Podcast: Holiday let free-for-all (except investors)


Elsewhere in this post

It’s Airbnb (and Stays etc etc) all the way in this week’s podcast (sorry!) as we discuss the implications of Jimmy’s belated discovery that the Sydney-only by-laws banning holiday lets only apply to investor-owned apartments.

Yes, resident-owners and even tenants can list their flats on Airbnb and any of the other platforms (preferably those that don’t destroy fond memories with insipid renditions of Beatles songs) with a limit of 180 nights a year.

Why would anyone let their own home to holiday guests, ask NSW policymakers?

We try to explain that six months is just enough to make it worth retirees putting their stuff in storage while they cruise the oceans of the world. 

It also represents 52 long weekends a year, plus Christmas and New Year, to people who have somewhere else to stay during prime holiday rental periods.


Later we chat about this story where an anti-holiday letting by-law was rescinded because a couple of clauses went just a bit too far.

And Sue previews her article for Prestige Domain in the AFR where property finance experts ask the key question all Airbnb hosts should consider – is it really worth it?

Finally, we look at the proposal to offer government top-up loans to first-time home owners against the equity in the property and why it has a whiff of pre-election promise from a government that can’t bear the thought of putting money into affordable housing (in case poor people take advantage, one assumes).

That’s all in this week’s podcast.

If you enjoyed listening to this podcast (or reading the transcript), please share it with your friends using the social media buttons on this page.


Jimmy  00:00

I just realised, that we are tracking at about 31,000 downloads of this podcast.

Sue  00:09

Wow! That’s amazing!

Jimmy  00:10

And it’s partly because people are finding the new ones, and then going back through the library. We’re getting about 80 listeners a day.

Sue  00:22

Wow, that’s fantastic!

Jimmy  00:23

 About a year ago (just over a year ago), we were getting 80 listeners a week.

Sue  00:27

Wow, that’s fantastic. I think people are much more interested in strata now, and lots of us are living in it, and lots of us are affected by the issues, maybe.

Jimmy  00:36

And I think more people are listening to podcasts.

Sue  00:39

Yes, of course.

Jimmy  00:42

In today’s show, we will be talking a lot about Airbnb; I’ve got two or three very distinct approaches on that (including an Airbnb bylaw that has just been bounced by NCAT), and we’re going to be talking about this plan to loan first-time homebuyers money against the equity of their house or apartment, which the New South Wales government is planning to do. A lot to talk about; we’d better crack on. I’m Jimmy Thomson, I write the Flat Chat column for the Australian Financial Review.

Sue  01:20

And I’m Sue Williams and I write about property for Domain.

Jimmy  01:23

And this is the Flat Chat Wrap. I made a fundamental journalistic error, in the past year or so…

Sue  01:44


Jimmy  01:44

 Which I’ve only just realised, and the error was to assume something…

Sue  01:50

Which makes an arse of you and me…

Jimmy  01:54

No, we’re not! An ‘ass,’ of you and me! The new laws that came in on short-term letting last month (and partly, earlier last year), allowing bylaws to be created in strata schemes… I thought that the two things were you couldn’t prevent people from having short-term letting, when they were letting their principal place of residence and I thought that was about sharing. You know, the genuine sharing, not the bullshit. I assumed (quite wrongly), that those two parts of the law; one was to stop Airbnb’s in apartments, where you had commercial lets and the other part was to allow people to share their homes, so that they would be there when people came to visit. This confusion was partly caused by the planning regulations, which define hosted and unhosted and this is just New South Wales. I mean, everywhere else, it’s pretty much a free-for-all. In New South Wales, if you are unhosted, there are limitations, in different areas. In Sydney, it’s 180 nights a year and that also applies to Byron Bay and some other local government areas that have been seriously affected by residential rents being knocked out by Airbnb or other short-term renting companies. So, you’ve got Planning’s ‘hosted’ and ‘unhosted,’ and then you go to Fair Trading (which has a different set of definitions, which is basically commercial and principal place of residence), and it turns out that if you are letting out your principal place of residence, you can do it for 180 nights a year in Sydney, and there is no restriction anywhere else. What that means is, for instance (and I’ve just had this confirmed in the last week by Planning); if you say, stay in your apartment for four nights a week and then rent it out on weekends, you can do that every weekend, for a year. But, what if you’re in an apartment and your apartment building has a bylaw against it? Can’t stop it.

Sue  04:28

That’s a real nuisance, isn’t it?

Jimmy  04:30

But what the bylaws can stop, is commercial lets, where it’s not your principal place of residence.

Sue  04:38

Where you’ve got an investment property and you’re just putting out for Airbnb?

Jimmy  04:42


Sue  04:43

So the bylaw will stamp that out, but if it’s your own home, and you’re just going away or, you’re going and sleeping on your boat for the weekend, or you’re going to friends or parents, you can actually do that; there’s nothing that the building can do, to stop you.

Jimmy  04:57

Karen Stiles from the OCN was saying that one of her people was sitting in a bus, and they listened to this young woman in front, saying she either rents out her apartment every weekend on Airbnb and goes and stays at her parent’s house, or her boyfriend’s, and then during the week, she’s back, because it’s more convenient for her work. So, that apartment is an Airbnb apartment every weekend, in an apartment building that has a no Airbnb bylaw.

Sue  05:27

I mean, you kind of have to grudgingly admire her, don’t you? That’s a smart young woman really. Letting her apartment out for the weekend probably pays her rent for the rest of the week.

Jimmy  05:36

And, she was a tenant; it’s not like she was an owner, but it doesn’t restrict it to owners. It’s a ‘permanent resident of the apartment.’ Right now, resident owners and tenants in apartment blocks have no restriction applied by bylaws, that want to stop Airbnb or Stayz, or whoever and what that’s going to do? I think it will drive the commercial Airbnb operators into buildings that don’t have bylaws, because it’s only the bylaw that would prevent them from doing it. It’s not the government that’s saying, you can’t have Airbnb, if you’re not the principal place of residence; it’s a bylaw. If that bylaw doesn’t exist, then there’s no restrictions, apart from in Sydney, where there’s a restriction of 180 nights a year, which, as we’ve discovered, could be six months, while you are off exploring the Amazon, or it could be every weekend, for a year.

Sue  06:41

It’s weird, isn’t it? The government has introduced legislation to try and limit and regulate Airbnb and other short-term letting platforms, but do you think they intended this? I mean, it feels like a bit of a loophole that’s opened up, that nobody really intended.

Jimmy  06:56

You’ve got to remember that this law-change came after the government… They had two microphones set up, plugged in ready to go; one was going to have Matt Kean talking into it and the other one was going to have Anthony Roberts, who was then Planning (as he is again), and they were going to announce open-slather. It was going to be that anybody could have Airbnb, anywhere; there was going to be no restriction on that. Then suddenly, there was a backlash from some of their own MPs, who are going “hang on, I don’t want that happening in my area.” They literally had to unplug the microphones and go away and think again. Now Matt Kean is Treasurer, Anthony Roberts is back as Planning Minister. These guys are in very powerful positions and I think they are very happy with a situation, where it’s only the commercial Airbnb people who are being curbed and I think part of their thinking is…

Sue  07:59

They think it’s a good compromise, really?

Jimmy  08:01

I would imagine they think it’s a great compromise and I think it deals to some extent, with the problem of commercial short-term letting businesses…Anybody can do this; you just rent a bunch of apartments, let’s say in Bondi…You just pick up any apartments that come up for rent and immediately put them back out on Airbnb. As a principal tenant (as long as you have the landlord’s permission), you can do that. By allowing buildings to not have non-residents doing Airbnb, then it might mitigate that in the future, when the tourists start to come back, which is apparently not that far away. I just think it’s an anomaly, but I got it wrong. I’ve been assuming that the restrictions were for everybody. If you had a bylaw saying there’s no Airbnb in this building, then the only people who could have Airbnb, were people who were sharing (genuinely sharing), like having somebody come and stay in a room in your apartment, and you can tell them, “here’s the good cafes; here’s where the bus to the Harbour goes.”

Sue  09:13

And the thing is, I guess you have to remember again, that it can be really hard being in an apartment building, where apartments are rented out every weekend to short-term renters. You know, there’s wear and tear; there’s suitcases coming in… If you have a concierge, the concerge often have to help them. We’ve had dings in the walls of the lobby, and there’s noise. There can be a lot more people. You know, an apartment may hold two people, but they may have a party with a big group of people. It can be really awful for all the other residents in strata and we kind of have to remember that and that has to be balanced against people’s right to be able to make a bit of money off their property.

Jimmy  09:55

Well, the government would say that that is taken care of, by the Register and the Code of Conduct and the Code of Conduct allows apartments to be misused, twice. You know, the noisy party syndrome is one. I think more significant, is the complete lack of knowledge of the bylaws. I mean, a lot of people who live in apartments aren’t even aware of their bylaws. You get somebody who’s coming in for a weekend; the bylaw says you can’t just dump your rubbish outside the front door. The bylaw says you can’t put bottles down the garbage shute.

Sue  10:30

Yes. You can’t take glasses and bottles down to the swimming pool, because of the danger of dropping a glass, or broken glass in a pool; you have to drain the whole thing.

Jimmy  10:42

Yes and so, who’s going to police that? If you are an owner down there, and you see somebody with a group of people, and they’ve got their bottles of champagne and their glasses, are you going to be the one who says “excuse me; that’s in breach of our bylaws,” especially at weekends, when building managers tend not to be around. Okay, that’s kind of the worst case scenario, but it’s based on actual events. Look, I think the government’s very happy; from what I hear from people in Planning, they’re very happy with this thing of, it’s only non-residents who can be restricted from running Airbnb’s in their Sydney apartments. I think when the tourists come back, we’re going to find a lot of people saying “well, I’ve been waiting to travel… I’ve got three months of travel up my sleeve; I’m putting my apartment on Airbnb and you can’t stop me.” We are going to be talking after this little break, about an article that you’ve got coming up, about whether it’s actually worth putting your apartment on Airbnb and, we’re going to be talking about a ruling at NCAT,  where an anti-short-term letting bylaw was bounced.  So Sue, tell me about this article… Where’s it going to appear and when, and what’s it about?

Sue  12:13

It’s a piece that’s appearing this Wednesday, in the Prestige Domain magazine, in the Australian Financial Review. It’s kind of exploring this time during the pandemic; a lot of people bought properties, maybe apartments on the coast, or in the country, because they wanted to get away from the densely populated cities and now they’re faced with this issue, should they go and live there? I mean, a lot of people have tried places out, like you, the other weekend, when you came back and said “I really like living in the city, actually, because everything closes so early and you don’t have as much to do in the country,” which we forget about. So, then they’ve got this place in the country, or on the coast and they’re faced with the dilemma. If they can afford to keep both and not rent them out, that’s fantastic. That’s the perfect world, because you can go down there for weekends; you can go midweek, whenever, and you don’t have other people sleeping in your bed. You don’t have to worry about renting it out to other people. But, for most people, it’s a dilemma. Should you rent out that place in the country or the coast as a long-term residential lease, or should you Airbnb it, or on any other short-term platform? That means that you can block out when you want to go and so you can still go on some weekends or on holidays, and you can Airbnb at other times. So, I was looking at that dilemma and it was interesting, because many of the experts said, if you can’t afford to keep both for yourself, then really, you should be putting it into a residential let. It makes better financial sense, in many cases. At the moment, with residential lets, vacancy rates are really low mostly, around the country and certainly in  those great areas, that we want to buy property in.

Jimmy  14:00

The holiday hotspots, like Byron Bay and Kiama and places like that.

Sue  14:04

Yes, that’s right. Also, rents are very high; rents have really increased, so yields have gone up and in lots of places, there’s rental returns of about 5.5% which is really healthy. On the other hand, if Airbnb something, the difficulty is you want to share it; you want to go down there at various times and probably you’ll want to go down at those peak times, when you’ll be getting the most money from Airbnb. You know, you want to go down at school holidays; you want to go down at weekends, in the summer. You don’t necessarily want to go down every weekend in the winter. It means that you can’t go down and use the place, when you want to use it really, because that’s when you’ll be getting most income from your Airbnb let, because you might not get much money during the winter (because not many people want to go), and also, you’ve got a tax problem… When you Airbnb a place, every time you get some rent back, then you have to put that against your tax. Say you rent it out for 4 weekends out of 52, then that means you have to take off the tax benefits for those 4 weekends, so it becomes really complicated.

Jimmy  15:13

Oh right, so the fringe benefit thing comes in there, doesn’t it?

Sue  15:16

That’s right, so you need a really good accountant for that, really. Basically, you have to look at it and think, is this a lifestyle decision, or is it an investment decision? If it’s an investment, you may be better off putting it as a long-term residential rent. If it’s a lifestyle decision (and you really want to go down and live in your apartment from various points), then short-term letting is the answer. Many of these experts said well, really, if you want to go down and stay there, you’d still be better off going down and staying in a hotel or somebody else’s Airbnb, and keeping your one as a tax benefit, really, and putting it out as a long-term residential let.

Jimmy  15:57

I wonder if we’ll get the situation where people are renting out their apartments; their house or their holiday home as a residential let for nine months a year, and then the tenant gets booted out?

Sue  16:10

Yes, but then you’ll probably have the three months of the summer, won’t you, because that’s when you’ll want to go and that’s when you get the most returns, if you were doing it as a short-term let, so you’re kind of cutting off…

Jimmy  16:21

And then, you’ve also got the setup cost, because you’ve got to put furniture in there.

Sue  16:26

That’s right. With Airbnb, we kind of forget the things; like, every time somebody goes down there, you’ve got to get it cleaned… You’ve got to get the sheets changed; you’ve got to do all that. You can do that yourself, or you can get a company to do it for you, but it does actually cost quite a bit, to get companies to do that for you. Some of these investment experts were saying if you’ve got three or four or five lets… Well, you could go down and live in one of them, and then make a business out of doing that for yourself and maybe, for other people, but I mean, who really wants to do that?

Jimmy  17:01

You don’t.

Sue  17:02


Jimmy  17:03

You don’t want to be a cleaner and a chamber maid. That’s not why you have worked so hard, to be able to afford these properties.

Sue  17:12

Yes and often, in some of these areas, it’s actually quite hard to find cleaners, or find people who are going to go and change sheets and stuff. Some of these areas are turning into places where lots of people go from the cities, and they’re all doing the same thing as you. People are being priced out of their homes, so there’s not many people coming in, who would be happy to do your cleaning for you.

Jimmy  17:32

And do you think we’ve learned lessons? The pandemic has created a circuit-breaker for short term rentals… Do you think we’ve learned any lessons? I mean, there were all these seminars going around, where they were saying “go and rent these three properties and do this and do that and you will become very rich, like we have.” Then you discover they’ve actually just become very rich, by running seminars. Do you think people will look at the potential for short-term letting and go “if I put all my eggs in that basket, and there’s another pandemic, I’m going to be screwed?”

Sue  18:08

I think that’s quite true, because people are a bit concerned that there might be another variant, or a worse variant comes up. People still don’t really have that long-term confidence. I think you’re quite right, and as well, the pandemic has changed many of us a little bit, from looking out for money and looking at lifestyle instead; thinking happiness and contentment, and having family and friends, is much more important than having a lot of wealth. I think that has been a major…

Jimmy  18:38

Would be nice to have both, though!

Sue  18:39

Of course, but it has been a major mind-shift, that’s happened during the pandemic. Maybe, people will be less inclined to buy lots and lots of rental properties anyway, because they kind of want to enjoy what they have.

Jimmy  18:52

Okay, so cautious optimism on the short-term rental front. If you’ve got one extra property, put it on the residential rental market, but if you really love the idea of staying in places yourself and putting them on short-term rental programmes, then you really want to have multiple properties, and you want to be living in that area, so that you can manage them yourself. Otherwise, you’re just giving your profits to other people.

Sue  19:20

Yes and it can really eat into the profits, because as you say, you’re having to fully furnish a place and you’re having to pay somebody to keep an eye on the fact that it won’t get damaged, or that knives and forks don’t go missing all the time. It’s a really labour-intensive process. A friend of mine said “oh, yes, but you can just buy Fantastic furniture;” you know, the really cheap furniture, but you can’t. You’ve got to buy decent furniture, to make the place look good and to make it last well, because it’s going to get a lot of use, hopefully. That’s one of the things that the Airbnb experts will tell you; don’t furnish it cheaply, because those pictures that people see on the internet, are the ones that determine whether or not they’re going to rent your property, rather than the one next door. Yes, and give you a good review.

Jimmy  20:09

Okay. After this, we’re going to be talking about a ruling from NCAT about short-term letting in apartments in Sydney.

Sue  20:23

So, there’s been a ruling from NCAT, against Airbnb, or pro-Airbnb?

Jimmy  20:28

Well, it’s against an Airbnb bylaw. A multiple strata scheme (two strata’s within that scheme, but the same owner); they had passed bylaws that said that if people were found in contravention of their no Airbnb bylaw, then they would have their keys cancelled. They also said that the costs of pursuing the illegal Airbnb, was attributable to their levies. We’ll be doing a story on this on the website, and there’ll be a link to the the ruling, but when you read through it, there’s all sorts of legalistic rigmarole; who did what and who can do what and all the rest of it. Quite interestingly, a lot of it quotes the Jo Cooper case.

Sue  20:48

The dog case from the Horizon?

Jimmy  21:24

That is one of the very few strata law cases, that have gone all the way to the Appeals court, which has kind of re-established the meaning of the law.  I’ve seen so many different rulings (even some in Queensland), where they go back and say “this is the ruling in that case, which has created a precedent.” Even in this one; which has got nothing to do with pets, but everything to do with, what does the law mean? What does that restriction on bylaws (that they cannot be harsh, unconscionable and discriminatory); what does that actually mean? When people start challenging bylaws on that basis… Now, they go back to the Jo Cooper case. What they’ve done in this case is they’ve said, access to your property is a fundamental right; that cannot be taken away by a bylaw. In this case (obviously, there are two properties, so the owner concerned cannot have both of them as a principal place of residence)… So, that’s knocked out for at least one of them; probably both. That idea that they could cancel the keys, denying this owner access to her property (even though she probably wasn’t going to be in it); that’s such a fundamental thing. They’ve said “no, you cannot have that in the bylaw.” The other part of this is they’ve said “you’re attaching these costs to the levies,” and they’ve gone back to the strata law that says levies may be imposed for these reasons… Their lawyers tried to argue that what they actually meant was, they will be attached as if they were levies, and that got bounced. Then, because these two significant features of the bylaw were declared to be invalid, the whole bylaw has been bounced. This was an appeal, so the case was heard last year. They found against the Owners Corporation and the Owners Corporation appealed and they’ve just come out with the result of the appeal, which is, you can’t cut off the key access… You can’t attach it to the levies, because the thing about attaching it to the levies is if you owe a debt on your levies; first of all, you lose your right to vote in the building, at AGM. The other one is that there is a standard statutory penalty rate of 10% for unpaid levies. It’s quite significant, when they’ve said “no, you can’t attach that to the levies.” They could pursue it as a different debt, but not as a levy. The authors, I believe, of that bylaw, are frantically rewriting it, so that it doesn’t include those provisions to cancel the keys, etc, etc. It’s interesting, you know, that we’re getting to the fundamentals of what we may, or may not do, with our property. At the very least, you have to be very, very careful about what you say; the rules that you impose, because all over the place (and not just here in New South Wales, but all over Australia), Owners Corporations are getting a wee bit carried away and saying “oh, we are going to impose this rule, with these penalties.” They’re finding out when they’re challenged, that they’re not actually allowed to do that and these buildings; they can still put restrictions on short-term letting of properties that are not the principal place of residence… They can still do that, but they have to follow their procedures, as if it were any other bylaw. We will do a story on the website about that and there’ll be a link to the NCAT judgement. After this, we’re going to talk about a proposal to lend first-time owners money against the equity of their new property, proposed by the New South Wales Government.

Sue  25:30

So, this is a new plan from the New South Wales Premier, Dominic Perrottet, to help home ownership, isn’t it; to boost home ownership for first-home buyers? What can be wrong with it? I mean, he’s saying “we’re going to give them a chance to borrow more money?”

Jimmy  25:49

The basic thing is that you are a first-time owner; you go in you say “I need a bit more money, to be able to put down a deposit…”

Sue  25:57

Because the deposit is the real problem, isn’t it?

Jimmy  25:59

Well, it’s 20% now. What’s the median?

Sue  26:03

A million dollars, for a medium-price apartment. Well, for a house now in Sydney, it’s more than a million dollars.

Jimmy  26:11

So at the very least, it’s $200,000 and so the government is saying “well, let’s look at the idea of lending that money against the equity of the house or apartment.” I’m going to call ‘pie in the sky’ on this; I’m going to call election manoeuvring. I’m going to call Inland Railway, which comes up every election and never actually appears. For a start, if the government is saying “we’re going to take 10% of the equity, in exchange for 10% of the cost,” and the bank’s going to go “alright; so what we’re lending against, is actually 90% of the building, so we’re going to reduce the amount we’re going to give in loans.”

Sue  26:56

Oh, would they be that cynical?

Jimmy  27:00

We’re talking banks here. The other thing that worries me is, isn’t this just going to pump more money into an over-heated housing market? I mean, it’s very inflationary; every time they come up with a thing “oh, we’re going to give homeowners a grant of, you know, $15,000…” Well, every property price goes up by $15,000, basically,

Sue  27:20

Especially off-the-plan apartments, where it’s easy to fix prices.

Jimmy  27:25

Which, based on how much the developer wants, and how much they think they can get away with….  I know it’s a Liberal government, and they hate the idea of social housing or anything like that…They pay lip-service to the idea, but what they should be doing is sitting down with developers, and coming up with a plan and saying “if you build low -cost housing;” and let’s not do this thing, where you start off saying  “10 of these 100 apartments, are going to be affordable,” and then get to the point when you build it and go “oh, I’m really sorry; turns out, they’re not going to be affordable after all.” Sit down with a developer and say “we will give you access to land that you might not otherwise have; we will allow you to build buildings that may be a bit higher, or whatever; a bit bigger. We are in partnership with you, to give affordable housing, especially in the inner cities, where people like nurses and teachers and police and fire people and whatever… where we need them to be near where we are, but we have priced them out of the market.” Don’t just pump money into the economy, and then hope you’ll get it back when the house or the apartment is sold. Actually get into partnership with developers and change the whole landscape; take the heat out of the economy. The other thing, of course they need to do (and they all know they need to do this); even Dominic Perrottet said this when he was Treasurer… You’ve got to stop the negative gearing.

Sue  29:02

It doesn’t really make sense, does it?

Jimmy  29:04

You can grandfather it; you can say “anybody who’s negatively gearing at the moment, you can keep it, but the next time you buy an investment property, you’re on your own.” That would take a lot of heat out of the market.

Sue  29:16

That’s right. I talked to a US investment expert the other day and he was saying that he can’t believe that Australia still has negative gearing. It’s kind of rewarding people for making poor choices about investment properties, because you choose an investment property and think “okay, this is not going to make any money, because the mortgage repayments are going to be more than the rent that I’m going to receive, but it’s fine, because the difference will be made up by negative gearing.” He says that’s crazy, that you’re rewarding people, for making poor decisions. You should be rewarding people for making good decisions.

Jimmy  29:49

The trouble is that it’s such a political thing and because the Liberal government has weaponized the whole idea of ending negative gearing (and various other tax benefits), the Labor Party is now terrified to even mention the words. Progress can never be made, because the politicians have tied their own hands behind their backs. I guess their constituency watches the property prices go up and up and up and as we were just saying the other day, how people increase their personal wealth in this country, is to invest in property.

Sue  30:26

That’s why baby boomers are pretty wealthy at the moment, because they’ve all made their money on property.

Jimmy  30:31

And that’s why their children and grandchildren can’t afford to buy into two houses.

Sue  30:37

It’s great that we’re getting more build-to-rent product, obviously, because, you know, these places can be really nice, with great amenities, and make renting a really affordable and a great lifestyle choice, but at the same time, as you say, you’re not creating wealth, by renting.

Jimmy  30:54

Also, when the government is consistently saying that if you don’t own property, then you’ve somehow failed; you’re not really a fully contributing member of society (which is kind of bizarre and discriminatory)… I think there are people who would rather put their money into investing in companies and new ideas and things like that.  But this constant message of ‘you’ve got to own property, and it’s got to be a house; apartments don’t really count…’ Now, before we go, next week, we are hoping to be talking to the Building Commissioner, David Chandler, who is now switching his focus to older apartment buildings. He’s done a great job with buildings that are being built now and forcing developers to raise their standards. Now, he’s looking at the older housing stock and apartments, and seeing what needs to be done and how it can be done.

Sue  31:18

Or, their own ideas.

Jimmy  31:32

Wow, he’s a glutton for punishment, isn’t he?!  He sure is! Hopefully, we’ll be talking to David next week. In the meantime, Sue, thanks for coming along and being a huge part of this, as you are every week. Thank you all for listening. We’ll talk to you again soon. Thanks for listening to the Flat Chat Wrap podcast. You’ll find links to the stories and other references on our website flat chat.com.au. And, if you haven’t already done so, you can subscribe to this podcast completely free on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favourite pod-catcher. Just search for Flat Chat Wrap with a ‘W,’ click on subscribe, and you’ll get this podcast every week without even trying. Thanks again. Talk to you again next week.

Flat Chat Strata Forum Current Page

  • This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 months ago by .
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Flat Chat Strata Forum Current Page

Flat Chat Strata Forum Current Page

scroll to top