Minimising living costs

by Alison, 13 days ago
The Open Doors to Renting Reform community consultation has now closed. Thank you for having your say on how we can improve renting in Queensland.

Tell us what you think:

  • How could energy and water efficiency of rental properties be improved?
  • What would encourage energy and water efficiency features to be included in rental properties, like solar panels or water saving devices?

The Open Doors to Renting Reform community consultation has now closed. Thank you for having your say on how we can improve renting in Queensland.

  • markbuzz 25 days ago
    I was approached by a company offering solar systems for rental properties that allowed you to charge the tenants for electricity at a reduced rate. Allowing for depreciation, the payback on the install was only 3 years. Unfortunately, there was only one company offering the service and they have subsequently gone out of business. I think a government managed owner incentive scheme where the hardware and install is paid by the owner, the tenants pay for the electricity and the government manage the process between the two would be a great idea.
  • Angel 26 days ago
    From reading these posts, it appears that water utilities suppliers across Qld charge their clients differently. Where I live, the charges are significantly different to how they are charged in Brisbane, the adjoining region. The RTA has blanket regulations about how landlords can pass on water charges to tenants, but this in itself is currently unfair. I would ask that they examine the various utilities companies billing criteria and fix the situation. I would prefer that water is charged directly to all consumers, just as electricity, broadband and wifi is. Were these laws created back in the days of outside closets before homes were sewered? Why do I get charged every time someone else flushes their toilet? I bet the politicians and the legislators don't pay a fee whenever someone else in another suburb flushes.
  • jollybear about 2 months ago
    I think all properties should have a water efficiency certificate. That is the fairest way for both landlords and tenants. Tenant then only pay for the water they use. Solar panels are a little more expensive and I for one, certainly wouldn't be able to afford to put them on my investment properties. I don't even have one on my own home.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Hondrays about 2 months ago
      If they do not have a water efficiency certificate the landlord is not allowed to charge the tennant for water. It is in the best interest of the landlord to do so.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • jollybear about 2 months ago
        Landlords can still charge for water consumption under the RTA its usually around $50 a quarter. That usually wouldn't even be close to what the average tenant/s uses. So yes, water efficiency certificates would be better for the landlord as well.
      • Angel 26 days ago
        a certificate is only one way to prove that the landlord has water-efficient taps. Then what is to stop the tenant removing the taps and shower heads when they move in and using far more water anyway.
  • lifetimerenter about 2 months ago
    after reading all the posts on this subject, I can see why owners don't install solar panels, so why is there not a system where a long term tenant and I do stress long term, 5 years or more, can have 3 or 4, again I stress,3 or 4 solar panels put in at their own expense to help with running costs, and when they vacate the panels stay, a bonus for all concerned. I just hit up my landlord for a replacement stove as the one I have is around 50 years old, only has 3 hot plates, one of which is a large element that runs at around 1400 watts, the grill rails have corroded off at the far end so if you forget to balance it, your food slides off, the hinges on the oven door have metal fatigue so the door doesn't seal properly, and the tenants in 8,9,11 all have new stoves which I assume are more energy efficient. When they find a reduced in price stove they will replace it, is the outcome of that inquiry, I thought the $5 a week increase in rent this year should cover that, that's why I put in for a new one.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Hondrays about 2 months ago
      I tend to agree and it unfortunate that you do not have a better landlord. I am one and do not expect my tenants to have shoddy fittings. I have a deal with the agents that allows for the tenant to contact me direct for any failures and i am down to fix it immediately. If i cant fix it or away i ring the agents to get the appropriate person to fix it. Re water and electricity. Both items are cheap. Unfortunately it is the govt charges that make it harder for older folk to keep up. I am older and my taxes paid for my water storages over 50 years and now i am paying again eg $100 state govt charge for bulk water storage. Govt charg a connection surcharge then we get hit with gst on that. Why are we paying for on going connection charges when we pay for the usage of electric and water? In addition we pay for input of water to sewerage. House owners are paying for appartment owners water as the formula they use is rediculous.
    • Angel 26 days ago
      Hi lifetimerenter. It seems like you live in a complex when you talk about your neighbours at 8, 9 and 11. Unfortunately for you, then, the body corporate holds both tenants and owners to ransom. If they don't want solar panels, then no matter how much of a good idea it is and no matter how much your landlord is going in to bat for you, the BC may have a bylaw that prohibits them. My Mum owns her own townhouse and she is not allowed to install solar on the roof in Brisbane. I just cant imagine how out of touch your landlord is if they wont replace a 50 year old stove, but I have seen these things. Crazy. The RTA booklet says something about we have to supply cooking facilities, but it does not specify to what standard. Maybe you want to get yourself a new landlord or your own gas camping stove.
  • CNielsen about 2 months ago
    Owners can claim a tax rebate for installing solar panels and the tenant can get a rebate on electricity. Owners should be encouraged to install solar panels, but not increase the rent because of it.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Angel 26 days ago
      Tax rebate? Where? I thought they were abolished about ten years ago.
  • ahl about 2 months ago
    I think it would be good for landlords to have some incentive to install solar power. It's clearly not going to happen when the costs are the landlords and the benefits all pass to the tenants - though it might gradually happen as stock turns over, but in the meantime there would need to be some sharing of costs through something like a special additional rent. Not all properties are going to be suitable for solar panels either.I understood there's already a water efficiency standard that has to be met to pass water bills on to tenants - so many fixtures were changed during the last drought to improve water efficiency.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Kay Ritson about 2 months ago
      At the moment there is a scheme for homeowners to get free solar power through a government funded scheme, so why can’t this be extended to rental properties?
      Hide Replies (3)
      • ahl about 2 months ago
        Sounds good Kay, if the contractors were assured to be good, and preferably landlord's choice. I still have some bad memories of the Fed Govts insulation scheme, where some rogue contractor just pumped chopped newspaper into the ceiling space of a property we owned without any authorisation. The tenant didn't realise what was happening until too late, but contacted the agent as soon as he did. The contractor removed it all in the end :)
      • Oracle67 about 2 months ago
        Kay, could you please provide the details of this free solar panels scheme as I think if it was indeed free landlords would be very willing to do it. However I seriously doubt such a scheme exists as nothing in life is ever free from my experience, there is always a catch, so do tell.
      • Angel 26 days ago
        Please share the details and my tenants will get it. But somehow I have never heard of such a thing as free solar panels.
  • avava about 2 months ago
    Why shouldn't rental properties be equipped with solar panels and water saving devices. The poor are always punished for being poorer, for example car registration fees (as well as many other bills), make it clear that if you pay late or bi-yearly, you will end up paying more, so this just ensures a cycle of poverty through the greed and entitlement of others. Which sadly can be applied to rental properties, if your living costs are NOT being minimized, then obviously YOU WILL BE PAYING MORE for your living expenses, so the poverty cycle keeps happening, the poor get poorer, because it is set up that way, so the wealthier keep their position and the poor have no power or rights. To those with rental properties that say, 'why should we pay', well... why shouldn't you...you get the luxury of an income from people that are generally in a worse financial position than you. You gladly take that income because, generally, many will make money from that money. Yet many don't want to make the lives of the less fortunate easier, because they are so busy being entitled...Share the good fortune around...why not... you can't take your money to the Pearly Gates with you... : )
    Hide Replies (45)
    • foxje about 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
      Hide reply (1)
      • foxje about 2 months ago
        And if you are forcing people to give up money so that other people can live more comfortably, and people have to work for their money, doesn't that mean you are also forcing them to work at least partially for other people with no reward for themselves. Pretty sure that is nearly the definition of slavery. I do not think that is a good path to go.
    • foxje about 2 months ago
      Not sure why my comment got moderated out lol. My question is reasonable - why shouldn’t the landlords pay for tenants’ food as well? And maybe provide a car also...?
      Hide Replies (20)
      • Dianne Mendoza about 2 months ago
        If you would be happy to contribute to their mortgage repayments, rates, insurance, repairs and maintenance I am sure you could come to an agreement.
        Hide Replies (19)
        • JamieN84 about 2 months ago
          What does rental income cover if not most or all of those?
          Hide Replies (11)
          • Snakes Creek about 2 months ago
            My personal home cost is $200.000 and when I transferred we turned it into an investment property. Rates per year are $3800 per year, insurance is $1200 per year. Intrest on $100,000 still owing is $5,700 per year. These fixed costs total $10,000. the rental income is $220 per week. that's $11,000 per year. There is no profit from the rent. Everything else comes out of our hose hold budget. The profit usually comes in capital gain compounding over 10 to 20 years at around 3% per year. If you just happen to be in an area that has sudden growth we might get a bigger capital gain. This is a long game strategy developed and duplicated over a life time. I hope this explanation helps you.
            Hide Replies (5)
            • JamieN84 about 2 months ago
              Definitely not a get rich quick scheme. But I was just checking that the rental income does cover mortgage, rates and insurance for the home owner.Difficulty with this topic is home owners need an incentive to reinvest in ‘improvements’ that are both beneficial for them and their tenants. Otherwise the home will just sit there for those 10-20 years without getting things like insulation, carpet, solar, water tanks updated/installed because they are a pure cost for the home owner with no benefit.
              Hide Replies (2)
              • Snakes Creek about 2 months ago
                The up side is the capital gain. Try an exercise, take $200,000 and add compound intrest for a ten year period. At the same time do the same for the rental income starting at $220. the results will surprise you. As the mortgage may stay the same value, the rental income ratio increases. It's worth the exercise if the tennents look after the place,. Sometimes properties will double in 5 years.
                Hide reply (1)
                • Angel 26 days ago
                  Not in Qld they dont, unless you mean for a few years every thirty in a mining town. Good luck with that.
            • Tammy N about 1 month ago
              By my calculations you are still $1000 ahead of your fixed costs all of which you claim as deductable and reduce your taxable income so the repairs and maintenance costs which cost more than that $1000 per year would most likely be equal to the amount you are reducing your tax by as well as being tax deductable as well. All in all you are still coming out in front and not losing anything. Your house hold expenses would cost you just as much without the rental as you would lose the tax deductions thus increasing your taxable income and not getting as much in refund.
              Hide reply (1)
              • Snakes Creek about 1 month ago
                The assumption is that the property is rented for the full period. If an agent is involved their is their commission to also be deducted, and one week rent to the agent to find new remnant. Now $600 to upgrade the smoke detectors that were replaced 3 years ago, You are also assuming that the owner never gets unemployed or sick. Personal income is not always high enough to use a tax deduction. If you make laws to cover the high income earners you will also wipe out all incentive for the median income people to invest in housing. Every time you legislate to control a few, you actively push the majority out of the industry. The flow on effect is reduced homes available to rent, then supply and demand pushes the rental market upward.
          • Dianne Mendoza about 2 months ago
            Hello Jamie,Good question and I will endeavour to give you a rough example without keeping you up all night. The purpose of having an investment property is to hopefully pick up a capital gain if one is lucky or have a long term investment that will give one an income for retirement. These are people who do not wish to rely on an old age pension. I work in a low socio economic area which is great for investors as housing prices are lower an rents aren’t high with good walking distance amenities. The average price for a moderate 3 bedroom is $350,000 with a rental return depending on location, lock up car accommodation $290.00 to $350.00 per week. For the Landlord the cost of purchasing the property attracts stamp duty approximately $12,000 plus conveying costs and bank Loan establishment charges. Bank loans for investment properties attract a higher interest rate than first home buyers. A positive for investors and first home buyers is interest rates are historically low, however this is only short term so we will use for example an investment loan of $350,000. If the investor chooses to just pay the interest and never pay anything off the principal the repayment will be $294.00 per week. If the investor chooses to pay principal as well as the interest over a 25 year period the repayments would be around $443.00 per week. On top of that they have building insurance to pay approx. $30.00 per week, rental insurance is also an option some take out as well. Council rates of $46.00 per week, water $30.00 per week. Renters now pay for usage or excessive usage, however Landlords still pay for connection charges, repairs and maintenance which is more difficult and time consuming to average out. When renters move into a rental property they expect and deserve the property to be clean, pest free, safe and everything working. For Property Managers safety and all appliances working is easy for us to manage but cleaning and pest free we wholly rely on how the vacating tenant leaves it for the new tenant. My biggest concern for renters is the economy. Many Landlords are suffering and have had to sell their properties. In my rent roll alone 400 lost in three years, leaving us with the lowest vacancy rate Increase have experienced in 22 years plus we have Bill Shorten of the Labour Party threatening to abolish negative gearing for rental properties which means their will be no rental properties. The Labour Part is so out of touch they think that property prices will drop so that you can save enough money to get a bank loan and buy your own property to pay off. I hope this helps.
            Hide reply (1)
            • jollybear about 2 months ago
              I understand some rental properties need work to bring them up to a living standard. And things have to change but the mentality of the tenants do too. Tenants seem to want everything for the cheapest rental price. Its hard for a lot of investors to hold onto rental properties right now and NO they are NOT rich. They are generally mums and dads trying to get ahead in the world. If Bill Shorten gets in as PM, and cuts negative gearing, there is no incentive for Mums and Dads investors to get into the market and then there will be a shortage of rental housing. The Government doesnt provide real housing, investors do. So what then?
          • Qlander2 about 1 month ago
            Everyone has their hand out to fleece anyone who rents out their property. Council adds $800 a year to the rates, real estates take the first week's rent (plus gst) and then 10% of every rent payment from that point on plus various other "management fees", "bank fees" and "fortnightly statement fees" that the property managers add on combine that with maintenance costs, bank interest and 3% stamp duties when you buy an investment property. Why would you do it?My own so called investment property cost $142,500. Stamp duty was $5,200 (approx), legal fees and bank costs probably another $3,000. I spent $9,000 improving the property putting in airconditioners, new stoves, painting and refurbishing. I rented it out for $190 a week (less agents commission 10%). My mortgage costs $450 a month, council rates takes $250 a month ($1,800 every six months). Insurance is about $100 a month. I am losing over $100 every month for the "privilege" of renting out this two bedroom house on 600 sqm block of land a few kilometres from the CBD. Oh you say I get a tax break? Wrong, I am retired..I don't have other income to offset. Oh you say I get capital gain on the property? Wrong, it is Rockhampton ...take a look at the property data - Rockhampton has declined every year for the past eight years. If I had put the same money into bank shares as my rental property I would have an income of about $15,000 per annum without ANY fees coming out.Are you starting to get the picture why rental property is getting harder to come by in Rockhampton (and probably other regional areas)?
            Hide reply (1)
            • Snakes Creek about 1 month ago
              Very common right across Qld. It is a long term investment strategy. Over the last 10 years it's been more of a gamble. I see the need for all of us to plan ahead to cover retirement situations, including the time we can no longer drive. The major city dweller have been conditioned to think week to week, pay check to pay check by large corporations that are driven by a monthly balance sheet. Also driven by our own super funds. So we have become victims of the masses that think the government is responsible single for every thing in our lives. Congratulations for being one of the few who being responsible for your self.
          • Over it about 1 month ago
            JamieN84 as a landlord you cannot charge tenants to cover all costs as most tenants would not be able to afford the real cost of paying off mortgage rates insurance and repairs, some tenants in this forum have no idea of the real outlay to own a home demanding landlords to do this and that etc just may increase rents something I think may need to happen you cannot expect new laws to pass upgrade of standards and the other side not to want to recoup costs its just business.
        • Kay Ritson about 2 months ago
          Dianna, the rent that tenants pay does contribute to their mortgage repayments, rates, insurance etc. Why else would they invest in property?
          Hide Replies (6)
          • Fc35 about 2 months ago
            Kay Ritson it’s for the long term capital growth of the property, there is often very little short term gain,
          • Dianne Mendoza about 2 months ago
            Hello Kay and yes tenants rent does contribute to Landlords costs. Jamie above has asked for detail so I will try and give her an example. People in employment take out loans for investment properties to hopefully support them in retirement. These are people who will not qualify and do not wish to qualify for a Government pensions and of course the goal of the Government is to eradicate the old age pension.
          • jollybear about 2 months ago
            That's right they contribute, it generally doesn't cover all the investor/s holding cost. That's why it is called Negative Gearing. The investors claims some of the loss on tax returns. Investing this way the investor/s hope someday in the next 10 plus years the property will go up in value and that's when they start to get ahead. Its generally a long term gain.
          • Qlander2 about 1 month ago
            Many landlords (including myself) are selling their rental properties as it simply doesn't add up to rent property as a source of income as interest, council rates, property management fees and charges, maintenance, damage by tenants are making it totally unviable. Capital gain on property is long gone these days and most owners (especially those in regional areas) are seeing their property values plummet. The quicker I can sell my rental the happier I will be - shares are a MUCH better investment with no fees/or charges eating up returns.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Cleocattra about 1 month ago
              I can’t wait for the day when Mum and Dad investors get out of the business of providing shelter. The more who sell up their investment properties and leave the better. Many many tenants don’t like having you as our landlords. Bring on institutional investment where tenancies are managed by professionals and tenants aren’t continually reminded that they are beholden to the owner. We don’t want you. Good bye.
              Hide reply (1)
              • Qlander2 30 days ago
                Oh yes Cleocatra, bring on the institutional investment and then tenants like you will really find out what it is like in the real World and you will be pleading to have those "awful Mum & Dad investors" back! Do you really think institutional investors really care about tenants?? Newsflash - institutional investors are the same people who own shares in the Banks, Toll roads and airports! What's happening there? Exactly fees and charges rising and services reducing. I can't wait until you take on your own mortgage or better still an investment property - it will really open your eyes! Wake up Australia! Please,please, please tell me when you do as I so, so want to rent from you!
    • Oracle67 about 2 months ago
      Hello avava, all sounds very nice if you are the beneficiary of someone else paying for these devices which are expensive to purchase and install (referring mainly to solar panels here). It is not the responsibility of the landlord to ensure wealth is being spread around. Wealth is earnt over a long period of time in most cases. The landlord is the one who takes the risk in purchasing an investment and they expect returns on that investment. It is not the Landlords responsibility to minimise living costs, that is up to the individual (to help themselves) and governments.
      Hide Replies (12)
      • Kay Ritson about 2 months ago
        Actually, it is not expensive to install solar power at the moment. $4500 for the average home after subsidies according t9 the advertising today. All tax deductible for the landlord as well.
        Hide Replies (11)
        • jollybear about 2 months ago
          Landlords need to have the $4500 to begin with? This is apart of the problem. There is always an assumption that landlords can afford $4500. Some might be able to but not all. And that begs the question? Should they put it on their own Principal place of residence or the investment home, Kay? I know if I had $4500 I would install solar panels in my own home first.
        • Oracle67 about 2 months ago
          Hello Kay, I am sure there are many landlords who would say that $4500 is expensive. It still comes down to the question is it really the landlords responsibility to minimise tenants living costs? I say no it isn’t, i believe it is up to individuals and the government to do that. Property investment is a business for the investor and as long as a property is at a safe and maintained standard then that is all that should be required. It does not mean that tenants and landlords can not come to agreements to have these cost minimising devices, but that should be between the two parties not part of a mandatory requirement.
          Hide Replies (5)
          • Kay Ritson about 1 month ago
            So can I install solar panels on my rented home? My landlord might agree but then I am gifting him with a valueadding item so when my lease expires in 12 months he can make a bigger profit when he sells the house.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • jollybear about 1 month ago
              Kay talk to any real estate agent, you don't ad a huge amount of value to a property by installing solar panels. Feature wise its a benefit but its not going to add $10,000 in value. That's probably why investors and home owners alike DONT invest in them.
            • Oracle67 about 1 month ago
              Hello Kay, if you and the landlord agree then go for it. However, If the landlord decided to put the money into providing solar panels would you be happy to contribute to the cost by having a rent increase? I suspect that would be a no from you as you seem to think that the landlord should be paying to subsidise your living costs, which I as a landlord totally disagree. Since when do businesses operate that way and owning a rental property is a business not a charity.
          • Tammy N about 1 month ago
            I don't know of anyone who would allow the Tennent to install solar panels. I would only do it if I could get an agreement from the land lord that the rent would not be increased an I would be able to have a lease to cover at least 4 years in order to fully benefit from the investment I have made to their property. Reduction of energy cost is a community and social issue and there needs to be more done for this issue. It cannot be seen as simply a landlord or tennent issue.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Angel 26 days ago
              Tammy is being realistic in offering to negotiate with her landlord. BUT what happens in two or three years time if you want to leave. You wont be taking the panels with you, as it would ruin the roof if you try to remove them.
        • Qlander2 about 1 month ago
          My tenants don't open their fly screened, security screened doors and windows choosing to turn on the split systems instead of relying on natural ventilation...and then they complain about electricity bills!It is not simply a case of putting "solar up on the roof" your switchboard needs to be up to the task - a lot of places require the switchboard to be upgrade ...at a cost of about $2,500 extra.You have to be making money first to be able to claim a tax deduction ...most landlords aren't!
        • Over it about 1 month ago
          Dear Kay can I borrow $4500 from you as you think its not expensive PS tax deduction is only good if your high income earner which is not all landlords much to some surprise in this forum.
        • Qlander2 30 days ago
          That's if the switchboard has been upgraded to handle it. If not, add another $3,000 on that price. Ok so now the rent has gone up $50 a week, happy??
        • Angel 26 days ago
          Kay, if you have the spare $4500 sitting around doing nothing in your bank account, why not ask your landlord if you can pay for the solar panels and put them on his roof. How does that idea sit with you?
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      You are assuming that only poor people rent, that is absolutely not the case at all, in fact some who choose to rent are in a much better position than some families who are struggling with mortgages. Landlords are not responsible for ensuring tenants living costs are lower, I don’t know how anyone could assume that.
    • JamieN84 about 2 months ago
      I think all *new* properties should have solar panels installed. Regardless of if it is to be used as a rental or not.Just a shame that things like this that really benefit the tenant (and environment debatably) has a negative financial impact for the owner. Which means they generally have no interest in investing into it. I live in a brand new town house that has a big flat roof perfect for solar panels that would save me $100s per year... But the units were built specifically for investment purposes so why would the owner waste money on Solar Panels with no intent to ever live there. Not like they increase property value.
      Hide reply (1)
    • Snakes Creek about 2 months ago
      There is an illusion that all property owners are wealthy. Most rental properties are held by battling workers who are working extra hard to build something for their future. This is usually a 20 to 30 years plan. The big question is ... Who is going to pay ?????ultimately the government is the tax payer. Where do you want to pay ? in rent that where you have choise or in tax.
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      I use to be poor once but made a decision to change that. Poor is a state of mind. Everyone, be it landlord or tenant, should be treated fairly. Sorry to tell you avara most of the poorest people in this country are either living on the streets or are Mum and Dad home owners trying to get ahead and provide for their family. I get it, tenants feel like they have it tough. Trying being a home owner or investor.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Kay Ritson about 1 month ago
        Removed by moderator.
    • David Heard about 1 month ago
      Sadly unless you live in a Housing Commission house the value of your rent is directly tied to the value of the property.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • jollybear about 1 month ago
        Should it be different David?
      • Tammy N about 1 month ago
        not necessarily the value of the property, more a combination of the property value and rental availability in the area. Even lower valued properties have high rents when rental properties are scares. If you are going to pay high rent you would prefer a newer property with modern facilities, maybe including solar power. However if you have a lower priced rental property you should be prepared to accept that you will have an older house with older appliances and facilities. If you live somewhere that rentals are hard to come by you may have to accept you need to pay more for less, the alternative is to live in a different area or not have a home.
  • Angel 26 days ago
    Nothing can be done because, unlike Sydney and Melbourne, rental demand is not particularly great in Brisbane, and pretty low in the regional towns. Rents received by landlords do not necessarily cover the costs to owners of providing accommodation as is. Why would we want to spend thousands of more dollars on solar installations and water tanks, with no way at all of recouping any of that cost in higher rents. As it is, the cost of water supply is charged to the owner and only a small fraction of that can be recouped from the tenant. The government can fix this discrepancy before you start wanting us to add any luxuries to the properties that I bet we will not be allowed to charge tenants to use. If we put solar panels on the roof, any feed in tariff goes to the resident and not the owner. Last week I received a water bill for two adults - they used less water than last quarter but the account is $65 more. Even with all the water saving devices installed, we are out of pocket about $400 a quarter compared to what the tenants pay us for water supply.
  • Cleocattra about 1 month ago
    NTSH
  • foxje about 2 months ago
    I think the existing water use regulations are fair, although I think there should be room for the tenant to pay for non-efficient water usage if they want to. The current regulations mean that if a tenant wants a particular type of shower head which is non water efficient, the landlord CANNOT let them install it otherwise he will be forced to pay all water usage. That is silly. Let's treat people like adults - if a tenant is willing to pay for their water usage and their luxurious showers, we should let them. Unsure on the solar panels. Someone the return from the reduced electricity bills needs to circulate back to the owners otherwise they will not bother putting them in. But I can see it being a nightmare to try and implement (ie tenants having to show their bills to landlords.... bad idea).
    Hide Replies (15)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      I can’t see why power bills should be the landlords responsibility?? So the government see fit to sell off assets & privatise electricity causing outrageous price hikes & then want landlords to fix it...pffft
      Hide Replies (12)
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        Energy efficiency, not power bills. I do not see how a landlord should be ultimately responsible for delivering lower power bills.
        Hide Replies (5)
        • foxje about 2 months ago
          I agree FC35.
        • Holmes about 2 months ago
          Let’s be careful there. If a home is going to be energy efficient, what should that include? Insulation to avoid it heating up too much, or to retain heat in summer? Decent and thick curtains to keep out, or keep heat in? Wider verandas? Very modern central Air Conditioning? There are many facets to energy efficiency, yet again, one of the majors is how people live in a home, e.g. if a home has heavy curtains to keep the warmth in in winter, they are useless unless they are closed before sunset, but that requires someone to be home to close them. The other part is any enhancements to the home for Energy Efficiency requires a capital investment and that is funded via rent! Insulation, $4k, modern Air Con $10k (for entire house). Yet who pays yet again?
          Hide Replies (2)
          • JamieN84 about 2 months ago
            Insulation, curtains/blinds on windows and minimum viable solar panels shouldn’t be too much to expect for new homes. Air con is something that will get your house more appealing to the rental market, but should not be mandatory at all. No insulation on a house is just cruel.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Tammy N about 1 month ago
              I agree insulation should be in all homes. Tenants should have the option to change the curtains if they wish. The landlord does not need to be responsible for the tenant living in a more energy efficient manner. Solar panels are different. Renting a house with solar panels would be more appealing thus resulting in less vacancy time, but only if the tenant is receiving the reduced cost of the panels. If the landlord installed them then they will need to recover the cost so the rent will be higher. Insulation however should be mandatory in all properties.
        • jollybear about 2 months ago
          I agree. Tenants should be paying for their own usage, be it water or electricity. It's absurd to think a landlord should pay for tenants usage. Exactly the same as homeowners do. They pay for their own water and electricity, no one does it for them. Why should tenants be any different?
      • Holmes about 2 months ago
        FC35. Power is not expensive, I hear this constantly and it’s just not true, especially in SEQ or even in FNQ. I have lived in Townsville and Brisbane as well as a few regional towns and power is cheap compared to overseas. What drives up power bills is the way tenants (and owners) live in their homes, shutting it off and running Aircon instead of ceiling fans or opening door for ventillation, or using a heater if it’s cold instead of adding another layer and grabbing a blanket. A 2 kw (Input) air con costs $0.60 per hour to run approx, that’s all. The issue is if it’s used 14 hours a day every day in summer, that’s $8.40 a day for 90 days, that’s $754 using my crude calculation, it’s not the landlords fault, it’s all down to the tenant. Similarly a pool pump only costs around $170 a quarter yet tenants constantly claim the pool pump uses thousands. I have had to sort a dispute where a tenant claimed the pu p had malfunctioned in a luxury rental and the tenant wanted the landlord to pay for the $1850 power bill. I went round at 9.00 am in the morning, their teenage kids were home and running the central ducted aircon on low in the entire home. I reiterate, in 99.9% of cases a high power bill is solely due to the way people live in the home.
        Hide Replies (4)
        • Hondrays about 2 months ago
          The only thing pushing up power bills is state govt charges and environmental levies. If levies ere not introduced power bills would be half price.
        • JamieN84 about 2 months ago
          Agreed to an extent.I’d love to open up the windows and doors more often... No fly screens on the doors or windows thoughwhich means flies in summer and mosquitos in winter if I do. I’d also use the ducted air con less but it was installed wrong, there are no temperature sensors in any of the bedrooms or downstairs so it just runs at 100% until I am freezing or the timer cuts out. Would I send the electricity bill to the owner to pay, no, do I feel like it is unfair, yes.Tell that to any real estate agent and they couldn’t care less, let alone pass that info onto the owner who also probably couldn’t care less...Unfortunately I feel there is a disconnect between who lives in the house and who owns the house. I’m confident any home owner living in this house would be changing those things very quickly. But because they don’t live in the house so it isn’t an issue for them.
        • Qld renter about 2 months ago
          Yes tenants should pay their own power that’s a given, but saying you only need to run ceiling fans in the middle of a QLD summer is ridiculous.
          Hide reply (1)
          • Holmes about 2 months ago
            Personal choice. We lived in Far Nth Qld and the air con was only used when visitors arrived who couldn’t cope with the heat.
      • QLD Landlord about 2 months ago
        Dear Fc35, power bills are a landlords responsibility if your solar system contract delivers you a 44c/kwh subsidy. As soon as the electricity account is transferred into the tenants name the generous government solar bonus scheme taken up by astitute home owners and investors is gone - forever ! There is no tenant I know that wants to pay more for electricty, so while the electricity account remains in the landlords name the bonus applies and the tenant wins. Next tenant, next tenant, next tenant ... The solar bonus deal is fantastic news for tenants. Heavily discounted electricity, all written up and 100% legal in the RTA lease, paid to the landlord quarterly, bargain. There are only two things we can count on, death & taxes, so make the most of what you’ve got.
    • Brissy about 2 months ago
      My tenant removed the water efficient restrictors that were in my house, so they agreed to pay for full usage.
    • Kay Ritson about 1 month ago
      A water saving shower head is not a luxury, in fact They were being given out for free in Qld a few years ago, even to renters.
  • Cleocattra about 1 month ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • DebbieP about 2 months ago
    Some sort of government funded solar panels for rental properties but there would have to be a requirement for the landlord to pass on the solar power savings whereas at the moment a landlord can keep the solar benefits and charge the tenant full electricity so that would need to change. For a landlord to do this maybe an immediate tax write off for the cost of the panels.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Over it about 1 month ago
      So government funded solar? are workers not already paying high enough tax what is wrong with our system when those think govt should pay for this I would rather my tax pay for hospitals police and essential services, tenants need to take a reality check our govt money should be used to help those like mental health etc not make a tenants like more comfortable.
  • Catherine Franklin about 2 months ago
    Property should be water efficient and have solar panels and have more then one smoke alarm, and pest controlled for rentals. Rentals have to pay extra water even if its not water efficient. Certificates should be shown before rentals decide to rent the house/unit.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Emmadeanne about 1 month ago
      Catherine I am a bit puzzled by your assertion that tenants have to pay for water even if the property is not water efficient this is not the case. The RTA has definite rules about water charging and properties do have to be water efficient. I am the onsite manager of a complex where the water meters do not meet Urban Utilities standards so the owners cannot charge the tenants for any water consumption at all. I manage several other properties that have compliant water meters and are water efficient and I have copies of the plumber's audit certificates to show to prospective tenants. However my understanding is that even if a property is water efficient there is no requirement to have an audit certificate which I think should be mandatory. The number of smoke alarms needed depends on the size of the property and layout of the rooms but I would think most would need more than one. All my owners have contracts with specialist smoke alarm technicians who visit the rental to service the smoke alarms prior to each new lease (whether the current tenants are staying or for new tenants) this is not hugely costly and I would not manage a property that did not have compliant smoke alarms or where the owner was not willing to update them. It will be interesting to see how many owners have to have more smoke alarms installed when the new legislation comes into effect in 2020.
  • Over it about 1 month ago
    There is no way I can afford solar panels if I'm not even covering cost of mortgage insurance and rates by renting out house what is a landlord to do. Tenants already have upstairs downstairs air con and water efficient devices and well maintainedWhat next a yearly trip to los Vegas as well expected.
  • Jad3 about 2 months ago
    Roof insulation as a standard. I’m currently residing in a rental where the roof is not insulated. It regularly gets to 40° in my son’s (4 years old) room during the day and there is not air conditioning in that room. We have to run the box aircons provided to be able to tolerate the summer heat. My energy bill is out of this world during the summer period!!
    Hide Replies (3)
    • jollybear about 1 month ago
      Hi Jad3, it think you'll find a lot of home owners houses aren't insulated either, its not just rental properties that aren't insulated. I don't think anyone is picking on tenants, but I do think that tenants are expecting a lot more now as far as aircons, fans, insulation, water tanks and solar panels go then they did 5 years ago. I also think tenants assume that all home owners have all these things but its just not true. It has taken me 10 years to get some of those things into my own home and I still don't have solar panels. It all comes down to the mighty dollar.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Shillings about 1 month ago
        Food offered for sale must be of a better standard than what we are sometimes prepared to eat ourselves. Same should apply to housing offered for rent, where a tenant often has no knowledge or control of conditions.
      • Kay Ritson about 1 month ago
        But, if you wanted solar panels on your home you would pay considerably less than a renter to add those. Renters are excluded from the rebate scheme for solar, home owners are not.
  • Shillings about 1 month ago
    Get body corporates involved in solar projects. I live in a complex with lots of free roof space, a few resident owners, more resident renters. I can see lots of potential for solar panels on the roofs here, but that’s about as far as I know how to take it (being a renter).
  • Qlander2 about 1 month ago
    Solar panels - are you kidding me! My tenants wanted an extra split system air conditioner put in the property (which I did) now they complain about the electricity bills! I have ceiling fans in the lounge and bedroom yet they choose to close all the fly screened security doors and windows and turn on the air conditioners rather than relying on natural ventilation. If people waste electricity why should the property owner have to pay for it?News flash ...renting out properties is a quick way to go broke - not get rich! What about minimum rent that must be paid so it is worthwhile for a property owner to rent out their property in the first place? ....No, I can't see that happening either! Many property owners (myself included) are now considering the wisdom of renting out houses at all. There are so many better ways to invest that are not burdened by government red tape and regulations as well as being milked by local government and property managers. How about stopping greedy councils imposing rent taxes on property owners? In Rockhampton where I live the council penalises people who rent out their homes with an additional $800 tacked on to their annual rates. I used to rent out four houses ...now I rent out one and I am going to sell that one once the current lease is up. My Mother used to rent out five houses in Brisbane but now doesn't rent out any as they have all been sold and the money invested in shares which provide a better return with less hassles and no ongoing fees like rates. A friend of mine had three rental properties now he has none as he has chosen to invest in shares for the same reasons mentioned previously.Everyone has their hand out to fleece anyone who rents out their property. Council adds $800 a year to the rates, real estates take the first week's rent (plus gst) and then 10% of every rent payment from that point on plus various other "management fees", "bank fees" and "fortnightly statement fees" that the property managers add on combine that with maintenance costs, bank interest and 3% stamp duties when you buy an investment property. Why would you do it?My own so called investment property cost $142,500. Stamp duty was $5,200 (approx), legal fees and bank costs probably another $3,000. I spent $9,000 improving the property putting in airconditioners, new stoves, painting and refurbishing. I rented it out for $190 a week (less agents commission 10%). My mortgage costs $450 a month, council rates takes $250 a month ($1,800 every six months). Insurance is about $100 a month. I am losing over $100 every month for the "privilege" of renting out this two bedroom house on 600 sqm block of land a few kilometres from the CBD. Oh you say I get a tax break? Wrong, I am retired..I don't have other income to offset. Oh you say I get capital gain on the property? Wrong, it is Rockhampton ...take a look at the property data - Rockhampton has declined every year for the past eight years. If I had put the same money into bank shares as my rental property I would have an income of about $15,000 per annum without ANY fees coming out.Are you starting to get the picture why rental property is getting harder to come by in Rockhampton (and probably other regional areas)? More government regulations on "minimum standards" and other forms of red tape like "energy efficiency" etc imposed on property owners will cause an exodus of houses off the rental market and on to the "for sale" market - then what will the government do to fix that? The government has been getting out of the rental market by selling off their housing commission properties as quickly as they can and putting the burden back on to the private rental market - if the "privates" bail and sell up where do people rent then? Reply Agree Disagree Share
  • Abc1234 about 2 months ago
    Properties should definitely have a water tank fitted. It is absurd to expect tenants to water the myriad of plants and lawn just for aesthetics, especially when inappropriate plants for our QLD climate have been planted. It should be mandatory also that taps etc are water efficient. We have solar electricity and the landlords are currently receiving credits for more than what the electricity bill comes to, however we are paying full cost back the landlord. Where is the incentive for us as tenants then to use solar electricity (apart from caring for our environment and future)?
    Hide Replies (3)
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      I agree that if water tanks were provided that tenants may look after the lawns and yard better. They may not too and there is still the cost of installing them. There is also a cost to have solar panels installed. So the landlord maybe just paying the solar panels off with the credits they are receiving back. It generally takes years to pay off solar panel depending on size and price. But I definitely agree all properties should have rain water tanks and be water efficient.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Abc1234 about 2 months ago
        A 50/50 share of the credits would be fairer, or even 40/60?
        Hide reply (1)
        • jollybear about 2 months ago
          Who pays for installation?
  • Protect me from thugs about 2 months ago
    I don't understand why tennants expect all of these freebies. Have had 3 rentals trashed by tennants destroying any chance of making a profit or a capital return and then having them claim poor and demanding that a completely inadequate bond be returned and using free legal aid to consume the value of the bond and more. If tennants want to minimise costs then they need to meet a mutual obligation to partner and not demand.
  • Nivannii about 2 months ago
    YES please!!! Solar panels, water tanks, insulation - The easier and more affordable a landlord/lady can make a place for the tenants the better they will look after it for them.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Oracle67 about 2 months ago
      Hello Nivannii, in a perfect world where everyone is a responsible person, unfortunately there are many examples of a landlord providing excellent rentals and in return they are damaged or rent not paid. Putting in place all these cost savers for tenants does not always equate to the tenant looking after the property although you would appear to be someone who would so all the best to you.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Nivannii about 2 months ago
        Yes, in another post I actually said how upset I am at these people who destroy the properties when there people like me who would love to find my 'forever' rental and look after like it was a palace. I've had a real estate thank me for leaving a place so clean. I usually leave places better than when I arrived. Where I am even the landlady has lower standards of clean. I'm not OCD, I just think the windows need to be cleaned and housework done AT LEAST every two weeks. Not the case here so I'm looking with two very small dogs. Thank you for you wishes. I'm hoping I'll find a decent landlord/lady who will value what I give.
  • Hondrays about 2 months ago
    If govt changes the rules to suit tenants more than landlords they need to tripple the bond or else the tennants will not have anywhere to live as my rental will be sold.
    Hide Replies (10)
    • Kay Ritson about 2 months ago
      Oh good, if all the landlords like you, were to do that maybe the price of housing would fall.
      Hide Replies (9)
      • Hondrays about 2 months ago
        Removed by moderator.
      • Snakes Creek about 2 months ago
        The house prices only fall because of supl,y and demand. If there is less landlords building and renovating there will be less properties available for rent. Therefore rents will rise until it is financially viable for investors to return to the market. Sadly this cycle could take from 2 to 10 years. It all bases on supply and demand. People respond better to incentives than they do to threats. It's really easy to do nothing.
        Hide Replies (4)
        • Kay Ritson about 2 months ago
          One of the reasons more people than ever are renting, is because of the massive increases in house prices. If thes3 fall a lot more renters could buy their own homes.
          Hide Replies (3)
          • jollybear about 2 months ago
            Kay its not only investors who buy houses. If house prices fall it effects everyone, not just investors. Also banks, as they will have a back log of buyers going bankrupt as is the case in some areas atm. Lenders will tighten up their borrowing and loans will be a lot harder to get and you probably still wont be able to get into the housing market.
          • Hondrays about 2 months ago
            There has only been massive increases in sydney and melbourne. Other cities have been moderate. The best way is to stop foreigners as that has been done to some degree it needs to go further. Foreigners should not be allowed to purchase unless they have residency and living in the country.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Snakes Creek about 2 months ago
              In Qld we have found that the market dropped about 20% in most regional areas. The major cities are the areas affected by excessive gains. This problem started approximately 20 years ago by government shifting essential infracture into the south east corner. Eg, close hospital beds in regional hospital and transport more serious cases to city. The local doctors and families left, them a few teachers, then the police and then all the youth to the universities. All placing more burden on the city home market. When it is viable for people to survive in the regional areas again, the balance might return
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        There are some that will never be home owners, be it by choice or an inability to afford the ongoing costs of maintaining a property
        Hide reply (1)
        • Hondrays about 2 months ago
          I agree and usually by choice. Recently went to a kids birthday and the parents were renters. But have a $50000 dollar boat and latest 4 wd sitting in the driveway.
      • Hondrays about 2 months ago
        I am sorry but not all investors are like me. It will not happen. Quiet frankly you are best to keep renting. It is often cheaper to rent than own and pay for upkeep.Or just save harder and buy to find out all the hidden costs.
  • Lari about 2 months ago
    All rental property owners should be able to claim rebates for water and energy efficiency. Overall this would reduce the burden on subsidies for tenants and issues surrounding high costs of essential services. Tenants should be able to request such installations in the cases where older appliances wear out and need replacing .
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Lari I agree, there is a sector though that believe that negative gearing & tax deductions should be abolished. The same sector no doubt want all these extra benefits as well.
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      Who do you think pays for all these rebates? Appliances should be to a clean, working standard but it also requires tenants looking after appliances. I generally have to replace a stove after 5 years. This is not cost effective for landlords. I understand tenants like and want new appliances but sometimes they are unaffordable to the landlord. Who should be paying for all the new appliances the tenants want?
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Lari about 2 months ago
        If not cost effective then maybe reconsider as an investment. Each investment needs to be considered as to if it is to be a suitable loss or profit to be gained and investigated as such. Every investment has ongoing costs ,if a landlord is not prepared to look after the investment and return funds to maintain this then should reconsider and seek alternative investment.
        Hide reply (1)
        • jollybear about 2 months ago
          The point I am trying to make Lari; is not that I have to reconsider such an investment because tenants want new appliances every 5 years. If these items were looked after by the tenants they should have 10 -20 year life span. Then the $1500 i'm spending on stoves could go elsewhere towards upgrading bathrooms, kitchens, solar panels, water tanks etc. It a 2 way street here. Respect on all levels.
  • Hondrays about 2 months ago
    Tell the water board and govt to take off the bulk water charge and reduce the connection levy.
    Hide reply (1)
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      Wont happen Hondrays.
  • smokey about 2 months ago
    Where tenants groups are required as part of the registration of providers and Public housing requirements the opportunity to gain answers that this survey is requesting. Such groups, I believe was the intention for this and to provide the opportunity for these provide input on these matters and to help develop a responsible working relationship and open constructive lines of communication. Their deliberate avoidance by these parties is a provable factAn adversarial and dictatorial one does the opposite, and can be the root cause for many roadblocks coming from both sides
  • Shell75 about 2 months ago
    Water efficiency would be good. The house I live in at the moment has very old piping and the taps drip all the time. Yes I have put forms into the real estate. Nothing getting fixed. In the Qld environment it would be a good option for rental properties to have solar hot water and if possible solar panels on the roof to minimize other expenses. If the solar panels make money it should go into the property maintenance.
    Hide reply (1)
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      If your taps are constantly leaking and the PM doesn't do anything about it, take the matter to the RTA. You should not have to pay the water cost if a landlord is not fixing the leak and they have been notified. Solar panels are a hard one, as the cost to install them is not cheap. Ive worked out it would take me about 7 years before I saw any real benefit financially. That's why most people don't install them and there is no real benefit for landlords. If they were more affordable everyone would have one.
  • Allison about 2 months ago
    I would like to share my experience with regards to being a renter in QLD. I moved into a home and accidentally put electrcity into my name when the lease said to keep the electrcity in the owners name. As soon as the real agent told me I changed electrcity back into the owners name and cancelled my account with origin after 48 hours. The owners had a special tariff due to their solar power rebates and wanted to keep this tariff. About 6 months later without any warning I got a SMS from the RTA about a dispute. I asked the RTA what this was about and the RTA said the agent should have informed me and they would not disclose until the agent told me. I rang the agent immediately and she told me the owners want $5000 for brand new solar power panels as I had caused them to lose their tariff and they couldn't get it back. I signed an affidavit for them to emerged stating that it was an accident. I was threatened to pay the owners $5000 and pressured into mediation for this error. I felt extremely stressed and could not sleep at night as a tenant. I held firm and did not waver and they lost their case with the RTA. It should never have been allowed in the first place. If you rent out your home you should automatically not allow bills to continue to be in your name as if you are still living on the property.
  • Veritas about 2 months ago
    All properties should be water efficient and energy efficient.Water - all tapware should be eco. Power - Solar hot water with on demand boost with gas should be installed.All properties should have a minimum level of insulation. Laundry drying arrangements should be well designed to encourage passive drying.Electricity smart meters should be fitted.Owners should be strongly encouraged to install PV and battery systems.
    Hide reply (1)
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      Yes all houses should have 6 star energy efficiency in a perfect world. For all new constructions that could be mandatory. But considering most housing doesn't, it does come at an expense to the owner that will most probably be passed down to the tenant. Would it be fair to say the higher the energy efficiency the higher the rent?
  • Klaws about 2 months ago
    I think solar, energy efficient appliances and security screens should be mandatory in all houses. In FNQ it is hot all day and night over summer and fans are going constantly with aircon supplementing. With working fans (too many don’t work) and security screens, windows and doors can be left open to promote air flow. But that is useless in 95% humidity! Only the aircon works then. That’s where the solar comes in. Solar covers the day to day usage (fridge, freezer, washer) and if there’s anything at night or daytime aircon use, it helps heaps. I know many on this forum have commented that solar costs the landlord and I agree but only to a small extent. Solar companies, like Horan and Bird in Townsville, offer to install the solar and the tenant pays a lower rate based on the expected amount it would generate and rebate they get. The wonder upgrades the meter and just has to remain in the scheme for the period of time (10-15 years). Tenants will fight each other for a property with solar and provided it’s kept in good condition, it will never be empty for long. Also, installation of LPG where possible and always using on demand hot water rather than tanks is highly efficient. At a minimum, boosted (gas or elec as needed) hot water services. The water efficiency is vital. In FNQ we pay rates, not per litre like in Victoria. I feel like this makes people complacent about how much they use so driveways and footpaths get watered and lawns/gardens watered until they’re running a kilometre down the street. The mindset needs to change as well as regulations to cut water usage and water efficient appliances. Tanks would help too, especially in the dry tropics where rain is sporadic, provided that they are sealed well to prevent mosquito breeding. Tank water for gardens would limit potable water use, reducing the likelihood of votes being installed and therefore preventing the inevitable salt water intrusion in groundwater. (No, groundwater is not and infinite resource and yes it is connected to the surface water and should be managed as one resource). I could be here forever with ideas so I’ll stop there.
  • Elle about 2 months ago
    Solar panels and rain water tanks should be considered during construction. If not it is highly unlikely that it can be rectified because of added expense to Lessor
  • fnaoirtmhan about 2 months ago
    What should happen if minimum standards are not met?-currently I'm renting at $595 per week & 9 weeks in advance.-en-suite leaking threw wall into hall way, carpet turned black from mold, going on 20 months now and still not fixed. my 3 year old ( severe ASD autism) ate/liked the carpet and was hospitalized from pooing blood.) i did not know this was the casue until i have started the procedure of the act and involving the RTA.- hot water system blew. the plumber who replaced it told me the system was not earthed and that why me and my four toddlers were getting zapped when touching taps shower heads & water. -all house pipes backed up & come into the house from grey water pump braking and tank filled up.- grease trap over flowed into the grey water tank. the grease trap had not been emptied in over 7 years, the grey water pump was replaced 3 months before i moved in and the owners were told to get grease trap emptied as it is the reason of problem.- pool pipes cracked & loses 250L per day at a minimum when run, the entire lease going on 20 months, the owners were told of the leaks and massive issues with the pool but did not tell me as a new tenant.- paying full water rates when the house and pool has leaks, last bill was $760 for a quarter, even though the owners knew of water leaking problems.-pool pump stopped working 6 weeks ago, & im being blamed for breaking it becasue the pool is thick green and homing mosquitoes. (i have photos of the day it was reported and everyday since & it shows the pool crystal clear going to green and then the state it is now but im still getting the blame)-air con stopped working 3 weeks ago. - text, calls, emails, and in person Lessor threatening me and abusing me.- council has told me i will get the fines for the pool being green and not the owner even though i have shown solid proof. i will have to take it to QCAT to sue owner to pay for fine.so all of the above and no rent reduction in place & no compensation.RTA has been involved and they can not do any more.QSTARTS is some help but not much.i have found no matter what the Lessor/owner does, the law is on their side.now have to go to QCAT to get anything done. and even then i have been told i will be asked why i have not left or done anything until now.and because i have not left i will lose the case.this is not fair or right.the property i rent came with a energy saving rating package apparently. all goods what use power what have come with the rental, all have broken or are on their way out. since most things have broken and been replaced or no longer used, my power bill has halved. this is the same with my water bill. but i pay full water. the owners/lessor & or the agent should have fear in them of breaking the act/law , just like tenants do now.I have never had a bad name on my rental history, i did not know what RTA,QSTARTS,QCAT were until now, and i now fear leaving hear and renting another property as i now know tenants DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS.
  • Jojoi about 2 months ago
    A water tankwould be fantastic. This would enable us to look after the gardens and yard better. Reduction of water bills would relieve pressure of living costs for the tenant
  • Signee about 2 months ago
    We have continually asked for ceiling insulation for the last 4 years, but the requests have been falling on deaf ears! We had one air conditioner in the house, but it was always working overtime to keep the house at a comfortable level. The owner installed a second air conditioner which was a tremendous help. However, running 2 air conditioners soon put the electricity bill through the roof!!! I personally installed window tinting to reduce the afternoon heat on 3 bedrooms, bathroom and toilet (A $1600 job, but no thanks from the landlord). The landlord had installed one (1) Whirlybird in the roof, but I am yet to be convinced that this is very effective. The landlord has installed roller blinds in the kitchen which has made a significant difference there. The end result is: (a) Two air conditioners (b) one Whirlybird (c) Window Tinting (thanks to myself) (d) Two blinds in the kitchen (e) Still no ceiling insulation ..... and the temperature in the house hasn't changed a great deal. It just depends on how much we are willing to use the air conditioners and pay the resultant electricity bill.
  • Chris Barker about 2 months ago
    In Queensland (at least in the municipalites I have properties in) the landlord pays the water. So, there is already incentive to have water saving devices. Solar panels are expensive, and with payback periods in excess of 5 years, significant incentives that benefit the landlord would need to be offered to landlords to install these. The tenant would then benefit by reduced network charged electricity use.
  • D.K about 2 months ago
    I have solar panels and hot water one of my rentals and get nothing more for it, if fact it is an ongoing cost. I thought it would attract long term tenants but made no difference.I like the idea of having solar panels & solar hot water on rentals but I have not as of yet been able to financially justify it. The real-estate agent indicates it makes no real difference in encouraging tenants.Water efficient devices are already encouraged. Some tenants don't like them it seems. Had one shower head with the restrictor removed, much nicer shower (I'm told) but then the water efficiency is lost.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Brissy about 2 months ago
      I had a tenant remove the restrictors too. Unless you use all of your power during the day or have batteries, solar isn't worth it. I use most of my power outside sunlight hours.
  • Jac1 about 2 months ago
    Think of the environment and costs of living, we should all be responsible. If possible solar panels and water tanks help costs, allow gardens to be watered and help the environment, no coal!
    Hide reply (1)
    • D.K about 2 months ago
      I had to remove the water tank from my rental as the ongoing costs of the plumber were a killer and when the pump broke or coupling came loose the tenant did not want to pay rent (yes the property is on mains and water efficient). And solar, I wish I could justify financially putting it on for the tenants.
  • Jacquik about 2 months ago
    The water efficiency rules work well. Without a certificate the owner pays most of the water anyway so most owners get the certificate, otherwise tenants save by the owner paying tier one water. As for energy efficiency the issue is more cost of power than condition of properties. A system to help low income earners access more energy efficient fridges and space heaters would give more assistance than imposing expensive burdens on landlords that may increase rent. Across the board for all properties having minimum energy star ratings for new light fixtures and appliances would also have a flow on effect overtime and help all Qlders not just tenants. We don’t need another knee jerk pink solar bat scandal though were someone just decides all houses are the same and all need something in a hurry.
  • Drew85 about 2 months ago
    I currently live in a rental and our landlord does not charge us for water because we use very little. The house is fitted with water saving taps in the kitchen and water saving shower-heads.In other properties I personally bought a water saver shower head and also reused grey water for gardens to help reduce the water bill, which works really well. As tenants we need to improvise to save money ourselves when it comes to utilities. And if a landlord wants to reward their tenants low water usage with $0 bill, hats off to you :).
  • KarlW about 2 months ago
    I'd like to see a "star rating" applicable to all properties. The more energy & water efficient items or devices installed to the respective property, the higher the star rating. It should not be mandatory that such items are installed however allowing the market to prove its value. Ideally owners with these items in place would attract a higher rent value whilst the tenant has less overall utility costs.It's a proactive initiative that allows the market to decide for itself what value renters put on the cost of utilities and the environment.
  • Jeanie about 2 months ago
    If rental properties are fitted with energy and water efficiency devices (solar panels etc) then naturally the cost of renting those properties will increase as installing these devices is expensive. Global warming/climate change is not the responsibility of individual landlords, rather each individual (landlord/tenant alike) and government policy. A tenant interested in these features in a rental property would be prepared to pay (via increased rent) for it. If a homeowner installed these features in their own home at their own cost, they would reap the benefit in terms of lower bills. I don't believe a landlord should be expected to pay for energy efficient features so the tenant can have lower bills.
  • 02 Rent about 2 months ago
    If the lessor is made to install energy efficiency through legislation these properties should attract a higher rental price
  • Jodie1 about 2 months ago
    I think excess water usage charges should be based on persons in a household - not "negotiated" as it is now. There are agencies putting "anything over $50 payable each quarter" in their leases - that's not a "reasonable usage" and its not negotiated. Tenants don't have the ability to negotiate "excess water" usage at the moment although they're supposed to be able to. It's a bit of a joke at the moment. How often should compliance be achieved by the Lessor - every change in tenant or 12 months? make a clear statement so that the industry can simply follow it. $ talk - if something is cheaper or there is an incentive, landlords will use it otherwise they'll use whatever is the best deal.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Dianne Mendoza about 2 months ago
      No one should have to pay for water that comes from the sky. Who are the winners? Greedy, greedy CEO’s of Urban Utilities and plumbers who have to keep repairing pipes from lack of water and starving tree roots. Who are the Losers Landlords and Tenants!