Hey, anyone had any experience with these types of companies
http://www.eezirent.com.au/
http://www.eezirent.com.au/
http://www.eezirent.com.au/
http://www.eezirent.com.au/
Property self management
- Thread starter type_one
- Start date
Sorry no, all I can say though is please be careful. I am a licensed agent and I won't even manage my own investment property myself.
I have seen too much and won't take the risk, the legislation is too tricky these days, and more and more tenants are making injury claims against owners of properties. At lease with an agent I have the backing of their insurance as well as my own.
I have seen too much and won't take the risk, the legislation is too tricky these days, and more and more tenants are making injury claims against owners of properties. At lease with an agent I have the backing of their insurance as well as my own.
Thanks for your response. Whilst i do agree, having a realesate who is useless is not really helping my situation. Changing estate agents is my other option.
I think managing it personally, as long as all the boxes are ticked, should be pretty risk free. Just this real estate seems to think my rent money is theirs for the taking with any fees etc they can try and jab me with. Like $80 to go check a smoke alarm batteries. Like seriously are they kidding. I could buy two new ones and install them cheaper than that. seems with all the work i end up doing maintenance wise etc i might as a well manage it myself. still happy to be convinced either way. Be good to get a few more thoughts on the subject.
My biggest bug bear at the moment is all estate agents seem to use the same financial platform as the statements are all the same format. One estate agent convinced me to go to digital statements and srapped the $4.40monthly fee. the other one wants me to go digital but refuses to drop the fee. Even though the contract says its for mail and paper costs etc. So i have refused to go paperless until the fee goes. Why are some estate agents brilliant and others just see the landlord as a source of money.
I was just thinking of giving it a go with this one propoerty and potentially clawing back some funds.
I think managing it personally, as long as all the boxes are ticked, should be pretty risk free. Just this real estate seems to think my rent money is theirs for the taking with any fees etc they can try and jab me with. Like $80 to go check a smoke alarm batteries. Like seriously are they kidding. I could buy two new ones and install them cheaper than that. seems with all the work i end up doing maintenance wise etc i might as a well manage it myself. still happy to be convinced either way. Be good to get a few more thoughts on the subject.
My biggest bug bear at the moment is all estate agents seem to use the same financial platform as the statements are all the same format. One estate agent convinced me to go to digital statements and srapped the $4.40monthly fee. the other one wants me to go digital but refuses to drop the fee. Even though the contract says its for mail and paper costs etc. So i have refused to go paperless until the fee goes. Why are some estate agents brilliant and others just see the landlord as a source of money.
I was just thinking of giving it a go with this one propoerty and potentially clawing back some funds.
In my opinion if you manage the property yourself it means you are not making enough money somewhere else.
Residentail rental properties are not for cash flow or profits they are for capital growth as there are other investments that give a better income return.
Management agent fees can be expensive, I agree, but for the headaches & problems with tenants, not to mention the over regulations, I think they earn their money.
Hi type_one, yeah that seems a bit rude about the smoke alarms, although if they are using a licensed company who is compliant to check smoke alarms, again I use one and don't manage the smoke alarm compliance myself. Maybe its tougher here in QLD, and again yeah I pay the fees also for accounting fees.
If you go it on your own, just make sure you follow the rules, put everything in writing to the tenant, do your routine inspections and take photos and make notes when you do, make sure you do whats need with the smoke alarms, my understanding is you need to log the date expiry, type, time and date of testing.
If you have any issues though a quick post here and there will be someone to help.
If you go it on your own, just make sure you follow the rules, put everything in writing to the tenant, do your routine inspections and take photos and make notes when you do, make sure you do whats need with the smoke alarms, my understanding is you need to log the date expiry, type, time and date of testing.
If you have any issues though a quick post here and there will be someone to help.
Not always the case.
My wife self manages 3 of our local IPs.
Not to cut costs - we just had terrible experiences with previous PMs. Properties sitting vacant, not returning calls, not listening to requests from tenants - the list goes on.
Since taking over a few years back, it's been pretty smooth sailing. We've had the odd troublesome tenant and maintenance issues - all have been looked after quickly.
None of the properties have been vacant for more than a few days. The vast majority of tenancies have been trouble free.
If we end up expanding the portfolio further in Canberra then I'm sure we'd self manage those too.
It's not for everyone - and you do need to have a sound understanding of the tenancy laws in your state/territory. Everything needs to be documented and all processes followed. But with some common sense - it's not too difficult.
Cheers
Jamie
I'm with Jamie M on this. We've always self managed, had very few problems, but know what we are doing. Any questions, the RTA gives us the answer.
I also disagree that residential rental properties are not for cash flow or profits. We've had good cash flow and good profits from them.
This piques my interest. I wonder how many tenants are making injury claims against owners and why an agent's insurance would provide more backing than public liability insurance held by the owner? Wouldn't an agent's insurance only cover the agent against them making some sort of error to do with their management? How (and why) would the agent's insurance protect a landlord from a tenant making an injury claim against the landlord? Seems odd to me.
I'm surprised that an agent would not be managing his/her own property.
Last edited:
Postage & Petties
How about charging for photos in a report
Anyway's, I heard in a service industry player, someone got an electrical shock plugging an item into a socket, now a qualified electrician must perform the task?
Its like some sites where over knee high requires a working at heights ticket
I have managed my own IP for the last few years and my bf manages his parents IP for them. We don't find it very difficult or time consuming. Not enough to pay an agent $50 per week + all those additional fees. The list off fees go on and on.
Put the time in at the beginning to screen the potential tenants carefully and this will make your life easier. Our houses haven't stayed vacant once advertised for more than a week or two and that's because I take my time doing the screening and am fussy about who I want living in my house.
I can afford to be fussy because I am able to price our rent a little below market price as I am not paying the agent fees so we get lots of interest and a larger pool to choose from. The way I see it, it's a win win for landlord and tenant.
Put the time in at the beginning to screen the potential tenants carefully and this will make your life easier. Our houses haven't stayed vacant once advertised for more than a week or two and that's because I take my time doing the screening and am fussy about who I want living in my house.
I can afford to be fussy because I am able to price our rent a little below market price as I am not paying the agent fees so we get lots of interest and a larger pool to choose from. The way I see it, it's a win win for landlord and tenant.
Yeah if anything went wrong the agents insurance will be used first because they are responsible for managing the property.
There was a case recently where a tenant fell through the a timber deck and was holding their baby which he dropped and the baby died. the courts found the real estate to be just as responsible in this case. This was because although the agent advised the owner multiple times the deck needed repair, the owner did nothing. The courts found that the agent had a duty of care and for such a dangerous repair should have made the repair anyhow regardless of the owners lack of response.
If the agent hadn't advised the owner the agent would have been liable.
There was a case recently where a tenant fell through the a timber deck and was holding their baby which he dropped and the baby died. the courts found the real estate to be just as responsible in this case. This was because although the agent advised the owner multiple times the deck needed repair, the owner did nothing. The courts found that the agent had a duty of care and for such a dangerous repair should have made the repair anyhow regardless of the owners lack of response.
If the agent hadn't advised the owner the agent would have been liable.
If the tenant had advised the landlord and not the agent, I would assume the landlord would have been hit with the whole lawsuit? If the agent had been told then they should have reported the danger to the landlord. After all, that is part of their job. So I suppose it is right that they share in the cost of settling the lawsuit. (I don't know what happened regarding PM and landlord - in that very sad case.)
What does the PM do if they report a dangerous set of stairs to the landlord. Do they follow up in a week that a repair will be done? Where does the agent's responsibility for something they don't own stop?
In that case you mention (and I know only the basic facts as reported in the newspapers), had there been no agent, the landlord would have been sued for the total amount. The fact the agent's insurance company came into it seems to be only because the agent was negligent in not passing on the message that the deck needed fixing. (I don't know the details of this, but just going off your reply.)
I wonder what would happen if, during a regular six monthly inspection, a similar dangerous deck is noticed by an agent, who reports it to the landlord. Does the agent have some sort of legal responsibility to follow this up, in a certain timeframe. The tenant can get urgent repairs done, but if the tenant does nothing, does the PM have the responsibility of booking a builder to get the deck fixed, perhaps to the tune of $10K, and take it from the rent, ask for it from the landlord... how does this work?
Would love to hear from PM and/or Brettc (our resident insurance expert
).
If the tenant had advised the landlord and not the agent, I would assume the landlord would have been hit with the whole lawsuit? If the agent had been told then they should have reported the danger to the landlord. After all, that is part of their job. So I suppose it is right that they share in the cost of settling the lawsuit. (I don't know what happened regarding PM and landlord - in that very sad case.)
What does the PM do if they report a dangerous set of stairs to the landlord. Do they follow up in a week that a repair will be done? Where does the agent's responsibility for something they don't own stop?
In that case you mention (and I know only the basic facts as reported in the newspapers), had there been no agent, the landlord would have been sued for the total amount. The fact the agent's insurance company came into it seems to be only because the agent was negligent in not passing on the message that the deck needed fixing. (I don't know the details of this, but just going off your reply.)
I wonder what would happen if, during a regular six monthly inspection, a similar dangerous deck is noticed by an agent, who reports it to the landlord. Does the agent have some sort of legal responsibility to follow this up, in a certain timeframe. The tenant can get urgent repairs done, but if the tenant does nothing, does the PM have the responsibility of booking a builder to get the deck fixed, perhaps to the tune of $10K, and take it from the rent, ask for it from the landlord... how does this work?
Would love to hear from PM and/or Brettc (our resident insurance expert
It's not really the case that the agents insurance will be used "first", it gets down to who a court finds is liable, or to what degree each party is liable.
Essentially when someone sues they try to bring as many potential "contributor's" into the action as possible, basically it's just as easy to sue ten people (or companies) as it is to sue one, so why not throw it out there and see who the mud sticks to.
Sometimes this brings entities into the action that will have no chance of being liable, but they find the need to have to defend themselves anyway.
In the case of the baby the court needed to decide who was responsible, and to what degree, and that's how they would apportion what needs to be paid.
I have always used as an example a case some years ago in Queensland, where a visitor to a party in a unit got drunk and decided to relieve himself over the balcony. The balcony gave way and he fell and became a paraplegic. The court ruled that the visitor was 20% to blame for being drunk, the balance of the blame was shared between the property manager and the landlord, each paying in excess of $1 million. I was telling this story at a conference and someone from the floor shot their hand up and admitted that they were the property manager involved.
So in the case of the property manager, that's why it is critical that they document inspections as well as what they have advised landlords in regard to repairs etc. and the landlords response, the more they have tried to have action taken the less likely they are to be held responsible. But yes, at the end of the day, if there are safety issues and it all goes pear-shaped a court may still hold them responsible, at least to some degree. Let's face it, if a property manager found that something in a home was electrified shooting a couple of emails to the landlord wouldn't cut it if someone touched it and died.
If there was no agent involved then the responsibility simply falls more squarely on the landlord, but would still be picked up by the landlords' liability insurance (presuming insured correctly) so not particularly an issue. Every landlord should make sure they have a minimum of $20 million liability insurance anyway.
So yes Wylie, I expect you would be correct, the lesson being make sure you're correctly insured whether a landlord or a property manager.
Now the government gets involved
http://thebuzz.beesnees.com.au/2014...ign=Feed:+BeesneesTheBuzz+(Beesnees+The+Buzz)
so is the solution terminating any management where the owner refuses to undertake maintenance?
Brett as you know for an agent we not only have to have liability cover, but also the professional indemnity cover. I recall one year our PI people raising the death of a child, as a consequence of an electrician reverse polarising and the water tap was live and she died. He tried to sell me $20m PI cover.
That said, where a landlord self manages, will their liability cover, cover them in a situation where it was decided that they did not exercise good judgement. So should they also that out PI cover.
I am not aware of any case to provide a guidance or precedence.
That said, where a landlord self manages, will their liability cover, cover them in a situation where it was decided that they did not exercise good judgement. So should they also that out PI cover.
I am not aware of any case to provide a guidance or precedence.
For a PM, I imagine the best practice would be to keep clear contemporaneous evidence that you advised the owner that the maintenance was their obligation in accordance with the lease/Act.
This really interests me. So, If a PM or a LL hire a qualified electrician to attend to an issue in an IP I would have considered this 'good judgement' - but if the electrician stuffs up, it can then be considered bad judgment? so the PM or LL should have public liability to cover the physical as well as P.I. To cover the 'bad service' provided' ??.
I would have thought the PM/LL acted in good faith and it would be the electrician who would be the main body at fault? Or at least have a far higher at fault % then the others who did what they were meant to do!
I would love to see the answer to peterw's query on this and have someone put me straight on my own guessing here!
Sorry Type-one, I do not know anything about that company and the question has led on to insurance talk. Hope you find an answer to your query soon.
Last edited:
Hi Peter,
I am looking to manage my parents IP for them, would you suggest I get insured?
Cheers