Kim Macdonald: Tenant charges can be costly but landlords need option to end toxic rental relations

Sometimes, relationships turn toxic. It’s a fact of life. The State Government seems to be ignoring this in its rumoured plan to end no-cause evictions from rental housing. It’s akin to removing no-blame divorces, which were introduced in 1975 to recognise that relationships can irretrievably break down even without matrimonial offences like adultery. For those who have followed my opinion pieces, my support for no-cause evictions may come as a surprise given I’m no doubt regarded as pro-tenant and annoyingly woke. While I’m a landlord myself, I’ve argued for those with investment properties to lose some tax incentives because it puts first homebuyers at a disadvantage. I’ve called out high profile people for sudden and massive rental hikes, highlighted the importance of proper air-conditioning at rentals and called for rent-free Christmases. I’ve also thrown my support behind social housing projects in the city and Subiaco and helped to get multiple women into discount rentals to escape domestic violence. I’m not highlighting any of this to put a feather in my cap, but to explain how my argument to maintain no-cause evictions does not stem from some grand, evil plan to suppress tenants. It comes from my belief that forcing landlords to give up control of their asset will not achieve what the State Government wants — an ample supply of affordable, decent and secure rental housing. The end of no-cause evictions in other States and Territories means tenants are turfed only if they don’t pay the rent or cause serious property damage. The only other valid reasons include the home being needed by the landlord, their child or their spouse, for a substantial renovation or if the home is being sold. It means landlords are tied to a tenant — potentially for life — even if the tenant doesn’t act in good faith. A friend, who is an exemplary landlord, has a tenant who seems intent on costing her unnecessary expenses, but there would be no way to evict if no-cause evictions were banned. The tenant’s actions include calling for a plumber to fix leaky taps on two occasions only weeks apart — costing my friend double the call out-fees — despite the plumber confirming both taps needed repairs at his first visit. The tenant then demanded new vertical blinds because they opened to the left, rather than her preferred direction to the right, and threatened legal action after a refusal. The tenant then demanded the landlord replace a window which had cracked from inside the home. Despite photographic evidence of no such crack when the home was leased, the tenant again threatened legal action. There is not enough space to go into the stressful matters involving this tenant. It would be understandable if a homeowner wanted to end the relationship at the conclusion of the contract, but a landlord would not have that option if no-cause evictions were banned. But my friend — who self manages the rental to get savings which she shares with the tenant — has acquiesced to every demand and has no plans to evict or increase the rent. While confident of winning any case, the landlord could not bear the cost and mental load of lawyering-up for court. The issue highlights a safeguard that is built into the market — most landlords go to extremes to keep their tenants because it costs $3000 to $5000 to get a new one. These costs include paying a property manager to assess damage for bond disposal, write a property condition report, stage home opens and interview new tenants. There are also advertising costs and weeks of foregone rental income while waiting for new tenants. The State Government would be better off ensuring tenants can request repairs without the threat of eviction by introducing a habitability permit, where a home must meet standards for structural safety, damp and mould, ventilation, heating, insulation, water supply, sanitation and fire and electrical safety, in order to operate as a rental. But if it proceeds with the rumoured move to ban no-cause evictions, it will prompt many landlords to exit the market. Build-to-rent complexes — often owned by big foreign corporations — would step in to take more market share. BTR developments are much more expensive than mum-and-dad owned rentals. And they keep tenants in the rent trap much longer than any aspiring homeowner needs.