this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3579 readers
109 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1
Cold calling real estate agents - is there a law against it? (aussie.zone)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some real estate dickhead just rang my mobile (which is not advertised anywhere) saying they were "just in the area" and wanted to do an appraisal on a house we own in .

It's an agency we don't use for any purpose, have never used for any purpose, and have never approached for any reason.

Is there some sort of legal issue with some smarmy sales knob looking up property owner details and cold calling them?

Makes me feel all gross that their grubby mitts are pawing through my deets somewhere in the hope of being able to stick a tongue up my bum and get a taste of some back door cash.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The practice of "renting" needs to die in a goddamn fire. Single family homes should never be "rented". Temporary (6-month to 5-year) occupancy of a single family home should be done under a "land contract".

Basically, the occupant starts making mortgage payments (principal, interest, taxes, insurance) but title stays with the landlord. The landlord receives only the "interest" part of the payment. The "principal" part of the payment is held in escrow, in an interest-bearing account. This is the occupant's equity in the home.

If the occupant stays through the term of the contract, title transfers to the occupant, the escrowed principal payments transfer to the landlord, and the contract converts to a private mortgage. If the occupant leaves before the term of the contract, the principal payments are returned to them.

Land contracts build tenant wealth and drive people toward home ownership. 20-year-old you, with no capital and working a minimum wage job, should be able to enter into a land contract and start building wealth.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm sort-of following the idea here - and I appreciate that there has been actual thought behind it.

I'm missing a couple of points though:

  1. Why would a landowner enter into this arrangement instead of just selling the property to someone with the finances to buy it outright from them?
  2. Who underwrites this? Even a Banks with Billions of dollars in their reserve will make me commit a decent percentage of the property's value in the form of a deposit. If you take that away, the landowner is taking a huge risk by entering into this contract. I guess that feeds back to point #1, but assuming an altruistic landowner who just wants to help people - they're gambling their most valuable assets against my ability to slowly dribble money at them. If their tenant loses their job or something and can't afford payments, what happens?
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

  1. The simplest answer is that the landowner could expect a higher ROI from issuing a land contract or private mortgage than from selling outright. If they do decide to sell, it's going to be to an owner-occupant, or another investor willing to "partner" with a tenant/buyer to secure that owner-occupant credit. The Non-occupant "penalty" should be high enough to kill the traditional landlord's ROI.

  2. I don't think I am taking away the deposit. Where are you getting that?

The landowner is "gambling" just as much with a land contract as they would be with a traditional rental.

The private mortgagee can insist on a 20% down payment from the mortgager, just like a conventional mortgagee.