Would you Join a Residential Landlord Association?

[JoannaK]

Following on from this thread, http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35037 , I'm curious to know if you, as a professional landlord, would join an Association that was established solely for the benefit of residential landlords?

Let's assume that the Association would be a national organisation, with State chapters.

To use the words of the Property Council of Australia, the Association would champion the interests of Residential Property Owners. It would assist with lobbying at a state and federal level, provide a singular voice representing residential landlords in legislative matters, procedural matters and the like.

I'd also be interested to know how much you would pay for such a membership, and what you would expect from a membership of such an Association.

 

[Harris]

Following on from a previous thread, I'm curious to know if you, as a professional landlord, would join an Association that was established solely for the benefit of residential landlords?

Let's assume that the Association would be a national organisation, with State chapters.

To use the words of the Property Council of Australia, the Association would champion the interests of Residential Property Owners. It would assist with lobbying at a state and federal level, provide a singular voice representing residential landlords in legislative matters, procedural matters and the like.

I'd also be interested to know how much you would pay for such a membership, and what you would expect from a membership of such an Association.

great suggestion Jo

Happy to pay as much as can be required for the associatiuon to function well.

Payment model would be an interesting one - since a landlord with 1 IP would expect to pay less than one with 30 IP's. Perhaps fee based on each IP or $ prop value (which might be a bit tricky again)..?

Brilliant idea - Lets get it working

Harris

 

[steveadl]

I'd join. Would be nice to have a body contributing our side of the story, especially with some of the schemes being thrown up at the moment.

As far as fees go, I believe it would depend on whether or not the organisation believes it can get critical mass or not? To get this I would say you'd need to keep the fees fairly reasonable eg. $100pa? Not sure if you'd use a sliding scale the more IP's they have eg. $100pa then $20 for each IP above 1? Whatever it is, it would be tax dedcutible so that makes it better.

 

[Glucose]

This is a great idea. We need some representation.
I'd be happy to pay a fee. The retailers association that I belong to costs me about $250 a year, which I consider reasonable for the help they give in all sorts of situations. The fee works on a sliding scale according to how many employees you have.
So perhaps $150 - $200 pa plus $20 for each IP would be a fair idea.

 

[JoannaK]

well, the Property Council of Australia fee model is based on $value of property owned, and has about 8 different value bands.

Let's assume that membership fees would be based on number of properties owned...that would be fair I think.

The Property Council also has Associate Members, which is cheaper, which are people associated with the industry but not direct owners of property, so that would be another avenue of membership I guess.

Personally, I would pay $200 base membership plus maybe $50 per property...but that's just me.

 

[JoannaK]

To those who have voted, would you please let me know the reasons for your vote (PM me if you don't wish to have your reasons noted in the thread).

That will enable to me have good discussion with PCA about this issue.

 

[MichaelW]

Hi Joanna,

I was one of the "Yes" votes. And I'd probably be willing to pay an annual fee similar to the one you suggested with a base and sliding increment based on how much you own.

I read that other thread and agreed that landlords, or residential property owners who tennant their property out, are under-represented in most industry reviews. I'm thinking specifically about the housing affordability debate and what sort of levers might be considered. I think that debate has moved to "keeping the cost down" instead of "keeping the mortgage repayments down" for would-be FHBs. I actually believe that debate should focus on the repayment side of things as opposed to the actual gross price paid which is largely irrelevant.

My concern is that the focus will drive residential property prices down which will have an adverse effect on landlords as well as on the economy as a whole. I believe the group will be smart enough to realise this, but a voice from the landlords association would help make sure that point is made. At the moment that body is largely represented by those concerned about the lower socio-economic portion of society and as such might not consider society as a whole when making recommendations. I believe the affordable housing outcome can be delivered by accommodating the needs of the lower socio-economic demographic, would-be FHBs and existing landlords/investors, but to do so needs some landlord representation.

Cheers,
Michael.

 

[gooram]

I voted no... not again anyway

I joined one for 12 months after buying our first IP. Apart from getting a wad of forms for everything you could need, from application forms to bond lodgement forms to rental increase template letters (which I still find useful by the way), I didn't use the service at all.

The Department of Consumer and Employment protection provides all the necessary forms for download, and will provide advice on legislation for tennants and landlords. So I use them instead, because they are free.

 

[JoannaK]

Hi Gooram,

thanks for voting. I'm curious which body you joined when you bought your IP...

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

If the association actually did something useful, I'd be happy to join.

I'd suggest a membership fee of 0.1% of the rent, paid directly by the managing agent. This would work out to a few dollars per month per property. Most of the associations mandate would be funded this way but additional specific services could be provided on a fee for service basis (eg. private landlords who want representation at tribunal).

If it were backed by the managing agents, funding for such an association would be no problem at all as most landlords would be represented almost immediately.

 

[letiha]

I think it would also be useful for landlords who had issues with property management.

I'd figure funds could be raised by having managing agents advertise on a webpage or other type of media (newsletter etc.)

I would be happy to not only join but take an active role.

 

[twobobsworth]

I voted no. What's the point. From past posts we already know most on this forum and property investing generally have a Liberal bias. The pollies know this, won't change how they approach things with or without lobbying.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

I'd suggest a membership fee of 0.1% of the rent, paid directly by the managing agent.

Although I voted no, I reckon this is a good fee structure. Basing the fees on how many properties are owned doesn't take into account the reality very accurately I reckon.

For example, you might have one person who owns 1 I.P. worth 200K rented at $200 p.w. and another person might have one valued at 1 mill getting $1,000 p.w. yet they are paying the same amount in fees. Peter's idea works out to be fairer I feel.

Mark

 

[lizzie]

i voted yes because i think representation and a governing body would be a good thing - but i think the poll might be skewed on ss because we are obviously investors that are happy to share and discuss our ip's - i fear a large majority of the investors would like to keep a low profile and couldn't be bothered.

 

[gooram]

Hi Gooram,

thanks for voting. I'm curious which body you joined when you bought your IP...

It was the the Landlords Advisory Service in Perth. (http://www.landlordsadvisory.com.au/)

Not exactly an action group, but just a service to help private landlords with management.

 

[JoannaK]

I voted no. What's the point. From past posts we already know most on this forum and property investing generally have a Liberal bias. The pollies know this, won't change how they approach things with or without lobbying.

Using the PCA as a base model, they are an apolitical voice, and engage very well with both sides of politics. The PCA has only been around for 10 years (don't quote me - i can't remember where I read this), and in that time has managed to develop some serious clout, with their opinion being heard, and in alot of cases, invited on a variety of matters property connected, from both sides of politics.

 

[Glucose]

I'd suggest a membership fee of 0.1% of the rent, paid directly by the managing agent. .

And what about those landlords who self-manage?
Also this system would create a lot more paperwork and trouble. Anyway why should the landlord of one $1mil property rented at $1000pw pay more membership fee than the landlord of one $200000 property rented at $200pw. The latter is possible more likely to have issues relating to tenants that he/she needs help with from the "landlords assoc".
I wouldn't be interested in joining an assoc with fees based on value of property or rental received.

 

[Superstitionist]

I can't decide just yet until I know what services are available...

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

And what about those landlords who self-manage?
Also this system would create a lot more paperwork and trouble. Anyway why should the landlord of one $1mil property rented at $1000pw pay more membership fee than the landlord of one $200000 property rented at $200pw. The latter is possible more likely to have issues relating to tenants that he/she needs help with from the "landlords assoc".
I wouldn't be interested in joining an assoc with fees based on value of property or rental received.

If it were a lobbying group, the landlord owning the $1M property is probably going to get greater benefit from the association. The paperwork for real estate agents to manage this would be negligible if they already have decent systems in place.

The other way is to simply make it a flat fee per member, but I think $100 pa is a bit steep. If it's a nominal fee, you're more likely to get more members. $1 per month for every privately owned IP in the country is a lot of money.

 

[poppy]

I said yes but I would only be willing to pay a fee if they offered some useful information or service to me and/or were actively making changes that benefited me.