Episode 10 - Rental Reforms and CAV Update - Real Estate Matters - Podcast by the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV)

Unpacking Rental Reforms with Consumer Affairs Victoria The Real Estate Institute of Victoria acknowledges the traditional custodians of the lands on which we record this podcast and pay our respects to their elders, past and present. Welcome to Real Estate Matters, the podcast brought to you by the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. This episode is brought to you by Secure Exchange, the unified platform for a modern property journey from sales to property management. It's purpose built for real estate professionals who want to save time, impress clients and grow their business. With Secure Exchange, you can verify identity, sign and exchange contracts, securely share information and more, all in the one place. On the 25th November 2025, another round of significant rental reforms came into effect here in Victoria. These reforms are part of the Victorian Government's Housing Statement and we're introducing a raft of further changes to the Residential Tenancies Act. The RTA is now one of the most complex and lengthy pieces of legislations that govern housing markets anywhere in the country, and it's vitally important that all real estate agents associated with residential leasing and management are fully across these details. Today's discussion intends to delve deeper into this set of reforms to understand the CAB interpretation and enforcement regime for these particular regulations. We're incredibly pleased to once again be joined by Nicole Rich, Executive Director, Regulatory Services at Consumer Affairs Victoria, or Cav as we more commonly refer to it. Nicole is at the centre of regulatory enforcement across the sector and has always been incredibly generous with her time for the REIV. Thank you, Nicole, for joining us for your third episode of the REIV Podcast. Speaker 2 Yes, I've becoming it's, I think this is my annual spot. I'm I'm happy to be back though. Thank you for inviting me. Speaker 1 Back you're our number one guest, just so you know that number one guest most episodes so far. Compliance Successes and Bond Lodgement Concerns So we're talking we'll start off with the rental task force. We're we're approaching the the 2nd anniversary of the introduction of of the task force. Could you, if possible, give us some insights into some areas that you got you might have measured improvement in and some of those areas that might continue to be problematic from a compliance perspective? Speaker 2 Yeah, of course. And look, probably the first thing I would want to say about what we've experienced through the renting task force just generally is a very good level of rectification and then sort of not lapsing into ongoing non compliance, which I think is a real, real positive. It's a bit bit regulatory to speak there, but essentially what we find is even where we do go out and we might see some non compliance or a breach even where it's a bit pointy here and we we've felt like we need to issue say an infringement. We don't see a lot of ongoing non compliance. We don't see a lot of repeat customers of our business, which we think is a really good thing. So. Speaker 1 So people are learning a. Speaker 2 Lesson So people are engaging with us, they're learning they're even where you know the conduct does justify some kind of a response like it's not it's not the best people in my view are genuinely quite contrite, willing to learn, wanting to do better. And so it's really good that we don't then see them coming back. So I think that is a really, really great positive awesome. I think that's the general experience also on sort of specific issues when we first started we we didn't expect this, but as I think the industry now knows, we saw quite widespread non compliance with the price advertising rules. So this wasn't something we thought was going to be a big issue, you know, the first issue we would have to tackle, but it was just a huge issue. It was really commonplace. I think it was clear that there needed to be some further education, but also there were some poor practises. But after a little while of this kind of compliance responses, we felt like there has to be a better way. And so we engaged with the industry more broadly. And then we also engaged with the big advertising platforms. And today it's basically not really that possible to, to breach the law even if even if you tried to. So we were trying to actually just help agents not get on the wrong side of the law in the 1st place and then free up our time to maybe tackle, you know, more more significant. Speaker 1 Issues. Speaker 2 And that I think has been a great success story as well. And it's just sort of stopped, stopped people even sort of doing the wrong, wrong thing and potentially wearing a financial penalty that people don't want. And we we don't want to see either. Probably something that's of concern that maybe again, we weren't necessarily expecting when we first started and is a current priority is non lodgement of bonds. So if there's one thing that I would want to say for people listening today, it's a reminder about what your obligations are around the handling and the lodgement of rental bonds. So I think maybe some agents mistakenly think that as, as long as you've put it in your trust account, you know, that's sufficient protection and you can get get it, get it over to the bond authority when you're ready. I'm not sure, but we are seeing a reasonable level of non compliance. It is concerning and it will be escalated for compliance action that we do think that's quite a serious issue if you're not passing bonds on to the bond authority for safekeeping. So it's probably a good heads up for anyone that isn't sure that they're always compliant. That's something you might want to do a bit of a check on and make sure that you're getting that right. Speaker 1 Yeah, that's, that's a fantastic insight and and not one again that I would have tipped, you know, to be commonplace, but. Speaker 2 That's right. The bond authority's been around for so long now you'd sort of think it was, it was common. But unfortunately there's probably we're probably seeing a range of behaviours, some are probably deliberate non compliance that that element of the market which is unfortunate and definitely matters that we've escalated for investigation and and they'll probably be some prosecutions and so on coming out of that. Yeah, but probably also just some widespread misunderstanding of the obligations. Speaker 1 Yeah, OK, Fantastic, fantastic and. Speaker 3 I think that largely comes down to office procedures and making sure that the officer ineffective control is. Speaker 2 Very aware of the processes. Speaker 3 In terms of timing and lodgement and and balances and cheques to make sure that these things are happening in a compliant manner, I totally agree and. Speaker 2 You know, with the kind of digital systems a lot of people are using now as well, you can really set it up so that these things shouldn't be happening, and then you just save yourself a lot of heartache down the track. Yeah. Speaker 3 Very good. Ensuring Properties Meet Minimum Standards with Reasonable Belief With these sweeping reforms now in effect, some further clarity would be really helpful for the industry. We might start off with minimum standards for a property manager leasing a property. What evidence can they confidently rely on to make sure the property meets minimum standards? The term reasonable belief is used. Can you talk a little bit about this please? Speaker 2 Yes, you've, you've picked up a couple of the differences in the new law with the previous law, right. So obviously there's been the requirements around mandatory minimum standards for a while, but the new reform applies to agents directly, not just to the rental provider or the landlords. That's a pretty important thing for the industry to understand. But you're right, it is qualified. It's about reasonable belief. So the reason that I think the government and ultimately Parliament supported that change, that we do understand that it is ultimately the rental providers property. So there's probably going to be some reasons why an agent might genuinely not be in total control of that or might make a, a genuine mistake or something like that about the property complying with minimum standards or sort of lapsing into non compliance. So what the law requires is that before you advertise the property that you have a reasonable belief that it complies. So that does require some kind of efforts to be made. There's no definition of reasonable belief. But I mean, reasonableness, you know, it's sort of a legal concept that's pretty well understood. It's about objective reasonableness. So the sorts of things I guess that we would suggest you consider are did you actually do an inspection of the property within a reasonable sort of time frame of when you're advertising. So let's say you've been managing the property for years. Maybe you did an inspection when you first advertised the property years ago, but you've actually never really, you haven't been doing regular inspections and things and you haven't actually checked again in a number of years whether the property is compliant. That's probably not a reasonable belief. It's probably poor practise anyway. It's been a because you should really be, oh, you're checking on your clients properties, but I could imagine that that could be something that could happen. Or if you actually just don't inspect the property, you rely on the client to maybe send you a video or photos or send you a report or something like that about the property. I think that would be hard to say that that's necessarily enough to form a reasonable belief. I think you do, as the agency need to sort of conduct your own inquiries before you can form that reasonable belief. Speaker 3 OK. And so it's interesting for agencies that may outsource their rotating inspections because that property manager may not have been through that property since the last time it was leased. So we do end to end management in our office, but what we've developed is a checklist. So we've now taken the steps to do a pre vacate inspection as soon as we get notice to vacate. We've got the checklist that we work through. Most of these minimum standards have been in play for a few years already. That's right. We're just crossing off the last few to make sure that there is reasonable belief and we've got a checklist that we keep on file that they're in place and then we're good to go. So hopefully that's. Speaker 2 I think that's a great point. And I'm a huge fan of checklists or the industry for my own, my own staff in the agency, you know, they're a way of making sure that you don't forget anything because we're all human. So it's not, you know, people make mistakes, people are busy. Look, property managers, we, we do have a lot of sympathy, you know, under pressure often really dealing with often difficult relationship issues, you know, managing clients, human nature, lots of different behaviours, lots of properties. So, so we get, we get all of that. So you, you know, it's inevitable that you'll miss something or make a mistake without that kind of support. So, you know, use these checklists and tools. We actually have a checklist that's on the Cav website that's just this handy guide to the minimum standards that it's actually designed for rental providers. It was an RIV request that we design it. We thought it was a really good idea. So we encourage agents to download that, even give it to your clients as well to explain why you're going through the property and doing the inspection before you can advertise their property. If you anybody's concerned about the delay, you know, have to do this. This is a cab form. Here's the cab checklist. This is why I'm using this to go through. So yeah, I would totally agree. I mean, I think in terms of the outsourcing that's, you know, different. Speaker 1 Ways, of course, if you have a view on that, you know, engaging professionals by you, I mean Kev, you know, do you have a perspective on whether you think that that's the kind of service that that property managers and agencies should be engaging with or not? Not to defer their responsibility or to outsource their responsibility, but just to give that, that additional level of, of security of rigour, I suppose around, you know, confirming that that, that that do definitively meet those minimum standards. Speaker 2 Look, I, I think we try and take the view that we're not here to tell you, you know, we're not, we're not trying here to micromanage how you run your business. And we're actually, we're not the, the business people and the professionals here. So you'll understand your business, you'll understand how to run it in a cost effective way and appropriate way. So there's lots of different models. Some people will use outsource services to do some of those functions for a range of reasons. I don't necessarily think there's any issue or problem with that as long as they're appropriately qualified people to do it, that they're doing it in the right way and that they're providing some sort of assurance back to you. Because ultimately it's the licenced agent that holds the responsibility under the law. So I guess the risk sits there is with you. Even if you're using your own directly hired agents, representative staff, the risk is still with you. It's with the officer and effective control as well. So you need to ensure that you have a level of confidence in anybody you're sending out to do that that. And but I think if if you're reasonably confident that they can do that work and that you've got the right arrangements and contracts and so on in place about how they're gonna report back to you the assurance that they provide, I think that can be a basis for reasonable belief, yeah. Speaker 3 Great, so there's no legal requirement for someone with any qualifications right now to undertake this Minimum standards check before you start advertising. Speaker 2 Oh, that's a good question. I mean, the definition, yeah. So the Estate Agents Act says that you need to be licenced or be an agents representative to undertake real estate business. And that obviously extends 2 things to do with renting. It doesn't go to the level of every single task you need to do as an agent. And we've always taken in the view that there's obviously lots of things you do in a business day to day that you don't need to be licenced or an agent's representative to do. I mean, a really simple example is you don't need to have a licence to welcome clients into the office or to take phone calls and things like it's a really obvious example. Whereas accepting a payment of rent and banking in the trust account, you would need that qualification. So I mean, opening up properties for inspection and helping to show the properties. We've sort of taken the view that probably does require a licence or being an agent's representative. Does walking through without clients present to check that the minimum stands and compliant require that? It's, it's interesting question. It's probably not about whether you it's sufficient to form a reasonable belief, but whether you might be acting undertaking a state agency work without being having a licence. That could be a question. So probably are on the side of using a qualified person I think. Speaker 3 Perfect. Yeah, that's great clarity. Where a tenancy rolls on, what period can an assessment be considered valid for? Obviously, we might have situations where a tenancy may vacate every 12 months. Are we needing to do these cheques every 12 months? Speaker 2 Well, I don't think the law says one way or the other. So I mean, ultimately if we ever get to a case like this, the court will decide or the V Cat will decide or something like that. But I think our view is because you need to have a reasonable belief and well, so firstly that the existing offence said like it's actually just pretty strict. You let a renter move into the property and it doesn't comply with the minimum standards. An offence has been committed, the rental provider has committed an offence. There's not really whether or not you checked it again, it's not really an excuse for this new offence about whether you can advertise the property or offer it for late. You need to have a reasonable belief. So I guess the question comes down to is it reasonable to rely on an assessment done 12 months ago? I tend to think with properties, maybe not just because their properties, you know, wear and tear, some break, things happen, things break. I just don't think you can. I don't think it would be reasonable to say that when we did a check of months ago, everything nothing will have changed. Yes, I think you probably have to do a new assessment. Speaker 3 I think that's made it quite clear for everyone in the industry then. That's great. That's excellent. Thank you. Navigating the New Rules on Rental Bidding Offers Rental bidding, we're pleased to see rental bidding banned from applications as well. In the past, an agent would find themselves in a very difficult position. When an applicant offered more, they put forward all the applications to the owner. Generally an owner would always lean towards more rent. So this has made it much more straightforward for the industry. There seems to be a little bit of a lack of communication or information for renters in understanding this requirement now. So as an agency, it's really important that we sit firm on on guiding renters on this new legislation. We'll have communication to consumers be clearer to understand this over time. Speaker 2 Yeah, I think it's a, it's a great point that, you know, in the past, I mean you ultimately had duties to your client and if it's not unlawful to accept an offer that's made, then you've really got to pass it on. So hence why I guess the law was changed because we just understood that that was going to keep happening. So the, the actual obligation and I guess with the offence, it doesn't apply to renters. So it's still, it's still basically fine in a sense for renters to offer to pay a higher rate. It's just it's not possible for you to accept that or for your client, the rental provider to accept it. So people can try or they like. It's just that I guess you have that clearer basis now to say, look, it's just you can offer, but we can't accept it. So don't bother. And obviously you'll continue to play a role on the frontline of educating people. And probably I would say over time things will change. People probably stop doing it as they understand that. But I take your point that it would probably be a lot easier and maybe cause a bit less friction in relationships if everybody understood that was clear. So we are communicating that change and we are careful to explain it's not actually that the renters will get punished if they offer. Ultimately the obligation lies on the side of the rental provider and the agent. But we are doing our best to communicate out that the laws have changed and that this is one of the changes that offers of higher rent just simply be accepted. But we're always open to feedback. So if you think that that's still a real pressure point on the frontline, you know, it's always something that as the regulator will take away and think about whether we can do a bit better with communicating as strongly and widely as we can about the changes. Speaker 3 Of course, look, I think it's still very early days coming into effect. Having sort of seen the last few weeks of leasing in Melbourne, it's pretty, pretty crazy. There's a lot of demand. So I think that people are feeling a little bit desperate. So it's just about reassuring them, making that really clear. And I think over time the industry will will learn across the board that this is just something that's that's been abolished. Speaker 2 Yeah, I think you're right. Speaker 1 Yeah, it's most acute at this time of year because obviously this is the, the, the peak period. And that's yeah, that when the competition is as fierce as as it is out there, then people are gonna endeavour to utilise every, every, you know, string that they might have to their buy or yeah. Managing Disclosure and Destruction of Renter Personal Data So anyway, disclosure of rent is rights. This is of rent is information. Sorry, is, is an interesting area. I've got a kind of two part question here. So, so bear with me as I work my way through this. But your views and insights would obviously be super helpful for the, the sector in this department. Property maintenance is obviously a statutory obligation for the rental provider and often requires sharing some of the renter's information with tradespeople. So could a single authorised disclosure authorization be granted at the commencement of a tendency to allow tradespeople to contact renters and carry out work? Speaker 2 Well, I think the answer is yes. And also the law I would say probably covers that situation anyway. So the new laws provide those additional protections around how you collect, use, disclose and ultimately need to destroy renters personal information. So it's anything that essentially identifies who the renter is and their sort of characteristics or as an opinion about opinion about a renter or an applicant for a rental property. So, but the law goes on to say that, you know, it is, you're clearly allowed to use and disclose that information where it's relevant to functions and requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act. And you've just rightly pointed out that keeping a property in good repair, attending to two repairs, they're actually requirements under the act. So our view is that that's a, you know, a clear reason why you would need to use or disclose that information. So where you need to pass on the details so the trader can get in touch with somebody or introduce themselves, let themselves in, I think that that's entirely reasonable. And it's actually consistent with some of those exemptions or reasons why you're still allowed to use the information. But more generally, it's probably good practise when you're collecting any personal information to advise about the purpose for which you're collecting it and how it might be used. And I suspect a lot of agencies have been doing that for a long time anyway, because the Privacy Act in Australia actually has applied for a long time. If any business that's of I think I'm definitely not a privacy law expert, but I think anybody that's not a small business that's to do with turnover, I think annual turnover of a few million, 3,000,000 I think once you get above that. You're covered by the Commonwealth Privacy Act anyway as a business, so you would already have been doing this for many years telling people, look, we'll collect some of your information, we might use it For these reasons, including to for repairs for tradespeople. So essentially the same practise supplies. I don't think anything changes there. Speaker 1 You've effectively answered the second part of the question, which was in the context of strata or owners corporation situations, passing on that information for the means of communicating with the I think. Speaker 2 That's right. It seems like a really it's, you know, an obviously sort of a reasonable thing to do where you're in an apartment or a unit complex and the strata manager's going to need to know those details. So yeah, I think it's a, it's a reasonable no brand. Speaker 1 Yeah, awesome. You reference the the destruction and de identification of renter's information too. So the ACT refers to that destruction and de identification of renter's information. Can you tell us, is this interpreted as just identification documents like driver's licences, or is there a wider interpretation that would include things like telephone numbers, email addresses, etcetera? Speaker 2 That's a that's a great question. So I think you're right that a lot of people think it's maybe just if I've taken a photo of somebody's ID document or something it's destroying that. But it is broader because the the definition under the ACT now that it's been amended is it's renter's, renter's information I think is what it refers to. And that is really referring to any renter or certain applicants personal information. I think I've referred to that earlier. So the personal information definition's the same under the Privacy Act, which is really anything that identify, anything that allows you to identify a person. So I guess, you know, you could work back from a phone number, you can work back from an address, from the name, date of birth. So exactly so. And it covers opinion too. So that includes, you know, your notes about your interactions with that. Speaker 1 Person. Speaker 2 So it's not unreasonable to take some of those notes at the time you're dealing with with a person absolutely. But the law is saying you can't keep them indefinitely. You're going to have to destroy that sort of information at at the within the relevant time periods that are now in the law. So it is that they are, you know, clearer and stronger requirements than existed to date in just the general privacy laws. And I guess the reason for that and, and why it's being done now is just that growing understanding, you know, so much data, various concerns about data breaches, not not necessarily just in this industry, but more generally real consciousness about the fact that just lots of businesses, traders, people generally are collecting more and more information about us and not always having really good practises for how they keep it. And what happens if there is a data breach, where does it go? So really trying to limit people's collection and retention of information to the things you genuinely need to be able to run your business and for the time you actually genuinely need. Speaker 1 It makes entire sense. Couple of exception rather than rule questions around that. So hypothetically a VCAT action is taken past that you know holding date say 3 three years hence how how does someone navigate that if ineffective disposed of all of the information that might support, you know defending the position in VCAT, is it would that be taken into consideration? But. Speaker 2 Yeah, I mean, I guess that's right. There'll be lots of, you know, you can imagine there'll be lots of scenarios like who knows what. I think what what's going to happen in the future. It's so it's so new these laws. So I mean, I think our view is you need to follow the law. So the law does say if there's legal proceedings, that's kind of one of the grounds for retaining information, for example. So if you actually have a legal proceeding on foot, whether it's at the tribunal or court or even if I think if you're contemplating it, whether your client is or even if you form a renter sort of threatened to do that, I think that's probably grounds to say, well, I'm retaining this for the time being, contemplation of potential legal proceedings. And that's one of the grounds. You're allowed to, to retain or use the information. But if there's nothing on foot, there's no nice, no sign of it. I would say you really do need to destroy that information within that three year time period after a rental agreement has ended. Yes, you're right. I can't say for certain that at the five or the six it's six years or something. So at the six year mark it's unusual, but someone could come back five years later and say actually do you know what? I'm seeking conversation for something you. Speaker 1 Did at the time. Improbable, but not impossible. But yeah, it's. Speaker 2 Not impossible, except that look, I think you would be within. You're gonna say, well, we have destroyed some nation. So to our best of our recollections as the evidence we can give, yeah, I guess that's all we we can do. I'm I'm hoping that we don't get too many of those scenarios. I think it's unlikely that we'll see what happens. Awesome. Clarifying Rules on Accepting Rent Payments in Advance Hot topic that was in play when legislation changed late last year was rent in advance. Yes, we understand the intent of the legislation not to give one applicant an unfair advantage. However, there are some practical instances that agencies need a little bit of clarification on. In an existing tenancy for rent to pay is more than the required rent at their own behest. What is Cab's expectation on that? Speaker 2 Yes, look, it's a good question because there are there are a range of scenarios where that practise has occurred in the past or might still be happening. So even we're back and we've really looked at these provisions carefully. But I think our conclusion is that the intention is pretty clear and actually the wording of the law is pretty clear. It's actually just not allowed. So you can't take rent, You can't obviously take higher offers of rent, but you're right, you also can't take more than one month's rent in advance in in most cases. So that essentially applies across the board. So we know that is probably going to lead to the need for some changes in some practises which haven't necessarily been done for nefarious reasons, but they've been practises that have occurred. But I think the law is saying now everyone's going to have to get used to a new arrangement where everyone is just on the same footing, pay the rent. Speaker 3 So would this be more so in relation to the start of a tenancy or are we talking throughout the tenancy? For example, if we have multiple tenants in a tenancy, someone pays rent in advance, we don't know who it is, we don't hold their bank details on file due to privacy reasons. How do we navigate this? Because it's going to start sort of steamrolling extra processes and extra workflows. Speaker 2 Yeah, they're great questions. I mean, I think some of this we might need to work out as we go. I think the intention is clear that and, and you can imagine it's been of the, you know, if we were to say, well, it's fine, once you're in the tenancy, I can see the loophole that would immediately arise, which is people would say, well, look, can't accept rent ahead. But once you're in you, you know, they've given us a promise they're going to pay six months ahead. So I don't think we can sort of allow for that. So I think we have to hold the line that generally speaking, the law is pretty clear. It's one month's rent in advance and, and that's it. But I think you're right, people will make mistakes. People will just pay ahead anyway from time to time. As the regulator, I guess all I can say is that we will of course take a reasonable view with those kind of practises. You're not, you're not at risk of us knocking at your door, you know, conducting investigation, community infringement, if there's like just a genuinely that's just occurred. And it's a bit hard with three renters and, you know, it was a week's extra payment and we've kind of tried to work it out. We're clearly gonna take those kind of situations into account. But also wherever possible, I would suggest trying to arrange your businesses so that you're not encouraging that and you're trying to avoid those scenarios. There's probably some complexity in this. So ultimately, if you think that's a big risk, you might even need to get your own legal advice about how your business is set up and, and whether there's things you can do to prevent that occurring. So yeah, I guess in a nutshell, we'll take a reasonable approach to it. But do understand that I think we've looked it in the laws, laws pretty clear that it's generally not allowed. Speaker 3 OK. I know that the industry, there's been a little bit of panic about, you know, what if the tenant pays a few cents more than their monthly rent? Yeah, I'm sure you're probably not looking at those scenarios. There may be some scenarios where renters have arrangements to pay rent in advance with some sort of community support providers. What fee do you take on that? Speaker 2 We'll look again, This is why we've looked at this really, really carefully. But our, our view is that the law, you know, for better or worse is pretty clear that it's just saying it wants everybody on the same footing. I guess that's the, that's the ultimate underlying policy rationale is it should be clear upfront about the rent and we should allow everybody the same opportunity to then apply for the property and be able to manage the payments rather than giving some people, you know, further advantage. So I guess to the extent that there might be support agencies and providers that are supporting renters and clients in the market, they'll probably need to think about how they change their practises too, because we think the law is pretty clear that you can't do that anymore. Speaker 3 OK. One last question on this is, I know a couple of agencies tend to adjust rents to a certain key date in the month. How do we make sure that we're complying if we've always done that from an industry perspective, for example, we adjust all of our rents to the 1st of the month. We don't want to be doing the wrong thing. How do we make sure we comply in that instance? Do we take just a small, let's say there's three days left in the month, Do we just take the three day adjustments? Yes, yes. Speaker 2 Yeah. I mean, I think, look, you know what, you'll know your business better than I will. So they'll probably be a range of ways you could manage that or stagger that. But I guess, well, all I can say is the regulator is don't take more than OK, this payment in advance. The date of the rental agreement is the date of the rental agreement. So I guess you go from there. But but, you know, I think if you're doing reasonable things like, well, we'll take a short payment and then we'll take the next month when that's due, it's probably reasonable. Speaker 3 And we've had that discussion is maybe we take a month's rent and then we adjust it on month two. Yeah. And that way we're not not breaching any into anything. OK, terrific. New Framework for Reviewing Rental Price Adjustments Upcoming March 2026 reforms One of the reforms being introduced in March is the additional considerations for rent increase investigations by Cav and vcash. Can you give us an update on how the framework for reviewing rent increases is coming together? Speaker 2 Yeah, it's, you know, this is 1 where, you know, sometimes we've talked to, to yourselves, to the industry about all the work that's involved for you in getting ready for the reforms. And we again, you know, we're really sympathetic to that. We understand there's a clear rationale for it. The government's been clear they, they want things to change. But we do understand it's work, it's been a lot of work for you to implement. And we think, you know, it's been terrific that you've worked with us and really appreciate all the work that all of the agents out there have done to to understand and get ready for the reforms. So nice to say this is 1 where we've had to do that work to get ready for the reform. There's been a lot of work for us, probably also for the tribunal, yeah, getting ready to apply these new factors. So yes, there's a lot of work behind the scenes for us. We we need to update our own kind of policies and guidance, train our staff on the new requirements and so on. So all of that is, is happening now that we're clear about what the new factors were. So we ourselves were waiting to find out what the final sort of decision was on that. So I guess some of the key ones that I've, I've got in mind that are significant differences from the current process at the moment. I, I would say, you know, there's a list of factors we take into account, but clearly, you know, for me, the two most common and most important are the comparable rental prices to the property and the general state and repair of the of the property. So you know, you're trying to compare against other rental properties. So really what that has meant that up until now that rent increase investigation has largely been a comparative market sort of exercise, I guess. And now people are trained to do like they're actually pretty good at doing. You know, there's some some processes that they, they look at the bond data, which is sort of objective data about what other properties that are similar, similar neighbourhood, similar size, look at, they're very good at then assessing like properties, You know, we have access to similar kind of what property tools that you do to look at what other properties are like. And then we'll send inspectors out to actually physically view the properties where we need to as well. But the new requirements look at other sorts of factors, including what the actual increase is and how that compares to the inflation rate, for example. That's a really different exercise to a market comparison, which which we're used to doing and you're used to doing. Yeah. So we're all gonna have to learn some new skills really a bit more economics about some different factors. So it's not. So the comparative market analysis is still really important. So it's not the only factor. And I guess that what that will mean is it might temper where everywhere there's a bit of a run on and prices are all going up. And so it actually just lifts all the prices. I think what some of those new factors will say is, well, is it a reasonable increase overall to expect someone to be able to pay such a large increase in one go if it's sort of if things are racing well ahead of inflation, I guess. So that will be the sort of thing we'll be looking at. Probably the other one that I'm assuming is you've seen is drawing your attention is the reference to I guess what's been happening in the, in the rental relationship, whether there's been breaches, whether there's actually even been some kind of action by US tribunal intervention. So that's a tricky 1. You know, we're, we're, I don't think this the, the inflation one in a way is a bit easier because we can, there's no kind of hard and fast rule, but we can have a look and say, well, that's really well above or well within inflation rate. It gives us a pretty good guide about whether it's going to be excessive or not. Whereas this is a difficult, difficult question, you know, is it excessive taking account that maybe a rental provider has not behaved well? I don't know How serious was the breach? What was the breach about? Was it by reference to something that would have an impact on somebody's costs or the renter's costs impact on them? So they're all things we're going to have to give our staff guidance on and maybe we'll learn over time as well. So we'll do our best to give some objective guidance about how we want people to consider those things in the first instance, but we'll probably learn from experience as well. And we're open to feedback. So if you're in one of those processes with us, if you've been through one of them before, you'll know that we will talk to yourselves as well. We'll always come back and forth between the parties and take into account everybody's views of what's occurred and what's happening with the rent increase. So no doubt we will do that as well in those cases. If you have feedback as we go through those process and learn together, we'll we'll be open to that and to thinking about how we do this process. Speaker 3 Excellent. Fantastic. Thank you. Understanding Prohibited Fees from Rental Payment Platforms Under the ban on 3rd party rental fees, there's a prohibition on fees such as failed payments which cover a rent to having inadequate funds to cover their rent, and more ambiguous fees such as administration costs and rent payment. Will property managers receive more information on the precise prohibited fees in advance of the March implementation? Speaker 2 Well, I think look, I'll definitely take away whether we think there's a need to put sort of more information out there about the sorts of fees and things that are contemplated. But maybe a really helpful point of clarity for the audience today is that this is a reform that really applies to 3rd party, So not to the rental provider or even to the property managers, the the agents. It's really where you're using a third party platform like one of the regular sort of lot of a lot of people now are use are using them. There's been many that have been around for a long time, some new entrants and what was being observed was a tendency over time for those platforms to do more than just help you manage the business, which is absolutely legitimate, makes you run your business more efficiently, you can save costs, can provide better, cheaper services to clients. We have no, no problem with that at that at all. But where the platforms were starting to make additional revenue through actually just directly charging renters for a range of things, that was where the government had a concern was getting feedback from renters about their concerns. So that's where this reform comes in. So it's not so much about stopping you from doing things you need to do, but really for those platforms, I would say they're going to have to eliminate any of those additional fees really. So no more fees for setting up your direct debit through their platform or for, yeah, being late on a payment and things. So it's really forcing the platforms to provide, I guess, more plain vanilla services to the industry and to and to renters than being able to Add all these little, little things for fees. So hopefully that gives a bit of assurance, yeah, to your members that that reforms really more about those kind of third party platforms than anything else, right? Speaker 1 What? What about banks? Does do they apply there too? Because like a failed payment fee, like a direct debit non payment fee or periodic payment non payment fee, which is pretty standard. Speaker 2 Yeah, I'd probably argue the law doesn't apply to that scenario, because they're not. Speaker 1 That's why why would another platform be subject to precisely the same like the, you know, a a failed payment due to inadequate funds within the the renter's account? Why? Why can the bank get away with it and not an alternative? You know, like. Speaker 2 Yeah. I mean, it's a good question. I might get proven wrong eventually, but my interpretation of the law is that the bank probably wouldn't be captured as as one of the third party providers that's providing, providing a rent payment service. Like they're, they're a payment. They're, they're a bank. They're providing a range of banking services in that instance, including payment processing, but they're not the platform that's allowing you to pay your rent per SE. That's not the, that's not the service and that's not the charge. I suspect they're, they're falling outside of what the law is intending to regulate. Who knows, maybe someone clever than me will make a determination that it applies to banks and. Speaker 1 Yeah, I look, I'm the same. I don't, I don't interpret it as the case, but as including the banks. But I wonder why. I suppose that the exemption there because it's effectively the same thing. Speaker 2 Yeah, Well, I guess look, you know, banks are sort of regulated federally and there's a kind of, you know, pretty complex law. So I think the government is sort of rightly just said, well, that's not we were necessarily going to strain at this time. That's it. I mean, never say never, Jake. So, you know, I, I could imagine if there turned out that there were emerging cases where people were complaining about this, I don't know, maybe, maybe it would be looked at for the time being. You know, our interpretation is really it's directed at actual rental rental payments platforms designed to assess that renting the renting transaction. Speaker 1 Fantastic. REIV Resources and Final Thoughts on Rental Reforms Well that concludes today's episode. The REIV is continuing to provide support, documentation and advice for property managers as they navigate this incredibly complex space. The REIVPM conference is on the 18th of March and will include speakers from Cav and V Cat who can help shed more light on this legislation. Thank you to Nicole for taking time out to share her perspective and insights on this podcast. Thanks again to Sabina for her ongoing contribution to the RIV and the sector. This episode was brought to you by Secure Exchange, the unified platform for a modern property journey from sales to property management. It's purpose built for real estate professionals who want to save time, impress clients, and grow their business. With Secure Exchange, you can verify identity, sign and exchange contracts, securely share information, and more, all in the one place. To learn more about what was discussed today and keep up with REIV news, advocacy and announcements, please visit. Www.reiv.com.au. That's www.reiv.com.au.