In defence of tenants

I have just read quite a few negative pint of views of tenants.

We are property investors, not tenants. However I see tenants point of view.

Often the place that tenants live in is there home. (Our tenants has been living in the place we own for 5 years and we have only owned it for a bit over 2).

How would you like to be told to move out of your home in 60 days? Of course the tenant is going to be pissed off. You as the landlord may say many things (IE. I want to move in to the place) but that doesn't change the fact that if you kick your tenant out, you are kicking them out of there home.

Of course if tenants aren't paying rent on time they should be kicked out. But if they are generally good tenants, why shouldn't the tenant be peeved about being kicked out. I know I would be if someone tryed to kick me out of my home.
 
Sure we can all see the tenant's POV.

However, a tenant pays approx. half of the real costs of the accommodation that a LL provides. If as a tenant, you are going to pay 5% rent when a LL is paying 7.5% mortgage, the rates, repairs etc, then the flipside is that there is no security of tenure for the tenant.

It is a straight risk V reward equation.
 
However, a tenant pays approx. half of the real costs of the accommodation that a LL provides.
But that's only a quirk of the Australian market, where we are willing to pay such high prices for real estate. What if it was like much of the rest of the world where the rent more than covered the outgoings, would your view be different?
Propertunity said:
If as a tenant, you are going to pay 5% rent when a LL is paying 7.5% mortgage, the rates, repairs etc, then the flipside is that there is no security of tenure for the tenant.
Whilst that may be on the other side of the ledger, I would view it differently. In Australia, it seems to me that the primary flipside is that the tenant doesn't get to share in the capital growth of the property, and the secondary is that the tenant doesn't get to customise the property (improvements) to their own taste. Lack of security of tenure should not necessarily be an accompanying downside, IMHO, and tenants do have a right to be annoyed if they're forced to move on a landlord's whim. And yes, many reasons for wanting to move on a tenant are close to "a whim", eg somebody's perceived as "a difficult tenant", when in fact that perception is based entirely on the PM's report - and we all know that PMs are just as fallible as the rest of us. Moving your tenant because of a personality clash or miscommunication between your PM and tenant is pretty fickle, and a big upset to the tenant's life, possibly for no good reason.

Like pickle pickle, I find the attitude of many, as expressed here, quite offensive. The last two years (thanks to two floods :eek:) we've become unintentional renters twice, and I don't think that the changed status - from owner-occupier to tenant - means that I deserve being treated with less respect.
 
But that's only a quirk of the Australian market, where we are willing to pay such high prices for real estate. What if it was like much of the rest of the world where the rent more than covered the outgoings, would your view be different?
Yes, my view would be different in that case.

.....and tenants do have a right to be annoyed if they're forced to move on a landlord's whim.
Sure they can be annoyed. I've been a tenant at various times in my life too but never plan to be again. I happily pay 2x the cost to live in my own place just so I can never worry about opening the letter advising the place is going to be sold or that some 17 yr old PM is coming to inspect the state of where I live. If I want to paint the walls red I can. If I want to put blue tac or nails on the walls so I can hang pictures I can do that too.

Like pickle pickle, I find the attitude of many, as expressed here, quite offensive.
I must have missed those posts :eek:

...., and I don't think that the changed status - from owner-occupier to tenant - means that I deserve being treated with less respect.
I agree. We're all humans - LL's or tenants....and we all deserve respect. But respect does not translate into 'rights' that involve security of tenure unless you OWN the asset.
 
But if they are generally good tenants, why shouldn't the tenant be peeved about being kicked out.

I can appreciate them being unhappy about it, but don't believe they have a right to be "peeved" about it. It's the landlords property, they are the one taking the risks, they are the one paying out the dollars, and they have the right to do as they please and what's in their own best interest, not that of their tenant's. If the tenant doesn't like the uncertainty of renting, they are always free to buy their own home. This is why I have never been, and hope I will never be a tenant. I like the security of my own home, even if it means paying more.
 
I must have missed those posts :eek:
Not any of yours. :) I meant people making fun of tenants' misery at having to move. It shows that the people making such statements don't consider tenants as humans deserving of consideration.
Propertunity said:
But respect does not translate into 'rights' that involve security of tenure unless you OWN the asset.
I agree; I'm not suggesting that there is a right. But I do see people frequently suggesting on this forum that the landlord should move tenants on when the lease expires, for such sound reasons as "they asked for fly screens", "they objected to the rent increase of 20%", "they ask for too many things to be repaired", or "they asked if they could have an extra occupant".

Yes, the landlord has an absolute right. I'm simply suggesting that as ethical human beings, it would be much more considerate to be aware that decisions which don't seem that big a deal to us, can have huge ramifications for the other party. A decision to evict may cause children to have to change schools, families which happily existed with one car and used public transport to all of a sudden have difficulty getting to work/school/hospital, separated families to have difficulty with custody, and all sorts of other dramas which can be *huge* for the families who are impacted by our (landlords') decisions.

We don't *have* to consider these factors, but I just hold the view that we *should*. If a family really doesn't want to move, unless we have concrete alternative plans (eg to demolish or move in ourselves etc), then we should try and resolve communication breakdowns and petty annoyances before resorting to the option that's easy for us, and evicting.

If somebody's in breach of the lease, or you need to sell to an owner-occupier, or you want to re-develop etc, sure, that's bad luck for the tenant. But as I said, I do think a lot of people evict for quite trivial reasons, and whilst that's their right, I don't think it's good karma. Particularly when I suspect that in the majority of cases, the tenant is an entirely reasonable person, who's simply had a breakdown of communication or personality clash with the PM.
 
From a LL's point of view, where the rent does cover all costs...
your point of view won't change. You will guard your property with all your might against tenants who have no respect for anything, let alone your property.

I was a tenant for 3 years. I never complained, and always paid my rent on time. It was as clean when I left, as when I moved in.

We have some great tenants..but the ones we remember are the PITA ones
Even though we are required to give them a tenancy book when they move in, they don't bother to read it, because they think rules do not apply to them.
 
I have just read quite a few negative pint of views of tenants.

Yep, that'd be me amongst that lot. I have a very very negative view of most Tenants, especially the ones I think you are describing. After dealing with them for quite a while (up to 90 Tenant years at the moment) one gets a little jaded and the behaviour / conduct gets a little predictable.


Often the place that tenants live in is there home.

If you're talking residential - then obviously yes. This is symptomatic of that whole swirling emotive issue, where the Landlord's prime goal of owning the asset (CG, cashflow) is totally 180 deg unaligned with the Tenant's goal (shelter at the lowest cost possible). You get conflict when goals aren't aligned. It's a constant tug-of-war.

Unless of course you get those strange little Landlord's where CG and cashflow don't mean a jot, and they are happy to align themselves with their Tenants interests. These are very calm and nice Green voters, but they never go on to be substantial Landlords.


How would you like to be told to move out of your home in 60 days?

I wouldn't like it, but if that was the contract I'd signed up to, then I'd immediately start my search for another Lease contract to enter into. I wouldn't waste my energy on being angry with my previous Landlord, especially if they had a right to give me notice.



Of course the tenant is going to be pissed off. You as the landlord may say many things (IE. I want to move in to the place) but that doesn't change the fact that if you kick your tenant out, you are kicking them out of there home.

The Tenant has no such right to be pissed off. I've never read in a Lease document where it specifically states that if the Landlord gives rightful notice to the Tenant, then the Tenant doesn't have to move, and is fully entitled to chuck a hissy fit and cause grief to the Landlord as a consequence.....what rot.


Of course if tenants aren't paying rent on time they should be kicked out. But if they are generally good tenants, why shouldn't the tenant be peeved about being kicked out. I know I would be if someone tryed to kick me out of my home.

There's a multitude of reasons. Demolition to make way for a development, a larger much better Tenant willing to pay higher rents....where do you stop....the possibilities are endless, and that's just residential.
 
I wouldn't like it, but if that was the contract I'd signed up to, then I'd immediately start my search for another Lease contract to enter into. I wouldn't waste my energy on being angry with my previous Landlord, especially if they had a right to give me notice.

Thats it.

In a nutshell the two parties have rights and responsibilities. IF one exercises a right under the contract the other can complain and while it is right to feel compassion, but there is no more to it than that.

When I get frustrated is when the landlord is irrational. I am sure tenants can be equally irrational, but late last year after an incident involving a hot water heater costing our landlords a couple of thousand dollars 2 months before lease renewal, they were not sure if they wanted to renew the lease and in stead sell. We said make your mind up and they would not. It got down to four weeks prior to the lease expiry so we organised with the same agency an inspection on another place who were understanding of our position.

The agencies biggest mistake was telling me the owner does not want to be pushed to make a decision when I started getting pushy. I immediately started organising new accom on the back of this advice. On the cusp of an inspection of a suitable property the other PM running our current joint (same agency!) rang and said the owner wanted to renew for another year, I said sure but let him know I am checking this other place out in an hour so to be fair if it's better and that it appears I save $1000.00 over 12months I should have a look eh? Don't want to be pushed to make a decision...

Lucky for them I consider a move to be worth about $2000.00 in pain and suffering alone even if it is only around the corner....

Nonetheless I know I save a fair quid renting so who am I to complain. As propertunity says landlords subsidise rental accomodation in this country so there is certainly considerations around that.

The advantage to me toward renting is if conditions change you can roll with the punches. It's a bit like hiring a car, one day you can have a 3 tonne truck the next a sports car all depending what you need for the immediate term. For this you would usually expect to pay a premium but this is not the case in Australia around houses which makes renting pretty compelling value. As the work moves so to can your home when you rent. Lose your job rent a smaller more affordable house. Being told you have to move out every so often, not that big a deal in my opinion though it is a consideration around the buy v rent comparison.
 
I must have missed something, as far as I am concerned as long as I pay the mortgage etc etc and my name is on the mortgage papers its MY home not the tenants HOME they just reside there because they pay to do so.

If you don't pay your mortgage see if the banks chases the tenants to pay the loan back.

Brian
 
12 hours since the OP,
I would have thought Pickle would have been massacred by now after
a number of other threads recently.
Nice to see the views from the other side.
 
I have a lot of respect for my tenants. I see myself as running a business and the tenants are my customers. I do try to accomodate my tenants to a certain extent so that everyone is happy. I've mostly had good experiences. I've got one tenant at the moment who complains a lot. I met one of them recently and he was complaining after signing his third lease renewal that he's wanted for the last couple of years to rent a four bedroom, double garage home with no pool. my property is 3 bedroom, 1 garage with a pool. :rolleyes: But that's about the worst I've had!
 
I think I'm tougher on some of my tenants than some of the other investors here. I view my portfolio as my business and try to maximise profits while minimising expenses. I don't mollycoddle my tenants, but I do like to think that they get treated with respect. I do have one long term tenant that has a funny work schedule and from time to time falls behind, but he has always been upfront about this and always makes amends quickly.

If my tenants pay their rent on time, and look after the place then I've got no wish to move them along. Because I keep my rents at the high end, the tenants are usually getting many small increases in their rent, meaning that they don't fall substantially behind market rates.

I don't play games with my tenants and don't believe that I should be treated like their own personal ATM machines, meaning if they have problems (or see a new car etc, that they might want) I still expect my rent to be paid.

I believe that a tenant should be allowed to have a pet(s) however this has to be monitored as some properties are suitable for pets and others are not. I am myself an animal lover and own six cats.

I have seen first hand a PM from an agency deal with tenants and treat them with great contempt, then talk to the next person who is an owner and treat them like their long lost friend. I find this offensive. There are good tenants and bad tenants just the same as there are good landlords and bad landlords.
 
I guess this is why we now have to give 90 days notice to ask a tenant to leave.

On the other side, I see why tenants do make lots of requests after they move in. Having a 10-15min inspection doesn't really give time to check absolutely everything in the house. We've noticed that a lot of rooms don't have flyscreens and one of the sliding doors does not have a screen door. Or that the double garage is not big enough to actually fit two cars. As landlords, we've just put it to experience and to look more carefully next time we rent, but other tenants demand the best and don't hesitate to ask for everything.

Until now, I didn't realise how much cheaper our living expenses are by renting. While there are downsides in terms of it not feeling so much like home or being able to do anything with the place, it is lovely not to receive any quarterly bills in the mail.
 
I treat my tenants with respect, however I am not running a charity and have rents at market rates, because someone else will pay it if they don't. $10/wk difference pays my mobile phone bill.

If something breaks and needs repair, then it is repaired as soon as possible.

I have recently become a tenant and expect that my landlord will treat me the same, so far it is happy days.

Mutual respect, where nobody should try and take the other for a ride or there are consequences.
 
I treat my tenants with respect, however I am not running a charity and have rents at market rates, because someone else will pay it if they don't. $10/wk difference pays my mobile phone bill.

If something breaks and needs repair, then it is repaired as soon as possible.

I have recently become a tenant and expect that my landlord will treat me the same, so far it is happy days.

Mutual respect, where nobody should try and take the other for a ride or there are consequences.

Employees say the same thing abou their employer

Hospitality business owners say it about their guests

Retailers say it about their customers.

Wholealsers and manufacturers say it about their customers.

I've never been ato a forum on those other thingns though, maybe they too act all surpised and harp on about their customers and how they deserve a fair go like we do !

Token funder said something one time which I quite liked and will try to paraphrase badly now "If more peopel accepted they were becoming landlords not 'property investors' they wouldnt be so surprised with some of the issues".

I'm the same, don't get me wrong, I just sometimes see the hypocrisy of it, we jumped in this game.
 
Last edited:
you do realise most landlords have been tenants at some point in their life
Maybe not property managers, they always seem so so so ... YOUNG :eek:

Most times I've rented I would have happily stayed for years, but the landlord is selling up. So, time to move on. It would be nicer if there was some kind of policy to stop landlords selling houses so often. Wonder if it happened as often back in the days of low capital gains.

As to the tenant's house being the landlord's home, I disagree completely. The place the landlord lives is their home. Their investment properties are just houses (or units or whatever). You can only have one home, but you can have a lot of houses.

I might be in a position to be a landlord again soon, might get to run the gamut again. Fortunately it is so much cheaper to own than rent the way we've been operating, so if we get a tenant again they'll be subsidising our lifestyle not the other way around. No thanks to the commonwealth bank, who refuse to value our house and helpfully and irreversably reduced our loan by a big chunk, just to make sure our deductable debt is as low as possible and the loan on our PPoR will be as large as possible, because that's just how it should be :rolleyes:
 
Most times I've rented I would have happily stayed for years, but the landlord is selling up. So, time to move on. It would be nicer if there was some kind of policy to stop landlords selling houses so often.

That is an absolutely cracker-jack, inspirational idea.

Perhaps they could add a clause to the RTA something along the lines of ;

"The Landlord shall be required to obtain the Tenant's permission in writing prior to selling the property. A notice of 'Intent to Sell' shall be served upon the Tenant by the Landlord with no less than 730 days notice required for formal notification.

(a) If the Tenant does not agree to the sale, the Landlord shall immediately discount the rent by 80% to compensate for the Tenant's stress.
(b) If the Tenant does agree to the sale, the Landlord shall immediately discount the rent by 95% to compensate for the Tenant's stress and anxiety and inconvenience.

At no time shall the Landlord be permitted to deal with the property without the written permission of the Tenant, except by leave of the court.

Penalty : Death by hanging"​
 
That is an absolutely cracker-jack, inspirational idea.

Perhaps they could add a clause to the RTA something along the lines of ;

"The Landlord shall be required to obtain the Tenant's permission in writing prior to selling the property. A notice of 'Intent to Sell' shall be served upon the Tenant by the Landlord with no less than 730 days notice required for formal notification.

(a) If the Tenant does not agree to the sale, the Landlord shall immediately discount the rent by 80% to compensate for the Tenant's stress.
(b) If the Tenant does agree to the sale, the Landlord shall immediately discount the rent by 95% to compensate for the Tenant's stress and anxiety and inconvenience.

At no time shall the Landlord be permitted to deal with the property without the written permission of the Tenant, except by leave of the court.

Penalty : Death by hanging"​


I don't see the need to limit the method of putting the landlord to death
 
Back
Top