was just responding to the above posts (yes it was offtopic)
Why DON'T tenants pay water rates?
- Thread starter stevie_sloth
- Start date
was just responding to the above posts (yes it was offtopic)
rents increased in areas that had a very tight vacancy rate, in other areas they barely moved. it was such a short term removal that the full effects of removing NG were not revealed. i know of no evidence that a large portion of landlords sold their properties.
imo long term removal of NG would result in rental price increases and purchase price drops till an equilibrium was achieved where the difference between owning and renting would not be as large as we see it today.
edit - ops, sorry i've drifted even further off topic
I don't think you understood what I said - or I explained it badly
Only with a brand new tenant like now do I not bother to ask for reinbursement for the few weeks usage before the account issues that tallies with the period they actually were living there. This way I pay possibly $50 that I could charge the tenant. I don't have to scrabble about on the footpath, don't claim it as income, so it is not worh having to apportion use for that short time while the meter reading lags real time. I certainly don't pay anything more. Next bill gets passed on for all water usage to be paid by the tenant. I find the apportioning of that initial bill frustrating with three tiers of usage and am happy to forego $50 or so for that initial account only.
I've always just got the water corp to do a special reading as a tenant exits. Only costs something like $20 and I have always passed that charge to the tenant as I consider it a disconnection fee.
Given I've had tenants 60 day usage accounts range from about $80 to $350 there is no way I would let it slide. Pay for enough other things.
Given I've had tenants 60 day usage accounts range from about $80 to $350 there is no way I would let it slide. Pay for enough other things.
Sorry for continuing, but that is the situation in the UK. No ng but people still invest. It helps that property is also more affordable.
I just find it laughable that we moan about hoe hard it is in the most landlord friendly country.
But what do you do at the end of the tenancy? If they have used $200 and you haven't recieved a bill because it was so close to the last bill?
I do the same as the beginning, or I read the meter and charge.
It all depends on how much water they have been using. It would NEVER be $200 in Brisbane even for a full three months. Most water accounts fall between $50 and $80 for a full quarter. And it might only be a matter of weeks that I am paying depending on the dates involved.
I've tried to simplify this in the next post and would love to hear if I have this right.
It all depends on how much water they have been using. It would NEVER be $200 in Brisbane even for a full three months. Most water accounts fall between $50 and $80 for a full quarter. And it might only be a matter of weeks that I am paying depending on the dates involved.
I've tried to simplify this in the next post and would love to hear if I have this right.
Last edited:
I thought I would get out the latest account and just try to get my head around this stuff.
The water account is from 25/07/2011 reading 3830 to 28/10/2011 reading 3865
We didn't read the meter for the outgoing tenant as we were overseas and arrived home the day before they left. Reading the meter was low on our list of priorities so all water on this bill that arrived this week is from the outgoing tenant, and we chose not to charge him.
He also was very good in allowing access for appraisal and photos so we are happy to pay for his last water usage.
We read the meter for the ingoing tenant (3861928) and she started the lease on 6 October. Meter reading 28/10/2011 was 3865 so she used 3kL from entry date to the date on this notice, totalling 22 days.
Here is the bit that confuses me...
If I decide to charge her from the first day of her lease, do I work it on 22 days and round (up or down) the meter reading? Say I round it down to 3861 then she has used 3kL and is this what I charge her -
State Bulk Water Charge 3kL $5.36
Tier 1 Consumption 3kL $2.00
Clearly I wouldn't bother charging her $7 but the other way I could do it is to read the meter today (hubby forgot to do it today - but we could read it tomorrow) and I could charge her from 6 October to now, but we haven't actually been billed for that period.
So, I'm assuming I wait until the next account and she is liable for all water used on that bill. This is what I mean by taking each case as it comes, depending on dates.
We've only been able to charge usage for a year or two and I only have a couple of IPs to worry about. My brother looks after the houses for our father and he's explained this to me, but it does my head in.
So, assuming I am right in that the current bill (being nearly three months behind and which is a bill for water before she was even living there - except for 22 days) should be paid by the outgoing tenant (and we chose not to charge him).
The new tenant really doesn't get charged until the account reflects the time she was living there. If we read her meter today and charge her water usage from her start date until now, we are actually asking for money that we haven't been charged for by Urban Utilities.
This is why I don't bother with the first account. It really is confusing to me.
The water account is from 25/07/2011 reading 3830 to 28/10/2011 reading 3865
We didn't read the meter for the outgoing tenant as we were overseas and arrived home the day before they left. Reading the meter was low on our list of priorities so all water on this bill that arrived this week is from the outgoing tenant, and we chose not to charge him.
He also was very good in allowing access for appraisal and photos so we are happy to pay for his last water usage.
We read the meter for the ingoing tenant (3861928) and she started the lease on 6 October. Meter reading 28/10/2011 was 3865 so she used 3kL from entry date to the date on this notice, totalling 22 days.
Here is the bit that confuses me...
If I decide to charge her from the first day of her lease, do I work it on 22 days and round (up or down) the meter reading? Say I round it down to 3861 then she has used 3kL and is this what I charge her -
State Bulk Water Charge 3kL $5.36
Tier 1 Consumption 3kL $2.00
Clearly I wouldn't bother charging her $7 but the other way I could do it is to read the meter today (hubby forgot to do it today - but we could read it tomorrow) and I could charge her from 6 October to now, but we haven't actually been billed for that period.
So, I'm assuming I wait until the next account and she is liable for all water used on that bill. This is what I mean by taking each case as it comes, depending on dates.
We've only been able to charge usage for a year or two and I only have a couple of IPs to worry about. My brother looks after the houses for our father and he's explained this to me, but it does my head in.
So, assuming I am right in that the current bill (being nearly three months behind and which is a bill for water before she was even living there - except for 22 days) should be paid by the outgoing tenant (and we chose not to charge him).
The new tenant really doesn't get charged until the account reflects the time she was living there. If we read her meter today and charge her water usage from her start date until now, we are actually asking for money that we haven't been charged for by Urban Utilities.
This is why I don't bother with the first account. It really is confusing to me.
Generally Wylie, I take a meter reading when I do the outgoing & incoming inspections, that way you have it, it is on the report and no-one can argue about it. Whether you choose to bill them is then upto yourself. In NSW you have 3 months from the date of the bill, if you don't do it, you lose your right to claim.
Not sure about the UK and the efective yields there so can't comment, however I think you'll find most Residential Tenancy Acts and the authorities ministrating the rights of tenants here in Oz are skewed well in favour of the tenant not the landlord.
The investor (here in Australia) for the most part, runs an administrative and relatively financially efficient housing provision service for the government to not have to concern themselves with IMO. That's why yields are low and majority of resi property investors look to capital gains over the long term to make the endeavour worthwhile.
Also - bit easier when yields in London are around 5-7%:
http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/average_rental_yield.html
and interest rates start at sub 3%:
http://www.mortgages.co.uk/compare-rates/
I wouldn't say Australia is Landlord friendly. I assume you haven't read the tenancy act recently.
I do have to ask, Ideo, are you a potential property investor or a disgrunted tenant? You seem to have a "poor, downtrodden tenant" versus "greedy, rich landlord" attitude.
Even prior the low interest rates the UK property market was ok for investors. But Australia is still one of the most landlord friendly countries in the world.
As for your other question I have answered before. I rent in Sydney and own elsewhere. Apologies for taking a balanced position and not joining the all renters are scum bandwagon.
Because.......it's still hard for me (cause maybe I'm not very bright !), so I will resort to the national past time of compl,ianing and blaming everyone else
Bring it on (rental increases) 'cause I already bought...! Keeping for good so who cares about purchase cost's...?
Because.......it's still hard for me (cause maybe I'm not very bright !), so I will resort to the national past time of compl,ianing and blaming everyone else
And you do a fine job of it too jaycee...well done!!
