This is in part a legal question, but it also factors into the property market economics side as well - so i thought it prudent to post it here:
---------------
A bit of a curly one has come up from my friend, who is currently trying to buy his 3rd property.....
His strategy is to buy cheap, ex-dept of housing properties, preferably with cosmetic damage - then tidy them up/renovate and rent them out at a premium.
He has done this very successfully with his first two properties, however now that he is looking for a 3rd - he has hit a snag.
When looking at all the auctions for dept of housing properties, most (if not all) of the contracts are now listing that the buyer must be an owner occupier. When looking at the listings on RE.com, or on real estate agents websites... they are often listed as below:
We are wondering - can the contract REALLY stipulate that the buyer must be an owner occupier?? Talking to the REA on one particular property, the contracts say that the property cannot be leased for 7 years!!
NB: these are all very low cost areas, such as the Mt Druitt thru to Lethbridge Park and Macquarie Fields areas.
This is pretty interesting! Is the labor govt forcing investors out of the low end of the market? Can they do this??
To me it seems like the welfare state trying to keep bottom end properties away from investors. This makes NO sense to me! This will reduce the number of rental properties in these areas, drive rents HIGHER, and even further excasserbate the lack of rental affordability.
Thoughts?
---------------
A bit of a curly one has come up from my friend, who is currently trying to buy his 3rd property.....
His strategy is to buy cheap, ex-dept of housing properties, preferably with cosmetic damage - then tidy them up/renovate and rent them out at a premium.
He has done this very successfully with his first two properties, however now that he is looking for a 3rd - he has hit a snag.
When looking at all the auctions for dept of housing properties, most (if not all) of the contracts are now listing that the buyer must be an owner occupier. When looking at the listings on RE.com, or on real estate agents websites... they are often listed as below:
Auction
3 bedroom | 1 bathroom IDEAL OPPORTUNITY!
* 3 Bedroom home
* Large combined lounge & dining area
* Spacious kitchen
* Neat & Tidy bathroom
* Side access
* 657.4sqm block of land
* Close to schools, shops & public transport
* Owner Occupier (As per contract of sale)
We are wondering - can the contract REALLY stipulate that the buyer must be an owner occupier?? Talking to the REA on one particular property, the contracts say that the property cannot be leased for 7 years!!
NB: these are all very low cost areas, such as the Mt Druitt thru to Lethbridge Park and Macquarie Fields areas.
This is pretty interesting! Is the labor govt forcing investors out of the low end of the market? Can they do this??
To me it seems like the welfare state trying to keep bottom end properties away from investors. This makes NO sense to me! This will reduce the number of rental properties in these areas, drive rents HIGHER, and even further excasserbate the lack of rental affordability.
Thoughts?