My young adult son is just renting his first house with some friends. They are all students but some of the parents have gone guarantor for the rent. They had two houses offered to them whilst applying and accepted an offer. The REA then told them they would increase the rent from the advertised amount by $40/week. They explained that they thought only 3 were applying, whereas 4 people applied. The house is a 4 bedroom house. Due to their fear of not having a house and not having a rental history behind them, they reluctantly agreed. Has anyone else come across this sort of behaviour from the REA? Is this acceptable? I am a landlord and have rented in the past but feel this was purely someone taking advantage of green renters .... I would be interested in what forum members think please.
Increased rent once house accepted by students
- Thread starter JazZing
- Start date
Thanks Thatbum, I was wondering if it was a known way some REA work and if there was anything we could do. The students did agree to this increase but baiting describes what happened. My son has learnt from this which is why he's doing this - to get out there and be as independent as possible, so its not all bad. Thanks again.
increasing the rent after it was advertised?
I would think this might be illegal,
I think it is called bait advertising.
I havent studied law, but I would be speaking with the Fair Trading WA (sorry I dont know the WA name)
I hope this helps
I would think this might be illegal,
I think it is called bait advertising.
I havent studied law, but I would be speaking with the Fair Trading WA (sorry I dont know the WA name)
I hope this helps
No
No. Unless the rent was listed "per person".
IMO the REA is in the wrong. I can't see how it is right to advertise the property at one price then change the price after that. Seems wrong to me. I would call Consumer Protection.
Fair Trading in WA is called Consumer Protection WA. I can confirm they do take complaints about real estate agencies seriously. The tenants in the house next door called Consumer Protection and a staff member resolved the tenants complaint.
http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumerprotection/
I can confirm that they in fact don't take complaints about real estate agencies seriously, as a general rule. Not for something like this especially. I know because I recently met with some senior managers of compliance and conciliation within the department on this very issue.
I still recommend making a complaint, as it is bait advertising, which is both unlawful and generally disgusting behaviour.
But I can almost guarantee almost no action will be taken by them. At the end of the day, they signed the agreement with the increase rent on it, and had time to consider it before they did so. (No civil remedy I can see).
That's useful to know. I guess it depends on the issue. The tenants were without power, so I guess that's a bit more serious than having to pay extra rent.
This thread interests me because I believe we may be seen to be gouging our students in a house if we raise the rent. However, we would be raising it to what it should be now.
The house is five bedroom, two bathroom, nice old queenslander near the hospital and close to the Green Bridge to uni. It is pretty basic inside and we've had the "same" tenants there for well over ten years I reckon. When I say "same tenants" the last of the original students left just recently. He is now a doctor and was there through his study and after. Each time one leaves, they get in a mate, so it is like an axe that has had five handles and three new heads.
My late mother put them into the house and, like often happens with long term tenants, the rent slipped behind. We've been raising it bit by bit. We don't want to scare these chaps off. They live like "students" but the house is just messy, not damaged or dirty, but needs a renovation once they go. Once they leave we are likely to need to redo both bathrooms (old, dated, unattractive for a new tenant) and the kitchen (solid timber, dated, okay for new tenant but not very appealing).
So, rather than up the rent too much in one go, we've been creeping it up. It must be the only 5 x 2 in Annerley for rent at $525 per week ($105 each). When we renewed their lease, I was going to put it up to $550 ($110 each) for six months and then increase to $600 ($120 each) at next increase.
Instead, my brother decided because we needed to put in a small retaining wall at the front and they have to look at bare dirt, he raised it to $525 (was $500). I wanted to give him a good slapping because, whilst they are students, they are getting a very good deal at $525 per week.
I said to him (but it was too late as he'd done a new lease already) that they don't care about the dirt, and they have so much crap inside and under the house and live like teenagers, that keeping the rent low due to a bit of gardening that needs doing is a joke.
I'm going to make sure I do the increase next time and will be asking $600 per week. Most "rooms" are going for $150 to $200 per room, depending on condition, size, location. Even if we charge $600 these students will be paying super cheap rent at $120 each.
But... I reckon we will be seen as greedy landlords, instead of being seen as being rather soft for having this house so cheap for so long. Time will tell.
The house is five bedroom, two bathroom, nice old queenslander near the hospital and close to the Green Bridge to uni. It is pretty basic inside and we've had the "same" tenants there for well over ten years I reckon. When I say "same tenants" the last of the original students left just recently. He is now a doctor and was there through his study and after. Each time one leaves, they get in a mate, so it is like an axe that has had five handles and three new heads.
My late mother put them into the house and, like often happens with long term tenants, the rent slipped behind. We've been raising it bit by bit. We don't want to scare these chaps off. They live like "students" but the house is just messy, not damaged or dirty, but needs a renovation once they go. Once they leave we are likely to need to redo both bathrooms (old, dated, unattractive for a new tenant) and the kitchen (solid timber, dated, okay for new tenant but not very appealing).
So, rather than up the rent too much in one go, we've been creeping it up. It must be the only 5 x 2 in Annerley for rent at $525 per week ($105 each). When we renewed their lease, I was going to put it up to $550 ($110 each) for six months and then increase to $600 ($120 each) at next increase.
Instead, my brother decided because we needed to put in a small retaining wall at the front and they have to look at bare dirt, he raised it to $525 (was $500). I wanted to give him a good slapping because, whilst they are students, they are getting a very good deal at $525 per week.
I said to him (but it was too late as he'd done a new lease already) that they don't care about the dirt, and they have so much crap inside and under the house and live like teenagers, that keeping the rent low due to a bit of gardening that needs doing is a joke.
I'm going to make sure I do the increase next time and will be asking $600 per week. Most "rooms" are going for $150 to $200 per room, depending on condition, size, location. Even if we charge $600 these students will be paying super cheap rent at $120 each.
But... I reckon we will be seen as greedy landlords, instead of being seen as being rather soft for having this house so cheap for so long. Time will tell.
Tell me if i am on the right track...
-the house was advertised for rent at a certain price with certain conditions
- they applied for the property as four tennants
- the agent informed them their application had been accepted but at $40 a week more because of the amount of people
- they agreed and signed the lease.
If this is the case then perfectly acceptable. Everything is open to negotiation and they did not have to agree.
The same could be done for a property advertised as no pets but accept an application with pets in return for a higher rent. Or negotiating longer leases could mean a decreased rent. Or multiple applications offering more.
Nothing wrong with that.
Cheers
-the house was advertised for rent at a certain price with certain conditions
- they applied for the property as four tennants
- the agent informed them their application had been accepted but at $40 a week more because of the amount of people
- they agreed and signed the lease.
If this is the case then perfectly acceptable. Everything is open to negotiation and they did not have to agree.
The same could be done for a property advertised as no pets but accept an application with pets in return for a higher rent. Or negotiating longer leases could mean a decreased rent. Or multiple applications offering more.
Nothing wrong with that.
Cheers
+1 from me. If it was mine I'd ask for the increase too. There seems nothing abnormal here. I don't think any complaint to any relevant body would be considered if it's as described.
Regarding Wylie's comment: If you are seen as greedy landlords than that's their opinion, which is irrelevant - you have to treat it like a business and not a charity. Who feels sorry for you when you have to pay your loans/bills?
I experienced bait advertising recently. Applied for a property, agent called and said my application had been accepted. When I went in to sign the lease it was on the lease as being $50 more per week than what was advertised. When I queried this she acted like she had no idea what was going on. After checking with someone else she said yes it was the higher price and that I must have been mistaken about the price per week.
I asked if she wanted a copy of the advertisement page that I can saved for reference to which she didn't respond. So I said thanks but no thanks and walked out.
I asked if she wanted a copy of the advertisement page that I can saved for reference to which she didn't respond. So I said thanks but no thanks and walked out.
It is all good and well but to actually be in a situation where you are in dispute with the agent before the lease is even signed I would walk on the deal also unless I had no other choice.
Otherwise you pretty much know you will be up for moving costs the day the lease is up and likely have a hard time of it during the tenancy also.
Easier just to cut and run.
I think this is WRONG.Landlords/Agencies that enter into these sort of baiting deals let the whole industry down,and tars every investor with the same brush.The property was advertised at a price............that should be it.Bad Business.
Then cut and run, but report it anyway. Isn't there some sort of points tally and they could receive a steep fine. If you report it and don't move in, they cannot issue you notice to leave.
I have a friend who was treated shabbily by her agent. Had she reported it, the agency would have been fined heavily. She didn't report it because she needed the place to rent. She had little other option but to shut up and accept it.
I've advised them not to report the agent now as they have 6 months to get along with them, and if they move out they will need a good reference. Essentially they have no say in this situation except to have walked initially.
I agree this is a business for the landlord and agent but there also needs to be some protection for those that are a bit more vulnerable in our society. I use agents mostly with our properties because I do get too involved with my tenants and struggle with putting the rent up, like Wylie is. Fairness is also important though so it is a bit of a juggle.
I agree this is a business for the landlord and agent but there also needs to be some protection for those that are a bit more vulnerable in our society. I use agents mostly with our properties because I do get too involved with my tenants and struggle with putting the rent up, like Wylie is. Fairness is also important though so it is a bit of a juggle.
