Even the landlord wanting to move in should not be reason enough
I’m going to be honest, I don’t agree. I think our laws currently go far, far too far in favour of landlords, but this is one place I would draw the line.
The idea that “end of a fixed-term lease” is currently a valid reason is fucking gross, and basically acts as a loophole around every other protection we could possibly put in place. End of a fixed-term lease is “no grounds”, as far as I’m concerned. But if they own a property and want to move in, assuming it’s done with sufficient notice (including not being before the end of any existing fixed-term lease, as well as a certain number of months in advance), they should be allowed.
For example, what if they used to own two places, decided it was more work than they cared for, and are going to sell the one they currently live in. As a renter’s rights advocate, that’s a scenario I have often said is what should happen, rather than them putting up the price of rent constantly or failing to continue to maintain the rental property. Maybe they’re downsizing and decide they’d rather move in to the one that currently is rented out. I think they should be allowed to do that. Or alternatively, what if they live here and own property, then decide to move overseas for work for a period of 5 years. For that duration, they want to rent out their property. It’s not long enough that selling makes sense, but it’s far too long to leave vacant entirely (or it should be too long to leave vacant, under good housing laws). The last thing we want is to encourage a position where that person is going to leave their house empty for 5 years, reducing the effective supply of housing.
It’s absolutely critical that people not be allowed to exploit this. If moving back in, there needs to be a minimum amount of time before they can rent it out again (I’d start the conversation at 24 months), and “changing their mind” is absolutely inexcusable. But if they genuinely do want to move back in, let them.
Thanks for the considered reply. I think we can agree that it’s a difficult balance between the incompatible interests of two parties who both want to live in one place. Maybe my take is too extreme, I’ve just seen enough of disadvantaged people getting the short end of the stick.
In Aussie society, we tend to treat housing like other property, where the owner has ultimate control albeit bound by a contract and (IMO weak) renter protections. My view is housing is in a fundamental way a class of its own and should lean towards the resident who has the real interest in it rather than the owner who has a financial interest. That’s not to say the owner should be at the mercy of a bad tenant who is damaging the property or anything–the rules around upkeep and maintenance are not too bad. But around decisions of who gets to live there, the bias should be towards the person who has made it their home. If the owner wants to live somewhere else, then they can find somewhere else that’s available. They would even get the benefit of the timing being on their own terms, unlike an evictee. I’m sure there would be social and economic impacts from that.
Anyway, I want to take a minute to praise the landlords that provide longer than required notice and any other assistance to the tenants they evict. Landlords aren’t all bad, it’s just a system that needs change.
In terms of our overall philosophy, I think we are in agreement. Housing should be a right all people have, and that should include security that you aren’t going to be forced to move willy-nilly. It should not be a right to make a profit by owning property.
I actually think they’re are vanishingly few reasons I would accept for someone being forced out of the home you’re living in. Being in breach but causing serious damage is one. The owner wanting to move in or an immediate family member move in is another. The home being in need of serious renovations is a third. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a fourth. But I do think that being allowed to live in it yourself is one pretty basic accommodation that should be made for the owners of housing.
I’m going to be honest, I don’t agree. I think our laws currently go far, far too far in favour of landlords, but this is one place I would draw the line.
The idea that “end of a fixed-term lease” is currently a valid reason is fucking gross, and basically acts as a loophole around every other protection we could possibly put in place. End of a fixed-term lease is “no grounds”, as far as I’m concerned. But if they own a property and want to move in, assuming it’s done with sufficient notice (including not being before the end of any existing fixed-term lease, as well as a certain number of months in advance), they should be allowed.
For example, what if they used to own two places, decided it was more work than they cared for, and are going to sell the one they currently live in. As a renter’s rights advocate, that’s a scenario I have often said is what should happen, rather than them putting up the price of rent constantly or failing to continue to maintain the rental property. Maybe they’re downsizing and decide they’d rather move in to the one that currently is rented out. I think they should be allowed to do that. Or alternatively, what if they live here and own property, then decide to move overseas for work for a period of 5 years. For that duration, they want to rent out their property. It’s not long enough that selling makes sense, but it’s far too long to leave vacant entirely (or it should be too long to leave vacant, under good housing laws). The last thing we want is to encourage a position where that person is going to leave their house empty for 5 years, reducing the effective supply of housing.
It’s absolutely critical that people not be allowed to exploit this. If moving back in, there needs to be a minimum amount of time before they can rent it out again (I’d start the conversation at 24 months), and “changing their mind” is absolutely inexcusable. But if they genuinely do want to move back in, let them.
Thanks for the considered reply. I think we can agree that it’s a difficult balance between the incompatible interests of two parties who both want to live in one place. Maybe my take is too extreme, I’ve just seen enough of disadvantaged people getting the short end of the stick.
In Aussie society, we tend to treat housing like other property, where the owner has ultimate control albeit bound by a contract and (IMO weak) renter protections. My view is housing is in a fundamental way a class of its own and should lean towards the resident who has the real interest in it rather than the owner who has a financial interest. That’s not to say the owner should be at the mercy of a bad tenant who is damaging the property or anything–the rules around upkeep and maintenance are not too bad. But around decisions of who gets to live there, the bias should be towards the person who has made it their home. If the owner wants to live somewhere else, then they can find somewhere else that’s available. They would even get the benefit of the timing being on their own terms, unlike an evictee. I’m sure there would be social and economic impacts from that.
Anyway, I want to take a minute to praise the landlords that provide longer than required notice and any other assistance to the tenants they evict. Landlords aren’t all bad, it’s just a system that needs change.
In terms of our overall philosophy, I think we are in agreement. Housing should be a right all people have, and that should include security that you aren’t going to be forced to move willy-nilly. It should not be a right to make a profit by owning property.
I actually think they’re are vanishingly few reasons I would accept for someone being forced out of the home you’re living in. Being in breach but causing serious damage is one. The owner wanting to move in or an immediate family member move in is another. The home being in need of serious renovations is a third. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a fourth. But I do think that being allowed to live in it yourself is one pretty basic accommodation that should be made for the owners of housing.