I applied for a property for a rent via real estate agent. Real Estate agent increased the rental price since they have received so many applications I guess.
Do you know if I can complain to someone about that like Fair Trading?
Due to pandemic it is hard for everyone to pay extra but some real estate agents are becoming super greedy during this time.
Nothing wrong with that.
If you have many people wanting to rent a property then naturally you will allow people to self exclude by considering those offering more.
No matter how you look at it there will always be losers
Of course it's legal Pam, people can ask for any amount of rent they so desire.
would you mind not using my name, I dont call you Brendan, so just use my username. I dont want my name used thanks
Lots of people call me Brendan, it's my name, and your name is Pam. A screensaver is what happens when I leave my computer idle. Seems an odd request.
@screensaver: SSPam.. sorry but can you please translate that for me?
I think I'm supposed to be grossly offended by your non inclusively worded slur..but I just want make sure..
Hello Pam :)
@BartholemewH: Now that I know this is Pam I'll be sure to pay much more attention to their entertaining posts.
Thank goodness.
We love you Pam. Even if we all pretend very convincingly that we don't love you.
You are an ozbargain hero.
@valleyrain: And like barbs, Pam is a timeless classic, people only become more aware of her brilliance with time.
Complaint about what?
They have given you a price, if you don't like it move on.
Tenants who feel the market must suit them always are something else.
It's the age of entitlement
You see OP feels they are entitled to this property
Never mind about anyone else even if they want to offer more..
They don't count in OPs eyes
what about the rent at pre-covid level? Maybe the advertised price was lowered a lot due to covid but the low price has then attracted more demand
its illegal in qld and vic, and can still be reported in nsw
https://www.tenants.org.au/blog/rent-bidding-flourishing-ami…
Not illegal
But they can accept a higher, unprompted offer made by a prospective renter.
.
However, a prospective tenant can offer more than the amount advertised and the property manager/owner may accept their offer.
Stop spreading misinformation Pam…
From https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/rent…
Sometimes when a property is in high demand, or there are less properties available to rent, tenants compete against each other to try and secure a property by offering the landlord or agent more rent than was advertised. This is known as ‘rent bidding’ or ‘rent auctions’.
Landlords and agents are not allowed to advertise a rent amount that they are not actually willing to accept, or tell an applicant that a higher offer has been made by another applicant when this is has not happened.
So essentially it’s the prerogative of the prospective tenant if they wish to offer a higher price than advertised, but the agent can’t suggest this.
This basically says agents are not allowed to "bait" advertise for the purpose of attracting lots of interested people that would encourage a bidding war.
But how does one prove this?
But yes, prospective tenants are certainly allowed to offer more to secure a property
Rules around rent bidding in NSW vs other jurisdictions
There is no explicit prohibition on rent bidding built into NSW tenancy law, as there is in both Victoria and Queensland. However, the solicitation of rent bidding on the part of real estate agents violates the Property and Stock Agents Regulation 2014, the Real Estate Institute of NSW Code of Practice. It is also a breach of Australian Consumer Law, which also covers agents and we'd also argue all landlords. See below for the relevant sections of the Regulation and the Code which apply in NSW:
Property and Stock Agents Regulation 2014
3. Honesty, fairness and professionalism
(1) An agent must act honestly, fairly and professionally with all parties in a transaction.
(2) An agent must not mislead or deceive any parties in negotiations or a transaction.
Real Estate Institute of NSW Code of Practice
(Note: this Code of Practice only applies to members of the Real Estate Institute of NSW, which is not every agent, and may not even be a majority of agents.)
Fair Conduct
2.7 A member must act fairly and honestly and to the best of his or her knowledge and ability with all parties in a transaction.
2.7.1 A member must not mislead or deceive any parties in negotiations or a transaction
https://www.tenants.org.au/blog/rent-bidding-flourishing-ami…
Not sure where youre looking. Just put my property on the mkt near Parra for $45 less than Im getting now and its not looking promising so will probably need to drop even further
Agree
Same in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs and st George area
It depends on the type of property. Units and apartments are in low demand with alot of supply, so rent has been steadily declining and still are.
While for houses, townhouses and villas (decently sized), rent has been pretty stable because they are in demand due to the pandemic. People value space in their dwelling now that they can't go outside.
I've inspected some apartments, even the 3 bedders are so tiny, I will never live in a high rise apartment, its too small.
just $45 less? you lucky, i lost over $100+
Can always sell your spare property since the prices are up?
Still no rented yet, so will have to start to drop further soon
Many fish in the sea, quite a lot of places to rent lately, now that everyone wants to be a landlord.
Yep, no idea why. I did the maths, makes no sense, returns are so bad.
I did the maths in 2013, decided against investing in property, it hasn't improved over the years. The maths is even worse now.
Your maths forgot about capital gains and negative gearing
Can capital gain and negative gearing beat >300% return in 12 months? No, it can't.
I've been tracking the crypto space since Bitcoin was invented and bought my first Bitcoin in 2013 and has been using every cent of my savings to buy cryptocurrencies ever since.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/613895
techlead did the maths and paid $130 (give or take a few $100s) for their first BTC in 2013.
https://files.ozbargain.com.au/upload/393946/90105/screensho…
They invested directly in maths and have been rewarded.
@rektrading: Thanks very much, took the words right from my keyboard haha.
Exactly that. No investment property can ever beat those returns.
And is virtually permissionless too, there are no credit criteria, no one assessing my income or my expenses either.
I say virtually because I do get calls from my bank asking me about the transactions I'm sending overseas to crypto exchanges, I still get those calls today, but less often as there are crypto exchanges based in Australia now. My cards get blocked by the fraud team randomly and I need to call to explain my transactions, quite annoying.
@rektrading: Except this wasn't about techlead. It was about renting vs buying.
Are you going to tell me the bank gave you $1m for a crypto loan as they would when buying a house?
Didn't think so.
@TEER3X: I'm not interested in real estate. The gains if there is any is too low. I also don't need to go to a bank to borrow money.
People can put assets in a CDP and borrow an amount only limited by the collateral. There is no paperwork, no credit checks, no rejections, no interest rate manipulation by central banks and it takes away business from retail banks.
My maths took all of those factors into account.
@techlead: Still bullish on btc?
Apparently retail investment is finished.
You'd think the price would rise since inflation is looming.
@TEER3X: Definitely, I just bought some more BTC at $29580 USD.
I just dollar cost average and hodl. The price for BTC will definitely rise, its the best asset to be in at the moment.
Move to Melbourne, CBD rent is at rock bottom prices
Then you would have to live Melbourne though.
From the perspective of a Sydney resident in week 3 of our 5 week (and counting) lockdown, I think Melbourne looks pretty good right now. Melbourne is probably the most covid-robust city in Australia now, everything after the second wave was just bad luck and could have happened to any city. I'm personally not a massive fan of their weather, but otherwise I always enjoy my time there, they've got everything we do with slightly less astronomical home prices & without the unjustified smug arrogance, and I could completely understand someone wanting to move there.
My aunty and gran have been renting a place in south east Melbourne for $900 a month, 3 bedroom house with a decent block of land. Rent around that area are nearly twice that much. My sister is a landlord who also doesn't raise prices because of the effects it can have on some people. The mortgage gets cheaper over time anyways so if you could afford it from the beginning, shouldn't be an issue unless some other costs have gone up a lot which then is understandable.
Definition of investment: the action or process of investing money for profit.
They are called investment properties because people want to make money off the property. And normally the more money the better.
Yeah I guess that's why the pharmaceutical companies in America selling drugs like insulin at 10 times the price. More money the better no matter what. Such a sad world we live in. People wanting to squeeze as much as they can from basic necessities and mostly those who have trouble affording it
and yet, (the same) drug's prices are low in other places. So there's some issues with the rules and policies in the USA to cause the high prices. Companies will charge the highest they can get away with.
It isn't "sad", but the natural state of the human condition.
@sangohan: and yet there are people on this thread that don't increase rent prices :)
You can't blame animals for greed but you can blame a human because we have cognition. We can do better than acting on personal feelings and desires and decide to do what we actually think is right by as many people rather than just out own pockets. How can people both realise our pitfalls but not do anything about it? There are plenty of people if in their shoes, would NOT put prices of drugs required for life so high because honestly, who needs more than say, 100k a year. So I would argue it is sad. To KNOW what we do is not beneficial for society and to go ahead with it anyways. Yet no one makes the same argument for rape or theft, it's human nature to want sex isn't it? Happens in 'nature' all the time so how can we blame them for what they do? But when it comes to money and drugs and indirect suffering, 'oh it's just normal'.
I made this argument before, human nature is the ability to go beyond our own nature. We're much better than animals since we can act in ways beyond our instincts or selfish-desires and look at what is correct. If millionaires of multi billion dollar drug industries make the conscious decision to put people in a position to choose between food or death purely to get even richer isn't sad, then I don't know what is. In fact, it's beyond sad, it's outright disgusting. Same goes for the government that allows this to happen, but I'm not going to place the government solely responsible for this. As people, we still need to recognise where the government is wrong and act against it. It's still the pharmaceutical companies decision to price it as such. The whole idea of saying it's just 'the human condition' is to justify doing ourselves, to somehow place the responsibility out of our hands and to live guilt free.
@sangohan: killing is also one of the natural states of the human condition lets deregulate that as well heh….
Great point, maybe we should abolish using housing as an investment then
Perhaps just regulate it a bit so some newcomers or less fortunate are able to afford to rent a reasonable distance from where they work.
The way the market is structured right now only expands the income gaps.
@jatyap: Frankly the issue is profit driven land and housing mismanagement by state and federal governments. Why would the Victorian government fix the system, when they clock over $55k in stamp duty every time a median-cost ($1m) house is sold in Melbourne.
The low interest rates to fix skyrocketing mortgages just mean people borrow and pay more, driving up prices. The first home owners grant just adds more money to bid up a house. Rent assistance just means more rent can be paid, justifying paying more for an investment property. It's cyclical, pushing prices higher and higher.
I have no idea how that can be turned around without tanking a bunch of super companies, banks and individuals that have overextended themselves in the pursuit of infinite growth.
But a good start would be to let the market do a lot of the heavy lifting. Put heavy taxes on unused residential land to curb landbanking, heavy taxes on empty properties (per month of inoccupancy after 3 months, holiday homes included), rent capped at 5% of valuation value, and massive investments into good quality social housing.
Turning renters into home owners and giving the less fortunate the option of social housing to compete with private rents will fix a lot of issues with rent inflation, and selling off unused assets or forcing them to become productive/rented will temporarily add more supply to push down competition for price.
@Jolakot: Just bought a median price house. Stamp duty is a killer. I guess it serves its purpose but it took years to save for the deposit and stamp duty is more than half the deposit!
So communism is the answer to inequality?
@ATangk: Not at all
Humans are selfish creatures, if not for us then for our loved ones, and anything that doesn't take that into account will be twisted for the benefit of a few
This has already happened to property, a minority of people profiting off of the majority, giving little in exchange other than initial capital. And I can't blame them, I don't think being a (good) landlord or investor is morally unjustified, because the system rewards them for it. Everyone who wants to get ahead should be allowed to do so, but it should be a productive outlet that benefits both them and society
So you lower the rewards for negative social actions (profiteering off of rent, holding onto unproductive assets for capital growth, shorting stocks, etc) and increase it for positive social actions (creating local jobs, building essential services, creating things that people enjoy, etc), and let those people adjust to maximize their own profit
Just do what China is doing. Increase the deposit requirements as people accumulate more property.
So 20% deposit for the first property, 50% for the second one, 80% for the third one, 90% for the fourth one and 95% for any further property investments.
That will go a long way to fixing the issue. Housing is an essential good, people shouldn't be speculating on it.
@techlead: I think that's a great bandaid, but that just pushes the small-time investors out without fixing the fundamental problem
@ATangk: Motivated greedy people are going to be motivated greedy people under any system, if there are rules involved then they'll find a way to maximize their own gain. My family is Polish and grew up under socialism before Solidarity, everyone still cheated to put themselves ahead of everyone else, through connections or knowledge.
I don't really care what system we live under as long as it works, but not giving those people a healthy outlet leads to a poor society
And yes, all other costs have gone up.
Didn't you hear the news in Melbourne recently?
Dictator Dan has lumped property investors with several huge tax hikes
Good luck!
The mortgage gets cheaper over time anyways
Only if interest rates are dropping….
Or if it stays the same and you're paying off principle as well
Who pays off principle on a investment property. You lose cash and reduce your tax deduction by doing that.
@trapper: Well hang on - if you have an offset account with infinite redraw you don't 'lose' the cash from the extra repayments. You can always take it back out if you find better returns (I presume you mean opportunity cost of putting cash in the loan instead of something with a higher return).
And you do realise just losing money for the sake of a tax deduction is still a 'loss' as opposed to paying off of your loan?
You may want to do this ONLY if you are 'betting' that your capital growth will exceed the losses. Otherwise you're just paying interest to the bank and being amazed at how the government covers a percentage of your losses, as opposed to being positively geared and making money like any sane business would? Two styles of investing, but one is like a small business (low return, lower risk) and the other is like investing in bitcoin - (effed if I know why it's going up, but it goes up cos it's talked up a lot)
Also - all your tax deductions have to be factored in to the cost-base when you sell your property (it's not totally free, but at least the tax on the deductions are deferred and hopefully inflation has reduced the value of a dollar).
You can also secure more loans more frequently if you're positively geared. If you go the negative gearing route, you have to rely on capital gains to secure your next loan (which I suppose in Sydney/Australia you'd likely be fine, but a few people went bankrupt in 2008 GFC cos they went all in on I-only)
@wimphrel: The idea is to have a paper loss, not a real loss. The 'loss' and resulting tax deduction comes primarily from depreciation.
As long as the rent covers the outgoings (interest, rates, insurance, maintenance) then you're gold.
If it doesn't then it might not have been a good investment, or like you said it's a gamble on the property price rising a lot more than your losing.
Either way there is no sense in paying off any principle. Offset is fine though, and an excellent place to keep your rainy day fund.
Welcome to Capitalism.
You are a nobody… you are not on the lease. You have no one to complain to.
Some people offer to pay more, so I figure this is the case.
OP feels they are "entitled"
Never mind about anyone else including the landlord
find something else, dont worry mate
do you complain to fair trading if woolies raised the price on a brand of bread? just look for something cheaper and move on
I have kept same rent for my tenants for last 5 years. Everytime I am considering increase, I drop the idea as the benefit of keeping the same tenants and not pay hugh cost for the change clearly outweighs $520 yearly increase ($10x52)
If the tenants are good there's little reason to increase the rent as you might incur more costs and the risk of bad tenants, which seem to be on the rise these days.
What evidence is there that there is more bad tenants? Seems just like renter bashing
It's not even bad tenants. One or two weeks of missed rent (between tenants) plus cost of advertising is already greater than the rate increase.
@Name: Only if you increase less than 5 percent.
Just increased mine by over 10 percent risk was worth it.
Good approaches :)
It absolutely makes sense from a human and financial point of view. Glad to see some decent folk out there.
I lived in a high turnover building in a capital city and the landlord wanted to increase rent by 10%. I didn’t argue the point and just gave notice. Within 2 days the increase was withdrawn and we all lived happily ever after.
At the time i was highly mobile so I recognise the challenges families or others would have to do what I did.
Some landlords will just try it on for as much as possible. I much prefer those that are reasonable and I probably would’ve copped a 2.5% increase without giving it much thought.
And you might end up with less anyway
Nothing to complain about here. When you apply for a rental you can nominate the price you want to pay. This can be higher or lower than the advertised price. Just move on and close this thread.
Feel free to buy your own house if its easy.
Otherwise I guess your paying rent, unfortunately for you its actually upto the bloke who owns the property, not some self entitled twit who wants to rent it.
Lol the bank probably owns it and the ‘owner’ merely because of negative gearing help from the taxpayer.
LOL incorrect. The owner owns it, but there is money against it if there's a mortgage, which is the collateral for the loan.
Source saying the bank doesn’t own a mortgaged home?
I don’t think you understand how laws work.