Dethridge Groves Real Estate
Fremantle's Preferred Agent Since 1979
Welcome To DGRE
With over 45 years of service to the greater Fremantle community, Dethridge Groves Real Estate is your local expert in real estate sales and property management. Three-time REIWA award-winners in marketing and communications, dgre has an expert team of real estate selling agents and property managers, led by former REIWA President Hayden Groves. dgre is your preferred, trusted real estate partner, having sold and managed more homes in and around Fremantle than any other agency. Contact us today for your free market appraisal, property management services, market analysis and general real estate advice from the community’s leading agency.
Properties we think you'll love
Your Team
Principal & Director
General Manager / Sales Executive
Sales Executive
Sales Executive
Sales Executive
Sales Executive
Sales Executive
Sales Executive
Sales Executive
Business Development Manager
Leasing Manager
Sales Associate & Buyer Manager to Michael Harries
Property Manager
Property Manager
Residential & Commercial Property Manager
Inspections Manager
Client Communications Coordinator
Marketing Manager
Executive Assistant to Hayden Groves
Marketing Manager
Latest News
Oct 17, 2024
Blame Me
Several years ago, local real estate agent (now retired) Peter Sim, boldly ran full page advertisements in the local press headed, “Blame Me.” Why Peter was standing in his suit up to his ankles in the Swan River, I’m not sure, but the message was on point; an agent acting for a client (the Principal) must take responsibility even when things go wrong. As an agent working in a community, acting in the best interests of the seller often puts you at odds with the buyer who, depending on their buying experience may call on you when it is time to sell in the future. There is, therefore, a natural tendency for agents to discharge their responsibilities in a more neutral, conciliatory way to the extent it can become unclear if the agent is working for the buyer or the seller. This attempted neutrality is even being promoted by some agents with some proudly proclaiming they get the “best outcome for buyers and sellers” in their advertising materials. the seller has a responsibility limited to the contract Transacting in real estate has evolved and now demands greater transparency from sellers when offering property for sale. Some legal practitioners have commented that the entire concept of caveat emptor (buyer beware) has all but gone from the process. This is a concern because a buyer has less responsibility to satisfy themselves about key details about the property before they buy. Nowadays, many buyers are surprised that the seller has a responsibility limited to the contract upon settlement; for example, the seller is not obliged to professionally clean the property when they leave it unless specified. The erosion of caveat emptor makes it more difficult for agents to be clear which side of the fence they sit. For example, should an agent prompt a buyer to include certain contractual provisions in a sales contract that protects a buyer’s interest such as a building inspection clause? One argument is that it is not the agents’ role to suggest the buyer includes any conditions at all. The law says that the agent must act in the best interests of their Principal (almost always the seller) and ‘be fair’ to the buyer. Yet, some agents have pre-printed offer and acceptance contracts that predict their sellers will happily provide warranties outside their normal contractual obligations. Usefully, such initiatives clear up many a small argument before settlement as to who is responsible to fix, for example, a wobbly ceiling fan, but does this discharge the agents’ responsibility to act in the sellers’ interest? Perhaps not. Sellers should spread their risk by thoroughly informing their agent about their property before hitting the market, buyers should take responsibility in finding out all they can about a property and agents need to remember who pays their commission. ...
Oct 17, 2024
Sorry, Disconnected
Sometimes, governments make decisions that have unintended consequences that impact the practical ways certain industries work. Canberra’s latest effort to over-regulate comes in the form of changes to the Fair Work Act that formalise an employee’s ‘right to disconnect’. The legislation came into effect on 26th August. The changes effectively mean an employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact from an employer outside of the employee’s normal working hours. As an employer, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an employee to ignore my phone call after hours, and unless it was a serious emergency, I wouldn’t be calling them after hours anyway. But do we really need to make a law for it? For the real estate industry, the implications could be significant. The business of real estate – sales or property management – doesn’t happen during usual business hours. The laws extend to an employee (sales representative or property manager) refusing to monitor, read or respond to contact from a third party if the contact relates to their work. This includes contact from vendors, tenants, buyers and landlords. after losing their keys at 6 pm can now expect no reply The obvious issues for national companies operating in Western Australia have been neatly overlooked by east coasters with the 3-hour time difference in summer and could mean an effective workday starting in midday in Melbourne and Sydney and ending here two hours later. The changes could result in lost business if employees refuse to take urgent calls on a critical matter, such as a live sale negotiation. And what about a matter concerning safety at a property where property or person is at risk where a worker is required to manage such emergencies? For example, a tenant, needing assistance to get into their home after losing their keys at 6 pm can now expect no reply from their property manager. A vendor, - in theory - wanting to know how Saturday’s home open went, can’t demand a response from their sales agent until Monday morning. Most real estate employees will ignore the new laws and carry-on providing service to their clients, tenants and buyers outside normal working hours. It won’t be until something goes wrong with the employer / employee relationship that issues might arise. Employers could find themselves in strife with the Fair Work Commission if a disgruntled employee seeking easy money claims they were expected to work outside normal business hours without the right to disconnect. Employees working from home further muddies the water given these arrangements enable a degree of flexibility that transcends normal work hours anyway. Time will tell what impacts come from these laws that seem to be an answer to a question no one ever really asked....
Oct 17, 2024
Has Market Peaked?
Data gurus, CoreLogic released their September quarter Home Value Index report earlier this week finding that whilst national house prices continue to rise, the rate of growth is beginning to slow. Perth is now leading the nation for house price gains returning 1.6 percent growth in September, 4.7 percent for the quarter and a whopping 24.1 percent over the past twelve months. In comparison, the east coast cities of Hobart, Canberra and Melbourne all went backwards last quarter with Melbourne leading the retreat by 1.1 percent. Annually, house prices in Melbourne have shrunk 1.4 percent. Sydney’s house prices continue to grow, albeit at an anaemic rate, up 0.5 percent last quarter and 4.5 percent for the year. Adelaide is running second behind Perth annually, expanding its dwelling price by 14.8 percent to sit at a median of $802,075. As at 30 September, Perth’s median dwelling value was $791,184, nudging ahead of Melbourne $777,390, but still behind Brisbane ($881,091) and Canberra ($844,882). Sydney remains the most expensive capital with its latest dwelling value at $1,188,912. not yet at the peak of this cycle The slowing rate of growth for the Perth market has prompted some commentators to deduce that our market is nearing its peak. The data shows the pace of gains has slowed, down from the 6.2 percent gains for the June quarter and 5.6 percent for the March quarter. However, contextually, gains of around 5 percent for any quarter are significant and unsustainable longer term. Market prices cannot sustain growth of 20-plus percent annually for very long. Our local property market is still catching up on our ‘lost decade’ of flaccid price gains for the period 2010 to 2020. I anticipate local prices will reach a median of $875,000 before stabilising in that mid to high $800,000 range. By then (perhaps in a year or so), Perth’s median dwelling value should be in the top three in Australia, behind Sydney, Canberra and on-par with Brisbane. Meanwhile, stock levels are beginning to rise. The flow of listings to market is increasing, tracking 3.2 percent higher than a year ago nationally. Locally, supply has begun to creep forward with reiwa.com reporting 4,054 property listings this week – up from 3,637 properties listed four weeks earlier. Fremantle’s median house price should continue to increase over the next 12 months albeit at a slowing pace. Growth of 8 to 12 percent over the next four quarters is anticipated with a median house price of around $1,320,000 as at September 2025, up from its current $1,200,000 median. The slowing of market price gains can be attributed to deteriorating housing affordability. Slack economic growth, high inflation, cost-of-living pressures, borrowing costs and flat wages feed into slowing house price growth. Property priced in the lower quartiles have gained 12.4 percent over the past twelve months nationally, compared to a 3.8 percent gain for higher valued homes. Market indicators demonstrate Perth’s property market is in its early stages of stabilising. Median rents have not changed in three months, stock levels are on the rise and value gains are slowing. We are not yet at the peak of this cycle and there’s no evidence to suggest prices will fall in any meaningful way once the price summit is reached....
Oct 17, 2024
Negative Gear Selected
Here we go again. This week the Prime Minister prevaricated when questioned about re-introducing changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax (CGT). The media was quick to react, mindful that this is a white-hot political topic super-charged by the current hyperbole over Australia’s housing challenges. On one side, those that would seek to abolish or change negative gearing or CGT such as the Greens and left-thinking economists point to the cost to government, potential revenue lost through tax concessions and (by discouraging investors) lowering house prices making it more affordable for first home buyers. These are admirable pursuits but not without challenge. Rewind to 2019 election campaign when the then would-be treasurer, Chris Bowen said, “Don’t worry if your property value falls,” when quizzed about Labor’s tax policies. I cannot imagine how the electorate could possibly think they’d be okay with this idea given household consumption makes up about 45 per cent of the economy and if housing values fall, so does their spending and so does, therefore, the economy. Bowen’s comment was telling as was the PM’s prevarications this week because property investors are considered aspirational and therefore fair game for Labor’s efforts to appeal to Greens voters. If Bowen had said, “Don’t worry if your rent goes up,” he’d have been in trouble, but the truth is that both comments are the same. Abolish negative gearing on established homes and prices will fall and rents will rise Any plan to mess with the current negative gearing provisions is fraught because it is deeply entrenched (it’s been part of our tax system for more than 100 years) and therefore interlinked with our vast and complex tax system. Tinkering with one part of it inevitably impacts on others. What about losses incurred across other asset classes such as businesses or shares? Any wind back to existing rules would mean existing investor-grade housing stock would be ignored as an investment option rendering them unsaleable whilst putting pressure on the supply of rental properties. I predict that owners of investor grade stock would lose a quarter of their value immediately and it will take more than a decade for prices to recover. If there was a plan to grandfather the rules, investors holding existing homes will simply not sell putting pressure on supply in established areas forcing tenants to outlying areas away from the developed parts of our cities encouraging urban sprawl. The States would have much to lose too as it will be them and their taxpayers that will need to come to the aid of those no longer able to afford the rent and provide them housing in a system already short on supply and resources. About 80 percent of investment properties are owned by mum and dad types who only have one investment property. They are the champions of delivering affordable rental homes to millions of Australians. Governments have failed to deliver enough houses for a variety of reasons and there is little chance they’ll get close to delivering the promised 1.2 million homes by 2029. With fewer everyday investors, rents rise and if government can’t provide the housing, why discourage those that can?...
Oct 17, 2024
Blame Me
Several years ago, local real estate agent (now retired) Peter Sim, boldly ran full page advertisements in the local press headed, “Blame Me.” Why Peter was standing in his suit up to his ankles in the Swan River, I’m not sure, but the message was on point; an agent acting for a client (the Principal) must take responsibility even when things go wrong. As an agent working in a community, acting in the best interests of the seller often puts you at odds with the buyer who, depending on their buying experience may call on you when it is time to sell in the future. There is, therefore, a natural tendency for agents to discharge their responsibilities in a more neutral, conciliatory way to the extent it can become unclear if the agent is working for the buyer or the seller. This attempted neutrality is even being promoted by some agents with some proudly proclaiming they get the “best outcome for buyers and sellers” in their advertising materials. the seller has a responsibility limited to the contract Transacting in real estate has evolved and now demands greater transparency from sellers when offering property for sale. Some legal practitioners have commented that the entire concept of caveat emptor (buyer beware) has all but gone from the process. This is a concern because a buyer has less responsibility to satisfy themselves about key details about the property before they buy. Nowadays, many buyers are surprised that the seller has a responsibility limited to the contract upon settlement; for example, the seller is not obliged to professionally clean the property when they leave it unless specified. The erosion of caveat emptor makes it more difficult for agents to be clear which side of the fence they sit. For example, should an agent prompt a buyer to include certain contractual provisions in a sales contract that protects a buyer’s interest such as a building inspection clause? One argument is that it is not the agents’ role to suggest the buyer includes any conditions at all. The law says that the agent must act in the best interests of their Principal (almost always the seller) and ‘be fair’ to the buyer. Yet, some agents have pre-printed offer and acceptance contracts that predict their sellers will happily provide warranties outside their normal contractual obligations. Usefully, such initiatives clear up many a small argument before settlement as to who is responsible to fix, for example, a wobbly ceiling fan, but does this discharge the agents’ responsibility to act in the sellers’ interest? Perhaps not. Sellers should spread their risk by thoroughly informing their agent about their property before hitting the market, buyers should take responsibility in finding out all they can about a property and agents need to remember who pays their commission. ...
Oct 17, 2024
Sorry, Disconnected
Sometimes, governments make decisions that have unintended consequences that impact the practical ways certain industries work. Canberra’s latest effort to over-regulate comes in the form of changes to the Fair Work Act that formalise an employee’s ‘right to disconnect’. The legislation came into effect on 26th August. The changes effectively mean an employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact from an employer outside of the employee’s normal working hours. As an employer, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an employee to ignore my phone call after hours, and unless it was a serious emergency, I wouldn’t be calling them after hours anyway. But do we really need to make a law for it? For the real estate industry, the implications could be significant. The business of real estate – sales or property management – doesn’t happen during usual business hours. The laws extend to an employee (sales representative or property manager) refusing to monitor, read or respond to contact from a third party if the contact relates to their work. This includes contact from vendors, tenants, buyers and landlords. after losing their keys at 6 pm can now expect no reply The obvious issues for national companies operating in Western Australia have been neatly overlooked by east coasters with the 3-hour time difference in summer and could mean an effective workday starting in midday in Melbourne and Sydney and ending here two hours later. The changes could result in lost business if employees refuse to take urgent calls on a critical matter, such as a live sale negotiation. And what about a matter concerning safety at a property where property or person is at risk where a worker is required to manage such emergencies? For example, a tenant, needing assistance to get into their home after losing their keys at 6 pm can now expect no reply from their property manager. A vendor, - in theory - wanting to know how Saturday’s home open went, can’t demand a response from their sales agent until Monday morning. Most real estate employees will ignore the new laws and carry-on providing service to their clients, tenants and buyers outside normal working hours. It won’t be until something goes wrong with the employer / employee relationship that issues might arise. Employers could find themselves in strife with the Fair Work Commission if a disgruntled employee seeking easy money claims they were expected to work outside normal business hours without the right to disconnect. Employees working from home further muddies the water given these arrangements enable a degree of flexibility that transcends normal work hours anyway. Time will tell what impacts come from these laws that seem to be an answer to a question no one ever really asked....
Oct 17, 2024
Has Market Peaked?
Data gurus, CoreLogic released their September quarter Home Value Index report earlier this week finding that whilst national house prices continue to rise, the rate of growth is beginning to slow. Perth is now leading the nation for house price gains returning 1.6 percent growth in September, 4.7 percent for the quarter and a whopping 24.1 percent over the past twelve months. In comparison, the east coast cities of Hobart, Canberra and Melbourne all went backwards last quarter with Melbourne leading the retreat by 1.1 percent. Annually, house prices in Melbourne have shrunk 1.4 percent. Sydney’s house prices continue to grow, albeit at an anaemic rate, up 0.5 percent last quarter and 4.5 percent for the year. Adelaide is running second behind Perth annually, expanding its dwelling price by 14.8 percent to sit at a median of $802,075. As at 30 September, Perth’s median dwelling value was $791,184, nudging ahead of Melbourne $777,390, but still behind Brisbane ($881,091) and Canberra ($844,882). Sydney remains the most expensive capital with its latest dwelling value at $1,188,912. not yet at the peak of this cycle The slowing rate of growth for the Perth market has prompted some commentators to deduce that our market is nearing its peak. The data shows the pace of gains has slowed, down from the 6.2 percent gains for the June quarter and 5.6 percent for the March quarter. However, contextually, gains of around 5 percent for any quarter are significant and unsustainable longer term. Market prices cannot sustain growth of 20-plus percent annually for very long. Our local property market is still catching up on our ‘lost decade’ of flaccid price gains for the period 2010 to 2020. I anticipate local prices will reach a median of $875,000 before stabilising in that mid to high $800,000 range. By then (perhaps in a year or so), Perth’s median dwelling value should be in the top three in Australia, behind Sydney, Canberra and on-par with Brisbane. Meanwhile, stock levels are beginning to rise. The flow of listings to market is increasing, tracking 3.2 percent higher than a year ago nationally. Locally, supply has begun to creep forward with reiwa.com reporting 4,054 property listings this week – up from 3,637 properties listed four weeks earlier. Fremantle’s median house price should continue to increase over the next 12 months albeit at a slowing pace. Growth of 8 to 12 percent over the next four quarters is anticipated with a median house price of around $1,320,000 as at September 2025, up from its current $1,200,000 median. The slowing of market price gains can be attributed to deteriorating housing affordability. Slack economic growth, high inflation, cost-of-living pressures, borrowing costs and flat wages feed into slowing house price growth. Property priced in the lower quartiles have gained 12.4 percent over the past twelve months nationally, compared to a 3.8 percent gain for higher valued homes. Market indicators demonstrate Perth’s property market is in its early stages of stabilising. Median rents have not changed in three months, stock levels are on the rise and value gains are slowing. We are not yet at the peak of this cycle and there’s no evidence to suggest prices will fall in any meaningful way once the price summit is reached....
Oct 17, 2024
Negative Gear Selected
Here we go again. This week the Prime Minister prevaricated when questioned about re-introducing changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax (CGT). The media was quick to react, mindful that this is a white-hot political topic super-charged by the current hyperbole over Australia’s housing challenges. On one side, those that would seek to abolish or change negative gearing or CGT such as the Greens and left-thinking economists point to the cost to government, potential revenue lost through tax concessions and (by discouraging investors) lowering house prices making it more affordable for first home buyers. These are admirable pursuits but not without challenge. Rewind to 2019 election campaign when the then would-be treasurer, Chris Bowen said, “Don’t worry if your property value falls,” when quizzed about Labor’s tax policies. I cannot imagine how the electorate could possibly think they’d be okay with this idea given household consumption makes up about 45 per cent of the economy and if housing values fall, so does their spending and so does, therefore, the economy. Bowen’s comment was telling as was the PM’s prevarications this week because property investors are considered aspirational and therefore fair game for Labor’s efforts to appeal to Greens voters. If Bowen had said, “Don’t worry if your rent goes up,” he’d have been in trouble, but the truth is that both comments are the same. Abolish negative gearing on established homes and prices will fall and rents will rise Any plan to mess with the current negative gearing provisions is fraught because it is deeply entrenched (it’s been part of our tax system for more than 100 years) and therefore interlinked with our vast and complex tax system. Tinkering with one part of it inevitably impacts on others. What about losses incurred across other asset classes such as businesses or shares? Any wind back to existing rules would mean existing investor-grade housing stock would be ignored as an investment option rendering them unsaleable whilst putting pressure on the supply of rental properties. I predict that owners of investor grade stock would lose a quarter of their value immediately and it will take more than a decade for prices to recover. If there was a plan to grandfather the rules, investors holding existing homes will simply not sell putting pressure on supply in established areas forcing tenants to outlying areas away from the developed parts of our cities encouraging urban sprawl. The States would have much to lose too as it will be them and their taxpayers that will need to come to the aid of those no longer able to afford the rent and provide them housing in a system already short on supply and resources. About 80 percent of investment properties are owned by mum and dad types who only have one investment property. They are the champions of delivering affordable rental homes to millions of Australians. Governments have failed to deliver enough houses for a variety of reasons and there is little chance they’ll get close to delivering the promised 1.2 million homes by 2029. With fewer everyday investors, rents rise and if government can’t provide the housing, why discourage those that can?...
