02:46
            +2

            @spc12go: So your rental income is still being maintained, but you want a reduction in council rates due to a hypothetical situation where someone else doesn't pay rent?
            Or is your tenant negotiating rent with you even though they are not affected?

            • spc12go on 19/04/2020 - 21:39
              -1

              @Never Pay RRP: It is purely a hypothetical question based on the governments’ knee jerk reaction. At no point did I said it’s about me.

              But apparently I am in financial stress (that I am not aware of) and I have to sell due to bad investment. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • Blue Cat on 17/04/2020 - 16:23

    Got me thinking since the tenants can re-negotiate on rent

    They can, but you don't have to reduce it.
    Same with council - you can negotiate, but they don't have to reduce it.

  • MementoMori on 17/04/2020 - 17:32
    -1

    Why do we even need councils… just take out the bins and fix the footpaths. Shouldn't cost $1,300 per year for that.

    They are flush with cash to spend on all these SJW causes now.

    Source: friend who sells technology services to councils.

    • Stphen on 17/04/2020 - 22:41
      -2

      If we did not have councils there would be no one to waste our money.

      "Disco Dong" (sculpture) lasted eight months before it was dismantled for scrap metal.
      Calculating the initial $55,000 outlay, plus the $8,000 in maintenance and the $13,000 in removal costs, that’s $76,000, which is only a rough estimate. The true cost could potentially be much higher.

      https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/3kxvx8/how-the-loving-com…

    • andmcg on 18/04/2020 - 23:53

      I know you're just messing around, but as a council employee, I can tell you that while they certainly waste money, they also do a lot more than you think. I had no idea actually before I started working there. Roads, waste, trees, drainage, reserves, parks, recreation centres, pools, libraries, vaccinations, maternal and child health, sports grounds, food safety, swimming pool safety, pet registration, child care, crossing supervisors, the list goes on. There's a lot that's easy to take for granted.

      • ssquid on 19/04/2020 - 16:04
        -1

        So given a lot of those are shutdown right now and the employees have been stood down, there's a surplus of funds and next quarter's rates can be lowered, right?

        • andmcg on 19/04/2020 - 18:14

          I don't think staff have been stood down. If they have, they are still being paid.

  • andmcg on 17/04/2020 - 17:37
    +2

    I am a landlord and a council employee. I can tell you that councils are looking at a huge loss in revenue - they are certainly not doing fine. They will be discounting rates for people who have lost their jobs/experiencing financial hardship, discounting rent on commercial tenancies, are not receiving revenue from recreation centres, markets, arts centres, etc. etc.

    Just wanted to give you a little insider perspective there, but I do completely agree with your comments - it needs to be fair across the board - governments, banks, utility companies, etc.

    It is absolute BS to expect landlords to pick up the slack, keeping in mind that most landlords are like me - a husband and wife with their PPR and a single investment property.

  • gstfree on 17/04/2020 - 21:49

    I am unable to afford rent relief. I have to rely on the insurance company's direction.

  • Vote for Pedro on 17/04/2020 - 23:10

    I don’t understand the premise. What’s the tenant negotiating rent got to do with you negotiating your bills? You can try to negotiate your bills any time.

    I’m not sure anyone is forcing you to reduce rent. I’m out of lease and am going to negotiate the rent based on the prevailing market.

  • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 06:11

    I guess this falls into the category of "I earn more income, I should pay a higher rate of gst!"
    I own a house that is earning less income I should pay less tax on my property.

    If only all taxes were proportionate to income level. Damn you jeff!!!(Bezos)

    • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 06:14

      Actually, it's off-topic, but should wealthy people be put on a version of the "cashless welfare card" in order to ensure that they pay a proportionate amount of taxes and that the goods they purchase are proportionate to their income.

      I'm sure coles would welcome charging a multi-millionaire $20 for a carton of milk. But im sure a multi-millionaire would send their corporate army in to burn the store down rather than part with an extra $1.

      • Baysew on 18/04/2020 - 15:37

        I will ask my butler to ask the chef about how they feel about paying an increase from $19 to $20 for milk.

  • baker bob on 18/04/2020 - 07:17
    +3

    The landlord still has the right to say no in a rent negotiation, that hasn't been taken away. As the owner of several properties I'm actually for the moratorium and the consequences it brings for some landlords. Too many property investors accumulated assets by leveraging themselves to the hilt buying low yield properties and gambling on the capital gains. The government and greedy banks didn't stop you so why not go hard? Well you are about to learn a lesson about taking ownership of your actions and stupid investment decisions. GLHF.

  • Thaal Sinestro on 18/04/2020 - 09:24
    -1

    There should be a permanent reduction in rates and utilities charges. Currently there are a massive rip off, and the government can get away with it because the have a monopoly. Refuse to pay their exorbitant charges and they will stick a gun to your head and confiscate all of your assets. You cannot bargain/haggle with the nanny state; they are all powerful. Democracy is just a nice way of saying totalitarianism.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/04/2020 - 15:27

      LMFAO.

      Funniest thing I've read today. Australian government having a monopoly on Australian land. Who woulda thunk it.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 14:25
    +1

    Maybe people shouldn't take out 3.5-4% loans on the promise of 4-5% rental returns?

    People using loans to buy investment properties they can't afford is what stuffs up the system as is… Now they want taxpayers to bail them out from their crappy gamble?

    That aside, it's likely factual you would get less rent from a new tenant during these times… Why should your current tenant continue paying inflated prices? Your gamble didn't pay off, tough luck…

    People sell shares for 20-30%+ less due to decreased diveands, they don't simply demand that the same diveand be paid or someone else compensate their loss… Maybe we should be seeing houses sold at losses due to these tough times? Doesn't that only make sense?

    Note you don't mention interest in your out goings so maybe this doesn't apply, but in that situation I don't understand at all how your margins could be that low that there's an issue here? You're talking thousands a year against tens of thousands in rent? I still think the same applies - when the market as a whole is crappy and it's likely you couldn't get more rent from someone else, they shouldn't have to pay as much. When the market is stronger and there's money everywhere, many people would pay more rent for the place, then you should be free to increase rent…

    TL;DR: Rent increases when you could easily rent the property to someone else for more, why doesn't it decrease when you couldn't?

    I don't believe your outgoings are relevant to what level of rent you should receive, especially if it's purely an investment property. An individuals poor investment decisions don't change valuations…

  • avoidfullprice on 18/04/2020 - 16:51
    -1

    Too many comments, didn't read.

    What about - landlords losing rents get jobkeeper allowance, and leave the council and utilities alone?

    • Ghost47 on 20/04/2020 - 11:02

      Um if they're losing rents because their tenants lost their jobs the tenants should get Jobseeker or whatever and pay the rent out of their payments.

      But that's a utopia and would probably happen in Japan or Singapore, selfish Australians who lack integrity would not do that as there is little honour in this country.

  • Narull on 18/04/2020 - 17:13

    We can 'try' and negotiate with landlords, is no guarantee.

    I asked for 11.5% off my rent ($26 a week), got told flatout no.

    People seem to think negotiate means the landlords are forced too, but I'm yet to see many landlords being happy to do it or allowing many. But see plenty of landlords calling victim.

    • popsiee on 18/04/2020 - 20:09

      Just start negotiating with I'm not going to pay any rent and you can't kick my ass out for 6 mths and I can assure you that 11.5% discount will be easy lol .

      • zzzsianzzz on 19/04/2020 - 23:59

        try that after this 6 months honeymoon?

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 16:13

      Processes are being designed and implemented which will bind Landlords or tenants to reductions or deferrals of rent, whether or not a party agrees.

  • neonlight on 18/04/2020 - 20:19

    OP. In your dreams it can happen

  • cloudy on 18/04/2020 - 23:36

    last time I checked council rates were based on value of property, and since property values will be falling due to various factors (including lower rent yields) rates will fall.

    So all fair

    • andmcg on 18/04/2020 - 23:56
      +1

      I've never heard of rates going down despite housing price fluctuations. They will always ensure the rates go up for some reason.

      • cloudy on 19/04/2020 - 20:09

        Sorry to hear that, can I post you my council rates? I've had reductions and I've only been home owner for a few years.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 16:14

      Land value. Not property value.

      • moo on 19/04/2020 - 18:09

        GRV.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 21:42

          In WA. Which is backwards enough with a lot of their laws.

  • valour on 19/04/2020 - 00:30
    +1

    In all of this renters are supposed to be getting cheaper rent (if they have lost income so they are wearing the cost of covid-19), landlords are supposed to bear some cost of this by a reduced rent but the banks and Councils and governments keep going like nothing has happened. We clearly aren't "all in this together" as Scotty has suggested.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 16:16

      The government is acing like nothing has happened? Are you serious?

      As for banks - Majority of Landlords made a decision to involve a bank in their chosen form of investment. That's something they'll need to address themselves.

      • Ughhh on 19/04/2020 - 18:22

        Perhaps the best is to have landlords deal with their risk and tenets deal with their problems/risk. No help to either.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 19/04/2020 - 21:41

          Well no, because the virus, and subsequently the government, forced a huge amount of these tenants out of work. They require help and support.

    • Dingo on 19/04/2020 - 23:50
      +1

      You say they keep going like nothing has happened… talk about selective information! I've heard every tier of government sacrifice. Councils shedding staff, waiving fees and interest, Feds and States waiving fees and making billions of dollars available to individuals and businesses to get through a disaster. Every government organisation has mobilised to fight this thing. What exactly would you like them to do? Self flagellate in the streets? What have you been doing? Seriously, I'd love to know what you would do. And if your plan is so good, why aren't you gifting us your invaluable insights and doing it?

  • arcticjuggernaut on 19/04/2020 - 15:29

    Ok sure, then I want the same with my PPOR.

  • jackthefrost on 19/04/2020 - 21:52
    +1

    People are exploiting this.

    It should only be negotiated if they genuinely in financial distress and can't pay the bills. Not for people still healthy financially taking advantage of the crisis and their landlords. It's not much different than those opportunists who raided the supermarkets for their own greed.

  • Ghost47 on 20/04/2020 - 11:03

    Council says no.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join