Landlords

<html><body>
Previously, I looked at <a href="/expert-insights/buying/30232-the-pros-and-cons-of-investing-in-a-modern-duplex" target="_blank">the positives and negatives of duplex housing from an investor perspective</a>.

Today I'll explore a more recently evolved ‘sister’ property type to the humble duplex – the ‘dual-key’ property.

Dual-key properties are a fairly recent emergence; however they have existed for decades in places such as Sweden, Japan and the United States.

A dual-key property is effectively one main property, with one front entrance door/hallway. The property then has a living room, bathroom, kitchen and one or two bedrooms.

Sounds like any normal property so far; except that a dual key property has an additional dwelling inside of it. Usually there’s an extra bedroom that has its own door lock. Inside the bedroom is a studio apartment with its own small kitchen and separate bathroom.

Unlike duplexes, dual-key properties enable one space to be shared by two separate parties or tenants. The property may have only one entrance/front hallway, through which all occupants enter. Some dual-key properties have only this as a common area, however most typically have a shared lounge and kitchen. Usually each tenant will actually have separate keys that unlocks only their own bedroom and bathroom spaces.

The pros and of a dual-key investment:

<ul>
<li>Two income producing properties on one title (unlike some duplexes, townhouses and attached dwellings that may require separate titles).</li>
	<li>As the property unit owner will typically only need to pay strata for one property, not two.</li>
	<li>Each portion can still be let separately, offering investors great scope for maximum rental return.</li>
	<li>Arguably, in an ageing population that is also downsizing and urbanising, dual-key could be a smart play to reach into the urban dwellers who require extra space for a parent or elderly relative to live close-by (but still with some privacy and separation).</li>
	<li>Another target rental audience for these property types would be students. Most urban students desire to live within walking distance to everything; their campus, CBD centres, and transport hubs. Dual-key properties may be attractive to students who seek a well located, low maintenance/low common area cleaning property.</li>
</ul>
The cons and of a dual-key investment:

<ul>
<li>Because dual-key is a (relatively) new property type in the Australian market, many are being priced as such. It may be financially smarter, in terms of rental return, to simply buy two separate properties from the beginning.</li>
	<li>The jury is still out on whether this property type is high demand or not. The abovementioned student and extended-family demographics may appreciate this property type, but many others will not. Urban young professionals, for instance, may simply prefer to pitch in for a three or four bedroom share house instead.</li>
	<li>Banks and lenders may have reservations in approving mortgages for this property type.</li>
	<li>Dual-key properties may actually offer limited capital growth. However, some dual-key properties may be easily convertible back to a two to three bedroom single property later down the track.</li>
</ul>
It is a great sign of the times that dual-key properties are on the uptake. With limited urban space and continually high-demand to occupy it, this property type could be a good compromise between human density and quality of life.

As a prospective investment property however, like all property types, would-be investors need to crunch rental and capital growth numbers and consider all the issues a dual-key property type presents, before taking the plunge.

<h2>Check out our latest listings:</h2>

[smartcode_project:default project_id=22057]

[smartcode_project:default project_id=94811]

[smartcode_project:default project_id=24532]
</body></html>

cmcevoy-Go82SmsJA9

The pros and cons of dual-key investment properties

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/77098/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Renters are already the weak party at the negotiating table because they cannot ignore their need for a place to live.
But a new series of apps that pit renter against renter will only further tip the balance of power in favour of landlords, making it even harder to get a house.
The fierce competition in the rental market often results in renters paying more than is necessary. Over 150,000 tenants pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. 
These apps may seem like they give renters more power – they are marketed using words like “fairness” and “transparency”, but they also note that landlords are missing out on “millions and millions”. 
Renting is a zero-sum game. Every dollar that a landlord gains is a dollar out of the tenant’s pocket. And in a market already tilted in favour of landlords, these apps could further push up rents.
To address the problem of renting affordability we need technologies that promote more cooperation between renters, rather than competition.
The apps
There are several different rent bidding apps, and they all work in different ways.
Live Offer asks prospective tenants to fill out forms and these are then ranked for the landlord to choose. The prospective tenants can see where they are in the rankings, in real time.
Rentberry is more of a real-time auction site. Prospective tenants submit bids, can see what the current highest bid is and how many bids there have been. 
With Rentwolf, prospective tenants set up extensive profiles, as they would with AirBnB, and then apply for properties through the marketplace.
What is the right price?
Real estate is worth what people are prepared to pay for it. But tenants will always be the weak party at the negotiating table. 
At least as far back as David Ricardo in 1817, economists have theorised that landlords take what is left over once other costs are deducted from the tenant’s income. In other words, rent is as much as tenants are able to pay.
Even before that, Adam Smith recognised that all real estate is a monopoly for landowners. This is because the supply of land is strictly limited, giving excessive negotiating power to whoever owns it. 
But these apps overwhelmingly rely on auctions, which can itself be a problem due to what is called the “winner’s curse”.
Studies have shown that so long as there are at least two motivated bidders, the winning bid tends to either equal the value, or be one bid above it. In other words, the winning bidder in an auction will often overpay and will “suffer” for having won. 
In the case of renters, this means paying excessive rents throughout the lease. Even worse, as more people bid similarly, the ruinous rents become accepted as normal. They become the market rent.
This same phenomenon has been shown in everything from jars of coins to oil-drilling rights and, yes, real estate.
Some research has further shown that in an auction the second-highest bid could be the “rational price”. 
My own controlled experiments have shown that people are easily encouraged by necessity to bid excessively in auctions. This is despite full knowledge of the ruinous consequences. 
This is because people have only a limited capacity to vary their needs. We all need to live somewhere, and our culture limits the options. If the option is sharing with relatives or accepting a lower standard of living due to high rents, then our sense of independence will often prompt our willingness to tighten our belts.
These rental apps will play into these stresses and uncertainties, making it more likely people will overbid in the auctions. This is why these rental apps are likely to result in higher rents.
How technology can reduce rents
Some time ago researchers suggested that renters might be able to reduce rents by banding together.
Working together, renters would be able to create the equivalent of there being only one buyer in the market – a monopsony. A monopsony works like a monopoly, but for buyers rather than sellers. For real estate rents, if land owners enjoy a natural monopoly-like advantage, then tenants have to behave like a monopsony to negate the power imbalance. 
The current crop of rental apps do not address this imbalance. They only inform bidders as to what other, similarly stressed people, are bidding. It stresses them to bid higher.
Already, we are seeing the power of Facebook to build communities around renting. There are groups that help people find flatmates, for example. If the internet is to tackle the problem of renting affordability, then we need to extend this community, for renters to act in unison on rent.
Without a service that seeks to unite renters, rather than have them compete, housing affordability will only get worse. Rent bidding apps will increase landlord revenues and do so at the expense of tenants.
Garrick Small is associate professor, CQUniversity Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/garrick-small-369026" target="_blank">here.</a>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Why rent bidding apps will make the rental market even more unaffordable

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The insecurity of rental housing and unsatisfactory condition of many properties are receiving much-deserved media attention following the release of a national survey of tenants.
However, the stock response to the insecurity this revealed – longer fixed-term agreements – is not the answer. The solution to the failure of existing legal protections must take into account the structural features of the rental market, including the mobility of tenants.
The survey, commissioned by Choice, National Shelter and the National Association of Tenant Organisations, presents evidence of a widespread sense of worry, dissatisfaction and injustice on the part of tenants. According to respondents:
75 percent feel that competition for rental properties is “fierce”;
50 percent are concerned about being “blacklisted” on a tenancy database;
50 percent have experienced some form of discrimination;
30 percent live in properties requiring non-urgent repairs, and 8 percent require urgent repairs;
11 percent experienced a rent increase; and
10 percent reported an angry response after requesting repairs.
Residential tenancy laws cover many of these problems. That tenants are not successfully exercising their legal rights indicates a deeper problem of insecurity in renting. This problem is both structural and legal.
Small landlords and mobile tenants
Small landlords dominate the Australian rental sector: 72 percent own a single property each. Most (62 percent) make a net rental loss, so it is important to them that they can switch out of the sector when it suits them.
Research for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) indicates that 21% of landlords exit the sector within their first 12 months. By five years, 59 percent will have exited.
When landlords exit, they might sell to another landlord or an owner-occupier. Older research indicates that the transfer of rental housing into owner-occupation is a significant feature of the Australian market.
These dynamics cause structural insecurity for tenants. They also mean many landlords do not willingly tie up their sole asset in a long fixed term.
Despite the legal and structural insecurity of the sector, most moves by tenants are for their own reasons.
The ABS Housing Mobility and Conditions survey shows that tenants generally are very mobile: 81% have been in their current premises for less than five years. About half of moves between rental premises were for “personal reasons” (including family and employment reasons); 20 percent were to get more suitably sized housing; and 15 percent because of a termination notice from the landlord.
This degree of mobility suggests it is not in most tenants’ interest to enter into long fixed terms and the rental liability it entails. That’s not to mention the risk of being tied to a small landlord who is an unknown quantity and has no business reputation to protect.
Residential tenancies law in Australia
Each state and territory in Australia has its own Residential Tenancies Act. These differ in the details but are broadly similar in outline. All provide standard terms for tenancy agreements, processes for rent increases and terminations, and relatively accessible dispute resolution and eviction procedures.
Most do a decent job, on paper at least, when it comes to repairs and maintenance. Generally speaking, landlords are obliged to ensure rented premises are provided fit for habitation and maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
This means tenants are entitled to repairs even if the premises were in bad condition to begin with, and even if they pay relatively low rent. Tasmania is an exception: there, landlords are obliged to maintain premises in the condition in which they were first provided.
Similarly, each state and territory prohibits landlords from interfering in tenants’ quiet enjoyment of their premises. Most expand this right to protect tenants’ “reasonable peace, comfort and privacy”.
A key problem is that the ability of landlords to give notices of termination without grounds undermines existing protections. Philip Robins/AAP These are important protections, even though there may be scope to improve them – for example, by adding specific standards for safety devices and fixing particular legal defects like Tasmania’s. The great problem is that the ability of landlords to give notices of termination without grounds undermines the existing protections in every state and territory.
Without-grounds termination notices give cover to terminations by landlords for bad reasons, such as retaliation and discrimination. This means the prospect of receiving such a notice hangs over tenants when repairs and other issues arise.
What’s the solution, then, to high insecurity?
The legal insecurity of tenants might be improved in several ways.
Under the current laws of each state and territory, a fixed term prevents the landlord from terminating without grounds, and on other grounds such as sale or change of use of the premises, for the duration of the fixed term. It also prevents the tenant from lawfully terminating without grounds.
The idea of long fixed-term tenancy agreements is occasionally raised in the media and has caught the attention of the New South Wales and Victorian governments in their reviews of residential tenancies laws. Both those governments are considering how to facilitate long (five-year) fixed terms, including by altering other aspects of their laws – such as the protections about repairs.
But this approach presents problems of its own. Long fixed terms are unwieldy for landlords and tenants. Trying to make them more useful also threatens other valuable legal protections.
The present structures of the Australian rental sector call for different reforms.
We can reconcile the mobility of tenants with their sense of insecurity if we think of “security” as more than just the legal right to occupy. AHURI researchers have conceived of “secure occupancy” to encompass a person’s ability to make a home of premises and exercise housing autonomy. This includes the ability to confidently get repairs done in one’s premises, or keep a pet – and to freely decide to make a new home elsewhere.
This conception points towards a stronger reform agenda for improving security. Instead of long fixed terms, we should abolish without-grounds termination by landlords.
The law should instead provide a comprehensive set of reasonable grounds for termination, with notice periods and exclusion periods appropriate to each ground. This accommodates our present lot of small landlords, and can be done immediately.
Over a longer term, we should set our housing tax and finance policies to get a more stable sort of landlord. That would be one who operates at greater scale, has a reputation to protect and is less interested in switching out of the sector than in receiving a steady trickle of rents from secure tenants.
Chris Martin is a research fellow, Housing Policy and Practice, in the City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales and can be contacted <a href="https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/profile/chris_martin" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Rental insecurity and why fixed long-term leases aren't the answer: Chris Martin

<html><body>
Property investors in Victoria are facing a substantial increase in the cost and time invested in managing their assets, following new Victorian Government’s residential tenancies regulations. 

More than 120 new landlord obligations come into effect on March 29.  

The Real Estate Institute of Victoria CEO Gil King said the new standards will trigger an unbalanced regulatory burden on the rental market.

“Increasing ownership costs and making maintenance and management of property more complex is a deterrent for investment,” Mr. King said.

King says the new costs were “likely to result in higher rents.”

‘Or Victoria could see Mum and Dad investors exit this asset class, putting further pressure on rental availability and affordability for Victorians.”

The REIV noted investment property owners were now referred to as “rental providers” by the Andrews government.

King said the new standards will, in many cases, require substantial changes to processes, documents and systems, meaning a fresh round of education is needed for the sector. The Regulations will affect rental providers (landlords) and the 1.5 million Victorians living in rental housing. This includes private rental housing; public and social housing; rooming houses; caravan parks and residential parks.

The new regulations include what rental minimum standards will look like; modifications renters can make to rental properties along with updates to some forms for renters and rental providers given the terms used in the regulations that apply from 29 March 2021 will need to be changed to renters – currently called tenants; rental providers – currently called landlords; rental agreements – currently called tenancy agreements and rooming house operators – currently called rooming house owners.
</body></html>

The Real Estate Institute of Victoria CEO Gil King said the new standards will trigger an unbalanced regulatory burden on the rental market

jchancellor

Victorian property investors face cost increases with 100+ new landlord obligations

<html><body>
EXPERT INSIGHT

The data on rents published by Domain illustrates that this is a great time to be a landlord – in most locations across Australia. You might have a different view if you own an investment property in the inner-city areas of our biggest cities, but elsewhere we have a landlord’s market like never before.

Vacancy rates below 1% have become the norm in Australia. That’s a remarkable situation and it deserves repeating: vacancies under 1% are the norm.

Five of our capital cities – Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin – have vacancy rates under 1%. Brisbane is only marginally higher. And many of our regional centres have vacancies closer to zero than to 1%.

You would be hard-pressed to find a significant regional city or town with a vacancy rate above 2%. I’ve been researching and writing about Australian real estate for almost 40 years and I’ve never seen a rental market situation like this.

Research entities confirm that many locations have the tightest rental markets ever recorded. Every day I’m having conversations with real estate professionals across the nation. And when the topic is the rental market, the story is always the same: when a dwelling becomes available for rental there are queues of people - 30, 40 or 50 applicants – competing for the property.

It’s common for prospective tenants to make offers well above the asking rent and/or to offer to pay six or 12 months in advance to beat the competition. That is why the Domain figures show rents rising sharply in locations across Australia, especially outside the big cities – despite pandemic-related restrictions from state governments.

Multiple regional centres in NSW, Queensland and Victoria have had rents growing10% or more, sometimes 15-20%, in the past year. Among the capital cities, there have been double- digit rises in Perth and Darwin – and significant increases also in Adelaide, Canberra and Brisbane. In Sydney, houses are up 5% although apartments have dropped.

There are many reasons why there is a dire shortage of rentals in most locations:

<ul>
<li> We haven’t been building sufficient new dwellings for the past three years or so.</li>
	<li> Vacancies are primarily an outcome of investor activity and investors have been sitting on the sidelines lately – owner-occupiers have been driving markets.</li>
	<li> The Exodus to Affordable Lifestyle, with large numbers of Australians leaving the big cities and moving to the fringes and to the regions, has further diminished the supply of rental properties.</li>
</ul>
This is a national crisis but it receives very little attention from media and even less from politicians. The various federal and state governments have been so busy dealing with the pandemic, they haven’t noticed the chronic shortage of properties and the dramatic impact of that on rentals.

One shudders to think what the situation would be if Labor had won the last Federal Election and scrapped negative gearing. Right now, we need the opposite kind of action – we need governments to provide direct incentives to Australians to become property investors and add to the rental pool. In the meantime, rents will keep going up. Propertyology’s head of research Simon Pressley is forecasting record increases and I think he’s right.

Terry Ryder is the founder of hotspotting.com.au 

ryder@hotspotting.com.au
</body></html>

terryryder

It's a great time to be an Australian landlord: Hotspotting's Terry Ryder

<html><body>
The Australian Taxation Office assistant commissioner Karen Foat predicts there will be a significant rise in negatively geared investors who claim a bigger tax deduction when their COVID-19 rental income does not cover the expense of owning the property.
Despite low interest rates, Australia's 2 million landlords have also missed out on millions of dollars in rental income.
<p data-gtm-vis-recent-on-screen-6236702_632="1593308659117" data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="1593308659117" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">Landlords collectively typically declare about $43 billion in total rent and $47 billion in deductions, Ms Foat told Nine Entertainment, with around 60 per cent of rental properties negatively geared.
"But we also know that this year, there's a lot of landlords who are receiving a reduced amount of rent, whether that's because their tenants are paying less, or unable to pay at all, or if their property is sitting vacant," she said.
"We would anticipate that there is going to be a greater number of people whose properties end up negatively geared because they still claim the expenses but they are likely to have some level of reduced rent."
SQM Research managing director Louis Christopher anticipates a national 2.5 per cent decline in aggregate rents for the 2020 financial year, and a 2.5 per cent decline for the following year, bringing total rental income down to $40.9 billion.
This could lead to an extra $2 billion worth of losses claimed at tax time.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

ATO expects bigger landlord tax deduction claims given COVID-19 rental income drop

<html><body>
Landlords and real estate agents could face court, and prison or penalties up to $1.3 million, if they advice renters to use their superannuation to cover their rental payment during the coronavirus crisis.
In a note sent by ASIC's financial services enforcement group director Tim Mullally to the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mullally said it could breach financial advice laws.
“ASIC is aware that some real estate agents are advising tenants who are unable to pay their rent, or who may find themselves in such a situation in future, to consider applying for early release of their superannuation," the letter read.
“Recent media reports and social media commentary outlining this conduct by some real estate agents is of significant concern to ASIC and, we would hope, you."
“ASIC intends to monitor this situation closely, and if contraventions of the licensing requirements of the Corporations Act are found, ASIC will not hesitate to act swiftly to protect vulnerable consumers,” Mullaly said.
The letter comes after workers who have been laid off due to COVID-19 were given permission to access up to $20,000 worth of superannuation over the next two years.
Mullaly continued stating that financial advice must only be provided by qualified and licensed financial advisers, not by real estate agents.
Individuals can be fined up to $126,000 and up to five years in jail for providing unlicensed financial advice. Corporations can be slapped with fines up to $1.26 million.
<div>
“Tenants facing financial difficulty need sound financial guidance and potentially debt counselling. Specifically pointing them to and recommending them to consider the specific possibility of accessing superannuation is, again, likely to amount to a breach of the Act,” Mullaly said.
 
</div>
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Landlords and real estate agents could face five years in prison by telling tenants to pay rent with their superannuation

<html><body>
New regulations published in NSW will give immediate effect to the NSW Government’s COVID-19 rental relief measures, reflecting the National Cabinet’s Code of Conduct agreed to by all states.
Minister for Finance and Small Business Damien Tudehope and Treasurer Dominic Perrottet said the changes will support and guide tenants and landlords in negotiating agreements.
They are part of the NSW Government’s package of support for tenants and landlords which includes up to $440 million in land tax relief announced on April 13, to be split approximately 50-50 between the commercial and residential sectors.
“This is about adopting a national framework in NSW so agreements can be reached between parties and more businesses stay in business and people stay in jobs,” Mr Tudehope said.
“These new regulations require landlords to negotiate rent relief agreements with tenants in financial distress due to COVID-19 by applying the leasing principles in the National Code of Conduct.”
Mr Tudehope said the regulations - which also apply to commercial leases - would provide a clear way forward for tenants and landlords to reach agreements.
To facilitate these changes, and deliver increased mediation and advisory services to commercial parties, the NSW Small Business Commission will be bolstered with extra staff and an injection of $10 million from the $1 billion Working for NSW Fund.
Regulations relating to commercial leases were expedited under amendments passed by the NSW Parliament in March, which allow the Government to make laws that are reasonable to protect the health, safety and welfare of lessees or tenants during COVID-19.
New regulations to assist landlords and tenants in the residential sector were also published last week by the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation.
Mr Perrottet said land tax relief would be available within weeks, with landlords also able to access a further land tax deferral for any outstanding amounts for a three-month period if they’ve claimed the land tax concession.
“Eligible landlords will be able to apply for a land tax concession of up to 25 per cent of their 2020 land tax liability on relevant properties so long as they pass on the full savings in the form of a rent reduction to their tenants,” Mr Perrottet said.
The commercial lease policy will apply to business tenants with a turnover of less than $50 million that experience a 30 per cent (or more) reduction in revenue as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
For residential tenancies, households must show they have suffered a loss of income equal to or greater than 25 per cent due to COVID-19 and are struggling to make rental payments.
It is expected eligible landlords will be able to apply for land tax rebates from Service NSW from Monday, 4 May 2020.
More information is available via <a href="http://www.service.nsw.gov.au" target="_blank">Service NSW</a>.
</body></html>

NSW Government acts to support commercial tenants and landlords

<html><body>
Landlord insurance during the current rental crisis during the pandemic has emerged as complicated.
Agents and landlords have rejected rent decreases by saying it could invalidate the agent’s insurance policy.
It is the case but not for every policy.
Most policies do require proof of eviction or intention to re-let a home to claim for loss of rent, which some landlords might be considering if their tenants can’t pay.
Most insurers have stopped issuing new products until they receive certainty about evictions and non-payment of rent for tenants in hardship.
Existing policies will continue to be honoured, but landlords will need to find out if their insurer has waived the need to evict or show intention to re-let to claim for loss of rent.
IAG insurers NRMA, CGU, WFI, SGIO and SGIC have waived this requirement, Domain reported.
Suburbanite CEO Anna Porter, acknowledges insurance was a "grey area." 
"Many are relying on landlord insurance to cover the lost rent if their tenant applies for a payment pause but every policy is different.   “I urge you to absolutely speak with your insurance broker or insurance company directly and refer to your PDS,” she says.   “On the ground, we’re seeing that many policies state a claim will only be paid if the tenant is evicted or terminated by the tribunal or they leave without notice and default on payments after vacating with no warning.”   Generally, landlords will also need to be in a fixed lease period and follow the correct processes to be successful in a claim of this nature.   “Like me, you’re probably thinking that the current COVID-19 economy doesn’t allow for eviction,” says Porter.   “This issue is that if tenants can’t be evicted for falling into arrears then many landlords won’t be able to lean on the rental default provisions in their policies, assuming they even have a rental default in the policy.”  
</body></html>

Landlord insurance claim doubts not assisting COVID-19 eviction avoidance 

<html><body>
Tenancy groups are seeking a six month ban on evictions and no rent increases for months.
But landlords are in a bind, as their mortgage repayments to the banks are likely due, although some lenders have offered mortgage payment relief without lodging a bad credit notice.
The PM Scott Morrison indicated the resolution was "complicated."
It is an issue that goes back to Friday's national cabinet meeting.
More and more workers are losing shifts, or losing jobs so the prime minister announced that states would work on model rules to provide relief to tenants in “hardship conditions”. 
On Sunday, the federal government moved to replace some of the income households have lost, temporarily doubling some social security payments and making grants to businesses.
It is not known how quickly these funds are adequately getting through given overloaded website systems.
Landlords who have insurance for loss of income have been told they to make a claim they would have to take the requisite steps for eviction.
Sydney academics have urged governments to implement a moratorium on evictions as long as the crisis lasts. 
Similar changes have already been made overseas as a sudden loss of wages puts renters at risk of arrears.
Renters who miss a payment can face termination orders in about eight weeks.
A government-imposed moratorium on evictions for the duration of the crisis could be done through legislation, or through an emergency executive direction to authorised officers to stop evictions.
In the United States, many states and cities have suspended eviction proceedings against tenants.
Ireland has suspended evictions and temporarily frozen rent increases.
In the United Kingdom, renters in the private or social sector are to be protected from eviction.
 
</body></html>

Landlords

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Landlords

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News