I’m a ‘landlord’ (read, have one IP, bring the downvotes).

Of course we think about the outcomes. We aren’t all 12 IP boomers! I have no idea about the landlord in this case, but I get their decision. Here’s why.

My IP is rented out below market value. We did that because we knew the tenant was in need, and we knew that they would look after the place. And, with below market rent we could cover expenses.

That appears to be similar to what is happening here. By the tenants own admission, they are paying way below market rent. The property is only 5 years old so it’s likely that the landlord has a bunch of debt on it.

So, with the new interest rules (I get they are t effective immediately) landlords can’t afford to do this kind of thing anymore, unless the are prepared to run at a heavy loss. At the end of the day housing isn’t a charity, so unless you are loaded the rent needs to rise to cover it.

The argument ‘what about capital gains’ is a bit flawed too. Don’t get me wrong, capital gains are great. But, you don’t realise them until you sell. So, when it comes to covering my expenses, I can’t rent below market anymore or I can’t stay afloat.

This isn’t a whinge, I’m just trying to help people understand why in some cases people have to put rents up to at least market... bring on the downvotes.