Quite irrelevant....
Because 1 tenant left a mess, alll other tenants will now pay more rent - one day they'll learn and if they don't not my fult.
It's the only way to teach tenants how to be repsonsible like us - stupid idiots.
Tenant trying to call the shots regarding rent increase
- Thread starter wylie
- Start date
Quite irrelevant....
Because 1 tenant left a mess, alll other tenants will now pay more rent - one day they'll learn and if they don't not my fult.
It's the only way to teach tenants how to be repsonsible like us - stupid idiots.
They weren't related at all.
I'm just tired of trying to be nice...she never even said thank you
She does wrong, and blames us.
More of our tenants leave a mess, than leave it clean.
Yes but sometimes losing a good tenant for the sake of a few dollars isn't worth the risk. The next tenant could be the tenant from hell.
I have probably only once taken a drop from an existing tenant, and yes rents were dropping and a few other circumstances.
I have been self managing for 30 years. I have had few problems with my tenants over this time. Our properties are always well maintained, which we believe helps to keep tenants. We have had one tenant for 17 years, and the only way we will lose her is when she can't look after her self any longer. And yes she gets rent rises. She just got another one for $10 per week.
With rental properties you have to be careful with rents, if you are charging top $$ and rents do go down, you can be stuck with empty properties as tenants vacate to go to cheaper properties, which can end being an expensive experience.
Thanks guys, learning a lot about landlord mindset after only having rentals for a few years now. It seems some owners rule like an iron fist whilst others are willing to negotiate.
Being highly leveraged I would prefer to continuously keep a good tenant rather then go through a vacancy for the sake of $5 a week.
It is called give and take. Yes you do have to do rent increases, but you do need to assess the situation. If you have a good tenant you need to take that into account. If you have a tenant that is very demanding, yes increase the rent to market rates and hopefully they will move out. It is all about if you want to keep the tenant. You also need to remember that the property is an investment, and do rent reviews taking all things into account. It is all about a happy balance, but not being too greedy. By self managing you do save a lot of money on agents fees. Every so often we get former tenants ringing us and asking us if we have any vacant properties, that they could possibly rent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar to the "art of taxation".
Plucking a live goose with the intention of balancing the competing goals of maximum of feathers extracted for the minimum amount of hissing and snapping endured.
I agree - but Wylie was talking $30/wk shortfall (6x$5) ... her initial post wasn't about the $5 difference but the fact that the tenants chose to reply with a "we choose to pay less".
Since when has a landlord had to "ask" a tenant how much they think the rent should be?
It would be like going to the electricity company and saying "sorry, I think you are charging to much so am going to only pay 1/2 of my bill" ... or the bank re the mortgage "I think it fair that we pay 3% interest so won't be paying the 6.5%" ... or the council "I don't use many of your facilities so am only going to pay my garbage collection and road repair portion" ... or any other business.
Can you imagine what the reaction would be then?
Sometimes I think landlords forget we are in business - not a charity. As such we make business decisions based on the facts (good tenants might get a slightly lower rent etc) but at the end of the day our aim is still to make money.
Last edited:
After having not raised the rent on one IP for three years for personal reasons and then a year ago due to a last minute change of mind from sitting tenant who was leaving, but suddenly asked to stay, we decided to raise the rent on this house by $30 per week when the lease is due next month. That brings it to market rates, but if it was empty we would ask a little more in case we got lucky.
I notified the tenant that we would be increasing the rent by $30 per week, explained that this is the first raise in three years (she has been there two years) and let her know she could let me know if she wished to stay.
Got an email back a couple of days ago saying she and her housemates had discussed it, and decided they "would accept $25 extra".
I smiled to myself when I read it, hubby smiled too and said "stick to the increase".
She is a fantastic tenant, paying less than market due to circumstances that mean she was "in the right place at the right time" but her use of "we will accept" made me smile. Who is running this show?
We don't want to lose her, and risk having a week or two vacancy, but we are sticking to our guns. Bit cheeky!
That would be a counter offer. You should've replied saying "I accept your offer".
....but is it any wonder....???
The dominant party to the contract (the residential Tenant) doesn't see it as a business at all, usually for very good reasons.
- The costs pursuant to the Contract are not tax deductible for them. They must find the expense out of their "after tax income". Very unusual indeed, making the expense relatively more expensive for them.
- They have their personal lives wrapped up in it - literally.
- Their babies health can be affected / at risk. Forget any reasonable business common sense when that is chucked into the mix.
- The emotions of wife / family / memories get added to the cocktail.
- Whole Govt depts have been set up to assist one side of the Contract.
- Many Tenants I have come across either won't / haven't / or refuse to read what they are signing. They have absolutely no intention of either abiding by or even knowing what their obligations are. They wing it completely.
- Penalties for breaching the Contract are pitiful to say the least on side of the Contract, and so enforcement is lengthy, drawn out and always costs more for the other party.
- Most residential Tenants have never had any contractual experience, either entered into one, fulfilled one, or heaven forbid written one. They simply don't take the binding contract concept seriously, and don't feel obligated to abide by it.
Choosing to buy an asset that forces you to go into business with a person that exhibits this type of combination, or any part thereof, typically results in the multitude of questions / queries we see here on the forum every day.
Ah Dazz - I don't think it has anything to do with residential property investments in particular. The premise of this country is probably run under a similar framework. Perhaps the observation during the past few days will help.
Like past years, this Xmas we've seen a lot of patrons at various retail outlets and venues who come from demographics and areas that would otherwise never set foot on civilisation or, as I call it, the CBD.
I always find it creates a great vibe when these jolly ol' chaps come out with their families to take part in the joyous, festive spirit of Xmas and New Year's. But more often than not, they tend to neglect certain rules about civilisation and I suppose this has got to do with the fact that they haven't set foot on a civilisation for so many months.
A common example of things they tend to neglect is pay for their meal at a restaurant. The more honest ones will usually tell the venue operators that the meal was too expensive and therefore they are simply not going to pay for it. Nope, not a dime of it. The more understanding ones will sometimes tell you - after finishing the meal - that instead of paying $80 for the medium-rare grade 8 marble wagyu beef, they're going to pay $15, because that's what they think it's worth.
The more canny ones, though, will tell you that the meal was rather appalling, even though they had savoured every last droplet of sauce on the plate. And every now and then, you'd see some honest ones who have a bottle of Grange, only to tell you at the end of the meal, that they don't actually have any money. But they do take the courtesy to tell you that the wine was really tasty.
I guess I don't blame them. After all, when one walks in to a restaurant like Vue de Monde or Rockpool, one shouldn't expect the bill to be in excess of $300 for a family of say five. To charge something of that scale - for what is merely beef and squashed grades - would surely be un-Australian. After all, we should all aspire to give the man a fair go. Venue operators should always be grateful that A Current Affair hasn't been called up, which from my understanding is also a favourite pastime in these parts of town.
Does it sound like I'm having a go at these people? Of course not. Don't get me wrong at all. What they're doing is probably perfectly legal and warranted by the full force of the law. Because if you tried to call the police and told them somebody's just had a $600 meal and is refusing to pay because he didn't actually have any money in the first place nor ever intended to pay, the police will tell you there's nothing they can do.
So next time, try out one of those Darling Habour restaurants. And at the end of it, just kindly let the manager know that you don't intend to pay because you think it is expensive. If the manager tries to call the police, kindly inform him not to bother because the police will tell him there's nothing they can do. And if the manager tried to stop you by force, make sure you file an order for assault against him. Oh and threaten to call up A Current Affair and the local Health Department with a story about finding dead polar bear foetus or something of that sort in the beef, or wherever your imagination takes you. And don't worry, the courts will be behind you.
Like past years, this Xmas we've seen a lot of patrons at various retail outlets and venues who come from demographics and areas that would otherwise never set foot on civilisation or, as I call it, the CBD.
I always find it creates a great vibe when these jolly ol' chaps come out with their families to take part in the joyous, festive spirit of Xmas and New Year's. But more often than not, they tend to neglect certain rules about civilisation and I suppose this has got to do with the fact that they haven't set foot on a civilisation for so many months.
A common example of things they tend to neglect is pay for their meal at a restaurant. The more honest ones will usually tell the venue operators that the meal was too expensive and therefore they are simply not going to pay for it. Nope, not a dime of it. The more understanding ones will sometimes tell you - after finishing the meal - that instead of paying $80 for the medium-rare grade 8 marble wagyu beef, they're going to pay $15, because that's what they think it's worth.
The more canny ones, though, will tell you that the meal was rather appalling, even though they had savoured every last droplet of sauce on the plate. And every now and then, you'd see some honest ones who have a bottle of Grange, only to tell you at the end of the meal, that they don't actually have any money. But they do take the courtesy to tell you that the wine was really tasty.
I guess I don't blame them. After all, when one walks in to a restaurant like Vue de Monde or Rockpool, one shouldn't expect the bill to be in excess of $300 for a family of say five. To charge something of that scale - for what is merely beef and squashed grades - would surely be un-Australian. After all, we should all aspire to give the man a fair go. Venue operators should always be grateful that A Current Affair hasn't been called up, which from my understanding is also a favourite pastime in these parts of town.
Does it sound like I'm having a go at these people? Of course not. Don't get me wrong at all. What they're doing is probably perfectly legal and warranted by the full force of the law. Because if you tried to call the police and told them somebody's just had a $600 meal and is refusing to pay because he didn't actually have any money in the first place nor ever intended to pay, the police will tell you there's nothing they can do.
So next time, try out one of those Darling Habour restaurants. And at the end of it, just kindly let the manager know that you don't intend to pay because you think it is expensive. If the manager tries to call the police, kindly inform him not to bother because the police will tell him there's nothing they can do. And if the manager tried to stop you by force, make sure you file an order for assault against him. Oh and threaten to call up A Current Affair and the local Health Department with a story about finding dead polar bear foetus or something of that sort in the beef, or wherever your imagination takes you. And don't worry, the courts will be behind you.
The point was that most contractual frameworks involving "mums and dads" in society are designed to assist "one side of the Contract", as Dazz calls it, and that this is not reserved for residential property investors. I suppose it's only apparent to business people, which might be why it's not apparent at first glance.
After all, entering in to an retail shop or hospitality venue and purchasing clothes or ordering food is by law the formation of a contract, just as the signing of a lease agreement is.
After all, entering in to an retail shop or hospitality venue and purchasing clothes or ordering food is by law the formation of a contract, just as the signing of a lease agreement is.
Similar threads
