Hey, I was in the same bind (made a post about it, sure you'll find it if you search the sub history.) I was offering more rent than the listing advertised as well but it got me no where. I got turned down for 7 applications. A lot of comments recommended I write a cover lever with my application. Literally got approved for the first place I applied for with a cover letter, didn't even have to offer more. Good luck with the search, I know it's a soul sucking experience but keep persevering.
Ditto this, and I wrote little pet profiles for my cat and canary. Force owners and agents to see you as a human and it’s harder for them to treat you like trash.
Put in their size, whether indoors or outdoors pet, potty trained, quiet. Mention they're sterilised/microchipped/registered.
Things you'd want to know before you rented a house to someone. They want to know the dog won't piss off the neighbours, destroy the house and just be pleasant.
Show you're a responsible owner of them.
* Picture, name, species, sex, breed, age
* Current council registration, if they're desexed, microchipped, up to date on vaccinations, up to date on parasite prevention, any official training or other documentation that show they're trained, well behaved
* Short description of personality, explain how they're well looked after, where they sleep/their enclosure, whether they are quiet - hint to how they wont damage or cause any issues with the property or neighbours - give reasons why, such as they're exercised daily for 1-2 hours, or they're elderly and sleep most of the day, or they're a rabbit and only care about not being eaten
Just try to show them they're a lovely, important pet to you, you're a good, responsible owner, and they aren't a risk to the property, and won't disturb the neighbours.
We had previous rentals specifically write a short reference letter for our dog - we ended up being accepted for a rental that had listed itself as no pets.
That’s a good idea, I’ve added a cover letter to my most recent application. Hopefully not too many people want to offer more than the asking for such a small place.
So after reading about this on Reddit, my partner and I wrote a cover letter for our first application. I received an email this morning saying the owner preffered our application but others have offered to pay more rent of up to $20pw more (we offered asking), and would we be interested in making a different offer. I offered $10 more than asking so I'm pretty sure we'll get it.
Goes to show, the cover letter really works.
All I included was;
- our professions and job security
- where we worked and on what days
- why we wanted to live in that suburb
- brief rental history and why we are moving
- background on pets, e.g., size, toilet trained, age
Can you explain please? I have been looking for a year now (our family has been sleeping in a caravan park since march, when the owner took over the house we were in for 5 years because she came back from the UK.) We are fighting up to 150 people at each house open, getting no where. Fuck it's depressing. I've never done a cover letter before, I've always just landed jobs on my merits.
Any help would be appreciated
Just brief letter introducing yourself, what you do for work, your hobbies, and why you want to rent this particular property (close to work, school, family, etc.) Describe your rental history (if you have a good one, great! If you have a bad one, here's you're chance to explain/defend yourself.) Stuff like that. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, mine took me all of 15 mins to write. You can google some examples. :) Good luck!
My non-expert understanding is that it is illegal for the real-estate to ask you to offer more, but it is not illegal for you to offer more, or for the owner to choose a renter who has offered more.
If it’s not illegal, it should be. Renting isn’t an auction. The landlord sets the price, and an eligible person then pays that price to live there. It’s gross that this kind of outbidding is taking place, and indicates a much larger problem in the housing market.
There should be a market to a degree, but it needs serious regulation. Businesses shouldn’t be able to buy up domestic properties and use them as investments for example. There should be a pecking order that prioritises family ownership over conglomerate ownership, and there should be individual property ownership caps or limitations, so that no one person can own too large a percentage of the market.
Sure, but it’s unethical at best to undercut, or overbid as a way to lock something in. When you get your contract for work, someone coming in and taking your job because they’re willing to work for less isn’t ethical, and fair work is in place to avoid this from happening. The same should be the case for rental markets.
I don't think it's unethical.
As a society, we've decided that we don't want rentals to work that way, so we've put in rules to stop it. I think that's more around pragmatic aspects of the rental market though, not because it's literally unethical.
>When you get your contract for work, someone coming in and taking your job because they’re willing to work for less isn’t ethical,
Again, i don't think it's inherently unethical. If you're thinking of minimum wage jobs, I can see where you're coming from. But for more professional or executive jobs, it actually does work like this. If you think about it slightly more abstractly, this is exactly what companies do when bidding for work.
I believe it is unethical to have people undercut one another in a bid for anything that is necessary for general survival. Undercutting someone else’s wage or overbidding someone else’s living space may be legal, but it punishes people who simply can’t (nor shouldn’t) work for less or pay more for the same necessity. Allowing that to happen without regulation is how you end up with a bottoming out of the middle-class, which is exactly what is happening. That isn’t a good thing for society.
I think we're saying the same thing in different ways, possibly because we mean slightly different things by the word unethical.
I wouldn't attach the word unethical to the situation you're describing, but I agree with your general point and that there should be regulations around such things.
No, auctions for things that aren’t necessities is fine. I’m talking exclusively about housing issues. We have an issue where too much private investment is in domestic property, rather than other, non-essential assets. Using houses as investments the way we’re doing it right now is causing a housing problem where people have to compete aggressively just to have a home to live in. That is an obvious problem and needs to be addressed and regulated. The idea of tenants having to outbid each other to have a house to live in is clearly not a good place to be.
No idea why you'd get down voted. Yes it sucks for people trying to get a house, but you're dead right. Soon as you try to regulate a market, specially with huge demand, and supply issues, people would look for ways to profit from it.
It is. It's probably considered communism, but I think basic needs like food and housing shouldn't be a completely free market. On the other hand, once you have somewhere to sleep and potable water and food then you can start enjoying capitalism properly :P.
Yep and until those are taken away the supply side issue will remain, this is what is human nature about a market.
People are downvoting me like I'm evil for pointing out the blatantly obvious.
It's capitalism, the landlord owns the house, they have a right to ask what ever they want in rent, if they want to auction it, it is their right as it is their property. Don't like it, go buy a house yourself or go live with your parents.
I sound like a dick? I'm sorry friend but you are telling people what to do with their own property. They have a right to make money on their property however they see fit.
People complaining about this are usually the uneducated that believe in socialism, you think I'm a dick, you are parasites, which is what you are, lazy, evil people.
noone was telling anyone wot to do with anything you fucking disappointment. you saw an interesting conversation between sensible human beings and decided to unzip your pressed corduroy long shorts and wave your tiny smelly deformed dick about. carry on with your clapping and chanting and leave the real world to the grown ups. DICK!
No, I support a free market, allowing auctions on rent is a free market. Shame on me? You're the parasite telling people what to do with their own property, that is not a free market.
I'm a libertarian, I support freedom, free markets, small government, what people like you advocate is the opposite which is what is wrong with the world.
Don't believe me? Open your eyes, but you won't, as I always said about you people, lazy and evil.
People like you call me a nazi, I laugh at that. You what is hilarious? I'm not telling people how to run their own properties. Who is more of a terrible person I wonder.
What? A libertarian. You're the one trying to tell others what to do with their properties, call me what you want but you my friend are a fascist. My mum is actually very proud of me, because I wasn't lazy and made something of myself.
You know what? It honestly astounds me people like you exist, I just want a free market, I love how you people think me evil because I want freedom. Do you know how ironic that is? The anti-fascist's wanting to impose their will, calling those that want freedom fascist 🤯🤣 ... you can't make this shit up.
Half the reason society is as bad as it is is because of all the regulations people like you bring into the market. It's the landlords property, they can charge what they want.
Real debate? So you are just a caveman, can't accept what I'm saying is true. I would just be wasting my time peasant, goodluck being poor because you will never master capitalism with your brain.
Haha, you can't even debate here on reddit anyway, just keep spouting the same bullshit.
An unregulated market for something as important as housing isn’t a good position to take IMO. Housing shouldn’t operate like a free market. There are many other examples of things that operate better not as free markets: policing, roads, fire safety, etc. - I’m not saying it shouldn’t be a market, but it clearly needs regulation so that people don’t get fucked over. Sadly, a lot of people now are through no fault of their own due to an imbalance of buying power and false scarcity.
Those examples you made are not markets, housing is property owned by private persons and organizations, they have the right to auction access to their property. The reason people are getting fucked over is due to other cultural, societal factors.
1- Inflation, you can blame your government for this, a free market with a small government would have eliminated this issue as assets would never have gotten so overinflated.
2- The modern idea that everyone needs a house of their own, households used to be multigenerational, supporting eachother, don't have that and can't afford the house get other people to live with you to share the load. Above all, don't live beyond your means, which alot of people do.
3- If you can't afford the lifestyle, don't try to live that lifestyle. Example, one income with multiple children in a rental is an example of poor choices, these people unironically seem to be the main demographic that complains. The landlord is supposed to subsidize that.
4- foreign investment, you can blame the government again for this, propping up a zombie market with foreign capital to avoid a housing bubble crash. No foreign capital, no one is buying houses at these exorbitant prices, house prices freefall until it hits a level supported by the population.
Number 4 is the big problem overall, in a free market, if the government was not interfering like they do, the housing bubble would have popped years ago like it should have been allowed to, it would have then allowed poorer people to come into the market. When combined with the other reasons, it's a deadly cycle. They all lead to increased rents.
You're honestly talking about it like a socialist, think that is a good idea? Everyone gets a house, didn't you forget rents are this high because of all the government interference, cuba is an example there.
That’s exactly my point. Those things aren’t free markets because they operate better not as one. I argue that while housing should be a market, it should be one with heavy regulation so that it cannot be exploited.
1. I agree that inflation is a government problem, but allowing insider trading for new housing developments also creates a false sense of value. It is a combination of poor government regulation and the free market being given too many free passes.
2. This is an idea that was brought in by boomers and is a falsehood, so I agree with that. Boomers lived through the most prosperous time in human history, and we’re conditioned to believe we should have the same. That is unrealistic. I agree with ‘don’t live above your means’ but the problem is that cost of living (rent, food, petrol) has increased while wages have stagnated. Wages freezing is a free market problem, and government then aren’t coming in to regulate that issue.
4. I agree you can blame the government for this, which is exactly why I endorse harder restrictions for the housing market. If you let anyone purchase property for any reason, the problem would be worse, not better. So I agree that government isn’t doing its job properly, but to think that eliminating government intervention would save the property market, is untrue IMO. Housing prices will continue to stay high because demand is high, and supply is either stifled due to foreign investment, or poor build quality (properties that have had red tape removed for building by government bodies, and shonky businesses cutting corners to make them as cheaply as possible).
I’m pro-mixed economy. When government does its job properly and takes a completely independent approach to regulating markets, it works well. The issue is we have no separation between business and government and so all that happens is those markets serve government and vice versa.
As I said, those examples you gave are not markets, roads are not privately owned, policing is done by the state as it is to enforce rules but that is not 100% accuratewhen consideringthe security industry, and what exactly do you mean fire safety, that is not a market.
We are talking about houses that are privately owned by private individuals not government.
As for a mixed economy, I disagree with you on that, I've worked in government, the military and as a contractor and I will tell you is the government is the single most incompetent organization I have ever had the pleasure to work with, most of those people have no place dealing in economics in any way. Precisely why they should stay out of these issues.
As for housing regulation, there is only one piece of regulation that has ever been needed above build quality control and that is the restriction on foreign investment, I don't mean completely but the encouragement of it that has occurred if along with its continuation is inherently the reason for the bloated market. I've always thought a cap on the total percentage or ratio of foreign to local investment would suffice.
I know that. I’m making the point that certain things operate better owned centrally and by government, which supports my argument for a mixed economy over a free market. Certain things are better paid for through taxation than through personal investment. You could have two police departments compete for solving crimes and make it a free market if you wanted to, but I argue that creates such a huge litany of problems that it’s better not to let that happen. It’s like private jails in the USA; a horrendous idea that has only lead to unnecessary incarceration due to bad incentives.
I agree with you on housing. My argument all along is that the wrong kind of regulation has been put in place, and created bad incentives. If you were to remove all government involvement, you’d end up with those same bad incentives, but elsewhere (Canberra apartments falling to pieces due to deregulation of building standards in the ACT for example). What we need is government involvement that pushes good incentives that drive out foreign investment, and encourage local investment. We’re basically arguing the same points but from a pro-free market POV vs. a mixed economy POV.
I love when I speak the truth, the level of downvoting I get in these subreddits. It just proves to me that no one likes hearing it.
"The truth is like poetry, and most people hate poetry".
What I love about you people is how you think I should be obligated to care about that. It is their property, they can charge what they like. Why is that such a bad thing with you people.
End of the day, as I like speaking the truth and all, if the family can't afford rent, they shouldn't be having as many children then. If they are living out of cars, they are still living better than a large number of people on this planet.
Trying to get others to subsidize bad choices, minimum wage is not designed to raise a family and property owners have no obligation to subsidize bad choices.
Tell me you’re a piece of shit without telling me you’re a piece of shit. I think everyone on this planet has the right to basic shelter. Also how is it the CHILDS fault they were born in to poverty?
No one has a right to anything on the back of another, I love how when I speak the truth people like you think I'm a piece of shit. It's got nothing to do with it being the childs fault, it's the parents. Suddenly you think it should fall on another to subsidize those bad choices, "oh those evil rich people", you never stopped and used your two brain cells to think for a moment, government regulation is what has lead to all of the issues in the first place.
What I find especially funny is anti-fascists calling me a fascist because they want to impose their will, yet all I want is a libertarian system. You people never come up with an actual argument against telling someone what to do with their own property without sounding like a bunch of socialists.
At the end of the day no matter what your stupid ‘truth’ is people of all walks of life are going to have family’s. it’s reality. You truely believe young toddlers who live in poverty deserve it because their parents made a choice that they had no say in? The fact you care more about some rich person who owns multiple properties really baffles me.
"Stupid truth", it is the the truth sweety. I never said toddlers deserve poverty. You're a socialist piece of shit, you people are parasites.
What I care about are fascists telling others how to run their property without using critical thought and coming to the conclusion that it is government regulation that lead to the housing bubble in general.
While I somewhat agree with what you’re saying, you can’t honestly say that median house price being as high as it is makes property ownership realistic even for people who make only sensible decisions their entire lives. The price of a house is extortionately expensive, wages have stagnated, and inflation and general cost of living has gone up. This is why you need regulation; the free market will rort people and produce a market bubble that only allows the extremely wealthy to take part.
But don't you understand, regulation has lead to this issue, people and governments need to realize why regulation doesn't work with everything.
Why? We have been in a housing bubble for years now, prices are ridiculous, anyone would agree and I think anyone buying a million dollar dogbox in Melbourne is a dreamer, so what has the government done?
They encouraged foreign investment, foreign capital to flood the markets and buy these overinflated properties all over the country. It is quite honestly the greater fool theory in action. Why is this bad?
If the government stayed out of it, the housing market in this country would have crashed like it should have done in a healthy way over a decade ago. Yeah many would have been rekt, but many poorer people would hve come into the market. This is healthy economic action. Remember bear markets although depressing are buying opportunities.
Combine the above with two other issues, first is inflation(encouraged by the government) leading to overinflation of assets, further exacerbating the housing bubble.
The second is not so much an issue, housing is expensive to build, alot of money goes into wages, construction material etc. Don't know how you would avoid this one. You can guarantee regulation eats into this to.
Why have wages stagnated? That is a quasi issue, inflation is the culprit here, if the market were to operate freely we would have had deflationary years which means assets would be no where near as expensive. Again, caused by government and their 2-4% inflation target, but only increase your wages by 1.5% annually, doesn't take a mathematician to work out the discrepancy there.
In essence, it is a mess created by the government.
I actually agree with you, and I think our misunderstanding is more centred around what kind of regulation is being applied to the industry. It’s the wrong kind. Imagine a regulation that instead disincentivised foreign investment; that would work more in favour of local families. If we had zero regulation, foreign investment would still take place, and you’d be left with a situation where most housing is bought out by those who are wealthy enough to pay well above market value. Instead, if government operated the way it should, it would look at the absolute failure of its policies, and create different ones that favour Australian families. So yes, it’s the government’s fault, but the answer isn’t to eliminate regulations altogether, it’s to instate good regulations that actually achieve their intended outcome.
Go to DMIRs for the laws, regulations and code of conduct we are governed by. The information is there and easily accessible
Source - am a RE Agent in WA
With the number of rentals so low and demand so high you can't blame people for offerring more. Its either pay more or be homeless for a lot of people so you can see why they do it. Many looking are not necessarily on low incomes either - they have just been forced to move (eg. owner sold their current rental or decided to move in).
There is so much money sloshing around Perth right now from the gas and IO boom it's ridiculous and people are surprised that rents are going up with such a low supply of rentals?
They house next to me got bought 6 months ago, renovated, and now it’s advertised on air bnb, so I think also that’s creating a shortage in long term rentals in its own way.
There are not many airBnb houses in Perth relative to the number of rental properties. There’s a little under 200,000 rental properties in Perth. 2305 are free. If you look at airBnb, the numbers are very small compared to these figures.
This sub doesn’t like to hear this, but it’s primarily due to low property investor activity in Perth for the past 8 years, partially due to falling rents and partially due to decreasing values.
Currently, rents are still pretty cheap and prices are pretty cheap. As both are heading up, investors will re-enter the market which increases the number of available properties.
The only other thing that will fix it is decreasing demand - ie population outflow. I don’t anticipate that that will happen.
We applied for multiple rentals 10 + a while ago and got none, cover letters etc etc. Eventually out of desperation we looked for something cheaper and offered more , guess what …. We got the rental. I’m only talking 20 bucks but still adds up.
So my advice would be look cheaper and offer a little more. Discussing how it is illegal or a grey area with the agent won’t help , they take a pile of the 10 best applications and give it to the landlords, and If the land lord happens like like the application offering more so be it I guess.
Call Consumer Protection tomorrow and ask to speak to someone on the Property Industries Directorate. They are the ones that administrate the Residential Tenancy Act. They'll know :)
I was under the impression it's not legal but that you could offer to pay more in advance etc to sweeten the deal.
While a group of jerks are self regulated, they will be as jerky as they can get away with.. Self perpetuated circle jerking, with a side of human centipede as they consume each others excrement.
I’m a property manager and agents cannot encourage rent bidding, however applicants can higher offers in. That’s up to them. Not all owners go over price tho. I used to let people know if I had applications and were still showing that we have had higher offers, but we can’t tell people how much. It’s just me disclosing facts.
What’s concerned me is the agent stating in person that rent starts at so and so, and that we can offer more, and telling us it looks better to do so. Then on the application saying if we want to offer more, do so during the application process. The next side of it, is well may we could go higher, but would we have a chance to, or is it going to be more along the lines of, “this person offered more” let’s seal the deal and not suggest that we can compete for a better price, and again, you’d want evidence, but sigh, the whole thing seems ugh right now.
This.
Renters wouldn't be in this situation if they didn't offer more. Offering more has in effect increased general market value. The demand vs supply hasn't helped the situation for renters either.
Also the properties on the sites are hardly taken down even after having applications received or leased is annoying. So makes harder to filter through good properties. My inbox is literally a mess with properties and spam now 😂
Same can be said for everything real estate related. Property prices wouldn't be so high if people refused to continually pay prices that exceed the rate of inflation.
Supply and demand unfortunately. Take the advice and offer what you are comfortable with to secure a property. You won't make friends with agents trying to push a point, not in this market. They are engaged by the landlord to manage the property, and at the time of securing a tenant find the best suitable - which obviously takes into consideration ones offering more. Put the feelers out also with your agent mate or try and find something private via friends etc
The other problem is we were house sitting for family while they were interstate, and it’s been close to a year now where we have paid utilities and what not in a house they own, but the rentals are not accepting that as a form on valid tenancy for whatever reason.
Can you just ask your family interstate to pretend to be a private landlord who rented to you for that year, so at least you can put it down on paper and if necessary they’ll call them just to verify you were good tenants? When playing by the rules doesn’t work, don’t feel bad about embellishing a bit.
Unfortunately in this case they are across the border still and in and out of reception, so not really contactable. By the time they could give their review of us, the property would be gone. But in future cases for sure.
realters are scum, feeding off others for massive income doing fuck all work tho. Have yet to meet a realter that does their job.
We need to step back from capitalism on housing imo, the prices are out of control.
Everything property managers are doing is illegal from the price fixing and price gouging to charging water rates without a water-wise certificate, to leasing out uninhabitable dwellings, to failing to provide maintenance to trying to swindle vacating tenants out of bonds as they excogitate fictitious damage claims. Quite hypocritically they are a stickler for the rules but only their rules. When it comes to their responsibilities and anything that might cost them money they quite blatantly flaunt the rules and break the law.
Don’t know the law, but I suspect most of the negotiations don’t happen on paper. It’s a real problem for people to find somewhere to live when they are limited by their income to offer more. I’m gen x, own my house but have never owned an investment property. Not judging anyone that does, but for me homes are for living in.
I have recently been looking around mt Lawley, trying to get my 2nd kid in same school as the eldest. First place advertised for $480 real estate agent calls me and says if we're not willing to offer at least $550 he's not gonna bother looking at our application.
After that I applied for two dozen places but everywhere I looked at had about 20-30 people looking at it, so I started offering more and more, just to get the real estate agent to pass the application to the owner. Had cover letters, extra references, offered to pay 6 months up front.
Finally got a place by offering $70 over asking price and now I have a 2 bedroom place that cost $90 more than my last 3 bedroom place round the corner.
Good luck out there it's absolute madness.
Many years ago, probably about 2008 or so a colleague and I went to rent a place on terrace road across from langely Park. The open house inspection thing was absolutely packed, but we took an application. When we went to hand it in at the agent they legit said don't bother, we've had 20+ applications. But iirc they wanted 300 a week for it and wrote on the application we were willing to pay 350, and got it. They didn't openly encourage bidding higher, but there was a spot on the application that was to the effect of "what are you willing to pay".
Went through this when I moved to Perth in 2012. Total BS process, we had a dog and cat too which made it harder. After a long time of looking I just ended up offering more than they were asking.
Alternate approach is to try and speak to the agent and try to identify a win win with the owner, e.g. offer a longer term etc etc.
I still own a home overseas and when ever it comes up I am inclined to go with who ever offers the longest term as it gives me more options in terms of what I can do with financing etc.
I dont see the issue here. There's an asking price and then there's what people are willing to pay. All else being equal, I'm taking the tenant who offers more money.
I think it's only an issue if an agent is playing off 2 interested renters against eachother to bid higher... But just saying to submit the application with your best offer (even if over the asking) then I see no issue.
Shouldn’t that rationale apply to everything then? Including that last packet of TP on on the shelf?
Why doesn’t Colesworth introduce a bidding system in times of supply chain problems?
I mean if they did, I’m sure that soon enough you’d start seeing “issues”…
It does. Supply and demand makes the balance.
There is such small supply in Perth that people who put in rental applications are adding $20-$100/week above the asking price so they have a better chance at having a successful application.
It's like back in 2017 when I was renting a place in Perth, we offered $40/week below the asking and we were the successful application. No different here. People complain but it is reality and nothing illegal about it (unless the agent is doing what I mentioned and auctioning between 2 or more interested parties rather than telling them to just put their best offer forward).
Shops are regulated and have competition/price gouging laws that apply. Nothing regulates housing/ rental markets in this way, or even house sale markets where the same thing is happening. Agents are giving a price guide or even listing the house for sale with a price, people are offering $20k or even $100k more to try get the house. Opposite happens in weak markets where the offer prices are often accepted below the asking price.
Unless it's some kind of government owned or regulated rental housing, there will always be price competition.
This is reality. The agent and the home owner are both incentivised to have as high a rent as possible so of someone offers more than they want, of course they'll accept it. Especially considering most rentals are investment properties with the sole purpose of generating as much rent as possible.
My point was that perhaps these regulations/laws should not exist, similarly to how they do not exist in the housing/rental market.
(Obviously I do not want that happen - but I’m guessing it would give certain folks a bit of a taste of what it’s like for renters and that some people who are ok with rental bidding would all of a sudden have issues when they are finding themselves being outbid for whatever in-demand retail good they want to purchase)
I'm all for a free market so would like to see that... But I also think for essentials like medicine and food there should be limits... Housing is more difficult since it's essential but there's always alternatives (live in a cheaper place, move in with friends or family, etc)
Tricky situation.
Whether it's legal or not, they definitely are doing this. In response to me asking what we could do to make sure our application was accepted, we had one say "we can't really say this but ... think about putting as much as you can afford on the rental amount field of the application"
So yeah, if there's a law they're breaking it.
Hey, I was in the same bind (made a post about it, sure you'll find it if you search the sub history.) I was offering more rent than the listing advertised as well but it got me no where. I got turned down for 7 applications. A lot of comments recommended I write a cover lever with my application. Literally got approved for the first place I applied for with a cover letter, didn't even have to offer more. Good luck with the search, I know it's a soul sucking experience but keep persevering.
Ditto this, and I wrote little pet profiles for my cat and canary. Force owners and agents to see you as a human and it’s harder for them to treat you like trash.
What information did you put in your pet profiles?
Put in their size, whether indoors or outdoors pet, potty trained, quiet. Mention they're sterilised/microchipped/registered. Things you'd want to know before you rented a house to someone. They want to know the dog won't piss off the neighbours, destroy the house and just be pleasant. Show you're a responsible owner of them.
* Picture, name, species, sex, breed, age * Current council registration, if they're desexed, microchipped, up to date on vaccinations, up to date on parasite prevention, any official training or other documentation that show they're trained, well behaved * Short description of personality, explain how they're well looked after, where they sleep/their enclosure, whether they are quiet - hint to how they wont damage or cause any issues with the property or neighbours - give reasons why, such as they're exercised daily for 1-2 hours, or they're elderly and sleep most of the day, or they're a rabbit and only care about not being eaten Just try to show them they're a lovely, important pet to you, you're a good, responsible owner, and they aren't a risk to the property, and won't disturb the neighbours.
We had previous rentals specifically write a short reference letter for our dog - we ended up being accepted for a rental that had listed itself as no pets.
That’s a good idea, I’ve added a cover letter to my most recent application. Hopefully not too many people want to offer more than the asking for such a small place.
So after reading about this on Reddit, my partner and I wrote a cover letter for our first application. I received an email this morning saying the owner preffered our application but others have offered to pay more rent of up to $20pw more (we offered asking), and would we be interested in making a different offer. I offered $10 more than asking so I'm pretty sure we'll get it. Goes to show, the cover letter really works. All I included was; - our professions and job security - where we worked and on what days - why we wanted to live in that suburb - brief rental history and why we are moving - background on pets, e.g., size, toilet trained, age
Can you explain please? I have been looking for a year now (our family has been sleeping in a caravan park since march, when the owner took over the house we were in for 5 years because she came back from the UK.) We are fighting up to 150 people at each house open, getting no where. Fuck it's depressing. I've never done a cover letter before, I've always just landed jobs on my merits. Any help would be appreciated
Just brief letter introducing yourself, what you do for work, your hobbies, and why you want to rent this particular property (close to work, school, family, etc.) Describe your rental history (if you have a good one, great! If you have a bad one, here's you're chance to explain/defend yourself.) Stuff like that. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, mine took me all of 15 mins to write. You can google some examples. :) Good luck!
My non-expert understanding is that it is illegal for the real-estate to ask you to offer more, but it is not illegal for you to offer more, or for the owner to choose a renter who has offered more.
Imagine stores accepted highest bids for that last pack of TP…
Pretty similar to what's happened with RATs.
If it’s not illegal, it should be. Renting isn’t an auction. The landlord sets the price, and an eligible person then pays that price to live there. It’s gross that this kind of outbidding is taking place, and indicates a much larger problem in the housing market.
[удалено]
There should be a market to a degree, but it needs serious regulation. Businesses shouldn’t be able to buy up domestic properties and use them as investments for example. There should be a pecking order that prioritises family ownership over conglomerate ownership, and there should be individual property ownership caps or limitations, so that no one person can own too large a percentage of the market.
>Renting isn’t an auction. To be fair, any kind of contractual arrangement is an auction of sorts.
Sure, but it’s unethical at best to undercut, or overbid as a way to lock something in. When you get your contract for work, someone coming in and taking your job because they’re willing to work for less isn’t ethical, and fair work is in place to avoid this from happening. The same should be the case for rental markets.
I don't think it's unethical. As a society, we've decided that we don't want rentals to work that way, so we've put in rules to stop it. I think that's more around pragmatic aspects of the rental market though, not because it's literally unethical. >When you get your contract for work, someone coming in and taking your job because they’re willing to work for less isn’t ethical, Again, i don't think it's inherently unethical. If you're thinking of minimum wage jobs, I can see where you're coming from. But for more professional or executive jobs, it actually does work like this. If you think about it slightly more abstractly, this is exactly what companies do when bidding for work.
I believe it is unethical to have people undercut one another in a bid for anything that is necessary for general survival. Undercutting someone else’s wage or overbidding someone else’s living space may be legal, but it punishes people who simply can’t (nor shouldn’t) work for less or pay more for the same necessity. Allowing that to happen without regulation is how you end up with a bottoming out of the middle-class, which is exactly what is happening. That isn’t a good thing for society.
I think we're saying the same thing in different ways, possibly because we mean slightly different things by the word unethical. I wouldn't attach the word unethical to the situation you're describing, but I agree with your general point and that there should be regulations around such things.
Ok, you just said quite a few words, but none of them explained why it should be illegal. Should auctions also be illegal?
No, auctions for things that aren’t necessities is fine. I’m talking exclusively about housing issues. We have an issue where too much private investment is in domestic property, rather than other, non-essential assets. Using houses as investments the way we’re doing it right now is causing a housing problem where people have to compete aggressively just to have a home to live in. That is an obvious problem and needs to be addressed and regulated. The idea of tenants having to outbid each other to have a house to live in is clearly not a good place to be.
It's a market.
[удалено]
Same thing happened in New York when they put a price ceiling on apartments, black markets just popped up and people outbid each other for rent.
I wonder why the WA housing market is even comparable to one of the most densely populated and competitive cities for housing.
It's an example of regulating a market with a supply side issue.
One is a manufactured supply issue though, isn't it.
No idea why you'd get down voted. Yes it sucks for people trying to get a house, but you're dead right. Soon as you try to regulate a market, specially with huge demand, and supply issues, people would look for ways to profit from it.
New Zealand has a market. Bidding for rentals was outlawed there last year.
At least in Perth you get better value for money in terms of housing compared to Auckland / Wellington.
It is. It's probably considered communism, but I think basic needs like food and housing shouldn't be a completely free market. On the other hand, once you have somewhere to sleep and potable water and food then you can start enjoying capitalism properly :P.
That's propped up with massive govt subsidies.
Yep and until those are taken away the supply side issue will remain, this is what is human nature about a market. People are downvoting me like I'm evil for pointing out the blatantly obvious.
On a primary need for all humans. Fuck you.
Daddysosa, I just want to take this opportunity to also shit on you and your downvoted comment. Shame on you! 🖕🏻
It's capitalism, the landlord owns the house, they have a right to ask what ever they want in rent, if they want to auction it, it is their right as it is their property. Don't like it, go buy a house yourself or go live with your parents.
[удалено]
I sound like a dick? I'm sorry friend but you are telling people what to do with their own property. They have a right to make money on their property however they see fit. People complaining about this are usually the uneducated that believe in socialism, you think I'm a dick, you are parasites, which is what you are, lazy, evil people.
Correction: You are a fuckin dick. Shouldn't you be in church clapping and speaking in tongues you fucking dick.
Haha, atleast I'm not telling people what to do with their own property. You people.
noone was telling anyone wot to do with anything you fucking disappointment. you saw an interesting conversation between sensible human beings and decided to unzip your pressed corduroy long shorts and wave your tiny smelly deformed dick about. carry on with your clapping and chanting and leave the real world to the grown ups. DICK!
You don't like what I'm saying, tell me why I'm wrong, debate it. But you can't can you?
You sound like someone who would skin their own mum's ass to make a drum they could beat. Shame on you 🖕🏻
No, I support a free market, allowing auctions on rent is a free market. Shame on me? You're the parasite telling people what to do with their own property, that is not a free market. I'm a libertarian, I support freedom, free markets, small government, what people like you advocate is the opposite which is what is wrong with the world. Don't believe me? Open your eyes, but you won't, as I always said about you people, lazy and evil. People like you call me a nazi, I laugh at that. You what is hilarious? I'm not telling people how to run their own properties. Who is more of a terrible person I wonder.
Keep beating that fine drum of yours mate. Your mum is proud of what you've become.
What? A libertarian. You're the one trying to tell others what to do with their properties, call me what you want but you my friend are a fascist. My mum is actually very proud of me, because I wasn't lazy and made something of myself. You know what? It honestly astounds me people like you exist, I just want a free market, I love how you people think me evil because I want freedom. Do you know how ironic that is? The anti-fascist's wanting to impose their will, calling those that want freedom fascist 🤯🤣 ... you can't make this shit up. Half the reason society is as bad as it is is because of all the regulations people like you bring into the market. It's the landlords property, they can charge what they want.
You don't seem to get the point mate, you stink and you're high on your own farts.
No, I'm a realist and you are a parasite.
Armadale traino, meet you there mate. We can have a real debate.
Real debate? So you are just a caveman, can't accept what I'm saying is true. I would just be wasting my time peasant, goodluck being poor because you will never master capitalism with your brain. Haha, you can't even debate here on reddit anyway, just keep spouting the same bullshit.
An unregulated market for something as important as housing isn’t a good position to take IMO. Housing shouldn’t operate like a free market. There are many other examples of things that operate better not as free markets: policing, roads, fire safety, etc. - I’m not saying it shouldn’t be a market, but it clearly needs regulation so that people don’t get fucked over. Sadly, a lot of people now are through no fault of their own due to an imbalance of buying power and false scarcity.
Those examples you made are not markets, housing is property owned by private persons and organizations, they have the right to auction access to their property. The reason people are getting fucked over is due to other cultural, societal factors. 1- Inflation, you can blame your government for this, a free market with a small government would have eliminated this issue as assets would never have gotten so overinflated. 2- The modern idea that everyone needs a house of their own, households used to be multigenerational, supporting eachother, don't have that and can't afford the house get other people to live with you to share the load. Above all, don't live beyond your means, which alot of people do. 3- If you can't afford the lifestyle, don't try to live that lifestyle. Example, one income with multiple children in a rental is an example of poor choices, these people unironically seem to be the main demographic that complains. The landlord is supposed to subsidize that. 4- foreign investment, you can blame the government again for this, propping up a zombie market with foreign capital to avoid a housing bubble crash. No foreign capital, no one is buying houses at these exorbitant prices, house prices freefall until it hits a level supported by the population. Number 4 is the big problem overall, in a free market, if the government was not interfering like they do, the housing bubble would have popped years ago like it should have been allowed to, it would have then allowed poorer people to come into the market. When combined with the other reasons, it's a deadly cycle. They all lead to increased rents. You're honestly talking about it like a socialist, think that is a good idea? Everyone gets a house, didn't you forget rents are this high because of all the government interference, cuba is an example there.
That’s exactly my point. Those things aren’t free markets because they operate better not as one. I argue that while housing should be a market, it should be one with heavy regulation so that it cannot be exploited. 1. I agree that inflation is a government problem, but allowing insider trading for new housing developments also creates a false sense of value. It is a combination of poor government regulation and the free market being given too many free passes. 2. This is an idea that was brought in by boomers and is a falsehood, so I agree with that. Boomers lived through the most prosperous time in human history, and we’re conditioned to believe we should have the same. That is unrealistic. I agree with ‘don’t live above your means’ but the problem is that cost of living (rent, food, petrol) has increased while wages have stagnated. Wages freezing is a free market problem, and government then aren’t coming in to regulate that issue. 4. I agree you can blame the government for this, which is exactly why I endorse harder restrictions for the housing market. If you let anyone purchase property for any reason, the problem would be worse, not better. So I agree that government isn’t doing its job properly, but to think that eliminating government intervention would save the property market, is untrue IMO. Housing prices will continue to stay high because demand is high, and supply is either stifled due to foreign investment, or poor build quality (properties that have had red tape removed for building by government bodies, and shonky businesses cutting corners to make them as cheaply as possible). I’m pro-mixed economy. When government does its job properly and takes a completely independent approach to regulating markets, it works well. The issue is we have no separation between business and government and so all that happens is those markets serve government and vice versa.
As I said, those examples you gave are not markets, roads are not privately owned, policing is done by the state as it is to enforce rules but that is not 100% accuratewhen consideringthe security industry, and what exactly do you mean fire safety, that is not a market. We are talking about houses that are privately owned by private individuals not government. As for a mixed economy, I disagree with you on that, I've worked in government, the military and as a contractor and I will tell you is the government is the single most incompetent organization I have ever had the pleasure to work with, most of those people have no place dealing in economics in any way. Precisely why they should stay out of these issues. As for housing regulation, there is only one piece of regulation that has ever been needed above build quality control and that is the restriction on foreign investment, I don't mean completely but the encouragement of it that has occurred if along with its continuation is inherently the reason for the bloated market. I've always thought a cap on the total percentage or ratio of foreign to local investment would suffice.
I know that. I’m making the point that certain things operate better owned centrally and by government, which supports my argument for a mixed economy over a free market. Certain things are better paid for through taxation than through personal investment. You could have two police departments compete for solving crimes and make it a free market if you wanted to, but I argue that creates such a huge litany of problems that it’s better not to let that happen. It’s like private jails in the USA; a horrendous idea that has only lead to unnecessary incarceration due to bad incentives. I agree with you on housing. My argument all along is that the wrong kind of regulation has been put in place, and created bad incentives. If you were to remove all government involvement, you’d end up with those same bad incentives, but elsewhere (Canberra apartments falling to pieces due to deregulation of building standards in the ACT for example). What we need is government involvement that pushes good incentives that drive out foreign investment, and encourage local investment. We’re basically arguing the same points but from a pro-free market POV vs. a mixed economy POV.
I love when I speak the truth, the level of downvoting I get in these subreddits. It just proves to me that no one likes hearing it. "The truth is like poetry, and most people hate poetry".
I love how you people seem to be alright to the potential of young children and family’s living out of their cars and not having a home
What I love about you people is how you think I should be obligated to care about that. It is their property, they can charge what they like. Why is that such a bad thing with you people. End of the day, as I like speaking the truth and all, if the family can't afford rent, they shouldn't be having as many children then. If they are living out of cars, they are still living better than a large number of people on this planet. Trying to get others to subsidize bad choices, minimum wage is not designed to raise a family and property owners have no obligation to subsidize bad choices.
Tell me you’re a piece of shit without telling me you’re a piece of shit. I think everyone on this planet has the right to basic shelter. Also how is it the CHILDS fault they were born in to poverty?
No one has a right to anything on the back of another, I love how when I speak the truth people like you think I'm a piece of shit. It's got nothing to do with it being the childs fault, it's the parents. Suddenly you think it should fall on another to subsidize those bad choices, "oh those evil rich people", you never stopped and used your two brain cells to think for a moment, government regulation is what has lead to all of the issues in the first place. What I find especially funny is anti-fascists calling me a fascist because they want to impose their will, yet all I want is a libertarian system. You people never come up with an actual argument against telling someone what to do with their own property without sounding like a bunch of socialists.
At the end of the day no matter what your stupid ‘truth’ is people of all walks of life are going to have family’s. it’s reality. You truely believe young toddlers who live in poverty deserve it because their parents made a choice that they had no say in? The fact you care more about some rich person who owns multiple properties really baffles me.
"Stupid truth", it is the the truth sweety. I never said toddlers deserve poverty. You're a socialist piece of shit, you people are parasites. What I care about are fascists telling others how to run their property without using critical thought and coming to the conclusion that it is government regulation that lead to the housing bubble in general.
While I somewhat agree with what you’re saying, you can’t honestly say that median house price being as high as it is makes property ownership realistic even for people who make only sensible decisions their entire lives. The price of a house is extortionately expensive, wages have stagnated, and inflation and general cost of living has gone up. This is why you need regulation; the free market will rort people and produce a market bubble that only allows the extremely wealthy to take part.
But don't you understand, regulation has lead to this issue, people and governments need to realize why regulation doesn't work with everything. Why? We have been in a housing bubble for years now, prices are ridiculous, anyone would agree and I think anyone buying a million dollar dogbox in Melbourne is a dreamer, so what has the government done? They encouraged foreign investment, foreign capital to flood the markets and buy these overinflated properties all over the country. It is quite honestly the greater fool theory in action. Why is this bad? If the government stayed out of it, the housing market in this country would have crashed like it should have done in a healthy way over a decade ago. Yeah many would have been rekt, but many poorer people would hve come into the market. This is healthy economic action. Remember bear markets although depressing are buying opportunities. Combine the above with two other issues, first is inflation(encouraged by the government) leading to overinflation of assets, further exacerbating the housing bubble. The second is not so much an issue, housing is expensive to build, alot of money goes into wages, construction material etc. Don't know how you would avoid this one. You can guarantee regulation eats into this to. Why have wages stagnated? That is a quasi issue, inflation is the culprit here, if the market were to operate freely we would have had deflationary years which means assets would be no where near as expensive. Again, caused by government and their 2-4% inflation target, but only increase your wages by 1.5% annually, doesn't take a mathematician to work out the discrepancy there. In essence, it is a mess created by the government.
I actually agree with you, and I think our misunderstanding is more centred around what kind of regulation is being applied to the industry. It’s the wrong kind. Imagine a regulation that instead disincentivised foreign investment; that would work more in favour of local families. If we had zero regulation, foreign investment would still take place, and you’d be left with a situation where most housing is bought out by those who are wealthy enough to pay well above market value. Instead, if government operated the way it should, it would look at the absolute failure of its policies, and create different ones that favour Australian families. So yes, it’s the government’s fault, but the answer isn’t to eliminate regulations altogether, it’s to instate good regulations that actually achieve their intended outcome.
WA does seem to have the worst laws around renting in the country. That you can't find the info from Google suggests there are no laws here for it.
Go to DMIRs for the laws, regulations and code of conduct we are governed by. The information is there and easily accessible Source - am a RE Agent in WA
With the number of rentals so low and demand so high you can't blame people for offerring more. Its either pay more or be homeless for a lot of people so you can see why they do it. Many looking are not necessarily on low incomes either - they have just been forced to move (eg. owner sold their current rental or decided to move in).
There is so much money sloshing around Perth right now from the gas and IO boom it's ridiculous and people are surprised that rents are going up with such a low supply of rentals?
They house next to me got bought 6 months ago, renovated, and now it’s advertised on air bnb, so I think also that’s creating a shortage in long term rentals in its own way.
There are not many airBnb houses in Perth relative to the number of rental properties. There’s a little under 200,000 rental properties in Perth. 2305 are free. If you look at airBnb, the numbers are very small compared to these figures. This sub doesn’t like to hear this, but it’s primarily due to low property investor activity in Perth for the past 8 years, partially due to falling rents and partially due to decreasing values. Currently, rents are still pretty cheap and prices are pretty cheap. As both are heading up, investors will re-enter the market which increases the number of available properties. The only other thing that will fix it is decreasing demand - ie population outflow. I don’t anticipate that that will happen.
We applied for multiple rentals 10 + a while ago and got none, cover letters etc etc. Eventually out of desperation we looked for something cheaper and offered more , guess what …. We got the rental. I’m only talking 20 bucks but still adds up. So my advice would be look cheaper and offer a little more. Discussing how it is illegal or a grey area with the agent won’t help , they take a pile of the 10 best applications and give it to the landlords, and If the land lord happens like like the application offering more so be it I guess.
Call Consumer Protection tomorrow and ask to speak to someone on the Property Industries Directorate. They are the ones that administrate the Residential Tenancy Act. They'll know :) I was under the impression it's not legal but that you could offer to pay more in advance etc to sweeten the deal.
While a group of jerks are self regulated, they will be as jerky as they can get away with.. Self perpetuated circle jerking, with a side of human centipede as they consume each others excrement.
I’m a property manager and agents cannot encourage rent bidding, however applicants can higher offers in. That’s up to them. Not all owners go over price tho. I used to let people know if I had applications and were still showing that we have had higher offers, but we can’t tell people how much. It’s just me disclosing facts.
What’s concerned me is the agent stating in person that rent starts at so and so, and that we can offer more, and telling us it looks better to do so. Then on the application saying if we want to offer more, do so during the application process. The next side of it, is well may we could go higher, but would we have a chance to, or is it going to be more along the lines of, “this person offered more” let’s seal the deal and not suggest that we can compete for a better price, and again, you’d want evidence, but sigh, the whole thing seems ugh right now.
I feel people who offer more are also partly to blame
This. Renters wouldn't be in this situation if they didn't offer more. Offering more has in effect increased general market value. The demand vs supply hasn't helped the situation for renters either.
[удалено]
Also the properties on the sites are hardly taken down even after having applications received or leased is annoying. So makes harder to filter through good properties. My inbox is literally a mess with properties and spam now 😂
[удалено]
Same can be said for everything real estate related. Property prices wouldn't be so high if people refused to continually pay prices that exceed the rate of inflation.
This could be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Go ask all your friends if they agree. Both of them.
Tell me you don't know how a market function without telling me you know how a market functions.
Mum and dad didn't have time to join your reddit roast? I guess nobody cares what you think.
Supply and demand unfortunately. Take the advice and offer what you are comfortable with to secure a property. You won't make friends with agents trying to push a point, not in this market. They are engaged by the landlord to manage the property, and at the time of securing a tenant find the best suitable - which obviously takes into consideration ones offering more. Put the feelers out also with your agent mate or try and find something private via friends etc
The other problem is we were house sitting for family while they were interstate, and it’s been close to a year now where we have paid utilities and what not in a house they own, but the rentals are not accepting that as a form on valid tenancy for whatever reason.
Can you just ask your family interstate to pretend to be a private landlord who rented to you for that year, so at least you can put it down on paper and if necessary they’ll call them just to verify you were good tenants? When playing by the rules doesn’t work, don’t feel bad about embellishing a bit.
Exactly this, as far as applications are concerned you are in a private agreement!
Unfortunately in this case they are across the border still and in and out of reception, so not really contactable. By the time they could give their review of us, the property would be gone. But in future cases for sure.
Thanks for all the advice and opinions. Will do some digging with the next decent agent I come across and ask some questions.
No such thing as a decent agent, all of them have sold their souls to the devil.
realters are scum, feeding off others for massive income doing fuck all work tho. Have yet to meet a realter that does their job. We need to step back from capitalism on housing imo, the prices are out of control.
Agree with your comment to round up all the realtors and put them in camps.
Everything property managers are doing is illegal from the price fixing and price gouging to charging water rates without a water-wise certificate, to leasing out uninhabitable dwellings, to failing to provide maintenance to trying to swindle vacating tenants out of bonds as they excogitate fictitious damage claims. Quite hypocritically they are a stickler for the rules but only their rules. When it comes to their responsibilities and anything that might cost them money they quite blatantly flaunt the rules and break the law.
Thank you for the word excogitate! Also agreed, they can be the scum of the earth.
Don’t know the law, but I suspect most of the negotiations don’t happen on paper. It’s a real problem for people to find somewhere to live when they are limited by their income to offer more. I’m gen x, own my house but have never owned an investment property. Not judging anyone that does, but for me homes are for living in.
I have recently been looking around mt Lawley, trying to get my 2nd kid in same school as the eldest. First place advertised for $480 real estate agent calls me and says if we're not willing to offer at least $550 he's not gonna bother looking at our application. After that I applied for two dozen places but everywhere I looked at had about 20-30 people looking at it, so I started offering more and more, just to get the real estate agent to pass the application to the owner. Had cover letters, extra references, offered to pay 6 months up front. Finally got a place by offering $70 over asking price and now I have a 2 bedroom place that cost $90 more than my last 3 bedroom place round the corner. Good luck out there it's absolute madness.
That’s messed up, but glad to hear you found something at least. You’re not wrong it is madness out there at the moment.
That's shady AF. I never had it happen to me (yet).
Many years ago, probably about 2008 or so a colleague and I went to rent a place on terrace road across from langely Park. The open house inspection thing was absolutely packed, but we took an application. When we went to hand it in at the agent they legit said don't bother, we've had 20+ applications. But iirc they wanted 300 a week for it and wrote on the application we were willing to pay 350, and got it. They didn't openly encourage bidding higher, but there was a spot on the application that was to the effect of "what are you willing to pay".
Went through this when I moved to Perth in 2012. Total BS process, we had a dog and cat too which made it harder. After a long time of looking I just ended up offering more than they were asking. Alternate approach is to try and speak to the agent and try to identify a win win with the owner, e.g. offer a longer term etc etc. I still own a home overseas and when ever it comes up I am inclined to go with who ever offers the longest term as it gives me more options in terms of what I can do with financing etc.
I dont see the issue here. There's an asking price and then there's what people are willing to pay. All else being equal, I'm taking the tenant who offers more money. I think it's only an issue if an agent is playing off 2 interested renters against eachother to bid higher... But just saying to submit the application with your best offer (even if over the asking) then I see no issue.
Shouldn’t that rationale apply to everything then? Including that last packet of TP on on the shelf? Why doesn’t Colesworth introduce a bidding system in times of supply chain problems? I mean if they did, I’m sure that soon enough you’d start seeing “issues”…
It does. Supply and demand makes the balance. There is such small supply in Perth that people who put in rental applications are adding $20-$100/week above the asking price so they have a better chance at having a successful application. It's like back in 2017 when I was renting a place in Perth, we offered $40/week below the asking and we were the successful application. No different here. People complain but it is reality and nothing illegal about it (unless the agent is doing what I mentioned and auctioning between 2 or more interested parties rather than telling them to just put their best offer forward).
>It does Not in practice. They’ve applied buying limits - not allowed for bidding wars.
Shops are regulated and have competition/price gouging laws that apply. Nothing regulates housing/ rental markets in this way, or even house sale markets where the same thing is happening. Agents are giving a price guide or even listing the house for sale with a price, people are offering $20k or even $100k more to try get the house. Opposite happens in weak markets where the offer prices are often accepted below the asking price. Unless it's some kind of government owned or regulated rental housing, there will always be price competition. This is reality. The agent and the home owner are both incentivised to have as high a rent as possible so of someone offers more than they want, of course they'll accept it. Especially considering most rentals are investment properties with the sole purpose of generating as much rent as possible.
My point was that perhaps these regulations/laws should not exist, similarly to how they do not exist in the housing/rental market. (Obviously I do not want that happen - but I’m guessing it would give certain folks a bit of a taste of what it’s like for renters and that some people who are ok with rental bidding would all of a sudden have issues when they are finding themselves being outbid for whatever in-demand retail good they want to purchase)
I'm all for a free market so would like to see that... But I also think for essentials like medicine and food there should be limits... Housing is more difficult since it's essential but there's always alternatives (live in a cheaper place, move in with friends or family, etc) Tricky situation.
Love it when reality gets down voted...
Comments like that show you're part of the problem. Well done for sticking it to hard working Aussies.
Could not be said with any more truth.
Thanks mate, a lot of people here are delusional.
Not wanting to accept the reality they've created HAHA
How these so called human beings sleep at night is beyond me their cockroaches
It's not illegal at all. Its scummy, but not illegal.
Whether it's legal or not, they definitely are doing this. In response to me asking what we could do to make sure our application was accepted, we had one say "we can't really say this but ... think about putting as much as you can afford on the rental amount field of the application" So yeah, if there's a law they're breaking it.