My little rant about re.com not letting private landlords advertise

[wylie]

Just thought I would make comment on the fact that (as we all know) we cannot advertise on re.com as private landlords. This never used to be a problem until the past few years because the newspaper always produced enough enquiries to find a tenant easily.

As the years have rolled on, however, I am guessing that around 80%+ of people wanting a rental are looking on the net, and most of these in Brisbane are using re.com.

Last Saturday we had our house in the Saturday paper, held an open house, and had ONE looker. Week before we had NONE.

Today, we held an open house, but also had it listed with an agent as a "let only" deal and had about 12 lots through.

It was actually rented on Thursday through an agent, but we had to hold the open house because we knew there would be some people going through.

We asked each person where they found the house, and only one came from the newspaper. The rest were from the net.

The people who rented it live eight houses from my house. Perhaps I should just have walked the local streets banging a saucepan yelling "house for rent.... house for rent".

Anyway, the $506 that the agent has made from fielding ONE phone call is the cream for them. Our tenants broke the lease two weeks before the end, so it is not costing us anything, but is costing them $506 this time.

I just wish that re.com would wake up to themselves and realise that by allowing private landlords to advertise, they are not necessarily taking business from agents.

I spoke to another private landlord who arranged for a local agent to list for her on re.com for a fee (certainly less than a week's rent) but he never actually listed her house, so she didn't actually pay him. She also paid to list on Domain but had no enquiries from there. It really is more popular in Sydney and Melbourne I think.

I will continue my search for an agent who will list for me for less than one week's rent, but meanwhile re.com have us by the short and curlies and, unless we find an agent to take us on for a small fee, it seems we must swap $506 in order to get on their site .

They must be missing a fair bit of easy money, but obviously have their reasons, though I cannot fathom it.

 

[BoatBoy]

The people who rented it live eight houses from my house. Perhaps I should just have walked the local streets banging a saucepan yelling "house for rent.... house for rent".

or banged a sign in the ground?

it seems we must swap $506 in order to get on their site .

Sux being bent over doesn't it

Dave

 

[kathryn d]

What about advertising on Gumtree?
Has that ever been successful for you?

 

[steveadl]

Wylie, not sure if they list rentals for you and if so how much - but these guys do private sale listings on REA.com so worth giving them a call.

www.myhomeisforsale.com.au

 

[marg4000]

realestate.com.au is majority owned by a major real estate agency chain, so there is no way they are not going to protect their turf.

Maybe a sign on the house that it is available for rent and a mobile phone number?
Marg

 

[wylie]

Thanks folks for the ideas. There is a professionally made sign on the fence of the rental house, and we do get some response from it. Unfortunately, there is no price on the sign so often the caller is looking for a cheaper rental, but at least we do get response from the sign.

It was also on rentfind.com.au which is good, but just not getting the same level of traffic as the other one.

The people who are renting it live eight houses from my house, not the rental, but that is just a coincidence.

I have used Gumtree in the past and had good response. However, over the past week, I have had five people call me and tell me that some Nigerian scammer has collected my details and posted his own listing, using a different photo and asking for payment to be sent Western Union to Laos. One chap sent $500 and as far as I know the other four realised it was a scam.

I have been on to the police, the ACCC and Gumtree itself is removing any listings that have been found but this person could use my details for as long as they wish.

The details, of course, could have been lifted from re.com or any other site. It just happens to have come from Gumtree this time. The ACCC suggested that the problem may well be that the checks done on people listing on Gumtree may not be as "tight" as they could be. I don't know the reason why a person from Laos can list on an Australian site, but Gumtree is world wide, so it really comes down to "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is". They were listing our house for rent for $130 per week, so those looking at the advert would surely have thought it was good good to be true?

I am amazed that there are still people who have not heard of Nigerian scams, but obviously there are plenty out there who have yet to be made aware of these things.

And yes Dave, it ain't good to be "bent over" as you say, but there is little alternative until they wake up to themselves. This cost is born by our outgoing tenants, but in future, we just have to factor in a "letting fee" which everyone pays who uses a PM, so I suppose it is still much cheaper than paying a PM to manage them on an ongoing basis. We would lose one week's rent anyway. At least we are not paying any more than this fee as a "one off" but it still sucks.

Anyway, as soon as we find someone who will do it for less, re.com can go whistle.

I will take a look at myhomeisforsale to see if they would take us on, but I tried Red Direct and they are doing sales only at this time. If they ever take on "one off" rentals, we will go with them to get on re.com.

Thanks for the tips.

 

[wylie]

realestate.com.au is majority owned by a major real estate agency chain, so there is no way they are not going to protect their turf.

This is the bit that I don't really "get". We are not taking away anything from any real estate agency. Our houses would not be managed by them so they are not "losing" any business. I would think that most private landlords are using the newspaper as their principal means of hooking a tenant, so why re.com would not want to skim the cream from those who don't wish to go through an agent, I just don't understand.

Right now, we have to pay one week's rent plus GST to get our listing on re.com. In the past we have found it next to useless even giving the house to any agent. Most are not interested in "let only" and even those who say they are, we generally never hear a peep from. An agent who is prepared to do it for less would make great money with no ongoing hassles.

It is only due to lack of response right now and for the past two weeks that we listed this house with an agency. Next time we have a vacant house, we will not be going to an agent unless the response is equally poor. So no agency is "missing out" on anything they would have gotten anyway.

I just think re.com is losing a lot of money. I would be curious to know what percentage of landlords do so privately?

 

[INVSTOR]

Wylie, is there less demand for rentals in Bris at present?

 

[wylie]

We have noticed that fewer are looking, but we are relying purely on the newspaper generally, so our "on the ground" experience is tainted.

The agency who did find us a tenant this week said that rentals were very quiet right now.

 

[marg4000]

I am noticing far more "for rent" signs around Brisbane suburbs, and they are staying up for longer.

We recently re-rented a property on the Sunshine Coast. In January (last renewal) there were 5 properties available for rent in the suburb, in July there were 21. Tenants re-signed till January, which was a good result for us as the PM said rentals had softened (backed up by internet research) and we may have received a lower rental to attract new tenants. I think we will make it 12 month leases January/January in future.
Marg

 

[s_t]

You just payed $508 to an agent, but wouldn't have if you could list direct. No wonder they have such a policy - they would have lost $508 if they didn't. Makes perfect sense to me (though I don't like it either).

This is the bit that I don't really "get". We are not taking away anything from any real estate agency. Our houses would not be managed by them so they are not "losing" any business. I would think that most private landlords are using the newspaper as their principal means of hooking a tenant, so why re.com would not want to skim the cream from those who don't wish to go through an agent, I just don't understand.

Right now, we have to pay one week's rent plus GST to get our listing on re.com. In the past we have found it next to useless even giving the house to any agent. Most are not interested in "let only" and even those who say they are, we generally never hear a peep from. An agent who is prepared to do it for less would make great money with no ongoing hassles.

It is only due to lack of response right now and for the past two weeks that we listed this house with an agency. Next time we have a vacant house, we will not be going to an agent unless the response is equally poor. So no agency is "missing out" on anything they would have gotten anyway.

I just think re.com is losing a lot of money. I would be curious to know what percentage of landlords do so privately?

 

[yorke]

Thanks folks for the ideas. There is a professionally made sign on the fence of the rental house, and we do get some response from it. Unfortunately, there is no price on the sign so often the caller is looking for a cheaper rental, but at least we do get response from the sign.

Have you got a a weblink on your sign so that any prospective renters can look at the pics, description and price of your property ? You may find that it works just as well if not better then listing with re.com

 

[wylie]

You just payed $508 to an agent, but wouldn't have if you could list direct. No wonder they have such a policy - they would have lost $508 if they didn't. Makes perfect sense to me (though I don't like it either).

You miss my point entirely. If things were not so slow right now we would not have paid re.com one cent, just like usual. However, if they allowed me to list for, say, $200 they would get $200 each time we had a house empty. We only list with a let only agent when it is a last resort. They would make more from us if they allowed reasonably priced listings for the likes of me.

The other thing you missed is that re.com have not made $509 from us. The agent did and they already pay re.com so re.com have actually missed an opportunity to make say $200 DIRECTLY from me. The agent is not paying any more because of our house listing. So re.com is missing way more than if they took money from me. Do you follow?

We do have a link to rentfind on our sign and have had success generally between the sign and the paper but times are changing and re.com needs to wake up to the income it is missing.

Instead of only earning income when we don't have any luck using our usual means of advertising they could earn income from us each time we had a house for rent.

I believe this is a lose/lose situation and not very smart of them.

Our sign does have rentfind.com.au lead on itz

 

[wylie]

Thanks yorke for the helpful advice. We do have a link to rentfind.com.au on our sign but the main traffic is on the net.

Apologies for my badly managed posting. Our Internet is out yet again so I am on the iPhone which is really hard to manage. Shows my SS addiction

 

[craigb]

Wilie, their seems to be a need! as pointed out, Soooo! time to start your own to let site, cut the *** (bottom) out of the price and start sending infomation to every realestate in the country!might be a few 100k in it as well!

 

[65fbk]

Wouldn't it be great if one of the PM's on here was prepared to do rental listings on RE.com for somersoft folk for a more reasonable fee.. maybe 1/2 a weeks rent?
Any takers?

 

[RumpledElf]

Wilie, their seems to be a need! as pointed out, Soooo! time to start your own to let site, cut the *** (bottom) out of the price and start sending infomation to every realestate in the country!might be a few 100k in it as well!

If there's already rentfind, and homehound, and they get way less traffic than re.com.au, why start another undertrafficed website?

This exact problem exists for people who want to privately sell too, worse because there's more of a market for private rental listings.

 

[steveadl]

The other thing you missed is that re.com have not made $509 from us. The agent did and they already pay re.com so re.com have actually missed an opportunity to make say $200 DIRECTLY from me. The agent is not paying any more because of our house listing. So re.com is missing way more than if they took money from me. Do you follow?

I understand what you're saying Wylie, but you're looking at it from your individual persepctive. REA.com stands to lose a lot more by ******* of their bread and butter subsccription clients (REA's) by allowing any individual to list a rental, than they would gain by having direct fees from such listings as yours. Taken far enough, it could actually collapse their business - ie. REA groups get together and start a new site, boycott REA.com and REA.com becomes obsolete. Extreme sceanrio granted, but it's something they need to remain aware of.

Take one of my PM's - they have about 1,000 properties or so on their rent roll and are a REA.com client. If their LL's started listing privately and their rent roll dwindles down to 400 - you think they'll be happy with REA.com? Now they may think twice about putting both their rental and sale listing on REA.com. Now multiply this by every REA in Aust. who use REA.com - what happens if all their businesses are hurt - what will they do?

 

[wylie]

I take your point, but I just don't think that many landlords are going to take their management away from agents if re.com allows private advertising. I don't think that is a big reason for people using a PM. So to my mind, re.com would gain business from those who don't normally use the site because they cannot, like me.

We only consider using an agent as a "let only" deal when times are slow, but if we could get on re.com for $100 or $200 for a month's worth of listing, we would do it every time.

Anyway, we have to use the system as we can, and if I can find an agent who will list for me for a small fee, then I will get around their rules. After all, they allow private individuals to advertise for share accommodation. I don't see the big deal, but they obviously have their reasons.

 

[boods99]

I have posted this in the past, but has anyone ever tried Rent.com.au?
They let private landlords advertise as well as REA's.
Discaimer: We share an office building with them, but do not recieve anything for referring business.

Boods