The Reserve Bank’s ban on card surcharges took effect on 1 October. For renters paying by credit card, the cost has not gone away. It has changed name.
At least 1.2 million rent payments move through online rent-tech platforms every month. Since the ban started, several of those platforms have introduced service fees and paid memberships that recover the same money a surcharge used to. For tenants, the credit card surcharge ban rent debate is now less about whether a fee exists and more about what it is called.
The surcharge returns under new labels
The pattern is consistent across platforms, though the details differ.
One platform has stopped accepting cards directly and routes payments through a sister service that charges 1.95%. That is the same rate the old surcharge carried. Its founder argues agencies would otherwise push the cost onto landlords, and says neither business profits from the arrangement. He also warns losses are coming unless Visa and Mastercard lower their fees.
Another approach is the membership model. A default tier carries card fees. A “platinum” tier priced at 1.95% of monthly rent waives them. Another platform has adopted memberships too. A bank-owned payments provider took the opposite route and dropped cards entirely, noting they made up only about 2% of its payments.
Key numbers
- 1.2 million: rent payments a month through these platforms
- 1.95%: the fee on the redirected card route and the top membership tier
- 1.99% and $54.47: the fee, and its one-month cost, one tenant had removed
- 2%: card share of one provider’s payments before it dropped them
Why a rebrand may not survive scrutiny
A Deakin finance academic has said that relabelling a surcharge as a membership may breach the ban. That is a reasonable reading of the policy’s intent: the point was to stop card costs being passed to the payer at the point of payment. A fee that tracks rent at the same percentage and disappears only if you pay up looks very much like the thing the rules targeted.
Tenants also have more room to push back than many assume. Optional charges can be questioned or declined. One build-to-rent tenant in Parkville had a 1.99% fee removed after complaining to Consumer Affairs Victoria. NSW Fair Trading has invited complaints. Whether regulators act on a pattern is the open question.
Victoria adds a second constraint
Victoria is the sharpest test. Fees for tenants are already barred for rent-tech firms, and the same restriction extends to agents and rental providers later this month. A paid membership that sits between the tenant and a free way to pay is exactly the type of arrangement that will draw attention there.
One Melbourne tenant described the setup as unethical. That is an opinion, not a legal finding, but it shows how the memberships are landing with the people being asked to buy them.
Who actually bears the cost
The economics are simple. Card networks charge merchants. Someone has to absorb that cost, and the candidates are the platform, the agent, the landlord or the tenant.
The platform founder’s argument is that if tenants are not charged, agencies will lift costs for landlords. That is plausible, though it is an argument, not evidence. For landlords already weighing tax settings and holding costs, any extra charge adds to the case for leaving the market, a risk we covered in how an investor pullback can hurt renters. It also fits the broader squeeze on supply discussed in Victoria’s landlord licensing proposal.
For tenants, the amounts are small per month but not trivial. A fee of 1.95% on rent adds up, and it lands on households already stretched by rent. It is a minor line in the cost of renting, yet it is the kind of friction that erodes trust in the system.
What this says about the ban itself
The lesson is not that the ban failed. It is that banning the visible charge does not change the underlying cost. Card fees still exist. The pressure now sits on how platforms recover them, and on whether regulators accept new labels as compliant. Costs of this kind tend to find a home somewhere in the chain, as the build side of property also shows with rising materials and compliance costs.
For tenants, the practical path is straightforward. Check whether a free payment method, such as direct debit or bank transfer, is available. Read any membership offer as a fee, not a perk. If an optional charge appears on a statement, question it in writing, and lodge a complaint with your state’s consumer regulator if the answer is unsatisfactory.
If you want the weekly signal, subscribe to the Australian Property Review newsletter.
General info, not financial advice.
