Landlords in WA about to be done over - Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011
- Thread starter Burbs
- Start date
Searching for Answers
We can all remember when our beloved PM Keating removed tax deductions for interest on rental properties - the result was increased rents as private rentals dried up and the tenancy underclass had nowhere to live.
The same will happen again and then tenants will simply have to comply with the Property Owner or pay higher rent to another.
Supply and Demand - Economics 101
We can all remember when our beloved PM Keating removed tax deductions for interest on rental properties - the result was increased rents as private rentals dried up and the tenancy underclass had nowhere to live.
The same will happen again and then tenants will simply have to comply with the Property Owner or pay higher rent to another.
Supply and Demand - Economics 101
I ran this new legislation past a friend of mine, he is a Fellow of Austrasian Institute of Enterprise Facilitators.
This was his response to me.
RE: ATTENTION WA RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS
The long-awaited Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011 is about to have its second reading in the Legislative Assembly.
COMMENT
The only persons this will affect are those that have rental properties currently under an agreement - that is to say either properties that were leased prior to this Act and or Rental property owners who have managing agents who being below professional standards have failed in their Duty of Care by failing to inform the owner of the introduction of the proposed Act although they were enganged by the owner when in possession of the knowledge of the proposed event due to its scope of being within their field of expertise.
OTHERWISE
The Act in itself reflects a simple inflationary business principal insomuch as any business is entitled to seek adequate reward for degree of risk.taken
What this means is in essence the property owner will seek adequate compensation for the increased risk and as a corollary new contracts written from now on should be written at inflated higher rentals.
This was his response to me.
RE: ATTENTION WA RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS
The long-awaited Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011 is about to have its second reading in the Legislative Assembly.
COMMENT
The only persons this will affect are those that have rental properties currently under an agreement - that is to say either properties that were leased prior to this Act and or Rental property owners who have managing agents who being below professional standards have failed in their Duty of Care by failing to inform the owner of the introduction of the proposed Act although they were enganged by the owner when in possession of the knowledge of the proposed event due to its scope of being within their field of expertise.
OTHERWISE
The Act in itself reflects a simple inflationary business principal insomuch as any business is entitled to seek adequate reward for degree of risk.taken
What this means is in essence the property owner will seek adequate compensation for the increased risk and as a corollary new contracts written from now on should be written at inflated higher rentals.
A higher yield for WA properties would be good, but I can just imagine it will backfire when more public housing is needed for low income earners and taxes rise.
If one letter lands on a politicians desk, it will be ignored. If three letters land on their desk, they'll look into more.Ah the fight between what is and what should be, is a battle fought by many a forefather
Google Sisyphus
I feel you brother, but standing in front of the steamroller is surety of a flat argument
Happy to throw a punch into the wind with you though
The only persons affected by the proposed legislation are every single residential property owner in Western Australia (including owner-occupier neighbours of rental properties, because the tenants will now be harder to evict).
To say that owners will simply charge higher rents is a vast oversimplification of an imperfect market.
Rents will not rise automatically, for reasons I described earlier in this thread.
Owners will bear the cost.
Just as they did 3 years ago when the government abolished the one-week letting fee from tenants, and scarcely a whimper was heard from the owners.
This is an imperfect market, where government is attempting to tip the balance of power further in favour of tenants.
So please write a letter to your local MP.
These views come from spending a lot of time managing tenancies, and representing owners in many of the magistrates courts in WA.
Burbs
Yes exactly that is the principle.
It only takes a small core of active people to bring an issue to the attention of pollies.
At the moment, on the politicians' desks is a large professionally-produced report from the Tenants Advisory Service http://www.taswa.org/policy/pdf/2011-tas-report-on-the-rta-bill.pdf. The TASWA report says that the proposed legislation does not go far enough, and recommends amendments to further enhance tenants rights.
So again I urge all WA somersoftians to write to their local MP protesting the proposed laws.
Burbs
Last night debate resumed on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011. The unconfimed transcript is available for a little while here - http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newwebparl.nsf/iframewebpages/hansard+-+daily+transcripts . The RTAB 2011 debate starts on page 53. There are not many voices speaking on the owners' behalf.
I encourage all WA somersoftians to contact their local MP today. Even a one line email is enough - Dear MP, As a property owner I oppose the Residential Tenancies Bill 2011 as it will create a rental housing shortage. (or anything really).
Regards,
Burbs
I encourage all WA somersoftians to contact their local MP today. Even a one line email is enough - Dear MP, As a property owner I oppose the Residential Tenancies Bill 2011 as it will create a rental housing shortage. (or anything really).
Regards,
Burbs
Well I thought you would never ask...
The debate in the Legislative Assembly was brief and uncontested. The highlights were as follows:
On Rent Control: MLA for Gosnells Chris Tallentire - "Having rental control does not mean that rents cannot be increased. There are rental controls in Canberra, in New York, in Paris and in many other cities...From what I have been able to find out, the main reason is that they are concerned to moderate the effects of speculation on residential property. Therefore, I think we should look at this issue in the future...I think we have to look at why elsewhere in the world rental control is so successful and used as part of a general housing policy."
And on whether landlords need rent at all MLA Tallentire again "I believe that very few landlords would be in the role of landlord purely for the revenues derived from the rent."
Both Labour and Liberals voted in favour of the the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011 and it was passed on 7/9/11.
It is now in the Legislative Council and has been referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. I and a few other owners have made submissions to this committee, however I feel it is only a technical waypoint.
Nevertheless, feel free to contact your Upper house member and protest the legislation.
My observations have been that no MPs from any party are willing to take up the owner's case, no media is interested in the story, and most owners could not be bothered getting involved.
Burbs
The debate in the Legislative Assembly was brief and uncontested. The highlights were as follows:
On Rent Control: MLA for Gosnells Chris Tallentire - "Having rental control does not mean that rents cannot be increased. There are rental controls in Canberra, in New York, in Paris and in many other cities...From what I have been able to find out, the main reason is that they are concerned to moderate the effects of speculation on residential property. Therefore, I think we should look at this issue in the future...I think we have to look at why elsewhere in the world rental control is so successful and used as part of a general housing policy."
And on whether landlords need rent at all MLA Tallentire again "I believe that very few landlords would be in the role of landlord purely for the revenues derived from the rent."
Both Labour and Liberals voted in favour of the the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2011 and it was passed on 7/9/11.
It is now in the Legislative Council and has been referred to the Standing Committee on Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review. I and a few other owners have made submissions to this committee, however I feel it is only a technical waypoint.
Nevertheless, feel free to contact your Upper house member and protest the legislation.
My observations have been that no MPs from any party are willing to take up the owner's case, no media is interested in the story, and most owners could not be bothered getting involved.
Burbs
Frankly I was waiting for one of the residential investors to carry on the thread, but obviously very few of the investors here give two hoots about it.
Ouch !! That's gotta hurt. I'll have a chat with a few of the Liberal members and find out why there wasn't any resistance. I can see why the Labor members had no trouble with it.
Yes, that has been my observation as well. As you can see from the response on here in and amongst residential Landlords, apathy reigns supreme. When they get whacked with these punitive fines, DOCEP will come down hard on Landlords. I think they'll report is as an after-thought in the mainstream media once it is law.
As for myself, I printed out and read the changes aloud to my 3 kids yesterday....they'd heard enough by the 3rd page and all stated it was completely ridiculous - why would anyone in WA want to own a house in this state under those laws.
We have actively been getting rid of our 'assets' that fall under this legislation, it's beyond the point of being workable....saw the writing on the wall with the dreadful 1987 RTA version.....this 2011 version is just plain balmy.
We can expect in the future many WA landlords to pop up here in the near future starting threads with questions like "Why do I need to pay for...."
She's all too hard IMO Burbs. Thanks for the detailed updates though.
That says it all for me !!!
This may be the best quote ever to describe the reality dysfunction that politicians exist in.
I think a lot of people who employ property managers have an attitude that it's not their problem, the property manager will fix it. They don't understand the current RTA, and don't care too much if there is a new one. I emailed the details of the changes to a friend who has about 5 WA properties in the hands of property managers. I didn't even get a response back. 
I really don't get why so many people don't care. I didn't get a response from my letter to MP either, who obviously doesnt care either. On past occasions I've always received a response from the MP on other matters.
I really don't get why so many people don't care. I didn't get a response from my letter to MP either, who obviously doesnt care either. On past occasions I've always received a response from the MP on other matters.OK that's enough.
There is only one reasonable course of action for owners. Rents aren't going to rise "to compensate for the increased risk" because tenants just don't have the capacity to pay.
Chalk up another property investor who is never buying another residential investment property. I feel a strange sense of relief in saying that - as if a lot of my worries are evaporating right in front of my eyes!
The only remaining question is whether to sell what we already have. That's an altogether more difficult proposition... which might have to wait until retirement so as to slowly do it with the benefit of a lower marginal tax rate. Capital gains tax hurts! But then so does the lost opportunity of using the funds in more profitable pursuits...
There is only one reasonable course of action for owners. Rents aren't going to rise "to compensate for the increased risk" because tenants just don't have the capacity to pay.
Chalk up another property investor who is never buying another residential investment property. I feel a strange sense of relief in saying that - as if a lot of my worries are evaporating right in front of my eyes!
The only remaining question is whether to sell what we already have. That's an altogether more difficult proposition... which might have to wait until retirement so as to slowly do it with the benefit of a lower marginal tax rate. Capital gains tax hurts! But then so does the lost opportunity of using the funds in more profitable pursuits...
Difficult to insure against breaking the law in my experience... It is possible that this even opens up avenues to insurers to knock back some claims around loss of rent if the nexus of the loss was you breaking the law at first instance. i.e. it is more than just the fine you might not be insured for around some of these events.
Thanks Tom32.
•
S51(1)(b)
Failure
to
give
the
tenant
the
owner’s
address
–
fine
$5,000
–
some
owners
are
reluctant
to
give
tenants
their
address
given
the
many
incidents
of
violence
from
tenants
towards
owners.
This is the scariest one for me! I'm expecting a few houses to come onto the market if it all passes. For me, the fine would be equiavalent to about 15 weeks rent. The politicians think they have a housing accomodation shortage now, just wait!! At least they'll fix their housing affordability issues. Maybe that is what they are trying to achieve. Apart from my ppor, I've only got one rental in WA that I'll definately not develop and rent out. I would prefer to rent my property for a rediculously low rent to a faithful friend than risk harrassment. I've had two incidences of harrassment already by phone/court system, possibly from tenants with psychosis, luckily they didn't have my home address. Who needs to live in fear??
•
S51(1)(b)
Failure
to
give
the
tenant
the
owner’s
address
–
fine
$5,000
–
some
owners
are
reluctant
to
give
tenants
their
address
given
the
many
incidents
of
violence
from
tenants
towards
owners.
This is the scariest one for me! I'm expecting a few houses to come onto the market if it all passes. For me, the fine would be equiavalent to about 15 weeks rent. The politicians think they have a housing accomodation shortage now, just wait!! At least they'll fix their housing affordability issues. Maybe that is what they are trying to achieve. Apart from my ppor, I've only got one rental in WA that I'll definately not develop and rent out. I would prefer to rent my property for a rediculously low rent to a faithful friend than risk harrassment. I've had two incidences of harrassment already by phone/court system, possibly from tenants with psychosis, luckily they didn't have my home address. Who needs to live in fear??
As will rents.....this all points to many investors voting with their feet and tenants facing huge increases in rent as the better prepared and organised investors continue their business in business like fashion obeying all the rules and getting the higher rents.
The recent NSW Act revisions have included several clauses that are favourable to landlords which indicates a 'tit for tat' to ensure the rental market does not follow a scenario as I've suggested above.
Compliance and red tape are to blame for property being unaffordable IMHO. Not greedy investors as many on here suggest.
The recent NSW Act revisions have included several clauses that are favourable to landlords which indicates a 'tit for tat' to ensure the rental market does not follow a scenario as I've suggested above.
Compliance and red tape are to blame for property being unaffordable IMHO. Not greedy investors as many on here suggest.
