Greens plan to make rental more expensive back on the table

pajs said :

Trouble is, there is a demonstrated market failure (with years of national studies and evidence) here. It’s a classic split incentives case, with the people who pay the utility bills (who will reap the savings from efficiencies) not the people who own and control the building. And the costs for the changes apply to the owners, who don’t receive direct benefit for the investment.

Yep, the split incentives problem has also contributed to me not fitting solar panels on my rentals. It’s not the sole cause, though – I’m waiting for the technology to get a bit better before investing even in a home I’ll live in for the medium-term.

devils_advocate said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

pajs said :

Personally, I’d prefer a policy that said if your rental property doesn’t meet minimum standards for habitability (including security, safety. insulation, energy efficiency & water-efficiency) then no negative gearing for you, dear landlord.

Wouldn’t bother landlords like me who are positively geared.

Personally I’d prefer a policy that said governments at all levels should stay the hell out of markets except where a) there’s a demonstrated market failure AND (note the AND) b) they can actually improve market outcomes by interfering.

Trouble is, there is a demonstrated market failure (with years of national studies and evidence) here. It’s a classic split incentives case, with the people who pay the utility bills (who will reap the savings from efficiencies) not the people who own and control the building. And the costs for the changes apply to the owners, who don’t receive direct benefit for the investment.

There is also reasonable evidence (though I don’t know what new studies specific to Canberra the ACT Government/Greens may have done) about the payback periods from household energy & water retrofits. To my mind, assuming the rental property market is much of a market at all, you would expect, even want, owners to pass the costs of retrofits along to renters as higher rental charges. Given the renters have reduced utility bills, post-retrofits, economics would argue they can afford the cost of the increased rent.

But I’d be stunned to see a Green pollie come out directly and say that this is how the plan is meant to work out. Easier to pretend market magic will happen and costs will be absorbed by owners and not passed on to renters.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

pajs said :

Personally, I’d prefer a policy that said if your rental property doesn’t meet minimum standards for habitability (including security, safety. insulation, energy efficiency & water-efficiency) then no negative gearing for you, dear landlord.

Wouldn’t bother landlords like me who are positively geared.

Personally I’d prefer a policy that said governments at all levels should stay the hell out of markets except where a) there’s a demonstrated market failure AND (note the AND) b) they can actually improve market outcomes by interfering.

The last major ‘green’ improvement to my govvie that I did not do myself was a hopeless ‘green’ airoheat hot water tank totally unsuitable for Canberra’s climate. It was ‘re-replaced’ with an off peak within six months.

The greens do not have a very good record on energy efficiency initiatives as they don’t do their homework – eg, the ‘more efficient’ extra long buses that can’t go down half of Canberra’s streets.

pajs said :

Personally, I’d prefer a policy that said if your rental property doesn’t meet minimum standards for habitability (including security, safety. insulation, energy efficiency & water-efficiency) then no negative gearing for you, dear landlord.

Wouldn’t bother landlords like me who are positively geared.

Word reaches me that Labor and Liberals have teamed up to kill this one off, for fear of raising rents.

Personally, I’d prefer a policy that said if your rental property doesn’t meet minimum standards for habitability (including security, safety. insulation, energy efficiency & water-efficiency) then no negative gearing for you, dear landlord.

Grail said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I did a renovation a couple of years ago that resulted in the rent being increased 30% in 4 weeks.

Wow … I increase the rent every year to keep slightly behind market. If I re-let the place today, I would get about 5-10% more rent. Good long term tenants are not worth 30% of my income.

How much did those renovations cost in relation to the value of the property?

I have good tenants, but the issue is not keeping rent down to retain them. For my ACT properties, I have several times increased rent by the maximum allowable level, but in order to get a one off 30% increase it was renovation that did it (combined with having new tenants and thus not being caught by the maximum rental increase rules).

When I did the renovation I spent about 7% of the value of the property (it was old and run down, and some careful cosmetic work and improvment of the bathroom yielded a very nice result).

NoImRight said :

In all fairness Ive seen some Public Housing houses recently and they are well below what Id call a reasonable standard on these issues. No wall insulation and virtually none in the roof (just that cheap token crap) and tenants expected to heat an older design segregated house from one inefficient gas heater that even predates the wall unit types.It does seem a little wrong that we put people on low incomes into houses that will cost a fortune just to maintain a basic liveability condition.

And no Im not seeking any “they should just be grateful our taxes pay for them” responses. Thanks anyway.

That’s interesting as ACT Housing have been undertaking a program of insulating their properties and to a very hight standard. Though yes the standard of heaters they have installed leaves a lot to be desired. My old mum had her place in Macgregor insulated about 4 years ago, but had a pissy electric heater heating a 4 bedroom places. She has since moved on to a new place, which is much better insulated, has double glazing but still poor heating, consisting of a case wall furnace and two electric raditors in the bedrooms.

Grail said :

chewy14 said :

Yes, you’re not in the game to throw money away which is why if you were smart you could use this to complete multiple renovations as well as those required by this law.

Then re-let the house at a much higher rent.

Ah but maybe i’m being too cynical, Landlords are usually such altruistic chaps and the Greens always think their schemes through completely, don’t they?

It would be nice if you could think your absurd story through completely before vomiting it over the RiotACT.

I am a landlord. I have long term tenants. I am happy. New law arrives that says I have to renovate my property before I can lease to new tenants.

Explain to me why I would kick these tenants out in order to incur expenses and be losing income, so I can re-let the place at higher rentals later? That would mean I have lost rent to make up for, advertising fees to make up for, and the cost of the renovation has impeded my goal of acquiring another property.

I don’t know, perhaps you would do your sums and work out which one would be more profitable for you depending on the increase in rent you could get as VY_Berlina explained?

I’m not saying it will be the case for all landlords but I can think of a couple of houses i’ve lived in previously (probably the majority of them) where it would be more profitable for the landlord to do exactly what I said.

Grail said :

chewy14 said :

Yes, you’re not in the game to throw money away which is why if you were smart you could use this to complete multiple renovations as well as those required by this law.

Then re-let the house at a much higher rent.

Ah but maybe i’m being too cynical, Landlords are usually such altruistic chaps and the Greens always think their schemes through completely, don’t they?

It would be nice if you could think your absurd story through completely before vomiting it over the RiotACT.

I am a landlord. I have long term tenants. I am happy. New law arrives that says I have to renovate my property before I can lease to new tenants.

Explain to me why I would kick these tenants out in order to incur expenses and be losing income, so I can re-let the place at higher rentals later? That would mean I have lost rent to make up for, advertising fees to make up for, and the cost of the renovation has impeded my goal of acquiring another property.

A second property is far more profitable than slightly more rent on a more expensive property. If I was doing the interest-only flip style of investment, I would be even more reluctant to renovate simply because that eats I to the profit that I hope to realise when selling the property. The general rule for those people is to pray for low vacancy and nothing to go wrong for five years.

Believe it or not, I think each of you is kind of making the same point. You are saying that you would not uneccessarily kick out reliable tenants and make work for yourself for the sake of a rent increase. But the first post (chewy14) is decrying the aspect of the policy that would require exactly that.

I think much of this turns on how extensive are the renovations required on each property. Some people are suggesting they can be done without having tenants vacate, which may be true on newer properties, but older properties may require more serious work, especially as some of them have poor solar orientation etc to begin with. WIthout having done an empirical study, my guess is that the bulk of the rental stock in Canberra falls into the latter category.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

I did a renovation a couple of years ago that resulted in the rent being increased 30% in 4 weeks.

Wow … I increase the rent every year to keep slightly behind market. If I re-let the place today, I would get about 5-10% more rent. Good long term tenants are not worth 30% of my income.

How much did those renovations cost in relation to the value of the property?

chewy14 said :

Yes, you’re not in the game to throw money away which is why if you were smart you could use this to complete multiple renovations as well as those required by this law.

Then re-let the house at a much higher rent.

Ah but maybe i’m being too cynical, Landlords are usually such altruistic chaps and the Greens always think their schemes through completely, don’t they?

It would be nice if you could think your absurd story through completely before vomiting it over the RiotACT.

I am a landlord. I have long term tenants. I am happy. New law arrives that says I have to renovate my property before I can lease to new tenants.

Explain to me why I would kick these tenants out in order to incur expenses and be losing income, so I can re-let the place at higher rentals later? That would mean I have lost rent to make up for, advertising fees to make up for, and the cost of the renovation has impeded my goal of acquiring another property.

A second property is far more profitable than slightly more rent on a more expensive property. If I was doing the interest-only flip style of investment, I would be even more reluctant to renovate simply because that eats I to the profit that I hope to realise when selling the property. The general rule for those people is to pray for low vacancy and nothing to go wrong for five years.

Gungahlin Al said :

But tell me what I’m missing? I’m listening.

What you are missing has been posted up a few times now, but in essence is this: You are increasing the cost base of the entire market at once. Now some people can argue around the margins about whether buying a house is an imperfect or perfect substitute for renting; and the size of the “new” rental housing stock compared to the “old” (non-EER-rated) stock. That is all fine.

But the fact is that in the short run (arguable, even in the medium-run) the supply (quantity) of housing is fixed. If you shift the supply curve out (by raising the costs of all or most of the supply side) the price has to adjust. You can argue about the elasticity of the demand side but this merely changes the magnitude of the price adjustment, not the direction. In any case, if you review other threads on here people are saying it’s already unaffordable so even modest increases would appear unacceptable.

It is sometimes hard to accept that imposing a legal burden on one party will result in an economic burden being borne by an entirely different party.

But even as someone who hasn’t rented in years, I have sympathy for the tenants in this situation.

Gungahlin Al said :

And last time I rented (just 4 years ago), I had the pleasure of paying both the rent and the heating bills. And renting a crap house costs an absolute bomb to heat. To the point where I usually undertook work at my own expense to cut drafts etc and reduce my heating bill.

This is a function of supply and demand. If a rational landlord can figure out the cost of making these changes (realistically, the cost of borrowing the money to finance them) and this cost is equal to or less than the amount of increased rent they could charge for the improved property, then the renovations are likely to occur.

If the cost/benefit calculation comes out against the renovations, it’s probably because the older house is located in a desirable position, and they can basically charge what they like. Some people may see this as an unfortunate outcome of the way the market works.

However, this does not of itself justify interfering in the market. When policymakers interfere in the market, they should understand where the burden on the intervention falls. In a tight property market, the burden is ultimately likely to fall on tenants rather than landords.

tidalik said :

Why would this make renting more expensive? Rents tend to go up with the market, not with renovations. When I rented I don’t recall my landlords renovating my home every year, but my rent went up anyway.

Because it shifts the entire supply curve, not just one point that makes up the curve.
This is the neoclassical explanation that assumes perfect information and competitive markets.

If you allow for market failures and behavioural economics (the latter of which I believe plays a large part in the rental market) then the situations gets worse for renters. Despite what you may believe, a lot of landlords price their rentals to recover costs, and will often accept a lower-than-market rent to avoid hassles with finding new reliable tenants etc (certainly I do).

This reform effectively forces me to break a tenancy and reset the price, as per Johnboy’s post above.

Grail said :

I am still trying to find the logic behind Johnboy’s assertion that landlords are going to be tripping over themselves to kick tenants out in order to perform renovations in order to be able to continue to charge market rent.

As someone forced to live on a single wall brick apartment for half of Uni (see how many landlords are just screaming out for more groups, students and pets? No you don’t) I honestly long to see the day that it becomes illegal to let out death traps. Between the bitter cold inside that was colder, for longer on Winter, and the searing heat in Summer, it was torture. I would not wish that experience on anyone.

So please continue to speculate about how landlords are going to react. As a landlord, I will be quite keen to keep my tenants as long as possible to ensure continuity of income. I am not in this game to throw money away.

Yes, you’re not in the game to throw money away which is why if you were smart you could use this to complete multiple renovations as well as those required by this law.

Then re-let the house at a much higher rent.

Ah but maybe i’m being too cynical, Landlords are usually such altruistic chaps and the Greens always think their schemes through completely, don’t they?

Grail said :

I am still trying to find the logic behind Johnboy’s assertion that landlords are going to be tripping over themselves to kick tenants out in order to perform renovations in order to be able to continue to charge market rent.

People will be kicked out because it’s a convenient time for a landlord to do other works and renovations. Not all landlords will do this, but quite a few will (I definitely will).

Long term tenants are alos not generally charged ‘market rent’. They are charged the rent when the tenancy began plus whatever increments are applied (which are limited in ACT by law). When the property is re-launched onto the rental market, the rent level will be reset to current market for a freshly renovated home. This can in some cases be 50% higher than when it was tenanted. I did a renovation a couple of years ago that resulted in the rent being increased 30% in 4 weeks.

Grail said :

I am still trying to find the logic behind Johnboy’s assertion that landlords are going to be tripping over themselves to kick tenants out in order to perform renovations in order to be able to continue to charge market rent.

As someone forced to live on a single wall brick apartment for half of Uni (see how many landlords are just screaming out for more groups, students and pets? No you don’t) I honestly long to see the day that it becomes illegal to let out death traps. Between the bitter cold inside that was colder, for longer on Winter, and the searing heat in Summer, it was torture. I would not wish that experience on anyone.

So please continue to speculate about how landlords are going to react. As a landlord, I will be quite keen to keep my tenants as long as possible to ensure continuity of income. I am not in this game to throw money away.

And that ^^^^^ is what this legislation is about fixing. A fair go for people with little bargaining strength.

our shed floods at least 2-3 times a year where we rent! should this be something our land lords should write in lease?! can i ask for money towards the removal of damaged wet items?! or do people ONLY use sheds for cars?! fully enclosed shed. and should we be pushing for landlord to provide better drains for the area?!
any help or ideas would be appreciated. with the heavy rain we had recently had 5cm at back of the shed and 10cm at front.

I am still trying to find the logic behind Johnboy’s assertion that landlords are going to be tripping over themselves to kick tenants out in order to perform renovations in order to be able to continue to charge market rent.

As someone forced to live on a single wall brick apartment for half of Uni (see how many landlords are just screaming out for more groups, students and pets? No you don’t) I honestly long to see the day that it becomes illegal to let out death traps. Between the bitter cold inside that was colder, for longer on Winter, and the searing heat in Summer, it was torture. I would not wish that experience on anyone.

So please continue to speculate about how landlords are going to react. As a landlord, I will be quite keen to keep my tenants as long as possible to ensure continuity of income. I am not in this game to throw money away.

I’m sorry Diggety but I think this policy is worthwhile and if you look at the details should achieve the intentions. What aspect of my comment is it that bugs you so? That you don’t have to move out for a ceiling to be insulated?

There are some very poor condition houses out there and the tenants are paying a fortune for the heating bills each winter. The idea that any homes in Canberra don’t have ceiling insulation is – I believe – amazing. As a kid I lived in one here and well recall how stunningly cold it was at night. And I spent about six years of the last decade in rentals – some a lot worse than others.

The problem is that people look at energy bills and don’t think there is anything that can be done about them. All I’m saying is there is. Yet they treat a rent bill differently. And I’ll point out that I had exactly the same discussions here when this came up a year back. But tell me what I’m missing? I’m listening.

Gungahlin Al said :

I’m sorry, when exactly has putting insulation in a ceiling space, seals on doors, and baffles on exhaust fans required a house to be vacated?

And last time I rented (just 4 years ago), I had the pleasure of paying both the rent and the heating bills. And renting a crap house costs an absolute bomb to heat. To the point where I usually undertook work at my own expense to cut drafts etc and reduce my heating bill.

I’m sorry for thinking you were good enough to run as an independent. After that comment, I’m not so sure.

You must at least try to understand that lessees and lessors are not necessarily in the same boat as you. Please tell that to your new colleagues.

And if you’d like to dive into the merits of Greens policies on energy and energy efficiency, keep talking, I guarantee you’ll lose.

Cheers Shane, I was looking to keep my rents at a reasonable rate, address maintenance + other concerns raised by ppl who rent a home from me – explain how exactly I cannot consider raising rental rates if your plans impact on costs I have to wear. Look forward to not seeing any well thought out policies you intend to impose on us all…amateur

I’m sorry, when exactly has putting insulation in a ceiling space, seals on doors, and baffles on exhaust fans required a house to be vacated?

And last time I rented (just 4 years ago), I had the pleasure of paying both the rent and the heating bills. And renting a crap house costs an absolute bomb to heat. To the point where I usually undertook work at my own expense to cut drafts etc and reduce my heating bill.

2604 said :

They also seem to think that good intentions are an acceptable substitute for results.

By crikey, that is SPOT ON.

What about the fact that landlords will be forced to keep their properties untenanted while the work is going on? Not only will it reduce the amount of property on the market, landlords will be seeking financial compensation for the lost rent.

The Greens – always thinking of new ways to make life harder for the rest of us in the name of their religious beliefs.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

NoImRight said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

When did the Greens become a pro-Islamic, pro-landlord party?

How are you seeing this as pro landlord?

Fair point, maybe not pro landlord but definately anti-tennant.

Which is odd given the creeping anti capitalist sentiment within some sections of the party.

Replace “creeping” with “morbid and onging” and you’d be spot on, Thumper.

I’m not sure why anyone is surprised that the Greens’ policy will rebound negatively on lower income earners. More than once previously they and Labor have shown complete ignorance of how capitalism works (here, the private rental market), as well as an inability to see consequences of their actions more than ten minutes into the future. They also seem to think that good intentions are an acceptable substitute for results.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

When did the Greens become a pro-Islamic, pro-landlord party?

^This.

Lets not forget the fact that houses that are properly insulated are dramatically cheaper to heat and cool. A 150m^2 house with an EER of 3.0 costs $1k a year less to heat and cool than a house with EER 0.0, if you believe the ACTPLA.

tidalik said :

Why would this make renting more expensive? Rents tend to go up with the market, not with renovations. When I rented I don’t recall my landlords renovating my home every year, but my rent went up anyway.

I think it’s a good idea and long overdue. I got a bit tired of being refused contents insurance while renting in the inner north because the windows didn’t have locks, or because the doors had no deadlocks. The whole oven-in-summer-and-icebox-in-winter got a bit tired too, and the electricity and gas bills in winter were frightening. This could have easily been fixed with a bit of insulation in the ceilings and some weather proofing around the windows and doors.

Most rents in Canberra go up by the legislated maximum. If the landlord needs to kick out tenants to undertake upgrades you can guarantee the new tenants will not be coming in at the previous rent.

Why would this make renting more expensive? Rents tend to go up with the market, not with renovations. When I rented I don’t recall my landlords renovating my home every year, but my rent went up anyway.

I think it’s a good idea and long overdue. I got a bit tired of being refused contents insurance while renting in the inner north because the windows didn’t have locks, or because the doors had no deadlocks. The whole oven-in-summer-and-icebox-in-winter got a bit tired too, and the electricity and gas bills in winter were frightening. This could have easily been fixed with a bit of insulation in the ceilings and some weather proofing around the windows and doors.

Which is odd given the creeping anti capitalist sentiment within some sections of the party.

‘Creeping’?

Rampant more like

harvyk1 said :

I would call this a potentially badly thought out pro-tenant position. It however does have a strong environmental position attached to it which whilst greens do take a left position, that is automatically superseded by any environmental position that they can take.

If done well it will be good for tenants. It would mean when you rent in the ACT you will end up in a house that is easy and cheap to keep warm \ cool, does not have any leaking taps, and you can feel fairly safe knowing that your belongings will still be there the next day.

Of course the keywords in there was “If done well”…

I agree with this. It’s a nice dream, but unfortunately it will end up costing quite a lot, and landlords will definitely try (with mixed success) to pass this cost on. It will be very interesting to see how this impacts the different parts of the rental market, given some rentals will require no work at all.

In all fairness Ive seen some Public Housing houses recently and they are well below what Id call a reasonable standard on these issues. No wall insulation and virtually none in the roof (just that cheap token crap) and tenants expected to heat an older design segregated house from one inefficient gas heater that even predates the wall unit types.It does seem a little wrong that we put people on low incomes into houses that will cost a fortune just to maintain a basic liveability condition.

And no Im not seeking any “they should just be grateful our taxes pay for them” responses. Thanks anyway.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

NoImRight said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

When did the Greens become a pro-Islamic, pro-landlord party?

How are you seeing this as pro landlord?

Fair point, maybe not pro landlord but definately anti-tennant.

I would call this a potentially badly thought out pro-tenant position. It however does have a strong environmental position attached to it which whilst greens do take a left position, that is automatically superseded by any environmental position that they can take.

If done well it will be good for tenants. It would mean when you rent in the ACT you will end up in a house that is easy and cheap to keep warm \ cool, does not have any leaking taps, and you can feel fairly safe knowing that your belongings will still be there the next day.

Of course the keywords in there was “If done well”…

colourful sydney racing identity said :

NoImRight said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

When did the Greens become a pro-Islamic, pro-landlord party?

How are you seeing this as pro landlord?

Fair point, maybe not pro landlord but definately anti-tennant.

It doesnt seem to be their intent. Just part of theri bold vision where we all live in perfect houses in harmony with nature. Tenants are just their version of cannon fodder at the moment.

NoImRight said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

When did the Greens become a pro-Islamic, pro-landlord party?

How are you seeing this as pro landlord?

Fair point, maybe not pro landlord but definately anti-tennant.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

When did the Greens become a pro-Islamic, pro-landlord party?

How are you seeing this as pro landlord?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Changing the order in which you do things can often keep the price low also.

This is sound advice when a) you are choosing to do a given renovation as opposed to being forced to and b) there isn’t some artificial situation being created where every other landlord in canberra is being forced to seek the same tradies at the same time.

I would argue neither of these apply here. In addition to all the other issues, imagine what it’s going to be like trying to find tradies to fit ducted gas heating, roof insulation (wall insulation? God imagine retrofitting that) gas or solar water heaters… all the things that increase the EER rating. I mean it’s hard enough getting tradies under normal circumstances.

I’m still not buying the idea that renters will all be kicked out. Having tenants kicked out onto the street is probably not very high on the greens agenda, as that sort of goes against left politics ideals.

It would not surprise me if such a rule did go through, but then only enforced when a tenant moved out of their own free will. If nothing else, lets assume that there are 30,000 properties that this would apply to, I doubt you’d find enough tradespeople to do said work without landlords having to wait many months, and I doubt many landlords would be happy to have their property vacant for many months, as that would be an expensive exercise.

The trick with renovating an investment property is to be very careful in what you actually do. Renovating can pay off very well, but you can’t approach it as you would a renovation of your own home. It’s important to carefully consider each expenditure and work out whether (and by how much) it improves the rental value of the property.

Having done a few of these, getting the place is shape cosmetically gets the best results. Renovating kitchens and bathrooms needs extreme care to keep things cheap, as expensive reno’s generally don’t pay off.

In this instance, the idea would be to work out what you have to do (espeically where you have options to achieve the same outcome) due to the new rules, and then work out what else you can do that complements the work, rather than requiring lots of extra effort. Changing the order in which you do things can often keep the price low also.

nice_enough said :

You guys do realise landlords charge what the market is willing to pay.

Yes and that is the problem. A change in isolation in one house (upgrading the kitchen) is unlikey to impact on the market. Further, the magnitude of that change for that house is unlikely to be as large as the changes required to achieve minimum EER ratings. For some older houses I’m not even sure it’s possible within the common understanding of ‘renovation’.

This is a structural change, mandated by legislation, of the market as a whole. It’s likely to have a slightly different impact than a new kitchen at your mum’s house.

When did the Greens become a pro-Islamic, pro-landlord party?

You guys do realise landlords charge what the market is willing to pay.

My mother recently updated the kitchen (quiet nicely as she plans on moving back in in a few years I must add) in her rental property she charges the same rent per week now as in in early 2011. Because that’s the most she could get on the rental market.

While the Greens Bill needs a bit of work in the details, the idea is solid.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

harvyk1 said :

…and can then return the property to market for a much higher rental (because it will be freshly renovated AND because I won’t be bound by the rental increase maximums).

You forgot the other, more important factor that will allow you to increase rental – there will suddenly be a massive population of renters on the street scrambling to find a place to live, because all the other landlords had to do exactly what you just did.

“A failure to implement the bill’s minimum energy efficiency standards for rental properties is effectively leaving 1/3 of Canberrans out of the Government’s plans to improve energy efficiency.”

Well this makes no sense. Yes it is true that 1/3 (or thereabouts) is rented. But what about all the owner occupied homes that were built before the EER system even existed (let alone required minimum EERs for construction)? These would represent the vast majority of owner occupied housing – it’s not as if renters are being singled out. In fact I have seen nothing at all to suggest that the rental stock is any better or worse from an EER perspective than the owner-occupied stock.

Or are they going to retrospectively impose EER requirements on ALL established homes (i.e. not just the ones being rented out)? As retarded as the second proposition sounds, nothing would surprise me at this point.

Good old Greens, thinking things through was never their strong point.

harvyk1 said :

johnboy said :

harvyk1 said :

I would expect that such work could only be undertaken between tenants whilst the property is vacant.
Otherwise I would expect the tenancy tribunal is about to get very busy as tenants enforce their rights to piece and quiet \ signing eviction orders.

Indeed. Which is going to see a lot of renters turfed out onto the street

That’s not what I meant, I meant when you chose to move out of your current property, the landlord would then be forced to do this work prior to being allowed to rent out the property again. Much the same as quite a few of the housing laws only really kick in when it comes time to sell.

What will happen in practice (and what I will probably do), is request tenants vacate the property on the basis that I’ll renovate the property at the same time as making any required upgrades. That way I can get the tradies through once, gain some discount by increasing the volume of work, and can then return the property to market for a much higher rental (because it will be freshly renovated AND because I won’t be bound by the rental increase maximums).

Ultimately, it will be a pain for everyone, but tenants will be worse off than landlords.

johnboy said :

harvyk1 said :

I would expect that such work could only be undertaken between tenants whilst the property is vacant.
Otherwise I would expect the tenancy tribunal is about to get very busy as tenants enforce their rights to piece and quiet \ signing eviction orders.

Indeed. Which is going to see a lot of renters turfed out onto the street

That’s not what I meant, I meant when you chose to move out of your current property, the landlord would then be forced to do this work prior to being allowed to rent out the property again. Much the same as quite a few of the housing laws only really kick in when it comes time to sell.

I had great hopes for this lot of Greens when they were first elected to the Assembly but I reckon they are collectively totally wasted space. Think I’ll vote for the Abolish Self Government Party next time

I bet Shane owns his house.

Some of us would love to live in warmer and more energy efficient places – But this comes at a cost.

harvyk1 said :

I would expect that such work could only be undertaken between tenants whilst the property is vacant.
Otherwise I would expect the tenancy tribunal is about to get very busy as tenants enforce their rights to piece and quiet \ signing eviction orders.

Indeed. Which is going to see a lot of renters turfed out onto the street

I’m with you Johnboy. Not everyone in the ACT owns their own home and some of us choose to rent for various reasons. The rental market in Canberra is hard enough without placing more barriers in the way of affordability. Not everyone is an SES in the APS and can afford $900 a week for a dog box. Maybe someone could purchase a block of land and let us all camp there.

I would expect that such work could only be undertaken between tenants whilst the property is vacant.
Otherwise I would expect the tenancy tribunal is about to get very busy as tenants enforce their rights to piece and quiet \ signing eviction orders.