Worrying update after super fund collapse

This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance

Sydney Morning Herald

33 minutes ago

Sydney Morning Herald

This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance

Clutching a bright yellow bidding panel, amid a crowd of onlookers stretched across a concrete driveway, Rebecca Borkman was quietly hopeful she was about to secure her dream home. Advertised at just $700,000, the two-bedroom townhouse in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown was within the budget of Borkman and her partner, Byron Tolley, with $150,000 to spare. The couple were so serious about the home that they had shelled out more than $500 to obtain pest, building and strata reports in preparation, and discussed bidding tactics. But it soon became clear they never stood a chance. What Borkman, 33, didn't know when she arrived at the auction was that the reserve price for the property was $850,000, more than 20 per cent above the advertised guide. The sale had lured 18 registered bidders, and the townhouse sold for $896,000. 'As soon as that auction started, we were wondering why we even bothered showing up or getting excited,' Borkman said. 'If they let us know that the reserve was anywhere even around $800,000, we wouldn't have put so much time and money into it. But they [the agent] were firm on the $700,000 guide.' Scenes like this are repeated at weekend auctions across the country. In response to an online survey, almost 5600 people told this masthead's Bidding Blind investigation that they had spent money and time investigating properties that they would later discover they could not afford. A separate data analysis of more than 36,000 auction listings reveals that more often than not Sydneysiders and Melburnians are being misled by advertised price guides. That means Australians are forking out thousands of dollars on multiple pest and building inspections, contract reviews and strata reports during extended property hunts, only for the homes they had fallen in love with to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars above the guide. Several Victorian buyers said they had recently paid for a building inspection on homes advertised within their budget. Then, even though auction bidding surpassed the top end of the sale guide – sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars – the home was passed in because it didn't meet the vendor's reserve. 'Agents often argue that it's the buyers and auctions that drive up the price, but conversations with the agent often indicate early on that the buyer wants a much higher rate than advertised,' said one of these prospective buyers. Another buyer looking in Sydney's inner west, a hotspot for underquoting complaints, said it felt like they were being constantly scammed. 'We are often lied to about vendor expectations and then spend money on building reports, contract reviews by lawyers ... We recently had an experience where the auction guide was $1.7 million and the reserve was closer to $2.2 million.' Following the Bidding Blind investigation, the Victorian and NSW governments are facing pressure from industry groups, consumers and opposition parties to stem the tide of wasted cash by overhauling underquoting laws. Victoria's peak real estate lobby group announced it would support the mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, a significant policy shift for a group long resistant to such a proposal. Key real estate industry leaders in NSW have also backed that model, with both state governments promising to seek advice or continue consultation on potential solutions. Another idea to stem the cost of inaccurate price guides is to require vendors to provide prospective purchasers with free building and pest inspections before auction, as is the case in the ACT. 'There will still be buyers who will want to get their own independent report, but this removes the cost and the double up for a large portion of buyers, and it would directly remove the financial harm of underquoting,' said Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner. In NSW, agents are required to provide prospective purchasers with a contract of sale and disclose issues such as whether the property has been subject to recent flooding, has any external combustible cladding or has been the scene of a murder or manslaughter in the past five years. In Victoria, sellers are legally required to provide a 'section 32 vendor's statement', which details information about any easements, zonings, strata scheme management and fees and whether a property is in a bushfire-prone area. However, buyers in both states are encouraged to seek their own building inspections, which usually cost between $300 and $1000 depending on the size of the property and whether a pest inspection is included. Contract reviews, also recommended, will generally cost $200 or $300. And in NSW, buyers have to pay a fee to access strata reports. 'It's not unusual to get 30 or 40 people through a home … let's just say half of them [arranged inspections and other due diligence] – there's 15 grand down the toilet,' said buyers agent Paul Mulligan. Loading 'There are a lot of gutted buyers out there, and what ends up happening is even worse than the cost [because] they go out and then they buy a place out of frustration, and potentially overpay or buy a lemon. It's huge. It's a huge consumer cost, emotionally and financially.' Victorian buyers advocate David Morrell, who described underquoting as 'cheating', said the practice came with an 'opportunity cost' for prospective buyers who missed out on properties when they didn't obtain access to enough pre-approved finance due to misleading price guides. 'If the agent hadn't lied to you at the start, you'd be living in your favourite home,' Morrell said. As a former property manager at a real estate agency, Rebecca Borkman felt like she should have been in a better position than most to navigate the auction process when she was searching for a home in Sydney last year. But the human resources professional said her experience was so painful that she eventually refused to consider buying any property that was being auctioned. Borkman and her partner instead bought a home in Carlingford, in Sydney's north-west, through a private sale. 'If something came up for auction, we would immediately write it off the list, no matter how much it suited our needs, because it was so damaging to our bank account, to our self-esteem and to our emotional wellbeing,' she said. 'If even I, with that experience [of being a property manager] in my past, feel almost scammed, then what's someone who has no idea what they're getting themselves into meant to do?' Borkman said the reason they had fallen in love with the Bankstown townhouse, with its front and back garden and 297-square-metre block, was because it had been undervalued by the $700,000 auction guide. 'The minute that we showed up there and looked at the property, I thought, 'This is so far beyond anything else that we had seen within that price range' … as it turns out, we were looking at a property that was worth $900,000.'

The Age

33 minutes ago

The Age

This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance

Clutching a bright yellow bidding panel, amid a crowd of onlookers stretched across a concrete driveway, Rebecca Borkman was quietly hopeful she was about to secure her dream home. Advertised at just $700,000, the two-bedroom townhouse in the Sydney suburb of Bankstown was within the budget of Borkman and her partner, Byron Tolley, with $150,000 to spare. The couple were so serious about the home that they had shelled out more than $500 to obtain pest, building and strata reports in preparation, and discussed bidding tactics. But it soon became clear they never stood a chance. What Borkman, 33, didn't know when she arrived at the auction was that the reserve price for the property was $850,000, more than 20 per cent above the advertised guide. The sale had lured 18 registered bidders, and the townhouse sold for $896,000. 'As soon as that auction started, we were wondering why we even bothered showing up or getting excited,' Borkman said. 'If they let us know that the reserve was anywhere even around $800,000, we wouldn't have put so much time and money into it. But they [the agent] were firm on the $700,000 guide.' Scenes like this are repeated at weekend auctions across the country. In response to an online survey, almost 5600 people told this masthead's Bidding Blind investigation that they had spent money and time investigating properties that they would later discover they could not afford. A separate data analysis of more than 36,000 auction listings reveals that more often than not Sydneysiders and Melburnians are being misled by advertised price guides. That means Australians are forking out thousands of dollars on multiple pest and building inspections, contract reviews and strata reports during extended property hunts, only for the homes they had fallen in love with to sell hundreds of thousands of dollars above the guide. Several Victorian buyers said they had recently paid for a building inspection on homes advertised within their budget. Then, even though auction bidding surpassed the top end of the sale guide – sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars – the home was passed in because it didn't meet the vendor's reserve. 'Agents often argue that it's the buyers and auctions that drive up the price, but conversations with the agent often indicate early on that the buyer wants a much higher rate than advertised,' said one of these prospective buyers. Another buyer looking in Sydney's inner west, a hotspot for underquoting complaints, said it felt like they were being constantly scammed. 'We are often lied to about vendor expectations and then spend money on building reports, contract reviews by lawyers ... We recently had an experience where the auction guide was $1.7 million and the reserve was closer to $2.2 million.' Following the Bidding Blind investigation, the Victorian and NSW governments are facing pressure from industry groups, consumers and opposition parties to stem the tide of wasted cash by overhauling underquoting laws. Victoria's peak real estate lobby group announced it would support the mandatory pre-auction disclosure of reserve prices by sellers, a significant policy shift for a group long resistant to such a proposal. Key real estate industry leaders in NSW have also backed that model, with both state governments promising to seek advice or continue consultation on potential solutions. Another idea to stem the cost of inaccurate price guides is to require vendors to provide prospective purchasers with free building and pest inspections before auction, as is the case in the ACT. 'There will still be buyers who will want to get their own independent report, but this removes the cost and the double up for a large portion of buyers, and it would directly remove the financial harm of underquoting,' said Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive Erin Turner. In NSW, agents are required to provide prospective purchasers with a contract of sale and disclose issues such as whether the property has been subject to recent flooding, has any external combustible cladding or has been the scene of a murder or manslaughter in the past five years. In Victoria, sellers are legally required to provide a 'section 32 vendor's statement', which details information about any easements, zonings, strata scheme management and fees and whether a property is in a bushfire-prone area. However, buyers in both states are encouraged to seek their own building inspections, which usually cost between $300 and $1000 depending on the size of the property and whether a pest inspection is included. Contract reviews, also recommended, will generally cost $200 or $300. And in NSW, buyers have to pay a fee to access strata reports. 'It's not unusual to get 30 or 40 people through a home … let's just say half of them [arranged inspections and other due diligence] – there's 15 grand down the toilet,' said buyers agent Paul Mulligan. Loading 'There are a lot of gutted buyers out there, and what ends up happening is even worse than the cost [because] they go out and then they buy a place out of frustration, and potentially overpay or buy a lemon. It's huge. It's a huge consumer cost, emotionally and financially.' Victorian buyers advocate David Morrell, who described underquoting as 'cheating', said the practice came with an 'opportunity cost' for prospective buyers who missed out on properties when they didn't obtain access to enough pre-approved finance due to misleading price guides. 'If the agent hadn't lied to you at the start, you'd be living in your favourite home,' Morrell said. As a former property manager at a real estate agency, Rebecca Borkman felt like she should have been in a better position than most to navigate the auction process when she was searching for a home in Sydney last year. But the human resources professional said her experience was so painful that she eventually refused to consider buying any property that was being auctioned. Borkman and her partner instead bought a home in Carlingford, in Sydney's north-west, through a private sale. 'If something came up for auction, we would immediately write it off the list, no matter how much it suited our needs, because it was so damaging to our bank account, to our self-esteem and to our emotional wellbeing,' she said. 'If even I, with that experience [of being a property manager] in my past, feel almost scammed, then what's someone who has no idea what they're getting themselves into meant to do?' Borkman said the reason they had fallen in love with the Bankstown townhouse, with its front and back garden and 297-square-metre block, was because it had been undervalued by the $700,000 auction guide. 'The minute that we showed up there and looked at the property, I thought, 'This is so far beyond anything else that we had seen within that price range' … as it turns out, we were looking at a property that was worth $900,000.'

Charge ahead: road taxes may be closer than they appear

Perth Now

2 hours ago

Perth Now

Charge ahead: road taxes may be closer than they appear

Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation."

Worrying update after super fund collapse

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance

This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance

Charge ahead: road taxes may be closer than they appear

Worrying update after super fund collapse

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance

This couple spent $500 trying to buy their dream home. They never stood a chance

Charge ahead: road taxes may be closer than they appear

Get Started Now: Download the App