The state government has introduced its first tranche of tenancy law changes designed to further protect renters in the face of stubbornly low vacancy rates, rising rents and ongoing supply shortages.
As national debate about the ‘housing crisis’ rages on, becoming more political by the day, the frustrations of those impacted by housing affordability constraint continues to rise. Thankfully, everyone agrees that the lack of housing supply goes to the heart of the problem of housing affordability, yet there is yet to be substantive, needle-shifting policies from our state or federal governments that has meaningfully focused on this core issue. So far, we’ve seen a series of back-slapping fringe policies that are either promissory or tinker around the edges.
there’s no law against being a rude, vindictive narcissist
For example, the federal government’s promise of building 1.2 million new affordable homes by 2029 came off the back of protracted negotiations with the Greens over the Housing Australia Future Fund; a political promise that sets a wildly ambitious construction target. Housing approvals over the past five years reached about 925,000 boosted by the HomeBuilder grants of 2020/21. The trajectory for new approvals is troubling for adding supply having fallen back (down 9.5% in December) sharply as construction material costs continue to rise, up 32.5% since 2020. Add to this rising inflation elsewhere in the economy, poor productivity, NIMBYism, high property taxes, planning constraints, lack of building innovation, higher interest rates and falling employment, we’ll miss the 1.2 million home target by miles.
Meanwhile, our state government celebrates fringe policies such as the $5,000 landlord incentive for property owners who, after having their ‘extra’ property lay empty for six months, can claim the $5k for putting in a tenant. Our Treasurer reckons this could add an additional 1000 homes to the rental pool. Sorry, but anyone that can afford leave their investment property empty for six months, won’t be swayed by five grand.
Other government actions around housing included changes to the Residential Tenancy Laws, two of which came into effect this week. Firstly, there is now a ban on ‘rent bidding’. This effectively means landlords and property agents are banned from encouraging tenants to “pay extra” to secure a rental home. Nor can properties be advertised at a “from” weekly rent. The intention is sound but in response, initial asking rents will rise to account for the competition in the market. Tenants can still offer more than the asking rent if they choose to.
The second new law is referred to as the ‘retaliatory rule’ whereby a landlord cannot respond to reasonable requests from a tenant regarding property maintenance and other matters by not renewing the lease, for example. Some tenants can be unreasonable to deal with and there’s no law against being a rude, vindictive narcissist. It will be interesting to see how the new law deals with circumstances like this where the property owner seeks to not renew a lease on the grounds of their tenant being unreasonably difficult.
There is no quick fix to the housing crisis, but every effort to add supply to the housing stock in an affordable way must be the priority.
You might also be interested in
Jul 24, 2024
Pets Welcome
The second tranche of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act are to be activated on 29th July. There are four major reforms that will impact the way residential tenancies are conducted from that date. Firstly, rents can only be raised every twelve months, replacing the existing laws that enabled rent increases every six months. For existing periodic tenancies, the minimum 12-month period between rent increases will apply from 29th July regardless of when the lease agreement commenced. For fixed term leases signed prior to 29th July, the minimum 12 month increase period applies once the current fixed term ends. The second major change is tenants will be able to make minor modifications to their rental home without the consent of the owner. Importantly, permission must first be sought from the owner, but if the modification is minor and reasonable, the owner must allow it. Minor modifications include installing of picture hooks, shelving, tv brackets, blinds or curtains, flyscreens and the like. The tenant is required to make good any modifications at the end of the lease unless the owner agrees otherwise and there are some sensible limitations that apply. Thirdly, the Commissioner of Consumer Protection will be able to resolve disputes on matters relating to the next tranche of changes to the Act along with bond disputes, rather than the matter being lodged at the local court. The tenant or the owner can initiate the release of the bond from the Administrator from 29th July and if the dispute remains unresolved, the tenant or owner can apply to the local court thereafter. The final change taking affect from 29th July welcomes pets to tenancies. Tenants must still ask permission to keep a pet, but the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse. Landlords can object to the keeping of a pet at their property if the strata by-laws prevent it or can prove a ‘good reason’ such as health reasons (pet allergy if the owner wishes to move back into the property in future), insufficient fencing and the like. An additional bond is payable and reasonable conditions imposed such as mandating carpet cleaning at tenancy end. Most of these changes bring WA into line with other states and there may be some early challenges with their implementation, but overall, none of these reforms are likely to negatively impact housing supply, especially in a rising market. Property owners may have to deal with future issues that arise from the changes, particularly around the pet allowance and minor modifications as more costly damage to property may occur from these aspects Tenants will need to remain mindful of their underlying obligations to return their rental home to the owner in the condition in which they found it - aside from fair wear and tear.
Jul 16, 2024
Ethics and Real Estate
As a junior sales agent many years ago, I lost a listing to a competitor. The seller’s rationale surprised, telling me, “We really like you, Hayden, and the other guy makes my skin crawl, but we reckon he can get us the best price.” The idea there was a disconnect between being a good person and achieving the best market price was difficult to comprehend then as it is today. The Governance Institute of Australia undertakes an annual survey of Australian society’s perceptions of ethics across the major occupational sectors. Unsurprisingly, nurses, veterinarians, doctors, teachers, ambulance and fire services all rank in the top ten of ethical occupations. The bottom ten are made up of lawyers, politicians, senior executives and fund managers. Real estate agents appear third last with 46 percent of those surveyed suggesting we were ‘somewhat unethical or very unethical’. Real estate agents appear third last Surprisingly, the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining Energy Union ranked higher in ethical behaviour than real estate professional associations. Clearly, the community judge us and those that represent our interests relatively harshly. With such a poor ethical reputation, it is surprising that many real estate agencies survive as long-standing small businesses. It’s hard to imagine a local restaurant, retail shop or other cottage business that suffered such a poor reputation surviving very long. As a local real estate practitioner and employer, reputation is everything. Damage your reputation through misconduct in the market and word quickly spreads that you’re untrustworthy. Most local agents enjoy a solid reputation, attract repeat business and have serviced their communities for years. For example, a quick Google search of Fremantle’s top three real estate agencies boast 558 reviews at an average of 4.6 stars. And ask random folk about real estate agents and the reply is often, “they’re terrible, but mine’s great!”. So, why the disconnect between community perception and most users of real estate services? Its noteworthy that during peak COVID in 2020, the ethical standing of agents improved, a result of our sector’s management of rental moratoriums and tricky selling environment. Current market conditions where buyers and tenants are disadvantaged can lead to a perception that agents are acting unethically. I think it is our fiduciary responsibility to work in our client’s best interest that impacts community perceptions of agents’ ethical conduct. Being duty bound to achieve the highest possible rent or market price for a property in times where supply is tight and demand is high, impacts those on the buying and renting side. It follows that a buyer or tenant can feel ‘forced by the agent’ to pay more and that is perceived as unethical behaviour. Perception or reality, the work of real estate agents requires greater transparency. The community clearly expects more from us in how we conduct our business. Agents can find reasons and get defensive about it, but the reality is we need to do more in this space to win the hearts and minds of the communities we serve.