If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Header Ad Module
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Warrant of Fitness for rentals (including details)
An Auckland woman is rallying banks around the country to provide interest-free mortgages to Muslims looking to buy their first home.
Sara Jawadi said because interest was forbidden in Islam, thousands of Kiwi Muslims were having to choose between their religion and economic stability.
The 28-year-old moved to New Zealand 11 years ago, and now lives in Manukau with her husband and two young children.
I'm sure you're all far too financially savvy to fall for that racist-bait headline, but just in case, it's worth pointing out that Sara Jawadi is not asking for Muslims to be able to borrow money for free. She is asking for banks to look at lending systems which have other ways of recouping their business costs from the customer. Such loans are widely used overseas. The amount of money the borrower ends up paying the bank is just the same as if they were paying interest, it's just managed in a different way so that it doesn't count as "interest", and is thus acceptable under Sharia law. And yes, of course, any such lending option would also be available to people with any other religious or ethical belief (or disbelief), it's just more likely to be taken up by Muslims.
Partisan recommendations or points of view from researchers...
How exactly are we "partisan"? As mentioned, I'm likely to become involved in the WoF work. Please tell me exactly what benefit there will be for me personally, or my friends or family, if I am recommending a WoF? I'm not a landlord currently, though I have been in the past, and could be again in future. I'm not a tenant, though I have been in the past, and I have friends and family who are tenants. I also have friends and family who are landlords. And I have plenty of other options for work, because I'm good at what I do, so recommending the WoF won't make the difference between me being paid or not.
So how exactly am I partisan?
On the other hand, the vast majority of the commenters in this thread are, (naturally for a Property Investment forum) landlords. A WoF will mean an extra hurdle for you to jump through. I'd call landlords "interested parties", with every right to an opinion, but I think you're confused about who's "partisan" in the matter.
On the other matter (whether tenants can put in heat pumps or insulation if the landlord says no) - let me get this straight: are you saying it's quite acceptable for tenants to make alterations to the properties they live in without their landlord's permission?
I'm sure you're all far too financially savvy to fall for that racist-bait headline, but just in case, it's worth pointing out that Sara Jawadi is not asking for Muslims to be able to borrow money for free. She is asking for banks to look at lending systems which have other ways of recouping their business costs from the customer.
What do you say to a white European from NZ going to a dominantly Muslim
country and asking banks there to rally around and charge interest on a home
loan, because that suits their beliefs. How do you think that would be greeted?
What post are you referring to, below? I answered earlier about certain items.
On the Forums somewhere are posts about LLs who have agreed to some
suggestion from a tenants to install (say) heat pumps, only to find that the
tenant gets very dark of countenance when the LL raises the matter of an
increased rental rate to cover paying back the heat pump cost/investment.
Many tenants seem to want sow's ear rental rates for silk purse properties.
It's a statement of the fact that if a tenant asks a landlord to put in insulation, or put a light and anti-slip treads
in so they don't fall down the back steps at night, and the landlord says "No", the tenant cannot go ahead and
do it anyway.
Aside from fit-for-purpose and proper installation matters, I very much doubt if any LL would demur if a tenant
said that they'd like to install anti-slip treads on a set of stairs or steps.
And I'm not speculating. I've had tenants do analogous things. Some recent examples:
* Can I install a cat flap in the main door?
* Can I have a two-way light switch in the outside shed?
* Can I put some different light fittings in?
In all cases, I agreed. They said they'd "leave them behind" when they left, but whether
or not that happens, I'll deal with it at the time. That's happened in the past and it's cost
me to restore things to original, because the next tenant did not want whatever-it-was.
But I accept that will sometimes happen.
On the other matter (whether tenants can put in heat pumps or insulation if the landlord says no) -
let me get this straight: are you saying it's quite acceptable for tenants to make alterations to the
properties they live in without their landlord's permission?
You may not be referring to something I've posted, but such would be
contrary to the provisions of the RTA. Are you suggesting that tenants
should break the law?
As far as I can see the WoF is dead with this government.
Who is funding your work if this govt intends ignoring it?
Labour will be back in before too long.
And the socialists can once again rejoice in their ability to dictate to us all again.
But it's OK, every time Labour gets in, there's a big spend up, lots of inflation and property prices normally go through the roof. So those of us holding property just stand back and watch with glee.
with obscenity... the health of nz'ers is declining
*giggles*
I'm not aware of STD rates going up particularly though.
(Sorry, I know that was a typo and you meant obesity, but I couldn't resist).
Perry, no, I'm not suggesting for a second that tenants should break the law. But that's why I say that ultimately, tenants can't control whether the property they are in gets insulation or ventilation or a heat pump installed. They can offer the landlord higher rent (which I agree they may not want to do). But even if they did offer more rent, if the landlord, for whatever reason, says "Yeah, nah", then that's that.
Otherwise, I'd like to make clear that while I support the WoF from the point of view of health outcomes, my support is for now theoretical. Perhaps I support it more strongly because it's clear that for now there's little chance of it actually happening. In reality, I certainly agree that there are questions that remain to be answered about what the financial/economic effects of such a system would be. It's easy for people on any side of the political spectrum to argue one way or the other about how it will or won't make a difference to rental affordability, or (via profitability for landlords) availability, and the costs and benefits and who would or should bear them, but personally I'd like to see empirical evidence before it's introduced wholesale, because of the whole risk of unintended consequences and so forth.
Pragmatism is sometimes painful. The do-gooders usually
want the pain to be experienced by someone else.
Spare a thought . . .
A pair come to me in response to an advert for a workshop
available for lease: a sheet steel shed with a shower, toilet
and a washtub: the usual things in a workshop. Aside from
that, it's just a big empty cube.
Now I get a sad tale that the pair can't find or can't afford
a 'proper' place to live in and did I mind if they lived in it?
Seasonal pressures in HB can have people dossing down
in the corner of fruit pack houses, so their tale may well
be true. No way in the world the shed would get a rental
WoF! What should I do? Agree? Turn them away?
What would I do? Buggared if I know. Right now, if noone wanted it for a workshop, and if zoning didn't prohibit it, sigh, check out their references and TT history, see if there's any way (without asking) that I can figure out if they've got children (because I wouldn't let children live in it even if their parents would), and let them rent it.
If the WoF were law? Say sorry, not allowed.
Mind you, as I think we've discussed on here before, my current (untested, not fixed, and waxes and wanes) personal preference would be for the WoF to be a requirement for accommodation supplement rather than for all tenancies. I'm not sure what that would mean for your sad pair. But I agree that there are all sorts of situations where for different reasons people end up renting places that would and could never meet a WoF; I'm not sure that all of those arrangements should be prevented; but I've yet to hear any good suggestions for how to deal with them.
WOF would not be in Govts interest at present and definitely not until they have spent money on maintaining the existing HNZ stock, no matter which Govt is in power.
Maintenance has been ignored and basic things like foundation repairs to existing properties needs to be done asap and certainly before anything relative to a WOF.
..... my current (untested, not fixed, and waxes and wanes) personal preference would be for the WoF to be a requirement for accommodation supplement rather than for all tenancies.......
Sounds fine at first blush - certainly there is merit in the government not subsidising rent for poor quality properties. Suggest think it through though, and consider:
- set up costs much the same for some as for all, plus would need data matching with WINZ AS records.
- ongoing fixed costs would have to be shared among a smaller pool of owners.
- rents will increase for those places needing a WoF.
- AS is paid to a lot of home owners, not just tenants.
- timing is tricky as landlords won't know if they need a WoF until they are ready to make an offer to a prospective tenant, leading to delay and cost for WoF, remediation, loss of rent. While the hopeful tenant waits. And finds somewhere else in the meantime. So the landlord has lost time and money for what?
- because of delays and costs, landlords will upfront want to know which applicants will apply for the AS, which BTW they may or may not get. The LL's decision making processes will be pretty obvious.
- there would have to be remedies for landlords whose tenants apply for the AS once in residence. Otherwise there will be termination notices issued.
- a WoF process as proposed would be impossible if it continues to be a pass / fail. Apart from failing on minor points, plenty of good properties would fail on expensive checks such as insulation (in the winterless north even?), fixed heating, ventilation system, handrails everywhere. Some landlord's would bring up to WoF standard but many would just flag tenants who need the AS.
Just a few things off the top of my head.
None of our tenants (properties owned and managed) get the AS. Well, so I assume as all have decent incomes and the only one that has children doesn't qualify (that one is family so I know their circumstances). Not a huge sample but not a single one of these properties would pass the WoF as proposed. The tenants seem pretty happy though.
Comment