Rent Card schemes - Pay your Rent a New Way - Too Good to be True

I also thought bank cheques were 100% payable, but there are some instances where they may not be paid.

Each of our banks has the following disclaimer: ( the first bullets are in @phb’s reference)
Bank cheques can be dishonoured if there are sufficient grounds, which include the following:
• the bank cheque is a forgery;
• the bank cheque has been materially altered;
• the bank cheque has been lost or stolen;
• a court order prevents a bank from paying the cheque; and
the bank has not received consideration for the issue of the cheque and the person seeking clearance either knows this or did not themselves give value in return for the cheque.

The last bullet is put differently by some banks, but in each case the intent is to cover where a customer buys a bank cheque with a (eg) personal cheque, the bank issues the bank cheque, but the (eg) personal cheque tendered as payment for the bank cheque is subsequently dishonoured.

Another instance would be when payment is with forged banknotes or a recalled transfer, discovered after the fact of issuing the bank cheque.

The US also has Cashier’s Checks which a great many people confuse bank cheques with.

5 Likes

Regardless of legality, these third party rent payment intermediary schemes feel so scammy / spammy.

The way they are so heavily marketed as representing a saving to the consumer – when they are really co-marketing schemes with retailers who offer 5% discount typically, AND require pre-purchase of gift cards. It feels a lot like third line forcing though it probably technically isn’t since you’re not forced to buy these gift cards.

The additional transaction fees that are introduced seem quite high for the effort involved – plenty of other companies manage to collect your money without levying a per-transaction flat fee. One wonders if these are legal given the recent regulations about payment surcharges not being able to represent any more than actual costs.

And the fact that they are forced on tenants either mid way through a lease, or after they have been approved for a property and just before they have signed a lease, feels so much like the dirty tricks airlines used to get up to with drip feeding prices.

Free enterprise should be free to make money how it wishes as long as it is absolutely transparent to the consumer about it from the beginning of a transaction. In my mind that means when listing a property the monthly rental amount should be listed either inclusive of the payment transaction fee or with an equally prominent “+$1.25/month payment fee plus credit card surcharge” so the prospective tenant can decide whether to apply for that property with the full information. It would also provide competitive incentive for agents to provide more cost efficient payment methods to tenants – hell, that could even be a selling point! No cost payment of your rent. Imagine that.

The regulators really need to grow some teeth on this issue. Tenants already have very dilute rights compared to other countries; this latest trend makes one feel exploited.

4 Likes

2.5 million approx rented residential properties in Australia,
Rental incomes of between $15,000 and $50,000 pa. typical per property.
Including property rental income and sales/turnover this is a $100B business.

Perhaps the issue is not with the regulators but with the regulations provided by governments? The real estate and property rental agents bodies represent business with combined incomes of many billions ($10B pa at a rough approximation).

The cost of housing whether through an owner occupied mortgage or as rental is the single biggest expense for any Australian consumer. Bad deals can add thousands every year to these costs. You can buy a life time supply of stick blenders with the savings from better consumer protection in the housing and rental accommodation sector. With home ownership forecast to continue to fall it will remain an area of high consumer focus.

3 Likes

This seems to be nothing but yet another incarnation of adding middle overheads (eg more levels each needing to make profits) in the name of convenience or whatever.

Once upon a time there was a seller who dealt with a buyer (in this case landlord and tenant). The evolution has been as follows, and seems to be continuing to add to
seller->buyer
seller->payment system->buyer
seller->payment system->agent->buyer
seller->payment system->payment system manager->agent->buyer
seller->payment system ->payment system manager->payment system->buyer
seller->payment system ->payment system manager->payment system->agent->buyer
seller->payment system ->payment system manager->payment system->agent->payment system->buyer

At each level a percent of the dollars get siphoned off, but it is what our modern economy has become.

3 Likes

Well said. When I said ‘regulators’ I really meant ‘the whole regulatory stack’ from the lawmakers down to the enforcers.

In my professional work I’ve been involved in analysing industry failures to support vulnerable consumers and designing government subsidy schemes to support them. What has been an absolute eye-opener to me is the way the smallest loophole left open in the execution of a set of rules leads to a cottage industry of shysters sprouting up to take advantage until the loophole is closed. It’s a little depressing how quickly any chink is identified and pried open for financial gain.

4 Likes