Water usage "one off" $80 rebate - tenant gets lucky, landlord doesn't...

[wylie]

Is anybody else annoyed that the $80 bulk water rebate offered to Queensland water account holders as a "one off" is taken off the tenant's usage?

Poor old landlord gets to pay the usual fixed access charges.

So one tenant gets to pay nothing at all but I still get to pay $190 in access charges. Great, and thanks a lot Campbell Newman... NOT!

 

[Propertunity]

This reminds me of an old saying: "I used to complain about having no shoes, until I met a man with no feet!"

wylie, you should be grateful that you are rich enough to own a few IPs, so we can complain about water bills

 

[wylie]

This reminds me of an old saying: "I used to complain about having no shoes, until I met a man with no feet!"

wylie, you should be grateful that you are rich enough to own a few IPs, so we can complain about water bills

Of course you are right, and that goes for every expense I have to pay, but it still annoys me that I cannot get a reduction for the fees I have to pay to allow my tenant to have the free water...

 

[Ausprop]

except a good way for a rich person to become poor is to buy neg geared properties at the wrong time of the cycle. I don't know what this rebate is but it does sound crazy applying it to a variable consumption charge

 

[rowena]

what water rebate? I havent heard of it, and couldnt find anything on it?

 

[wylie]

what water rebate? I havent heard of it, and couldnt find anything on it?

I read about in last weekend's paper, and then yesterday I received our water accounts for our own and our IPs. Each has a $80 rebate on the bulk water use.

The story in the paper was quoting Campbell Newman saying it was due to the wasted millions on some dam or other and was a "pay back" for the wastage by the previous government (so I'm guessing it is statewide and not just for Brisbane folk).

 

[mattysavager]

Everyone in the QLD Urban Utilites billing system has already received it on their bills that came last week.

It was accompanied by a 'letter' from Campbell Newman that claimed that the LNP State Government had delivered on its election promise to reduce the cost of water in QLD. Naturally the former Bligh government is at fault.

Personally I don't see an $80 handout to tenants as 'reducing the cost of water' - it's not really a long term solution is it?.

And yes, by law the $80 rebate must first be applied to the tenant-paid portion of the bill.

So a big 'thanks for nothing' to Newman from me.

 

[zepth]

Are you not still getting $80 back on your own water bill? I am guessing the point is to let each resident get an $80 rebate instead of some people getting nothing because they are tenants while some landlords would get multiple rebates otherwise.

 

[wylie]

Are you not still getting $80 back on your own water bill? I am guessing the point is to let each resident get an $80 rebate instead of some people getting nothing because they are tenants while some landlords would get multiple rebates otherwise.

I get it... but every account costs me $190 and the tenant cops just the actual water used (so multiple rebates would still see me paying $110 per property just to provide water for the tenant, hardly a free ride for landlords, even if it was a regular credit, which it is not.

Actual water used is always much cheaper than the cost of the distribution and retail charges, eg. account in front of me now... cost to me as landlord $190.11 and cost to tenant $90.50 for 44kL used, less $80.00 so their cost for this quarter is $10.50 but I still cop the full $190.11, lucky me! Another tenant used less than $80 so lucky me I get about $10 credit towards my $190 next quarter.

I just think when we pay so much just to "provide" the water that the credit should go to me .

Moaning will get me nowhere, but I do feel a little better now .

 

[The Fence]

Im not understanding something surely...?

In NSW we are charged water rates in two ways.
1) Service charge to provide water.
2) Usage based on amount flows thru the meter.

We can, as landlords, charge the tenant the Usage component,
but cannot pass on the service charge.
Fair enough.

So what is different about this in QLD apart from the Gov rebating the users their usage component...?

Cant rent a house without a water service can you...?

 

[mattysavager]

I think that the main sticking point with the water charges, is that the owner sees zero benefit from paying the water connection and sewerage charges.

I understand that as property investors, we can't expect the tenant to take on full responsibility for all costs. I am happy paying rates/land tax on my IP as I will eventually see the benefit of rising property/land value.

Water 'access charges' and water 'usage' charges are the same as electricity 'access charges' and electricity 'usage charges'; or gas 'access' and 'usage'.

Why does the owner pay 'access' for one but not the others?

The latter two are the responsibility of the tenant - so why should the supply of water be at the cost of the landlord.

Cant rent a house without a water service can you...?

We rent properties without electricity or gas service. The infrastructure is in place (electricity cables and gas pipes), but any usage and access is the tenant's cost to bear. I don't see water as being any different. If a tenant chooses to live without electricity, gas or water, that should be their choice.

(This argument can also be made for Strata/Body Corp Fees. Part of these fees is for insurance, and building essential maintenance - but the portion that pays for the pool, sauna and spa facilities should perhaps be the tenant's cost also - the owner doesn't benefit directly from the daily use of these services. Another argument for another day).

 

[marty998]

(This argument can also be made for Strata/Body Corp Fees. Part of these fees is for insurance, and building essential maintenance - but the portion that pays for the pool, sauna and spa facilities should perhaps be the tenant's cost also - the owner doesn't benefit directly from the daily use of these services. Another argument for another day).

These properties would rent for more than ones without pool/spa and gym no? So the tenant should be paying for it this way?

The rest of your post sounds entirely logical and well reasoned. Which is why it will never happen.

 

[mattysavager]

These properties would rent for more than ones without pool/spa and gym no? So the tenant should be paying for it this way?

They would, but the difference is generally marginal. We find that most people will compare 'new 2 bed units' and 'old 2 bed units' etc - and for many, the pool is a bonus/afterthought once they've worked out which property they like. You might get an extra $10pw for an identical unit with better facilities - but that $520 per year wouldn't cover the extra levies.

I find it's actually very rare that a tenant would decide to inspect based on whether the complex has a pool/spa/gym, and these questions only seem to crop up at the inspection, after they already decide they like the place.

 

[The Fence]

Why does the owner pay 'access' for one but not the others?


Another argument for another day).

Issues such as empty house come to mind. Electricity supply is charged to owner while vacant after a period.

Also withrates, same could be said for garbage, roads, sewer and the rest of the services council provide. Heck, why do we pay rates at all, that's the tenants total responsibility ?

Cue Daz....

 

[willair]

Personally I don't see an $80 handout to tenants as 'reducing the cost of water' - it's not really a long term solution is it?.

And yes, by law the $80 rebate must first be applied to the tenant-paid portion of the bill.
.

Urban Utilities accounts can come in over a three week period depending on how many you control and the post code, and going back through all the water and sewerage accounts that are in our names, i can't find anything about the 80 bucks rebate in this quarterey accounts paperwork,does anyone have a link to this on the urban utilities site?..

 

[Angel]

I could never work out what you guys are referring to when quoting $180 a quarter for water access so I went and got out my account. I forgot we are on different suppliers.

Up north in a parallel universe to the real Brisbane, our water supplier is Unity Water. We have two access charges, water and sewerage. Water is $78 and sewerage $170. Is your $180 for both or just water?

My usage is charged at $2.192 per kL from State Govt Bulk Water Charge and $0.176 per kL by Unity water.

Would anyone mind comparing these prices for me please?

 

[willair]

Just found the $80.00 on the 2nd page of the accounts statements from urban utilities it's under the state bulk water price,there is a $80.00 rebate on every one..for Brisbane..

 

[rowena]

ok.. still havent gotten mine yet.. so taah for the info!

 

[ShellTee]

Interesting

Glad I read this thread. I had no idea that the tenant go the benefit of the $80.

I got the rates with the water charges and rebate for IP and PPOR last week.

So in my situation - the current tenant moved in on 2 January 2013. Surely they are not entitled to the $80 rebate???

I cant apply it to the previous tenant, they are gone (with debts owing to me).

I dont actually have the account in front of me right now. Does it relate to a specific consumption period? If so can someone please advise?

Do you think I can keep it?

 

[mattysavager]

Do you think I can keep it?

The $80 would have to be reduced from the tenant's water bill in the same proportion that it was charged on that bill. Technically this water bill was up to end of October last year roughly.

As your tenants have vacated, and owe you money - do nothing. Just pay the access charges etc this time - and then charge the new tenants the water usage portion of the next bill.