Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'It's not fair' - the landlady hits back

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wayne
    replied
    Having read all this thread many of the comments try to establish a 'worth' to a particular endeavour ie creating software has more worth than providing rental accomodation. Very subjective, both are business endeavours in their own right. As mentioned, when the software developer sells his company for lots of money (think trademe) he won't pay tax on the 'gain'. As to the worth of endeavours each person will have an opinion on the 'value' of a business to society.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne
    replied
    Originally posted by One View Post
    Wouldn't the insurance payment end up as income in your accounts, in effect? I suspect you'd actually end up paying tax on the payment (ouch!).

    If the landlord's accounts quietly didn't mention the insurance payment, then that does sound illegal to me.
    you would pay tax if you got more in compensation from the Insurance than you paid in the repair otherwise you wouldn't. Remember it is all sorted out at the end of the year, not PAYE.

    Leave a comment:


  • egan123
    replied
    Essence, I think most people just don't realise whats involved in running a property portfolio. When I chase a debt in my industry, I don't have to go through the hoops that LLs do with Tenancy Services, I can elect to pass it to a collector, or small claims or even civil proceedings. I don't first have to go through a regulatory body that tends towards the defendant. So when I read that a LL was chasing a $2k debt it made me realise the difference, hence my appology. Good luck and don't walk away like I tend to from a large invoice that seems non recoverable.
    No business should have to cost in, debt recovery.

    Leave a comment:


  • essence
    replied
    Thank you egan123

    All us LL's are trying to do is get a fair deal from the Government and understanding from Joe Public, that what we do is a business.

    And as a business, we want the same rules that apply to any other business applied to ours. Nothing more, nothing less.

    It's kinda hard when we have people like Mary Holm and Bernard Hickey, espousing views that are so totally the opposite from reality it's not funny.

    When someone like the "Landlady" comments, who words are misconstrued or twisted, so that it makes a better read.

    Sometimes, it's not worth the fight. It's easier to shut up and continue being a LL. When this gets too onerous, LL's leave the market - and everyone loses.

    Leave a comment:


  • egan123
    replied
    I owe LLs an apology, I've just being reading a post about a LL chasing an ex tenant for rent arrears $2k. I have completely forgotten that you guys wind up carrying DEBT from errant clients just like I do in construction. For you people, getting paid is no less a business loss as it is for me. I think it is a point lost on the public who see LL's as tax dodging, money hungry property owners. I've only been a member of this forum for a short time, and have, on this very thread made some comments about the original thread. I unreservedly take back my comments and offer a full apology to LLs. In future, I will be making an extra effort to engage brain, before typing. I truly believe the public forget that there's more to running a property portfolio than they realise.
    Last edited by Perry; 28-03-2010, 09:15 AM. Reason: fixed typo

    Leave a comment:


  • spurner
    replied
    I had a case where a tenant smashed a window, and the police were involved - he was charged with willful damage, they asked me for receipts and were to seek reparation from the court (criminal). He had to move out, but I can't recall where the order came from. I never did see any money or order though. And he was probably beating his gf up which was why the police were more interested than usual. I am sure it can be done, but the police just aren't that interested.

    Originally posted by SuperDad View Post
    Really?

    Can you cite an actual case, on the public record, where this has been done?

    This would be of huge interest to the property investing community.

    Paul.

    Leave a comment:


  • CJ
    replied
    Originally posted by One View Post
    Wouldn't the insurance payment end up as income in your accounts, in effect? I suspect you'd actually end up paying tax on the payment (ouch!).

    If the landlord's accounts quietly didn't mention the insurance payment, then that does sound illegal to me.
    A bit late to the part but I agree.

    The insurance proceeds are income, the repairs maintenance so the net effect is an expense to the extent of the insurance excess.

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperDad
    replied
    Originally posted by egan123 View Post
    drelly, if a tennant wilfully smashes a wall in your rental property, you can call the cops, and get rid of them...
    Really?

    Can you cite an actual case, on the public record, where this has been done?

    This would be of huge interest to the property investing community.

    Paul.

    Leave a comment:


  • One
    replied
    Wouldn't the insurance payment end up as income in your accounts, in effect? I suspect you'd actually end up paying tax on the payment (ouch!).

    If the landlord's accounts quietly didn't mention the insurance payment, then that does sound illegal to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • drelly
    replied
    Originally posted by egan123
    If you then slide it through as a maintenance claim on your tax return, that is double dipping, and its against the law...
    The insurance would be in the name of the company and therefore the claim would go through the accounts. Nothing illegal there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Davo36
    replied
    Originally posted by Viking View Post
    Davo36, no, with the fellow in the article that knows about software but it seems stuff all about property and finance. The fact that he had to use his house as collateral should tell the man its worth more to the bank than his software.
    He hasn't stopped to think what will happen to his loan should the value of his collateral fall and the bank want some money back. DUH, some people just should not be let out to play.
    Right, yes I agree with all of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • essence
    replied
    Hi egan

    Taking the example you have given, there is usually an insurance excess on every claim. This excess tends (but not always) to be higher on LL policies.

    What the LL MAY have done is claimed the insurance and then claimed the excess via maintenance. That is not recovering the loss twice, that is getting full recompense for costs incurred.

    Whether the LL has made any repairs or done any maintenance between tenancies is irrelevant to the next tenant. They either take the tenancy or not, at whatever price that the LL sets. That is a case of a willing offer made and a willing acceptance given.

    Just another way of looking at the situation and a guess, and I could be totally wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • egan123
    replied
    By the way, to empty water in your ceiling, all you do is get a rubbish bin, then drill a hole, about 10mm should do, and let it stream into the bin, "water pressure" just like a fan drain. Then you can fill a small hole. Easy Peasy.

    Leave a comment:


  • egan123
    replied
    drelly, if a tennant wilfully smashes a wall in your rental property, you can call the cops, and get rid of them, then you make a claim against your insurance to cover the repairs. If you then slide it through as a maintenance claim on your tax return, that is double dipping, and its against the law, you are recovering the loss twice. OK if you then increase the rent for the next tennant, well thats up to the tennant whether they accept the rental price. Can you not see that, you seriously think thats ok, well I think the IRD would agree with my assertions, I could be wrong, so to find out, I'll ask them next week and post there response.

    Leave a comment:


  • Viking
    replied
    Davo36, no, with the fellow in the article that knows about software but it seems stuff all about property and finance. The fact that he had to use his house as collateral should tell the man its worth more to the bank than his software.
    He hasn't stopped to think what will happen to his loan should the value of his collateral fall and the bank want some money back. DUH, some people just should not be let out to play.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X