I don't dispute what SNM says, but personally, I think the additional expense for the comfort of having a solicitor "in the loop" is well worthwhile. Of course, this is only if your solicitor is a high quality property lawyer; not if they're just the local solicitor who does a bit of everything. We're talking a difference of < 0.1% of the transaction size.

If everything is straightforward, yes, a conveyancer will be fine. But the problem is that one never knows beforehand which purchases will be straightforward and which will be challenging! I've seen people find themselves in a difficult transaction, and trying to find a lawyer at that time is unnecessarily stressful. I also think that using a conveyancer sends a message to the other party that you're "penny-wise and pound-foolish"; I know that I've had several transactions of this kind which got difficult, and I believe I got the better outcome in every case, because of having a solicitor on my side.

Firstly, can you get a better PM, who is more in-tune with resi property management?

Can you get somebody – maybe even a fellow forum member – to go and check the place out and let you know how things are looking?

MB = mortgage broker

And welcome to Australia

I'm suspecting you're from the USA; unfortunately this kind of arrangement isn't possible in Australia. Actually, not in exactly the way that it's done in the USA, but you may be able to buy via a wrap or lease option.

Make an appointment with, or email, a good mortgage broker. I'd seek one via the means I PM'd you about. Just to clarify, "low doc" refers to a type of loan product that would be in your name, not just to all opportunities that don't require much documentation. As mentioned, buying via a wrap or lease option could be a good option for you.

I'd post on the forums I told you about, saying you want to buy via a wrap or lease option – there's bound to be some forum member who's wanting to provide a wrap or lease option who may be able to help you.

They can copyright their CAD file, but they don't own the design. So you don't own their digital CAD file, or any print-outs that they produce from that file, but the original hand-drawn designs still belong to you (or the draftsman, depending on your arrangement with him). Copyright is not a blanket thing that covers every aspect of the document; it's much more complex than that. This fact sheet may help you:

http://www.copyright.org.au/g017.pdf

I'm having trouble making clear the distinction between information, and "the entire application". Let's see if some examples (even if imperfect) give the idea.

To check their credit, your agent may need their TFN, DOB, maiden name, etc. The agent uses this info to ring the credit checkers, confirm they have the right person, then get the credit check info back. You're entitled to know the results of the credit check, but there's no need for you to know their DOB or TFN yourself.

They have former addresses and agents listed so that your agent can ring up and check what they were like as tenants. You're entitled to know anything relevant that the agent finds out about that tenancy – eg if they paid on time, if they damaged anything, etc – but you don't need to know the street address of their last residence.

And yes, I'm talking about where you go through an agent; it is different if you're managing privately, as outlined. Once you involve an agent, that agent has a legal obligation to only give you the information that you need, which as illustrated, is a subset of the entire application.

Agree with JL re asking the tenants if they want a/c and heating, and if they can pay more for it.

I find that you can make your tenants happy even with gestures that cost nothing. For example, just keeping them informed! If they ask for a repair, and it's going to take more than a day or two, I drop them an email apologising for the inconvenience and briefly explaining why. I keep the tone very friendly and tell them I hope that they're enjoying living there. I also tell them of any planned improvements, and ask if they have any feedback (eg colour preferences, or whether there are other things they'd like attended to first).

I've found that tenants are very appreciative of information, and when they see that you are responsive and do care that they enjoy living there, you're no longer an "anonymous landlord" and they're much less likely to get stroppy about anything. If things go wrong in future, they'll assume it's a communication breakdown or something beyond your control, rather than bombarding the real estate agent with complaints and assuming that you're just blowing them off.

If it's true, I tell them that I intend to own the property for a very long time as an investment, and that I hope they'll be my tenants for as long as I own the property. For many tenants, the uncertainty of the property possibly being "sold from underneath them" at any moment is a major source of stress, so if you can reassure them on this front, then do so. It doesn't bind you if circumstances change, of course.

Offer at least some deposit, even $100. Isn't your deposit your "consideration" for entering into the contract, and without offering any consideration, you can't bind the vendor if they, for example, get a better offer? Not sure – what do the legal eagles say?

Good morning. Don't be embarrassed – it's difficult to draw the line between making the explanation detailed enough, but not overwhelming you! So when you want more, ask away.

The first issue is protecting yourself from litigation, divorce etc – as you say, "asset protection", and is a reason you don't want to be cross-collateralised.

If you use equity from one property as a "deposit" on the purchase of another, the two properties are said to be "cross-collateralised". Let's say that you're purchasing an IP, in a Trust for asset protection, but you use equity from your PPR as the deposit. Something goes wrong at that IP – tenant trips on ripped carpet and severely injures themselves, for example – they sue, and get a big judgement. The Trust's assets – the IP – are liquidated. Because the assets of the IP include equity in your PPR, your PPR will also be liquidated, so that the litigant can access that portion of the PPR that were used to buy the IP. You will get the remaining portion of your PPR in cash, if that's any comfort, but you've lost your PPR.

There may be an opportunity to refinance your PPR and pay out that equity in cash, but whether you could do this in this situation is not something you want to gamble on. Better instead to refinance your PPR NOW, take the cash, and apply it to the IP investment.

The other issue is limiting the lenders' access to your portfolio. There is a lovely little clause in every lender's mortgage contracts that's referred to as the "all monies" clause. What it says is that any money (or other assets that the lender has a claim on, such as properties over which they hold a mortgage) can be used to satisfy any debt with that institution.

So let's say that you have all your finances with one bank. You have a PPR mortgage, an IP mortgage, and a bunch of cash deposits. Let's say that your IP goes bad – perhaps it's destroyed and for some reason it's not covered by your insurance because you didn't have the right policy (could write a book on that alone). The bank forecloses, and they don't get enough money from selling the IP to cover your debt. So then they take all the cash deposits, and they still don't have enough. So they sell your PPR, too. Note that structures (Trusts etc) that may protect you against external parties such as litigants etc as outlined above, generally won't protect you from your lender, as they usually require "personal guarantees" for all mortgages, meaning that your personal assets can be used to satisfy the Trust's debts.

If you instead had cash deposits with bank 1, PPR mortgage with bank 2, and IP mortgage with bank 3, it makes it a little more difficult for the lender to get everything. Admittedly, not impossible, just more difficult, because it changes the costs required to liquidate you. If everything is with one bank, it's very simple for them to liquidate everything. If they have to pursue multiple lenders, there are costs involved with the process required to seize assets from each other lender. If your portfolio is spread thinly enough, it may be uneconomical for them to get at the assets you have with other lenders. For example, if you have a $10K cash deposit with the same lender as has foreclosed, they'll take that with very little process required; if you have $10K with another lender, it may cost them near that much to do all the paperwork etc to get it, and the lender may decide not to bother.

Hope that helps and isn't too overwhelming. And don't take it as gospel – I'm just an amateur who's tried to educate herself, and this is what I've deduced.

Why do you want to see the application itself? I usually have the PM ring me and give me a few salient points eg "They've been employed by Telstra for 3 years and are still employed there, they last rented in Geelong and the PM there says they were great tenants, there'll be 2 adults and 1 dog living in the property, and they want a 6 month lease." What else do you want to know?

I'm wondering now if I'm too trusting. Well, OK, I know I'm trusting – but don't you have to be, to let somebody occupy a multi $00K asset of yours?