Articles
- Show all categories
- Uncategorized
- Buying
- Fremantle Real Estate
- Hayden Groves
- Investment
- Real Estate
- Property Prices
- Selling
- Property Management
- Housing Crisis
- REIA
- Renting
- Renting
- Auction
- Community Reinvest
- In The Community
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.
Jun 25, 2024
Use a REIWA Property Manager
Property management is more about managing the tenancy than it is about managing the property. The property manager’s primary role is managing the tenancy agreement as expressed by the terms of a lease and regulated by the Residential Tenancies Act. The property manager can only inspect the property on four occasions per year on behalf of the owner, so it is important that the tenant understands that it is them as the occupant, that effectively manages the property itself. For tenancies longer than three months, the Residential Tenancies Act (the ‘Act’) applies automatically (whether there is a formal lease or not) and it is foolhardy not to utilise the services of a competent property manager for a property asset, particularly during times of short supply and high demand. Management fees are not exorbitant and are tax deductible. And for the sake of saving a relatively small portion of the rental income in management fees, the risks of self-management are significant. A sound working knowledge of ever evolving legislation is essential, as is the capacity to properly reference check a prospective tenant. But, perhaps most importantly, much of the risk and responsibility attached to the management process is borne by the managing agent, giving property owners someone to rely on if the tenancy goes wrong. Even thoroughly assessed tenancies go off the rails on occasion due to a change in circumstances of the occupants; job loss, relationship failure and health issues are common reasons. A professional, well trained local agent is equipped to deal with this challenging issues when they arise. Finding the right tenant can be tricky too. Prospective tenants almost exclusively rely on the internet to find themselves a property, so owners without access to the favoured websites will find it difficult to attract the right tenant in the first place. There is great value in having a property manager act at ‘arm’s length’. Many a self-managing landlord has fallen into the trap of sympathising with their defaulting tenant and allowing rent arrears to build up over time hoping that they’ll “make good”. Acting at arm’s length affords the property manager a compassionate ‘just business’ approach to rent payments and the lease agreement more broadly. This is particularly important in these times of rising rents and inflationary pressures. Self-management often works well and for extended periods, but when a tenancy goes wrong, it is costly and stressful and it has been my experience that with all things considered, it is not worth the risk.
May 29, 2024
New Laws Arrive
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.
May 10, 2024
More Edge Tinkering
The Cook government is trying to rebalance Western Australia’s rental market. There has been a flurry of affordable housing-related policy announcements recently to address surging rents and low vacancies. REIWA assesses Perth’s vacancy rate at 0.6 percent, a long way from a market parity 3.5 percent. The latest announcement aims to encourage property owners to convert their vacant homes into long-term rentals by offering a one-off $5,000 payment. Sorry to be cynical, but a property owner who can afford to leave their property vacant (Granny / Fonzie flats or vacant rooms are ineligible) for a period of longer than six months, doesn’t need a lazy $5,000 to convince them to lease it. The policy comes off the back of the recent Short Term Rental Accommodation (STRA) Incentive Scheme, which encouraged owners to convert their property from the short to long term market with a $10,000 payment. So far, 150 properties have converted their properties into the long-term market or a minute 0.05 percent of rented properties across WA. In announcing the latest policy, Premier Cook acknowledges the “significant demand for housing” and has committed to “leaving no stone unturned in our work to boost supply of homes.” Responsible Ministers shared the limelight with Treasurer Saffioti suggesting, “This initiative has the potential to bring up to 1,000 properties back onto the rental market.” Commerce Minister Ellery reckoned the STRA Incentive Scheme has been “a success” and Minister Carey (Planning and Housing) reflected on his government “continuing to think outside the box…to boost housing supply.” To give credit where credit is due, at least the government is doing something and, in this market, something is better than nothing. Unsophisticated private investors – ordinary West Australians – supply 27 percent of all homes to tenants, about 264,000 properties. Government supply about 3 percent. In this time of greatest need, with supply of rental homes at severe lows, these recent housing policies that seek to encourage the investor cohort into supplying more homes will barely scratch the surface. Meanwhile, big-ticket items that would significantly move the needle on supply are ignored. Stamp duty - where bracket creep means an investor tax of $27,000 at Perth’s median house price - and land tax rebates are obvious places to start. And why not (even temporarily) repeal the foreign investor tax where these buyers pay $76,000 in state tax when buying a $700,000 property? This group, very sensibly, choose to rent rather than pay the tax, soaking up valuable rental stock. Put simply, governments – supported by the media and tenancy advocates – have been busily whacking investors, whilst simultaneously failing to provide enough rental housing for West Australians as the only possible alternative to the private investor market. WA’s poor market performance in the years 2012-2020, has left our housing market underprepared for the surge in new arrivals and we’re playing catch up. There is time for meaningful reform to encourage investors into the market to add more supply and whilst relatively small cash incentives may tinker around the edges, they won’t make a meaningful impact.
May 3, 2024
Rent Bidding
As recently reported in these pages, the West Australian parliament passed into law changes to the Residential Tenancies Act designed to further protect the interest of tenants. Some of the changes bring WA into line with other states where substantial changes have altered tenant-landlord relationships and, in some cases, have deterred investment and pushed up rents. Many of the changes will be relatively benign, such as rent increases limited to no more than every twelve months (currently it is a minimum of six months). None of the laws encourage investors to further supply rental stock by improving protections for landlords from tenants that breach the lease agreement and / or wilfully damage the property. One of the changes will be to make it illegal for a landlord (or their property manager) to encourage a tenant to offer more rent to secure a lease. Known as ‘rent bidding’, in a tight rental market it is common for tenants to offer more than the advertised rent for a property. It’s important to note that the ban will not prevent a tenant from offering more rent than advertised. In other states, rent bidding is already banned, but the outcome of the ban has failed to afford any additional benefit for tenants. In the current market, most properties receive multiple applications to rent with many tenants prepared to offer more than the asking rent to secure the property. Under the current arrangement, tenants will typically seek guidance from the leasing agent as to what constitutes market rental value and without specifying the details of competing applications, tenants are able to secure a lease by offering a modest amount above the asking rent. With a ban on rent bidding, tenants will be ‘flying blind’. The leasing agent will have to be silent on proffering any advice as to the level of competition, or where the market sees value. What has occurred in other states is tenants are offering substantially more than the asking rent because the leasing manager is unable to guide them where fair market rent might lie. I am told desperate tenants in NSW will offer 20% above asking rent where a 5% increase would have been sufficient. Already, property managers are advertising asking rents with a “From” in front. This makes it more difficult for tenants to determine fair market rent, especially once rental bidding is formally banned. Mostly, landlords are seeking quality tenants at a reasonable rent. Many will choose the best tenant over one offering the highest rent. Property managers have a duty to their landlord to secure the best possible lease outcome for their client and the rent achieved is but one component. Banning rent bidding will do nothing to further the plight of tenants already dealing with a highly competitive, stressful market of limited supply and rising rents. Governments should spend their time thinking about how they can get more rental supply into the market by actively encouraging property investors. Everything else treats the symptom not the cause and rents will continue to rise.
Apr 18, 2024
Rental Reforms Pass
Significant changes to residential tenancy laws passed through parliament this week heralding a strengthening of tenants rights as they relate to residential leases. The following key changes will impact residential tenancies: Tenants will be allowed to keep pets and the property owner will only be able to refuse in certain circumstances. Tenants will be able to make minor modifications to the property without permission from the owner. Tenants may take an owner to court if they can demonstrate the owner has acted with reciprocity against a tenant. Rent increases are limited to once annually. The process of bond disposals can be commenced by either tenant or landlord. Disputes will mostly be heard by the Commissioner of Consumer Protection rather than the Magistrate’s Court. Rent bidding will be banned. Overall, the changes are moderate and align with tenancies laws in other states and territories. Importantly, the changes stop short of prohibiting ‘without grounds terminations’, a silly phrase used to describe circumstances where a tenant requests a further lease term after the end of a fixed term and the landlord refuses without giving a reason. REIWA conducted a survey into this particular element of the tenancy laws with an astonishing 61 percent of the 6,000-odd landlords surveyed saying they’d ‘consider selling’ the property if ‘without grounds terminations’ were prohibited. Given a fixed term lease has a clear end date, neither party should anticipate that an additional lease or reversion to a ‘periodic lease’ is assured. You don’t have to give a reason to end a fixed term agreement in any other circumstance, even a marriage! At a time where supply of rental homes are at crisis point across Australia, new laws that actively undermine the encouragement of supply risks further disincentivizing the main cohort of property investors; unsophisticated, family investors the majority of whom own one additional property other than their home. Given family investors provide 9 in every 10 rentals in WA, we cannot afford to discourage them.
Apr 11, 2024
Rental Market Tightens Further
This week, REIWA reported Perth’s residential rental vacancy rate dropped to a record low of 0.4 percent in March. A balanced market records vacancy rates at around 3.5 percent and in sharp contrast to early 2018 where vacancy rates were at 7.3 percent and over 12,000 properties were advertised for lease on reiwa.com. Today there are 1,963 advertised. Median Perth rents are at $649 per week with properties offered for lease below this figure in higher demand than those above the median. Accordingly, properties advertised at less than $1000 per week are leasing in about two weeks, whereas those at above this figure take about 21 days to rent. Core Logic shows Perth’s rental value is up 14 percent in the twelve months to March 2024, leading the nation amongst capital cities which averaged a 9.6 percent increase. Applied to Perth’s current median rent, a further 14 percent would see Perth rents hit $740 per week this time next year. The core of the problem is the shortage of housing supply at a time when migration levels into WA are rising contemporaneously with deteriorating construction approvals for new homes. Apartment approvals are at decade low levels falling to around 375-unit approvals last month against our 10-year average of about 725 units. Thankfully, investors are relatively active with 36 percent of mortgage demand in Western Australia coming from investors. This is up from the decade average of 24 percent and just 15 percent in 2019. The upside to this renewed investor enthusiasm is more rental stock coming into the market adding to supply, with the downside for first home buyers being investors buying stock that might otherwise have gone to them, which ultimately push up house prices. And prices are rising most in typical first home buyer regions. Remarkably, 8 of the top 10 local government regions across Australia for annual price growth are in Perth with the affordable regions of Armadale, Gosnells, Rockingham and Kwinana the top four performers up between 25.8 percent and 28.6 percent. Serpentine – Jarrahdale, Wanneroo, Cockburn and Mandurah all made the top ten up around 23 percent. In a balanced market, as house prices moderately rise, rents typically ease as first home buyers leave the rental market and enter home ownership. The opposite applies when interest rates rise and home prices abate, demand for rentals rise, pushing up rents. Today’s market is different. Perth is experiencing a renaissance of sorts after a prolonged period of negative or negligible growth from 2009 to 2019. During this decade, under-investment locally has caught us off guard with the speed of market recovery leaving us hopelessly short on supply during a time where construction costs remain a deterrent against meaningful and rapid increases in housing stock.
Feb 29, 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 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 lessors. 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 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? The new laws are set to become law in July this year. After which, a tenant, needing assistance to get into their home after losing their keys at 6 pm can 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. As a result, many 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 challenges might arise. Employers could find themselves in strife with the Fair Work Commission if a disgruntled employee 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.