Imagine you have a tenant in your investment property, you’re not happy with them, and decide you’d like them to move out at the end of their lease. Imagine then if the legislation said they could stay until they decided they were ready to go. It’s one daunting scenario discussed in the current review of Queensland’s tenancy legislation.
Too many of us are overwhelmed by the information overload that can come with being a landlord, and giving your input on a review of legislation isn’t something you look forward to in your scarce spare time. So Bees Nees will be doing a submission to the Residential Tenancies Authority on their full review that’s underway, and we’d like you to give us your thoughts on key changes.
The discussion paper canvasses a number of topics and the inequitable notice periods are one we’re hoping will change. Currently a landlord must give a tenant 2 months notice to leave without grounds while tenants need only give 2 weeks. It’s unfair and unmanageable and Queensland’s investment owners deserve better. The paper raises this issue for input from all sides, then goes on:
“Some tenant representatives argue that subject to additional grounds being included in the Act, a lessor should not be able to end a tenancy without grounds. Therefore, at the end of a fixed term, the agreement would continue until the tenant gave notice.” We’d hope common sense would prevent this outcome – as a property owner you surely deserve the right to ask someone to leave if you’re unhappy having them live in the property!
But it’s an example of how very knowledgeable and organised lobbying from one sector can gain traction. So landlords, speak up! We’ve blogged about this recently and many of you raised concerns about charging for water use and called for a simpler system. The discussion paper raises some ideas on this but, until the bills come direct from the suppliers to the end-user, there seems little hope we’ll get a worthwhile outcome.
What would you like changed? What improvements to tenancy law would encourage you to buy more investment property? Please take the time to comment or send us an email. We’ll be pleased to put your view to the RTA.
Landholders should be able to evict anyone who deliberately causes willful damage to a property. Also be able to evict anyone who is squatting or staying there outside there terms of agreement. This includes not paying rent etc. Landholders have to follow rules in terms of commencing renovations and so should tenants. If not they should be evicted.
Landlords should be able to evict anyone who dose not pay the rent after 2 weeks on 2 weeks notice the bond then should be paid to the landlord in lue of the rent any damage the tenant should have to pay if they don’t take them to court and tenants pay the court costs as well. Squatters should not have any rights and should be moved on straight away with the backing of the law on the other hand owners should be held accountable for repairs and keep the property to a good standed.
Tenants enter into a signed written contract – meaning they understand and agree to leasing property that is not their own, pay rent on time and do not damage the property – it astounds me that the law pretty much supports them when they break this agreement, and leave the property owner in stress, debt and scratching their head as to why the law does not protect them in a mutural way. There should absolutely be a review on notice periods.I would wager that most landlords would not be asking a tenant to leave unless there is a serious problem – afterall it costs us time and money in finding new tenants etc.
Enforcing the conditions of the lease, which has been read and signed by the tenants, should be more straightforward and the terms enforceable like any signed contract. Mediation through the RTA is a waste of time – if tenants leaving a property have not maintained and left the property in a clean state, similar to its original condition without damage to floors, walls and fittings and as per the lease conditions, the RTA seemingly cannot enforce the lease conditions and we end up in QCAT each time. Delays in obtaining a QCAT hearing mean that the issue drags on for at least 6 months. All the while landlords are out of pocket for cleaning and repairs – something the tenants should be made to rectify and something that should easily be retained from the bond. Afterall, isn’t that the idea of the bond?
I have owned investment properties for close to 20 years and in that time have seen significant erosion of landlords’ rights and their treatment by real estate agents. Who makes a decision that landlords need to give 90 days notice in NSW while the tenant can move out without notice? Is there some sort of warped logic being applied here that assumes that the landlord is better able to afford the financial burden that this can cause? This regulation is not merely flawed in its obvious underlying assumptions regarding the relative disadvantage suffered by each party but has become a disincentive for property investors such as myself. My investment properties are my only superannuation and that base is being eroded by wrong headed legislators. Furthermore, I have experienced many times, the callous disregard that real estate agents have for the cash flow considerations that figure largely in the viability of investment properties. These have been manifest in such examples as agents having cleaners, trades people, lawn mowers, etc. on their books that charge excessive rates for their services. I have been quoted figures as high as $5,000 to remove a patch of vegetation the size of a kiddy trampoline and over $300 for half an hour’s light dusting. Agents have also mislead me about the saleability of properties which has lead to these properties sitting vacant for months at a time. Despite the fact that I have sacked many agents and have searched for responsible agents that have good knowledge and experience in the industry I have lost many thousands of dollars through agents’ ineptitude. I have reached the point (not surprisingly) of selling my investment properties and spending the proceeds on luxury items that I have forgone over the years as all my spare cash and a lot of my spare time have been ploughed back into my properties. When I have exhausted my proceeds on my newly acquired, but transitory, luxury lifestyle I can then run to the government, cry poor and register for a pension. My original aim was to finance my own retirement through investment property but my incentive has somehow disappeared.