Why we gave up being landlords to be Airbnb hosts instead

[Admiral Beez]

http://www.thestar.com/life/2016/04...ing-landlords-to-be-airbnb-hosts-instead.html

"We carefully screen prospective guests and require that they have clear headshots and previous reviews from other hosts. Which means we can pick and choose who we let into our home,"

I have to say this would appeal to me as well. Why bother renting, at the risk of deadbeats and vandals who hide behind the tenant act when you can choose short term tenants by their ratings, AND make more revenue? Not sure about the tax evasion side of this though.

 

[LiberalForLife]

I sympathize with the owners because of deadbeats but the Tenant Act was created to protect tenants from bad landlords. Besides in Ontario it's a lot easier to throw out tenants that don't pay than it is in more progressive countries like Germany and Sweden. In Sweden it can take landlords years to throw out a tenant that's not paying the rent.

 

[Bayer]

There has been a few sensationalist reports in the papers lately about evil tenants who trash apartments or refuse to pay and are experts at playing the system. Those people are few and far between. There is an imbalance of power in landlord-tenant relationships and it is not in favour of the tenant.

I do sympathize with owners who end up with deadbeats. But take, for instance, my experience of renting two condos, each for 10 years. In the first case, the owner refused to pay interest on my deposit (about $650) even though she had the obligation to do so under the law and the lease that she signed. In the second case, I was asked for key money (which I accepted to pay because I wanted the apartment), my lease contained an illegal no-pet clause and I was also not paid any interest on my deposit.

In each case, and for a total of 20 years, I paid my rent on time every single month and maintained the premises properly, sometimes making repairs or doing such things as recaulking shower stalls myself. And those are the thanks that I got. They took advantage of me and I could have taken them to the tribunal, of course. But I needed good references, and the amounts were not worth my time.

Before complaining about bad tenants, I hope landlords look at themselves in the mirror once in a while.

 

[TheKingEast]

There has been a few sensationalist reports in the papers lately about evil tenants who trash apartments or refuse to pay and are experts at playing the system. Those people are few and far between. There is an imbalance of power in landlord-tenant relationships and it is not in favour of the tenant.

I do sympathize with owners who end up with deadbeats. But take, for instance, my experience of renting two condos, each for 10 years. In the first case, the owner refused to pay interest on my deposit (about $650) even though she had the obligation to do so under the law and the lease that she signed. In the second case, I was asked for key money (which I accepted to pay because I wanted the apartment), my lease contained an illegal no-pet clause and I was also not paid any interest on my deposit.

In each case, and for a total of 20 years, I paid my rent on time every single month and maintained the premises properly, sometimes making repairs or doing such things as recaulking shower stalls myself. And those are the thanks that I got. They took advantage of me and I could have taken them to the tribunal, of course. But I needed good references, and the amounts were not worth my time.

Before complaining about bad tenants, I hope landlords look at themselves in the mirror once in a while.

Hmm. I've never heard of landlords paying taxes on deposits. I never got any either, nor been asked for it.

 

[Bayer]

Hmm. I've never heard of landlords paying taxes on deposits. I never got any either, nor been asked for it.

Interest, not taxes. Residential Tenancies Act:

106 (6) A landlord of a rental unit shall pay interest to the tenant annually on the amount of the rent deposit at a rate equal to the guideline determined under section 120 that is in effect at the time payment becomes due.

After 10 years, considering today's rents, it can get to a sizable amount.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Landlords are now permitted to deduct from the interest payment any amount needed to legally raise the rent deposit to the amount permitted under the Act.

It balances out. The interest paid would be equal to the rent increase. It goes to the last rent at termination.

From link:

The monthly rent is $2,000. The LMRD is also $2,000. It's anniversary time (a year since move-in or a year since the last increase). The landlord served an N1 notice of rent increase effective February 1st, 2016. It should have been served in October 2015, since there is a 90 day notice requirement. The rent will go up 2% as that's the 2016 provincial guideline. So rent goes to $2,040. Interest on the LMRD is owed on February 1st, also $40, as the percentage interest rate is the same. But the Act permits the landlord to take the $40 and ADD IT to the LMRD, effectively making the deposit $2,040 instead of the rent. No money changes hands. It's a book entry only. The rent and LMRD stay in sync.

BTW. The Ontario rent increase guideline for 2017 is 1.5%. Savings account interest rates are >0.5% (under $5,000). Try to get 1.5% on the amount of a rent deposit?

 

[TheKingEast]

Interest, not taxes. Residential Tenancies Act:

106 (6) A landlord of a rental unit shall pay interest to the tenant annually on the amount of the rent deposit at a rate equal to the guideline determined under section 120 that is in effect at the time payment becomes due.

After 10 years, considering today's rents, it can get to a sizable amount.

Sorry. I meant interest.

 

[Bayer]

Landlords are now permitted to deduct from the interest payment any amount needed to legally raise the rent deposit to the amount permitted under the Act.

It balances out. The interest paid would be equal to the rent increase. It goes to the last rent at termination.

If that is what they are actually doing. I was always asked to send an amount equal to the rent increase to increase the deposit.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If that is what they are actually doing. I was always asked to send an amount equal to the rent increase to increase the deposit.

Most rather make the bookkeeping entry.

Of course, if you want the actual cash or cheque, you'll have to include that "interest" in your income tax. I'm guessing most don't.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I rarely have problems with tenants; however, I recently had a tenant evicted that was the worst in my entire personal experience. The financial loss which in terms of rent arrears and property damage probably amounting to around $20,000; however, honestly I am not particularly upset given how rare this is for me (the unit was due for a renovation upgrade anyway). What bothered me about my inability under the law to evict the tenant in a timely fashion was the disturbance it was causing other tenants in the building. Basically, as a Landlord I am powerless to protect the interests of other tenants in a building when one tenant is problematic. When I mean problematic, I mean police constantly attending the property problematic. So in this instance the Act was basically forcing me to keep a tenant for months in a unit that was making everyone's life a living hell and trashing the building. So much for Tenant rights.

The tenant was evicted on the basis of failure to pay rent by the way even though the main issue was disturbing, dangerous, and criminal activity. Eviction on that basis is just too difficult and time-consuming to prove vis a vis bread and butter non-payment of rent. Oh and P.S. the police were near useless in this episode. If anything I was the one being threatened by the legal system, lest I take actions outside the due process that would upset the rights of my dear tenant.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I rarely have problems with tenants; however, I recently had a tenant evicted that was the worst in my entire personal experience. The financial loss which in terms of rent arrears and property damage probably amounting to around $20,000; however, honestly I am not particularly upset given how rare this is for me (the unit was due for a renovation upgrade anyway). What bothered me about my inability under the law to evict the tenant in a timely fashion was the disturbance it was causing other tenants in the building. Basically, as a Landlord I am powerless to protect the interests of other tenants in a building when one tenant is problematic. When I mean problematic, I mean police constantly attending the property problematic. So in this instance the Act was basically forcing me to keep a tenant for months in a unit that was making everyone's life a living hell and trashing the building. So much for Tenant rights.

The tenant was evicted on the basis of failure to pay rent by the way even though the main issue was disturbing, dangerous, and criminal activity. Eviction on that basis is just too difficult and time-consuming to prove vis a vis bread and butter non-payment of rent. Oh and P.S. the police were near useless in this episode. If anything I was the one being threatened by the legal system, lest I take actions outside the due process that would upset the rights of my dear tenant.

Should have asked your Godfather for a favor.

 

[LiberalForLife]

There has been a few sensationalist reports in the papers lately about evil tenants who trash apartments or refuse to pay and are experts at playing the system. Those people are few and far between. There is an imbalance of power in landlord-tenant relationships and it is not in favour of the tenant.

I do sympathize with owners who end up with deadbeats. But take, for instance, my experience of renting two condos, each for 10 years. In the first case, the owner refused to pay interest on my deposit (about $650) even though she had the obligation to do so under the law and the lease that she signed. In the second case, I was asked for key money (which I accepted to pay because I wanted the apartment), my lease contained an illegal no-pet clause and I was also not paid any interest on my deposit.

In each case, and for a total of 20 years, I paid my rent on time every single month and maintained the premises properly, sometimes making repairs or doing such things as recaulking shower stalls myself. And those are the thanks that I got. They took advantage of me and I could have taken them to the tribunal, of course. But I needed good references, and the amounts were not worth my time.

Before complaining about bad tenants, I hope landlords look at themselves in the mirror once in a while.

See I find this to be a problem in our system. If you want to exercise your rights as a tenant against a bad landlord you risk getting a bad reference. But it only hurts honest people. It's amazing how easy it is to fake references especially in Canada where we don't have a central registry system like they do in some European countries.

 

[TheOneAbove]

See I find this to be a problem in our system. If you want to exercise your rights as a tenant against a bad landlord you risk getting a bad reference. But it only hurts honest people. It's amazing how easy it is to fake references especially in Canada where we don't have a central registry system like they do in some European countries.

Rental agencies and landlords owe it upon themselves to not dig too deep into people's lives. They are renting, they aren't in the business of personal judgments. It isn't a concern of a rental agency how you pay your bills, it is just important that you do. And if you don't, there's always the power of eviction and the landlord always has the security deposit to recover. That's why security deposits are a thing... If all landlords trusted you to do the right thing, they wouldn't require them. All rental agencies that I'm aware with start with the distrust of a security deposit, you are presumed untrustworthy until you move out and get the refund.

Many years ago, numerous lease and rental agencies only requested a portion of your rent in security deposit. It wasn't uncommon many, many moons ago that you'd only put down a small amount. In today's dollars you'd say $250 deposit on a $1000 rental. Now its an entire damn month... Its absurd, really.

They should make it an Ontario law: rental agencies or landlords request an entire month's rent as security deposit? They must accept you as a tenant without further background checks. That security deposit essentially IS your worthiness score.

Besides, making a big deal out of background checks and references opens the landlord up to discrimination claims. Its not worth it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

http://www.thestar.com/life/2016/04...ing-landlords-to-be-airbnb-hosts-instead.html

"We carefully screen prospective guests and require that they have clear headshots and previous reviews from other hosts. Which means we can pick and choose who we let into our home,"

I have to say this would appeal to me as well. Why bother renting, at the risk of deadbeats and vandals who hide behind the tenant act when you can choose short term tenants by their ratings, AND make more revenue? Not sure about the tax evasion side of this though.

Looks like this scheme will be closed down.

 

[Avenue]

I have to say this would appeal to me as well. Why bother renting, at the risk of deadbeats and vandals who hide behind the tenant act when you can choose short term tenants by their ratings, AND make more revenue?

Having loud, partying Airbnb patrons instead of decent full-time tenants all over your street can reduce your property values...

So I'd be careful what I'm wishing for.