Perth’s new apartment market recorded its strongest quarter of sales since Q4 2021, with 412 apartments sold in Q1 2026 and a record quarterly sold value of $537 million, according to Urbis’ latest Apartment Essentials results.

Urbis said the March quarter result reflects strong, highly product‑specific demand across both ends of the market, from more attainable projects delivering at scale, through to premium stock being absorbed by equity‑rich downsizers.&nbsp;

David Cresp, Partner at Urbis, said the key story in Perth is not demand, it is the market’s ability to convert demand into delivered housing.&nbsp;

“This is the strongest sales quarter since Q4 2021, and it reinforces that demand in Perth is real and it’s local,” David Cresp said. “But the task now is delivery, turning that demand into projects that can actually be built and completed.”&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=110291 project_image_fid=302785]

<h2>Affordable product leads, premium demand remains resilient</h2>

Sales in Q1 were led by more affordable projects, with The Boulevard (SKS Group) recording 115 sales in the quarter, the presentation noting this is only the second time a single project has surpassed 100 quarterly sales. The project was able to offer more affordable housing product right next to a train station.&nbsp;

Palmyra West (Finbar) also delivered strong results with 28 sales in Q1, following 84 sales in Q4, with an average price of under $800,000, underscoring depth of demand for well‑located, attainable new stock.&nbsp;

At the premium end, Urbis said downsizer demand is continuing, with the results highlighting Romeo (Applecross, Finbar) recording 75 sales and reaching almost 50% sold in one quarter.

Jual (Shenton Park, Celsius Property) also posted a strong quarter with 28 sales, reaching 39% sold in one quarter.

Urbis noted that Perth apartment demand is not speculative, not investor‑led, and not uniform, describing it as localised, often equity‑driven and highly product‑specific, a pattern reflected in the polarisation between strong “attainable” performers and premium downsizer product.&nbsp;

[smartcode_project:default project_id=148957 project_image_fid=364102]

<h2>Prices underpinned by costs, and the delivery risk is growing</h2>

Urbis said pricing pressure is cost not demand‑driven: construction costs and delivery risk are now a central constraint, with the results noting build costs remain elevated and volatile, and that energy, fuel and labour uncertainty weigh on feasibility.

David Cresp said a growing challenge for private Build‑to‑Sell developers is simply securing a builder in the current environment.

“Developers are really feeling the pressure from a building market that was operating at capacity and securing a builder is challenging,” David Cresp said, adding that even where a builder can be secured, “trying to get to the price that makes the development financially viable is incredibly challenging in the current market.”&nbsp;

Urbis’ broader WA commentary also notes that industry remains at or above capacity with lot and housing creation, and that many builders are limiting new sales to manage stretched workforces and fixed‑price contract pressures, conditions that flow directly into apartment feasibility and delivery timing.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=108869 project_image_fid=317905]

<h2>Supply: improving later, but still constrained, and Perth lags eastern benchmarks</h2>

While near‑term supply remains constrained, Urbis’ forecast shows completions lifting “Supply is forecast to be back above 1,500 apartments per annum for the first time since 2019”, with 1,775 completions forecast for 2026, and volumes remaining above that level over the following years.&nbsp;

Looking further ahead, completions are forecast to reach 2,500 in 2028, with the report noting 32% of that total is social/affordable, reflecting the role of government‑supported delivery in rebuilding the pipeline.&nbsp;

However, Urbis said Perth remains behind comparable markets on pipeline scale. In a national comparison of projects under construction, the report shows under construction Perth Build‑to‑Sell (BTS) at 3,446 apartments versus the Gold Coast at 7,922. Mr Cresp said “The challenge for Perth is how to we grow the delivery pipeline”.

Urbis’ conclusion is that Perth’s market is increasingly defined by product discipline and delivery certainty, with the research identifying “delivery certainty is key” and calling out builder risk and procurement models as core success factors, alongside “timing and staging”.&nbsp;

Joel Robinson

Perth apartment sales hit strongest pace since late 2021 as builder capacity tightens

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/sammut-developments">Sammut Group</a> has secured development approval for its latest Brisbane apartment project, marking the Sydney developer’s next step in expanding its Queensland pipeline following the success of its debut Gold Coast development, Coast.

The approved project at <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/44-glen-road-toowong-qld-4066">44 Glen Road, </a><a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> will deliver a 15-storey riverfront apartment building with 42 residences, significantly increasing the scale of the site’s previous approval for a smaller luxury scheme. Designed by Bureau^proberts, the development will comprise a mix of predominantly four-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments positioned to maximise Brisbane River and city views.

Sammut Director Julian Sammut said the group had been actively searching Brisbane for several years before identifying Toowong as the right fit.

“Brisbane was the right step for Sammut,” Sammut said.

“With the success of Coast we thought we should definitely look to do more in Queensland alone. We then pushed up to look at Brisbane. We've been looking for I'd say two to three years actually and it was hard to find the right location.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.14%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=dYAVIL7qdcGA8ojvkslSrLjczXFejSSx" />

Sammut said suburbs including New Farm and Teneriffe were considered before the group ultimately focused on Toowong due to its strong downsizer demographic and limited supply of developable riverfront land.

The site was acquired off-market after what Sammut described as a lengthy negotiation and planning process, with the developer pursuing an uplift to the original approval.

“We are DA approved now which is very exciting,” Sammut said.

“We've had our change approval come through and we've obviously doubled the height, 15 storeys plus rooftop. We've got 42 amazing apartments that are going to be coming to market soon.”

<img alt="Sammut makes Brisbane apartment play" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202025-12-23%20at%203.27.26%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=ohkRkY0dIZlqdfME2EZePsCQavRiBadE" />

Bureau^proberts said the design responds to Toowong’s evolving urban character, balancing contemporary apartment living with the area’s established residential identity.

“A place where traditional Queensland living has taken place for centuries; Toowong is seeing a shift of contemporary influence, commercial and retail hubs mixed with well-considered residential offerings – all the while maintaining its character and charm,” the architect noted in planning documents submitted to Brisbane City Council.

The architecture practice said the project’s form was shaped by its riverfront setting, flood considerations, neighbouring building scales, and view corridors.

“They said the mix of four and two-bedroom apartments capture the ‘fundamental qualities of Queenslander living,’ translated into the context of a contemporary subtropical building.”

The development sits just off Coronation Drive within walking distance of Toowong’s retail precinct and the upgraded Regatta ferry terminal, while also benefiting from proximity to the incoming green bridge connection to West End. Sammut said the accessibility and amenity offering were central to the site’s appeal.

The approval adds to growing residential activity along the Toowong riverfront, joining nearby projects including Consolidated Properties’ Monarch Residences and Spyre Group’s ARC Residences.

Sammut secures approval for debut Brisbane apartment development in Toowong

Developer Lanevick is heading back into Sydney’s apartment market after focusing more heavily on the luxury townhouse and terrace sector in recent years.

Lanevick, founded and directed by Steve Maroun, is expecting to receive approval in the coming months for a new apartment development in Gladesville, with the aim to launch it to the market later this year.

The 51-apartment project, designed by Studio Johnston, will comprise a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments positioned toward the Hunters Hill downsizer market.

“Traditionally it’s been difficult for people in that market to downsize because there just hasn’t been the right product available,” Maroun said.

“We’re targeting buyers who might have 30 to 40 per cent of their house value sitting in the bank after downsizing.

“They still want good spacious entertaining areas, they still want quality design, but they also want flexibility and the ability to enjoy life a bit more after working hard for a long time.”

The project sits near Boronia Park and within close proximity to the Parramatta River foreshore, an area Maroun says offers more of a Hunters Hill lifestyle than a traditional apartment precinct.

“From a lifestyle perspective, it’s really more Hunters Hill than Gladesville,” Maroun said. “You’re close to the foreshore, close to parklands, and still connected back into the village precinct.”

From level four and above, apartments will capture water views&nbsp;toward Sydney Harbour. Communal amenity will include rooftop entertaining areas, wellness spaces, and a gym tailored toward owner-occupier buyers.

“We’ve really designed these apartments around that buyer coming from the Hunters Hill LGA and what they’re actually looking for in their next chapter.”

The proposed development has also been designed to respond to the changing character of the broader Gladesville town centre, where a growing number of mixed-use and residential proposals are expected to emerge over the coming years.

“Gladesville presented a rare opportunity to deliver a genuinely design-led residential project within an evolving lifestyle precinct, just moments from the growing Gladesville town centre, and we’ve approached the project with a strong focus on architecture, liveability and long-term community value,” Maroun said.

Maroun said Lanevick saw a first-mover advantage within the precinct as planning controls continue to evolve to accommodate greater housing density.

“We think there’s a real opportunity there that hasn’t really been serviced properly yet,” he said.

“There’s going to be a broader evolution of the whole Gladesville village precinct over time, particularly with more activation and mixed-use outcomes.”

The Venus Street proposal will include a commercial and retail component at ground level designed to contribute to that evolving streetscape activation.

“A big part of the thinking was how do you activate that area properly and create more vibrancy and amenity, which is what Hunters Hill has been looking for,” Maroun said.

Lanevick’s focus since 2020 has largely been on smaller-scale luxury townhouse and terrace developments. The developer recently completed Royale Randwick, also designed by Studio Johnston, where prices reached $3.65 million. The project was featured in the UDIA NSW 2026 Professional Development Prospectus and was also named a finalist for Development of the Year.

&nbsp;

Lanevick to cater for Hunters Hill downsizers with new Gladesville apartment development

Property developer One Living, backed by former Macquarie banker turned investment manager Chris Green’s investment firm, has unveiled plans to bring more institutional capital into housing to help address the national supply crisis.

The New York-based investor has focused his firm, GreenPoint Partners, on addressing the supply shortage hitting middle market housing in Australia.

It is backing the new One Living business to develop more than 1000 units along the eastern seaboard. The new firm is starting with a development on Mona Vale Road, on the border of Mona Vale and Pymble, in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, with around 140 apartments planned. They are eyeing off more sites across the city.

With cost pressures rising in the industry, One Living’s model is to be a vertically integrated developer-builder, so it can respond directly to the housing gap by removing the cost inefficiencies embedded in traditional residential delivery.

“We are building a platform designed to operate at scale and starting in a market where there’s a clear need for quality, attainable housing,” One Living joint managing director Joseph Scuderi said.

“It’s that missing middle – it’s that attainable end of housing… that’s what most Australians invest into and what Australians can actually afford.”

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="798dfa93-4941-4db6-a696-31e9dc18e81c" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.31.50%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=mKBqi5C_DmeiXS.AtJkcR8LQIxqCqmFi" />

GreenPoint Partners brings years of experience assembling and scaling real estate operating businesses across major markets. And Green sees a big opportunity in Australia.

“For its size, sophistication and importance to the community, Australia’s living sector has remained largely under-institutionalised, which represents significant opportunity,” Green said. “GreenPoint identified that gap, assembled the right team, and is backing One Living to build a platform that is aligned to market needs.”

Green said being a builder-developer would give the company the capacity and flexibility it required to deliver reasonably-priced homes.

“We want it to be at that attainable level; not super high end luxury but at that attainable level,” he said.

<img alt="Mona Vale" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="74a5344a-4b26-4d4a-ada3-056b1220be77" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-05-28%20at%202.32.15%E2%80%AFPM.png?VersionId=vY8hXHO4reBMdO8ZXMWCNtGZJofUPQ3j" />

&nbsp;

One Living will undertake a component of affordable housing in its schemes, which it will own and operate, and it could also run build-to-rent on some sites.

Green praised local policy settings.

“The NSW government is being very supportive, strategic and pragmatic in terms of how do we generate more supply of housing,” he said. “We think it’s actually positive for development and the bit that’s been lacking at that attainable level is that it’s lots of relatively small private developers, whereas we want to create an institutional platform.”

One Living is also&nbsp;looking at high-density projects and could take on more institutional funding in the future.

“The way we will be able to achieve economies of scale is through size,” Green added.

One Living enters Sydney's new apartment market with Northern Beaches site acquisition

It's been several years since there's been an opportunity to buy a brand new townhome in Melbourne's coastal suburb of Mordialloc. Even apartment developments in recent times have been few and far between in the area.

Local developer LDS Property identified the gap in new housing, securing a site on White Street, directly opposite&nbsp;Woodlands Golf Club Mordialloc. They've recently launched&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-townhouses/wm-residences-mordialloc-102-white-street-mordialloc-vic-3195">WM Residences</a>, just 13 townhouses which they have already started building.

Projects by Buxton Director Heath Thompson, who is selling WM Residences, says the townhouses x that perfect middle ground be

"Mordialloc residents have had limited options to downsize within the suburb, often forcing them to look elsewhere despite long-standing ties to the area," Thompson says.

"With very little comparable new supply coming to market, projects like WM Residences are well placed, particularly as buyers look to capitalise on current conditions amid constrained supply."

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6109]

The development, designed by regarded architecture firm&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/ewert-leaf">Ewert Leaf</a>,&nbsp;adopts a deliberately restrained architectural approach, focusing on simplicity, durability and liveability rather than overt design gestures.

The boutique scale is central to the offering. With only 13 three-bedroom residences, each home is configured to prioritise functional layouts and everyday use, supported by private terraces and secure two-car garages.

Ewert Leaf’s design response leans into a calm, neutral material palette. Interiors are defined by oak flooring, white walls and soft finishes, creating a consistent and understated backdrop. The approach avoids trend-driven detailing in favour of longevity, with an emphasis on natural light and spatial clarity.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6110]

Beyond aesthetics, the homes are designed to meet contemporary performance expectations. Each residence targets a minimum 6-star energy rating, incorporating double glazing, comprehensive insulation and all-electric Bosch appliances.

The project’s location supports a walkable coastal lifestyle, sitting within close proximity to Mordialloc’s foreshore, Main Street retail strip and the train station. Local cafés and dining venues, including Suburbia Deli and Hendriks Café, are within a short walk, reinforcing the area’s established neighbourhood character.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=134646 project_image_fid=6116]

While <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/mordialloc-vic-3195">Mordialloc</a> is often defined by its beach and pier, the project taps into other areas of day to day living, offering easy access to local food, casual dining and transport, rather than positioning itself purely as a lifestyle retreat.

WM Residences reflects a continued trend across Melbourne’s coastal suburbs towards smaller-scale, design-led townhouse developments, particularly on infill sites where proximity to amenity is already established.

With construction commenced prior to its market entry, the project aligns with a growing preference among buyers for developments with visible progress and defined delivery timeframes.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=134646]

WM Residences fills gap in Mordialloc townhouse market

Legal

<html><body>
A former broker has been handed an eight year, nine-month sentence for a $1.9 million fraud related to his company Adelaide Lending Centre.
The district court judge who handed down the sentence to former broker Michael Samra has described the $1.9 million case as “a consistent and persistent demonstration of fraud” through actions that were “premeditated, deliberate and repetitive”.
In the final ruling, Her Honour Judge Geraldine Davison described the circumstances which led to Samra pleading guilty to six counts of deception, according to the Mortgage Broker.
Samra’s broking business, Adelaide Lending Centre (ALC Group), was formed on July 13, 1999 at which time Samra was co-director and shareholder along with his wife. He became the sole director on 19 May 2009.
ALC Group was placed into voluntary liquidation on August 6, 2009 after a letter of demand. The liquidation was completed on August 19, 2015.
Meanwhile, Samra himself became bankrupt on 3 March 2010 and was discharged from bankruptcy on 30 October 2013.
Samra's modus operandi included getting a number of individuals to invest funds which would then be lent to clients in the building industry with promises of high interest rates (30% for 30 days). However, Judge Davison gave several examples of how these funds did not make it to either builders or developers and were instead paid to other investors dealing with the firm.
The fact that funds were immediately sent out to various investors meant that Samra was effectively “robbing Peter to pay Paul”, she said.
“There is ongoing litigation by some creditors to recover moneys lost in their investments with the ALC Group. The total amount of money invested with the group by the investors who are the subject of the charges totals just over $1.9 million,” the judge said.
“Contrary to the representations that had been made by you in January 2009, the amount of $150,000 and the amounts of $50,000 and $70,000 were not lent to builders or developers but instead were paid to other investors in the ALC Group,” she said of one case.
ASIC began investigating the ALC Group in September 2009.
“ASIC investigated the collapse of your group and conducted a reconstruction in relation to the invested deposits through your group for the period from 1 January to 31 July 2009. That reconstruction shows that in that period there were deposits into your bank account totalling over $66m. Investor deposits totalled $58m and there were further miscellaneous deposits of over $7m,” the judge said. 
ASIC found that payments from Samra’s bank account totalled over $67 million with payments from investors equalling $64 million.
In determining the sentence, Davison considered the impact of these actions on investors with ALC Group.
“These people have been generally hardworking individuals who have been striving to do their best to provide for their families and their own retirements,” she said. 
“Each of them has been significantly financially disadvantaged by your behaviour. Beyond that, of course, they have the devastation and stress that comes from financial difficulties and the effect of having so badly judged the situation as they see it.” 
“You knew that you had this significant financial difficulty that was unlikely to be resolved when you sought and obtained the funds that were used to prop up the business, knowing at the time when you obtained them that there was little, perhaps no prospect that they would be repaid.” 
Davison did acknowledge Samra’s personal circumstances, noting that he had no ability to make reparations for his actions. She also recognised the stress Samra would have been under while trying to keep his business afloat. This led to two suicide attempts, hospitalisation and psychiatric treatment in July 2009.
“However, these factors, whilst they would have impaired your judgment significantly, do not mean that you were unaware of the nature and quality of your actions,” she said.
In deciding the sentence, Davison took into account a range of factors, including Samra’s apology and his previous good character, as well as the amount of money involved, a belated guilty plea, and a lack of any reparations made.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Former mortgage broker handed jail term for $1.9 million fraud

<html><body>
The commercial real estate firm, Burgess Rawson, has been found by a Melbourne court to have unlawfully fired an employee because she was pregnant and took leave days for illness.
Despite the company arguing that her dismissal was due to work performance issues, the Federal Circuit Court ruled that the administrative assistant was fired in the last week of her probation period because of pregnancy, taking personal and annual leave and being absent due to illness or injury.
In doing so, Burgess Rawson breached the Fair Work Act, it said.
The employee, Tiffany Mahajan, nee Reddy, was represented by Matthew Minucci with Clayton Utz her solicitor, while Burgess Rawson was represented by barrister Toby Borgeest who was assisted by solicitors, Abrahams Meese Lawyers.
Compensation is yet to be determined.
The worker joined the Burgess Rawson Melbourne office in December 2015 on a six-month probation as an administrative assistant.
Her role was to proof read valuation reports, ensuring that there were no spelling or grammatical errors, and format the reports, the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2017/1560" target="_blank">court judgement</a> shows.
She learnt about her pregnancy in January 2016, and informed the office at her three-month probation meeting in March 2016.
Her boss, Mr Perrin -- the leader of the valuations team -- did not raise any issues about her performance at the time.
Her three-month probation meeting was with Mr Perrin and Mr Silvester, who was a senior valuer employed by the respondent.
Mr Perrin told the court that, during that meeting, he told the applicant that she appeared to be “going alright”.
He conceded in cross-examination that he did not raise any performance concerns with the applicant at her three-month probation review.
The applicant claimed that, in fact, Mr Perrin praised her for her work ethic.
The court heard that between March and her dismissal on June 3, 2016, the last working day before her probation period was set to expire on June 6, the staff member took seven days of sick leave and four days of annual leave because of morning sickness and hospital appointments. On these occasions she says she notified the employer in advance, the judgement noted.
She was late to work by about five minutes around six or seven times over three months, the court heard, owing to Melbourne's public transport delays, the Smart Company website revealed in its reporting of the court judgement.
The court also reviewed the minutes from a directors meeting in April 2016, which mentioned the staff members name, followed by the words “6 months 6 June. Situation needs to be dealt with”.
The judge found that while there were other references to staff members with performance concerns, she was the only one who apparently needed to be “dealt with”.
The worker’s team leader told the court that by May, he had made the decision to terminate her employment due to poor performance and poor punctuality. He said her pregnancy, leave days and intention to take maternity leave formed no part of the decision to dismiss, but acknowledged he did not formally raise any concerns about performance with her prior to the dismissal.
The team leader also said that while informing her of the termination on June 3, he did not give further details about what performance concerns had arisen, but did say she was “unreliable”.
The worker claimed she was told: “Due to your current circumstances, your employment has become unreliable and we have decided not to continue with your employment”.
Despite denials the worker’s “circumstances” had been discussed in the dismissal meeting, Judge Heather Riley found it likely that this had taken place and that it “beggars belief” the worker’s employment could be considered “unreliable” on the basis of her being slightly late to work on a handful of occasions over three months.
The company had also raised concerns about the worker’s ability when it came to formatting valuation reports and ensuring consistency in valuation figures in these reports. However, the judge found this suggestion “preposterous”, saying errors in figures for valuation reports were the responsibility of the valuer who had prepared the numbers, not the administration assistant.
Riley ultimately ruled that the worker was dismissed because “she was pregnant, she took personal leave, she took annual leave and she was temporarily absent from work due to illness or injury”.
The court was told another employee who announced during her probation period that she was pregnant was retained in her employment, with arrangements to cover a period of maternity leave.
Mr Perrin told news.com.au he was “disappointed” with the outcome of the case, and that he would decide whether to appeal once the court had assessed the amount of damages the firm would have to pay to Ms Mahajan.
 
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Burgess Rawson unlawfully fired pregnant employee: Federal Court 

<html><body>
The securities regulator has banned a financial adviser from Orange, NSW for providing false information about a client to an insurer and also misleading others on superannuation products.
Darren Tindall has been banned by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission from providing financial services for five years after an investigation found he failed to comply with financial services laws.　
Tindall was an authorised representative of Roan Financial Group Pty Ltd between 9 May 2013 and 19 May 2014, and was based in Orange, NSW.
During the investigation, the ASIC found that he had:　
<ul>
<li>engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct on a client's behalf by failing to disclose their pre-existing medical conditions on an insurance application submitted to an insurer;　</li>
<li>engaged in dishonest conduct by not disclosing the medical conditions in transferring that insurance obtained to a new insurer; and 　</li>
<li>recklessly made misleading comparisons about superannuation products to four clients, which induced those clients to switch their superannuation.</li>
<li>　</li>
</ul>
ASIC deputy chair Peter Kell said, “ASIC will take action against financial advisers who have been dishonest or who mislead their clients, in order to increase public confidence in the financial services industry.”
Tindall’s appeal the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a stay on the ban was refused recently while a date for the hearing of review of ASIC's decision is yet to be set.
 
</body></html>

ASIC bans financial adviser for five years

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Retail Leases Amendment (Review) Bill 2016 was introduced into NSW Parliament on 8 November 2016 and when enacted, this legislation may make substantial amendments to many of the provisions of the current legislation, the Retail Leases Act 1994 (NSW) (RLA), governing most retail shop leases in New South Wales.
Some of the changes proposed by the Bill have been outlined below but first we must mention that some of the Bill is intended to have retrospective application:
Retrospective operation of amendments
Clause 38 of the Bill gives retrospective operation to the provisions of the Bill and extends the operation of the Bill to any leases and disclosure statements given, before the commencement of the amendments except as otherwise provided by the Bill.
Major Reform - Repealing the minimum five year term
The Bill removes the current minimum five year term for retail shop leases; the original intent of the introduction of a minimum five year term was to afford greater protection to the goodwill built up by a tenant and to protect the investment a tenant has made in fit out.
The result of getting rid of the five year minimum lease may be that more leases are being structured with shorter terms. Before the RLA, many retail leases were only 3 years but the new norm is now 5 years. The proposal gives greater flexibility to tenants to ask for longer or shorter terms however the potential for shorter terms may result in a greater turnover of tenancies. This may in turn have a detrimental impact on other tenants who are left behind when a key tenant does not elect for a longer term.
However the removal of this provision may save time and costs for both parties. The minimum five year term was not a benefit to tenants who sought a lease for less than five years as they would need to pay legal fees to obtain a s16(3) certificate from a lawyer to do so.
Exclusion of non-retail uses from RLA’s operation
The Bill excludes premises used wholly for certain non-retail purposes from the operation of the RLA. The excluded purposes are outlined in a new Schedule 1A and include the following (among other things):
<ul>
<li>ATMs;</li>
<li>Car parking;</li>
<li>Vending machines;</li>
<li>Public telephones;</li>
<li>Children’s ride machines;</li>
<li>Signage displays;</li>
<li>Internet booths;</li>
<li>Private post boxes;</li>
<li>Certain storage uses.</li>
</ul>
The Bill also removes an exclusion from the RLA for any premises in an office tower that forms part of a retail shopping centre. This means that the removal of the provision is not to include office towers; the reasoning is because the original exception was unnecessary as an office tower does not form part of a retail shopping centre simply because it is part of the same building. However the removal of this exception retrospectively may create practical issues where premises that have initially been deemed to be excluded under this provision now may no longer be excluded based on their factual circumstance. By functioning retrospectively the amendments would greatly burden those parties.
Additionally, the Bill asserts that the provisions will not apply to a retail shop that is a stall in a market unless the market is a permanent retail market.
Better Tenant Protection
Other changes proposed by the Bill include:
Disclosure Statements
<ul>
<li>
Landlords will be liable to pay compensation to tenants who terminate a lease in the first six months because they were not provided with a disclosure statement, or the disclosure statement was incomplete or false or misleading.
<ul>
<li>The compensation payable is the costs reasonably incurred by the tenant in entering into the lease, including expenditure in connection with the fit-out of the premises.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>A tenant is not required to pay outgoings unless that liability was disclosed in the landlord’s disclosure statement.</li>
</ul>
Disclosure of tenant’s financial obligation
<ul>
<li>If the landlord’s disclosure statement provides an estimate for an outgoing and the actual amount of the outgoing is more than the estimate, then if there was no reasonable basis for the estimate when the disclosure statement was provided, the tenant’s liability will be limited to the estimated amount, and all subsequent increases in outgoing will be limited by reference to the estimated amount.</li>
</ul>
Bank guarantees
<ul>
<li>
The landlord is required to return a bank guarantee to the tenant within 2 months after the tenant completes performance of obligations under the lease that are secured by the bank guarantee.
<ul>
<li>This allows the tenant to have certainty about the return of the bank guarantee, but also affords the landlord sufficient time to confirm compliance by a tenant with post-termination obligations.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Online Transactions
<ul>
<li>Turnover rent must exclude revenue accrued from online transactions, except where goods or services are delivered or provided from the retail shop or where the transaction takes place while the customer is at the retail shop.</li>
<li>The tenant is not required to provide the lessor with information about online transactions except for transactions where goods or services are delivered or provided from the retail shop or where the transaction takes place while the customer is at the retail shop.</li>
</ul>
Mortgagee consent expenses
<ul>
<li>The tenant is no longer required to pay lease preparation expenses (including expenses incurred in obtaining mortgage consent to a lease) in connection with the granting, renewal or extension of a lease.</li>
</ul>
Employment Restrictions
<ul>
<li>The employment restrictions the landlord has over the lease is extended to impose on a tenant requirements for police and security checks for tenant’s employees or contractors carrying out works in the premises. However, this is only if the Registrar of Retail Tenancy Disputes has approved of their inclusion in the particular case.</li>
</ul>
Amendments that may benefit Landlords
Disclosure statement
<ul>
<li>The revised definition of outgoings extends the definition to fees charged by a landlord for services provided by the landlord ‘in connection with the management, operation, maintenance or repair of the retail shop building or land’.</li>
<li>A landlord’s disclosure statement may be amended if both parties agree in writing.</li>
</ul>
Other general amendments
Demolition
<ul>
<li>The protections afforded to a tenant when the lease is terminated on the grounds of a proposal to demolish the building are extended to termination on the grounds of proposed demolition of any part of the building. Proposed changes also clarify that termination on the proposed demolition is only permissible if the proposed demolition cannot be carried out practicably without vacant possession of the shop.</li>
</ul>
Assignment of lease
<ul>
<li>There is clarification on the procedure for obtaining the landlord’s consent to the assignment of a retail shop lease, however the provision still includes a deemed consent by the landlord if the landlord has not responded within 28 days from when the request for consent was made by the tenant or from when the tenant has complied with the requirements under the RLA.</li>
<li>Where a retail shop lease has been awarded by public tender, the landlord can refuse consent to assignment of the lease if the proposed assignee fails to meet any criteria of the tender.</li>
</ul>
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
<ul>
<li>There is an expansion of existing power of the jurisdiction of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal and an increase to the monetary limit for claims arising under the RLA from $400,000 to $750,000.</li>
</ul>
Lease execution and registration 
<ul>
<li>The time period for which the landlord is required to provide the tenant with a signed copy of the lease has increased from 1 month to 3 months.</li>
<li>Leases for a term of more than 3 years will be required to be registered, and must be lodged for registration within 3 months after the executed lease is returned to the landlord.</li>
</ul>
Conclusion
Currently there is no guarantee that this Bill will be passed, and the Bill will likely undergo further discussion and amendments before it is enacted. Parties involved in retail leases as tenants or landlords however should be aware of the potential changes to the Bill as they will be expected to comply with the new requirements when the Bill is passed as the legislation will not only apply to future retail leases but also leases entered into before the enactment of the legislation.
Gary Newton is partner TressCox Lawyers and Henry Yuan is paralegal. Both can be contacted <a href="https://www.tresscox.com.au/page/our-expertise/property/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Proposed amendments to the NSW Retail Leases Act may affect retail landlords, tenants 

<html><body>
<h1> </h1>
GUEST OBSERVER
Having been a lawyer looking after farmers and graziers for almost 40 years, I have focused on the future of family farms all my professional life – indeed, my practice and those of the other lawyers in our Agribusiness team depends upon it.
The issues facing agriculture in Australia are well known – droughts, floods, fire, depressed prices, labour shortages, too much debt, government interference (tree clearing and live export bans to name but two), declining terms of trade, the high Australian dollar, the average age of our primary producers etc etc.
As a general observation, while undoubtedly the average age of our primary producers is high, the next generation are well placed to capitalise on the world's increasing need for protein and Asia's growing prosperity – they are technologically savvy and have access to resources, training etc (that their forebears could only look upon with envy) to ensure that the farms of the future will be sustainable both financially and environmentally.
I was asked a few years ago what I thought was the biggest issue facing primary producers and my considered response was "lack of communication". Farmers and graziers are, by their very nature, stoics – they have to be to cope with the myriad of challenges thrown at them. They know how to "tighten their belts" in bad times and battle through.
Producers though, in my experience, largely do not communicate about issues worrying them – droughts, debts, relationship issues, mental illness etc. These issues and the lack of communication particularly come to the forefront when we are addressing succession planning for family partnerships. My view, until recently, was that such partnerships have limited lives as the next generation takes up the "family farm".
My view though has changed and I was intrigued to read an article in Beef Central some time ago about two Mallee grain growers and their venture into "collaborative farming".
These two farmers started with a blank canvas and designed the ideal farm for their area. They worked with no preconceptions or restrictions and focused only on what mix of land, plant and labour would be required to create the most efficient and profitable farming business for their area.
They have combined their assets and skill base with a corporate focus that has enabled them to achieve a high level of scale, efficiency, profitability and flexibility that simply would not have been possible if they had remained as individual farming units.
Irrespective of what industry or profession you are in, it is an ever competitive and challenging business environment out there, and we all (lawyers included) have to look at ways to drive efficiencies, reduce costs and to ensure the business models are sustainable.
At Thynne + Macartney, for example, many of our lawyers now work remotely, reducing our need for high cost premises and allowing us to consolidate on a smaller floor plate. We also recognise the different strengths of our people and although we are still a legal partnership, we have moved to a corporate management model.
Having been raised in Mitchell on a property consisting of any number of 160 acre blocks carved up after World War 1 for soldier settlements, and in a wool growing era where adjoining properties all had their own woolsheds and supporting infrastructure, I can see opportunities for our farmers and graziers in "collaborative farming".
The basic idea is that you look to others in your or related industries and put yourselves into businesses where you add the most value and be more profitable. A breeder operation, for example, can form a business partnership with the operators of a backgrounding block (and in turn, the operators of a fattening block / feedlot) where resources (whether it be land, manpower, plant, livestock or whatever) can be applied to best advantage to make the combined operation more flexible and profitable than the individual operations could ever hope to be.
As has been said before, "it's not rocket science".
One of the Mallee farmers, John Gladigau, is said to have identified seven core principles for "collaborative farming":
Be strategic – Start off with a blank piece of paper and design your future.
Differentiate between agribusiness and real estate – Most farmers and graziers run two enterprises: a real estate business and an operations business – both have to get a return. Arguably some of our large operators in the beef industry are grappling with this issue.
Use resources efficiently (machinery, labour and infrastructure).
Create cells and replicate them, ie a scalable unit as the most efficient mix of land, machinery, infrastructure etc.
Create an environment of "win-win"– Win-win relationships need to be built between all of the stakeholders throughout the businesses.
Engage specialist services – The days of being a master of all trades (if they ever existed) are well and truly over. Recognise your limitations. There are areas where you need to bring in others because of their different skill set.
An independent voice is needed – Recognise that personalities, especially in a collaborative business where families are brought together, can destroy the business. The one essential element is to have an independent voice. Look at the corporate world where it is common to have an independent chair / directors on the board.
How then do we establish a "collaborative farm"? The key issue here is that "there is no model, there are no rules". You need to create a business that works for you and your partners. Having said that, the basic template is to set up a new company, put the various properties together, lease the properties and plant and sell your livestock to that new entity. There are legitimate steps that can be taken to minimise transactional costs, ie stamp duty, livestock transaction levies and income tax on any such restructure.
In summary, I am convinced more than ever that "the family farm has a future". The crucial issue here though is that the form of the family farm in future may well be more complex. It is of course a complex environment in which we all live and operate.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Bill Loughnan is partner,  Thynne &amp; Macartney and can be contacted <a href="https://www.thymac.com.au/" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
<div> </div>
</body></html>

Collaborative farming – the future for family farms?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Home buyers should not use a holding deposit when they want to secure a property purchase.
The preferable way to proceed is to exchange purchasing contracts, then use the cooling off period to complete enquiries.   With competition so strong for the nation’s limited housing stocks, purchasers need to better understand the legalities around how they secure their purchase and not leave themselves exposed to gazumping.   Buyers sometimes ask our agents to take a holding deposit, but then take their time to organise building and pest inspections as well as legal enquiries, mistakenly believing they have secured the property.   Paying a holding deposit does not mean the seller is legally obliged to sell you the property, or that you are legally obliged to buy.
Only an exchange of contracts constitutes a legally enforceable agreement. Without an exchange of contracts, buyers place themselves at the mercy of a very competitive buyer marketplace.   Real estate agents often don’t want to be seen to rush buyers into an exchange of contracts due to the relatively small penalty buyers incur if they decide to terminate their purchase during the cooling off period.   A cooling off period is the number of business days where a property buyer can walk away from a legal agreement to purchase a residential property. Buyers who do this usually have to pay the seller a small termination fee, which is often around 0.25% of the purchase price of the property. Any deposit above this will commonly need to be refunded.   But when you’re sure you’ve found the right property and want to complete your due diligence, many would argue it’s better to exchange contracts and secure the property, rather than risk being gazumped, having to continue the search for a property, and incurring yet more costs.   The best advice for buyers is to have finance approved and move quickly to complete enquiries. Sometimes, in the most competitive marketplaces, it’s in a buyer’s best interests to exchange contracts and make those enquiries during the cooling off period. 
Ray Ellis is First National Real Estate's chief executive.
</body></html>

rellis-3VhjqdJSN2

Exchange of contract safer than holding deposits: Ray Ellis

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
I hear many stories where some buyers have been gazumped and others who struggle to obtain the right information from the agent to submit an offer. We even have sellers who don't trust their own real estate agent.
All of these things and many other grey areas do not lead to the best result for the buyers and especially the sellers. The problem lies in buyers and sellers not understanding the legal frameworks the agents are bound within. In this article I want to dispel the myths and the grey areas of common problems that buyers and sellers have with real estate agents.
By the end of this article you should be armed with the right knowledge to help your property transaction go through smoothly as possible.
<ul>
<li>How strict are the authorities?</li>
</ul>
Some people think the real estate agents can get away with murder. This is far from the truth as the perception of the industry is somewhat of a low one. Some surveys reveal that people trust a local sex worker more than their real estate agent. This perception has made us one of the most heavily regulated industries in Australia.
Real estate agents are constantly audited by the ATO, covertly spied on by Fair trading at auctions, taken to CTTT tribunals by tenants/landlords, disciplined by The REI, fined by Australian Securities and Investments Commission about advertising and not to mention being sued!
As you can imagine this is a hazardous industry for a business owner with so many governing bodies keeping it in line. As such, the insurances go through the roof to own and run a real estate agency.
Because of this and Australia's love for property, real estate agents are a target for governing bodies and journalists, as everybody wants to catch a real estate agent doing the wrong thing.
The truth is governing bodies love to make examples of real estate agents as it gets them a lot of publicity, it shows the public that they're doing their job. This leads into my next subject;
<ul>
<li>What are agents constantly apprehensive of?</li>
</ul>
Most agents just want to do their job to the best of their ability without being sued, fined, and or disciplined. This is the underlying tone of the industry but nobody really discusses it.
With every new tightening rule, law and regulation comes more paperwork and administration. We find ourselves using emails, text messages and data basing of diary notes just to cover our rear ends.
This comes as a double edge sword for buyers and sellers as they want everything done cheaper, faster and better. Sometimes this is impossible because buyers, sellers and lawyers like to target real estate agents and inadvertently add to the red tape/cost of running an agency.
This has forced real estate agents to hold the ground on their fees or risk taking shortcuts. I see this many times, for example where agents will show me (not knowing that I'm an agent) a property they have for sale that they do not have a contract of yet. It’s illegal for an agent to advertise a property for which they do not have a contract of sale.
Article continues on the next page. Please click below.
<hr class="system-pagebreak">
Gazumping
Gazumping refers to when you have a verbal agreement with an agent or seller to purchase a property at an agreed price but the property is not sold to you in the end. Gazumping is a very real problem but it's usually the lack of buyers’ understanding of the law and how contract signing works that gets them in trouble. The buyers in turn blame the agent. This is where our data basing of diary notes and emails comes in handy.
We find especially in a hot market, we have to repeat ourselves at least three times in three different ways for people to put in their best and final offer so they don't feel like we have done the wrong thing by them. Yet people still complain that they would've offered higher. In my observation, it’s easy to say this when things have cooled off and people are just annoyed that they have missed out.
The key to understanding this is not to crack open the champagne until the owner has signed the contract and it is dated. Without a date the contract is invalid. You signing a check with your 10% does not mean you have purchased a property. There are some sales strategies out there in which the agents get three signed contracts and then show the vendors from lowest to highest to get the vendors to agree to a price. The best way to get your contract signed is to make your offer the most attractive you can and this may not just be money but other things such as settlement and rent back options.
To avoid not being called back and missing out on an opportunity to raise your offer, I recommend to stay in constant contact with the agent. You have already indicated your interest, so it doesn't hurt your negotiation by constantly calling them. In fact it can work in your favour if the agent slips up and gives you more information.
Not knowing where you stand when it comes to your offer
My friends and I have invested in a lot of property so I know all too well the feeling of not knowing where you stand when it comes to submitting an offer. My observation of being on both sides of the fence is that it is mainly the lack of trust you have in the agent that is selling to you that creates this feeling.
I found a good way to combat this is to call their bluff on their creating a Dutch option which is illegal. Agents may get offended or annoyed but this is a valid question that I put to them during negotiation and keeps them in line, telling them that it is illegal for them to disclose my offers to other buyers.
Sellers lose money not trusting their agent
When selling you don’t need to like your real estate agent but not to trust them can cost you thousands of dollars. When you sign an agency agreement with certified real estate agent they are in a legal binding contract to work in your best interest to get you the best price for your property.
Agents have a fiduciary requirement to work in your best interest. It is illegal for them to work against you. This is in the back of the mind of every selling agent. They are in the middle doing their best to maintain their relationship with the buyer but also trying to achieve the highest possible price the your property.
Agents have their agency agreements audited all the time to see if there is any discrepancies that show collusion with buyers, nondisclosure, secret commissions, or getting the value of your property wrong. They can be caught out very easily.
This is why you don’t need to like your agent to trust them because they have no choice but to work in your best interest.
I will give you an example that I see happens every week in real estate that cost sellers at least $10-$20,000 on a selling price.
The seller normally thinks that their property is the best in the world and that’s fair enough if you have grown up in the area and have created memories in your home. However, this emotional attachment makes sellers think that we under-price the value of their home and that people would actually be prepared to pay more than the market price.
This is entirely not true and I see seller’s market high prices for their home, killing enquiry levels and interest in the most important first week of advertising. You will always get a peak of interest in the first week.
In fact more enquiry drives the price up and what usually drives enquiry is a low advertised price.
Note: The advertised price is not your asking price it is just advertising (backed up by comparable sales of course). Your selling price is completely different.
Many sellers do not trust agents when they explain this and that is understandable with all the emotions around property and money. But you really need to see it from a buyer’s perspective before you look at it from a seller’s perspective.
This concept can help you achieve above market price for your property, as agents are in the market every day. Remember the sale is not based on the advertised price but what others are prepared to pay when competing against one another, this is normally call a “market price”.
Summary
I challenge you to look up the rules, laws and regulations agents have to work within. This will help you have more confidence in your property transaction and dealing with agents.
Here are some resources I suggest;
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Property_agents_and_managers/Rules_of_conduct/Real_estate_agents.page" style="line-height: 1.3em;">fairtrading.nsw.gov.au</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/real-estate-agents-and-sales-representatives" style="line-height: 1.3em;">commerce.wa.gov.au</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.reinsw.com.au/iMIS15_prod/web/actsandregulations" style="line-height: 1.3em;">reinsw.com.au</a></li>
</ul>
Jhai Mitchell is the internet marketing real estate agent for <a href="https://www.elderstoongabbie.com.au/" target="_blank">Elders Toongabbie</a> and <a href="https://www.elderskingslangley.com.au/" target="_blank">Kings Langle</a> and maintains a blog, <a href="https://realestatesevenhillsnews.com.au/" target="_blank">Seven Hills Real Estate News</a>.
</body></html>

JhaiMitchell-KTraswnPwa

How the sales process works: What laws do real estate agents have to abide by?

<html><body>
The High Court of Australia has sided with the Commissioner of State Revenue in a stamp duty disagreement over Docklands developments.
In the decision, made last month, the High Court ruled that the Commissioner was entitled to reference the entire value of a development agreement, rather than just the sales contract value, when assessing stamp duty payable.
Developer Lend Lease made an agreement with VicUrban in 2001 to purchase Docklands land parcels, with Lend Lease to develop and sell large residential and commercial properties on the land. Both Lend Lease and VicUrban agreed to contribute infrastructure, including a bridge, a park and a road extension, on and around the land.
Under the development agreement, Lend Lease was required to pay additional amounts to VicUrban beyond what was outlined in the sales contract. The additional payments included compensation for infrastructure and remediation, as well as a portion of proceeds received by Lend Lease when they sold properties on the land.
Lend Lease objected to the Commissioners assessment of the stamp duty payable, which referenced the entire quantity paid by Lend Lease as part of the development agreement. The developer argued that the consideration paid for each parcel of land only included the amount specified in the sales contract.
However, the High Court disagreed. In the decision, reference was made to a dispute in 2005 between Dick Smith Electronics and the Commissioner. In that case, the majority held that the total consideration included the buyer's execution of several promises outlined in an agreement which contributed to the overall sum, as the vendor would not have transferred the asset (in that instance, a bundle of shares) if the buyer hadn't taken those actions.
After the Commissioner disallowed Lend Lease's initial objections to his assessment, Lend Lease launched an appeals process which saw the High Court ultimately agree with the Commissioner's assessment. Lend Lease has stated that it respects the High Court's decision.
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

High Court rules stamp duty consideration extends beyond sales contract value

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Brisbane tenants and unit owners need to brush up on body corporate rules in the wake of recent storms to avoid being stung with insurance nightmares.
With experts predicting an increase in severe storms this summer, I’m urging all Brisbane unit owners to prepare now. Residents in units and apartments in particular have unique considerations to bear in mind around storm preparedness and insurance claims.
Residents need to think about how the storm’s effect on the body corporate will impact their property, and vice versa for how their actions can affect the body corporate. For example, the placement of a drain in a common area could potentially be a flood hazard to ground floor properties if there is an excessive amount of rain.
Owners should be aware of this type of issue and have an action plan in place to mitigate potential flood damage which could include having a barrier ready to roll out and a plan to move any valuables.
On the flip side, unit owners and tenants need to prepare their property not only to ensure their own safety but also the safety of the building as a whole.
This includes securing balcony furniture and ensuring the property complies with the building’s by-laws. If a unit does not comply it can create unnecessary dangers for the property and the building as a whole.
Navigating the insurance process can be tricky for those in units and apartments. It depends on your scheme’s insurance but most policies will cover the structure of the building including internal fixed cupboards, but will normally exclude cover for carpets and of course your personal belongings.
Some policies may also exclude flood cover unless the body corporate chooses to include it, so be sure to check the policy document of your scheme’s insurance to know what’s covered and what’s not.
Here are some tips for you to consider:
<ul>
<li>Prepare your property – secure items on your balcony and ensure your unit complies with the building’s by-laws. If you’re unsure, contact your body corporate. 
</li>
<li>Prepare common areas – clear away any rubbish and ensure all loose items are secured. This includes outdoor furniture, pot plants and plastic pool furniture which can be placed in the pool to avoid it blowing away. 
</li>
<li>Check your insurance policy – be aware that the building’s strata insurance does not cover your belongings in your unit so you will need to have up-to-date contents insurance. 
</li>
<li>Familiarise yourself with your building’s evacuation plan just in case you need to evacuate and ensure you consider pets if necessary. </li>
<li>Communicate with your body corporate about your property’s damage and any damage you notice on common property as soon as possible.</li>
</ul>
Grant Mifsud has more than 12 years’ experience in the strata industry and has been a senior body corporate manager at<a href="https://www.abcm.com.au" target="_blank"> Archers Body Corporate Management</a> since 2007. 
Currently Grant manages a portfolio of clients in the Brisbane region with a focus on providing financial and strata legislation advice. Grant is a practitioner member of Strata Community Australia (SCA).
</body></html>

GrantMifsud-hZGcbKY2ir

Recent storms show why it pays to brush up on body corporate laws

<html><body>
Building a secondary dwelling, either on a principal place of residence or out the back of a rental property, for tenants to live in has long been an accepted way of increasing rental yield on applicable homes.
With double the income from one block, the $80,000 to $120,000 outlay to build a granny flat has been undertaken in many areas, in particularly Western Sydney.
However, the Tenants’ Union of Tasmania’s solicitor, Peter Foster, is warning Tasmanian tenants about some of the difficulties.
The main issue remains around the subject of electricity or power connection. Even if the landlords live in the main house, or it is holding tenants itself, it’s advised to have separate meters.
Not only will this make life easier in terms of bills, however not keeping this separate may actually be unlawful under the Act, explains Foster in the latest TUTas advisory email.
“Some owners will insert clauses into leases that seem like a fair compromise. For example, that each household pays half of the power bill. But is going halves just when only two tenants live in the flat while the owner, her husband and three children reside in the adjacent house? It would be reasonable to assume the owner and her family will be consuming more electricity,” writes Foster.
He suggests that there may also be some arrangements where there’s a “per head pay share” where each tenant pays for a divided portion of the bill per person. However, lifestyle imbalances can affect the bills and still have some paying more than they should.
When assessing ‘fairness’, clearly there are many difficulties. The Act is even clearer. Foster explains that the landlord is only able to charge for rent, damage and usage costs of a water bill under the agreement, but that all other charges cannot be collected by the landlord or agent. This would include electricity bills.
The solution may be to have a meter installed at the granny flat. While ne notes that owners have no legal obligation to install the meter it certainly seems the most recommended option.
How have you tackled this issue with your tenants?
</body></html>

Legal

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Legal

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News