Latest news with #landlords
Malay Mail
4 hours ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
Shopping mall industry warns of strain from SST expansion, calls for relief in Budget 2026
KUALA LUMPUR, July 23 — The shopping mall industry is urging the government to reconsider the expanded Sales and Services Tax (SST), citing its impact on rentals, leasing and renovation services as operators face rising operational costs and narrowing profit margins. In its latest Shopping Mall Industry Survey 2024–2025, the Malaysia Shopping Malls Association (PPK Malaysia) highlighted a growing imbalance between operating expenses and revenue, warning that the sustainability and competitiveness of malls are under threat. In a statement today, PPKM said that although SST is imposed on tenants, it inevitably affects the entire ecosystem — compressing rental affordability, affecting lease renewals, and straining cost recovery for landlords who are already subsidising daily operations. Rising costs versus limited revenue growth The survey, conducted among 61 malls nationwide between 2024 and 2025, found that average operating expenses are now 27 per cent higher than the average service and promotional charges collected — a sharp rise from 13.4 per cent in 2022. The report attributes this widening gap to escalating electricity tariffs, higher licensing fees, increased regulatory compliance costs, and the expanded SST which now includes property-related services. PPKM stressed that this cost imbalance is occurring in an industry that plays a crucial role in Malaysia's economy — providing over one million jobs, including mall staff, retail tenants, outsourced service providers and contractors. Malaysia's shopping mall landscape currently comprises about 490 malls, offering 167 million square feet of net lettable area (NLA). Including standalone hypermarkets and other retail centres, the figure rises to 733 establishments spanning 196.2 million sq ft — with an estimated real estate value of RM153 billion. Smaller malls and retail centres under 500,000 sq ft account for the majority — 81.5 per cent of total establishments and over half (54.4 per cent) of total retail NLA. While the Klang Valley and central region remain the main retail hubs, malls are increasingly well-distributed nationwide, reflecting the sector's significance across all states. Evolving with the times — at a cost Despite mounting costs, shopping malls continue to adapt to changing consumer behaviour — evolving beyond retail spaces into experiential destinations. Malls that remain competitive now blend retail with dining, entertainment, and sustainability-focused initiatives to stay relevant in a shifting market. But innovation comes at a cost, the statement noted. Operators are investing in enhanced experiences and sustainability features aligned with sustainable development goals — all while operating under shrinking margins and added strain from the SST expansion. The expanded SST, which came into effect on July 1, raised tax rates on several services and items previously taxed at 0 to 5 per cent, with new rates ranging from 5 to 10 per cent. Essential goods remain taxed at lower existing rates. Based on survey findings, PPKM reiterated its call for the government to address these challenges in Budget 2026, particularly by reviewing the SST structure and introducing broader cost relief measures that would enable malls to continue supporting employment, tourism and domestic consumption. While the industry remains resilient, the report notes that growth has moderated compared to pre-2024 levels — and without policy adjustments that reflect current economic realities, the mall sector could struggle to maintain its role as a key pillar in Malaysia's retail and services economy.
CBC
a day ago
- Climate
- CBC
An Ottawa MPP is proposing a maximum temperature law. But how would that work?
Some landlords say they want more clarity on a law being proposed at Queen's Park this fall that would see a maximum rental unit temperature of 26 C.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Ontario's proposed landlord drug liability law rattles supportive housing providers
The first time Fay Martin read up on the details of a proposed act to make landlords responsible for preventing drug activities in their units in Ontario, she says her hair stood on end. As a founder and board member of Places for People, which rents out 20 affordable units in Haliburton Highlands, Ont., she says the legislation — which threatens landlords with fines or jail time if their properties are used for producing or trafficking drugs — conflicts with both the goals of her charity and possibly with its ability to survive long-term . "It's going to be a total disincentive to housing the people that most need housing, and that the community needs to have housed," she said. Martin said that's because it could discourage supportive housing providers from "taking a chance" on tenants who need a home but who may be dealing with addictions. The act, which has received royal assent but has not yet been proclaimed into law, is a sub-section of Bill 10 — a multi-part piece of legislation broadly focused on public safety by making changes to areas like bail, courts and policing. In the act, the government also says landlords will be able to legally defend themselves by taking "reasonable measures" to "prevent the [drug] activity." With no clarity on what those measures could be, housing providers like Martin are anxiously waiting to learn more about what their new responsibilities will be — and how much they will cost. Fines could reach up to $250,000 on the first conviction, something Martin says would "kill us." Her charity receives no additional funding from the government and relies on donations to subsidize its units, she says. Jennifer Van Gennip, who works for supportive housing provider Redwood Park Communities in Simcoe County, Ont., is also worried, explaining that she's already seeing a "chilling effect in the sector around providing housing for people who use drugs" as a result of the proposed act. "We're hearing about other supportive housing providers who are trying to get out ahead of it ... and evicting residents who use drugs," said Van Gennip, who is also a co-chair of the Ontario Alliance to End Homelessness. What she wants is more information on who is being targeted under the act, with the hope that there is a "very clear" distinction between people who use drugs or do what she calls "survival dealing" — where people sell a small amount of drugs, to finance their own habits or pay for food or rent — and larger-scale trafficking and drug production. 'Some form of guidance is really needed here' Toronto-based lawyer John Fox , who specializes in law pertaining to affordable housing, says the legislation was written in a "fairly vague way." "Some form of guidance is really needed here," said Fox, explaining that he expects more information from the province clarifying things before it comes into force. Among the key questions now being discussed by landlords, whether non-profit, for-profit or commercial, is what the government means when it says that landlords can legally defend themselves by taking "reasonable measures" to stop drug activity. "People wonder whether that means more CCTV monitoring," said Fox. "Could it mean that in a lease that you should now include monthly inspections of the premises because you want to make sure that none of this is happening?" Then there are uncertainties more specific to non-profit housing, says Fox, including how much liability will fall to a non-profit's board of directors, who are volunteers, and whether there will be any financial help for them to pay for whatever "reasonable measures" they are eventually expected to take. Should supportive housing be excluded? CBC Toronto asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General about its timelines for putting the act into force and publishing more detailed regulations, but did not hear back by deadline. Fox says the province is currently being urged by advocates to consider whether supportive housing should be excluded altogether from the act —something the province also did not confirm. "[Supportive housing providers] are looking to be exempt from this act on account of the fact that their activities are directly related to reducing this kind of [drug] activity," he said. "This is not a risk that is fair for them to take on." If that campaign is successful, Fox continued, it raises yet another wrinkle: how to distinguish between non-profit housing, which doesn't generate profits for owners and sometimes offers non-market rent, and supportive housing, which typically offers non-market rent and tenant support. "That line will not be an easy one to draw," he said. Wait for 'clarity' continues The hope now in the non-profit sector is for more consultations with the province, says Marlene Coffey, CEO of the Ontario Non-profit Housing Association. "What we would expect is that as regulations are developed, we will work with the government in consultation and then there will be more clarity," she said. Her association has also submitted a list of recommendations to the province, including requests for more funding and clarity on personal liability rules. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is asking for consultation as well, submitting in a letter to the Ministry of the Solicitor General in June that it is concerned about "unintended consequences… undue burdens… and risks to municipal landlords." The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, meanwhile, is preparing presentations for front-line staff on how to "mitigate the negative impacts on Ontarians" of both this act and Bill 6, which gives new powers to municipalities to remove homeless people from public spaces. "The practical impact of both Bills is that Ontarians will lose their housing and be pushed into greater precarity," the centre wrote in submissions sent this spring to Attorney General Doug Downey.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Rental deposit scheme ‘puts millions in the pockets of landlords'
The official deposit scheme for renters is 'putting millions in unscrupulous landlords' pockets', campaigners have said. Almost half (46%) of renters said they did not know they could challenge deposit deductions they deemed to be unfair. Only 4% have used the formal dispute resolution process to try to reclaim the money. Dan Wilson Craw of Generation Rent, the campaign group which conducted the research, said the system was 'failing renters who are put off from challenging unfair deductions by unclear rules, and threats and delaying tactics from landlords'. He added: 'Ultimately, that puts millions more in unscrupulous landlords' pockets. The uncertain timescales and unclear rules of the deposit system, as well as obstructiveness and threats from some landlords, mean that accepting unfair deductions to get some cash back quickly can feel like the better option.' The research, based on a nationally representative survey of 2,000 private renters, found that a quarter of tenants who did not challenge unfair deductions said their landlord either threatened to make a larger claim if they raised a dispute, refused to take part in the adjudication process or had not protected the deposit in the first place. Data from one deposit protection scheme, TDS, showed that 77% of tenants got some of their disputed deposit back and 32% got all of it back. Generation Rent analysis found tenants who disputed deductions won 79% of the disputed money back on average. 'Because challenging deposit deductions is usually worth it, renters put off from doing so are losing hundreds of pounds of their own money,' said Wilson Craw. 'The government's review of deposit protection is an opportunity to build trust in the system so tenants have the confidence to challenge unfair landlord claims.' Landlords must legally put a tenant's deposit in a government-approved tenancy deposit scheme. There is a free dispute resolution service for tenants who disagree with their landlord on how much deposit should be returned. Ministers have said they were reviewing the system and 'identifying areas for improvement'. Generation Rent said it wanted to see a 14-day deadline for deposits to be returned at the end of a tenancy and landlords to be legally compelled to take part in a dispute resolution if a tenant pursued it, with disputes resolved within 10 days. It also said landlords and agents who broke the rules, or made repeated excessive deductions, should face 'meaningful penalties'. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been contacted for comment.
CBC
3 days ago
- CBC
Ontario's proposed landlord drug liability law rattles supportive housing providers
Social Sharing The first time Fay Martin read up on the details of a proposed act to make landlords responsible for preventing drug activities in their units in Ontario, she says her hair stood on end. As a founder and board member of Places for People, which rents out 20 affordable units in Haliburton Highlands, Ont., she says the legislation — which threatens landlords with fines or jail time if their properties are used for producing or trafficking drugs — conflicts with both the goals of her charity and possibly with its ability to survive long-term . "It's going to be a total disincentive to housing the people that most need housing, and that the community needs to have housed," she said. Martin said that's because it could discourage supportive housing providers from "taking a chance" on tenants who need a home but who may be dealing with addictions. The act, which has received royal assent but has not yet been proclaimed into law, is a sub-section of Bill 10 — a multi-part piece of legislation broadly focused on public safety by making changes to areas like bail, courts and policing. In the act, the government also says landlords will be able to legally defend themselves by taking "reasonable measures" to "prevent the [drug] activity." With no clarity on what those measures could be, housing providers like Martin are anxiously waiting to learn more about what their new responsibilities will be — and how much they will cost. Fines could reach up to $250,000 on the first conviction, something Martin says would "kill us." Her charity receives no additional funding from the government and relies on donations to subsidize its units, she says. Jennifer Van Gennip, who works for supportive housing provider Redwood Park Communities in Simcoe County, Ont., is also worried, explaining that she's already seeing a "chilling effect in the sector around providing housing for people who use drugs" as a result of the proposed act. "We're hearing about other supportive housing providers who are trying to get out ahead of it ... and evicting residents who use drugs," said Van Gennip, who is also a co-chair of the Ontario Alliance to End Homelessness. What she wants is more information on who is being targeted under the act, with the hope that there is a "very clear" distinction between people who use drugs or do what she calls "survival dealing" — where people sell a small amount of drugs, to finance their own habits or pay for food or rent — and larger-scale trafficking and drug production. 'Some form of guidance is really needed here' Toronto-based lawyer John Fox , who specializes in law pertaining to affordable housing, says the legislation was written in a "fairly vague way." "Some form of guidance is really needed here," said Fox, explaining that he expects more information from the province clarifying things before it comes into force. Among the key questions now being discussed by landlords, whether non-profit, for-profit or commercial, is what the government means when it says that landlords can legally defend themselves by taking "reasonable measures" to stop drug activity. A look at Toronto's newest supportive housing initiative for unhoused people 10 months ago "People wonder whether that means more CCTV monitoring," said Fox. "Could it mean that in a lease that you should now include monthly inspections of the premises because you want to make sure that none of this is happening?" Then there are uncertainties more specific to non-profit housing, says Fox, including how much liability will fall to a non-profit's board of directors, who are volunteers, and whether there will be any financial help for them to pay for whatever "reasonable measures" they are eventually expected to take. Should supportive housing be excluded? CBC Toronto asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General about its timelines for putting the act into force and publishing more detailed regulations, but did not hear back by deadline. Fox says the province is currently being urged by advocates to consider whether supportive housing should be excluded altogether from the act —something the province also did not confirm. "[Supportive housing providers] are looking to be exempt from this act on account of the fact that their activities are directly related to reducing this kind of [drug] activity," he said. "This is not a risk that is fair for them to take on." If that campaign is successful, Fox continued, it raises yet another wrinkle: how to distinguish between non-profit housing, which doesn't generate profits for owners and sometimes offers non-market rent, and supportive housing, which typically offers non-market rent and tenant support. "That line will not be an easy one to draw," he said. Wait for 'clarity' continues The hope now in the non-profit sector is for more consultations with the province, says Marlene Coffey, CEO of the Ontario Non-profit Housing Association. "What we would expect is that as regulations are developed, we will work with the government in consultation and then there will be more clarity," she said. Her association has also submitted a list of recommendations to the province, including requests for more funding and clarity on personal liability rules. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is asking for consultation as well, submitting in a letter to the Ministry of the Solicitor General in June that it is concerned about " unintended consequences… undue burdens… and risks to municipal landlords." The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, meanwhile, is preparing presentations for front-line staff on how to "mitigate the negative impacts on Ontarians" of both this act and Bill 6, which gives new powers to municipalities to remove homeless people from public spaces. "The practical impact of both Bills is that Ontarians will lose their housing and be pushed into greater precarity," the centre wrote in submissions sent this spring to Attorney General Doug Downey.
