Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Life as a Landlord
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
The family, however, quite like living in that house. So they buy it from the landlord. Having bought the house, it is no longer a rental. It is therefore no longer subject to the compulsory warrant of fitness test. So they can now continue to live in it. The house, with absolutely no remedial work having been done, is somehow no longer a health risk or a safety hazard - just because the ownership has changed.
Any statistics on how much owner occupiers spend on home improvements per year, versus how much landlords spend ?Last edited by speights boy; 01-03-2015, 07:00 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by speights boy View PostThe new owner occupier is now able to improve their own property . . .
your speculation on implementation?
Rental property warrant of fitness a costly mistake
Comment
-
Originally posted by Perry View Postis now able to, but how many will?
However the Landlord wasn't going to do the improvements, so even if they didn't they now are home owners.
I think it is a reasonable judgement to make that some will.
They can see their money going into improving their own asset.
Do you have statistics to back
your speculation on implementationLast edited by speights boy; 01-03-2015, 08:54 PM.
Comment
-
Given some of the bureaucratically asinine requirements, then,
without the context of what the items might be, what a new
owner might do (if they can afford to buy!) is hopeless spec-
ulation and can be no more. From the report quoted above . . .
The WOF checklist, health, and 94 percent failure rate
A checklist used in a warrant of fitness trial involving 144 rentals across Christchurch, Auckland,
Tauranga, Wellington and Dunedin early in 2014 had little to do with the health concerns of the
Children’s Commissioner. This trial involved councils, the Accident Compensation Corporation,
the New Zealand Green Building Council, and the University of Otago. It aimed to test whether
draft WOF checklists and methodologies were practical for landlords, assessors and tenants.
About 94 per cent of the 144 houses inspected did not pass at least one of the 31 checklist
items, but the majority failed on only a handful. The trial found 36 per cent would pass all of the
draft WOF criteria with "just a few minor and inexpensive fixes", such as installing smoke
alarms or adjusting hot-water temperatures. Here is the checklist:
House age
Approximate size
Storeys
Number of bedrooms
Kitchen and laundry
Wall and ceiling linings, and floor intact
Surfaces clear of mould
Functioning stove and oven
Effective ventilation to the outside
Adequate food preparation and storage
Working artificial lighting
Potable water supply
Hot water temperature at tap (55°C ±5°C)
Waste water drainage with sound connection
Visibly safe power outlets and light switches
Secure storage (1.2-metres high or child-safe lock)
Bathroom and toilet
Wall, ceiling linings, and floor intact
Surfaces clear of mould
Operational toilet
Sewage connection functional
Functioning bath or shower
Effective ventilation to the outside
Waste water drain connected
Working artificial lighting
Visibly safe power outlets and light switches
Living areas
Wall and ceiling linings, and floor intact
Surfaces clear of mould
Working artificial lighting:
- Living, lounge, dining
- Hallway
Stairs (switch at each end)
Other
Visibly safe power outlets and light switches
Heating, fixed, effective and safe
Opening window (each area) with secure latch
Window security stays (where required)
Curtains/drapes present
Bedrooms
Opening window, with latch
Window stays (if required)
Wall/ceiling linings intact
Surfaces clear of mould
Working artificial light
Safe power & light switches
Smoke alarm within 3 m
Curtains/drapes present
Entrance
Address clearly labelled and identifiable
Securely locking door(s)
Working light
Ceiling
Insulation to requirements (120 mm)
No gaps, tucks, or folds
No dampness in insulation
Clearance from lights, ducts and roof
Thermoplastic insulated cabling
Under floor
Insulation to requirements - Foil / Bulk
Dry underfloor
Ground vapour barrier
No ponding
General
Envelope in reasonable repair and weather tight
No cracks, holes in roof
No cracks, holes in external cladding
No cracks, holes or missing panes in windows
Spouting and stormwater functioning and not leaking
Two effective methods of egress
Structurally sound
Glass doors include visibility strips
Handrails and balustrades to code
Non-potable water labelled
Paths, decks and surfaces non-slippery/free from moss
Of the 63 checklist items on this list, only five items were concerns expressed by the Children’s
Commissioner. The requirements for glass doors to include visibility strips, handrails and
balustrades to code, with paths, decks and surfaces non-slippery/free from moss implies a push
by the Accident Compensation Corporation to have PIs to take steps to protect tenants from
their own carelessness.
There would be many owner-occupied houses that are in a poor condition, often either because the age of the house means that it could not be made to comply with current standards or because the owner-occupiers simply cannot afford to upgrade the place. However, this option is never proposed, as those who advocate for more regulation on rental housing certainly would not want the inspectors turning up at their own front door.
If they're not prepared to do that, well, we can guess that, like all misguided do-gooders, that do as I say
not as I do is the mantra they follow.
Comment
-
Some items on the above checklist have, I believe, since been quietly removed. Curtains is one of these.
There are various reports on the proposed WoF, many of which refer to research particularly on health issues. This is not surprising since the initiative is (was) being driven by Otago medical school in Wellington, strongly suspected to be generally left leaning. Not much research that I am aware of relating to the impact of a WoF on rents and availability of rentals. The idea was that between tenants the inspection is carried out and if there is no tick the place cannot be rented out, potentially increasing the vacancy periods sometimes very significantly. Good luck with that guys.
BRANZ did a survey on housing condition by tenure in 2010.
Comment
-
Originally posted by artemis View PostThe idea was that between tenants the inspection is carried out and if there is no tick the place cannot be rented out, potentially increasing the vacancy periods sometimes very significantly. Good luck with that guys.
Comment
-
As much as I like to sing the praises of our unfettered market in Auckland I do have to admit our rents are getting up there. I mean I am not complaining but I do wonder who keeps affording them.
When a 2 bed is up over $500 a week that's a lot of money just to stay dry.
Mind you assuming we follow OZ to some degree. The same property in say Sydney would be $800 to $900 AUD so maybe we are not even half way?
Comment
-
Originally posted by PC View PostNope - just higher rents for Auckland.
However according to Flyer's scenario some landlords will simply bug out and sell.
More supply for owner occupiers.Last edited by speights boy; 02-03-2015, 06:20 PM.
Comment
-
During my childhood my older sister became involved with the local children’s theatre. In the year they staged a production of the classic The Wizard of Oz, I was press-ganged into the show with a minor part playing one of the soldiers guarding the Emerald City.
While my most treasured memory of this production is the sudden dramatic disappearance of Dorothy in mid-speech one night after she unwisely stepped on an accidentally unbolted stage trapdoor, as a child I entirely missed the central message of the play – the unmasking of the seeming powerful wizard, who turns out to be just an ordinary fellow who arrived in the city by mistake. While Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion believe that the great and powerful Wizard of Oz can solve their troubles, he is actually quite powerless and can offer only symbolic help.
Power comes in many forms, both real and illusionary. There is physical power, as personified in a nation that can field vast well-equipped armies and in individuals who have above average physical strength. There is financial power, where some people can simply buy their way in to and out of whatever they want. Finally, there is political power, where someone occupies a position where they can control and direct an organization into carrying out the tasks that they want done.
Power can be both addictive to those who are able to wield it and seductive to others. Women are said to find powerful men highly attractive, and certainly both the Hells Angels motorcycle gang and the US President seldom seem to lack willing and compliant female company.
Within a tenancy situation it is usually assumed that the landlord is in a powerful position and the tenant is subservient. Certainly, from the tenant’s point of view, the landlord is able to control many of his actions. Usually the tenant is unable to paint the rooms, change the floor coverings, or alter the garden layout without getting permission from the landlord. The tenant often feels resentful that he is under the thumb of the landlord and paying a sizeable rent each week to someone who appears to be living an affluent and idle life. The Residential Tenancy Act quite openly seeks to remedy the perceived power imbalance by imposing greater penalties and restrictions and longer time requirements on the landlord than it does on the tenant.
However, the perception from the landlords side is quite different. He has handed over access and control of an asset worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone he has only just met and, legally, can only request a bond of usually less than half of one percent of that assets’ value as security. The tenant, should he fall behind on rent payments, cannot be charged any monetary penalty whereas the landlord, should he fail to make his mortgage payments on time, will certainly be charged a hefty penalty by the mortgage holder. He is also well aware that, in practical terms, regardless of the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the tenant can vacate the property whenever they choose leaving the place damaged and full of rubbish knowing that the landlord will receive minimal help from the justice system in enforcing any resultant tribunal orders.
Thus in reality the landlord is not the powerful, almost omnipotent, figure of popular belief. The ability of the landlord to control his property has been sharply reduced by legislation and by the interpretation that public servants have placed on various laws and bylaws based on a blind assumption of excessive landlord power. Even the term ‘Landlord’, which dates back to medieval days when the Lord of the Manor was undisputed master of all he surveyed and the tenants and serfs of his domain were little better than slaves, is now misleading. Although many centuries have now passed and society has vastly changed since those bad old days, many members of the public, the media, and our political masters still have not incorporated these changes into their perception of reality.
Landlords are generally held to be wealthy. Yet in the Auckland market it often costs much less to rent a property than it would to own it. Therefore we have economist Shamubeel Eaqub and other such people on above-average incomes promote the idea that it makes more financial sense to rent than to buy. This may well be true. By renting not buying they would reduce their costs and increase their disposable income and thus would presumably enhance their own enjoyment of life. However, somebody has to own the property that they rent, and this owner will be paying the full costs of ownership. Should they be on the same salary as their tenant they will be subsidizing their tenants living costs and actually have less disposable income than their own tenant. Somebody, somewhere, has to pick up the tab.
Residential tenants and their fellow-travellers have a highly visible adversary – the evil landlord, whereas people who own their own homes do not. Virtually all studies on rental housing problems focus on the plight of the tenants. All tenants are affected by changes and perceived deficiencies in tenancy laws, whereas changes in mortgage rates and availability affect only those home owners who have to renew mortgages at that particular time, a small fraction of the total. Thus it is much easier to organize tenant protests and create sympathy for tenancy problems.
With this undisputed moral high ground, tenants and pro-tenants groups have been able to abuse landlords with apparent impunity. The political world continues to justify this process on the grounds of helping the poor powerless tenants. Sure, we all believe that, in a modern society, poor people should have reasonable access to housing. However we also believe that the poor should not starve but we do not demonize and abuse Countdown and Pak’n’Save. There must be some way that we could provide rental housing to the less fortunate members of our society without violating the rights of another group within our society, residential landlords.Last edited by flyernzl; 01-04-2015, 08:05 PM.
Comment
-
I wish the Herald would publish stuff like this instead of their usual landlord-bashing sensationalism.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by flyernzl View PostThere must be some way that we could provide rental housing to the less fortunate members of our society without violating the rights of another group within our society, residential landlords.
Comment
Comment