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.
Hopefully also tenant WOFs to put a stop to people
who rent perfectly good houses and flats only to trash
them and not pay the rent to retired mum and dad LLs
as well as those still working, earning average incomes.
I have always left places in the same or better condition than when I moved in. Earlier this year I rented a flat from a 'I don't give a stuff' owner and it was an eye opener. Even the owner here (A commercial building) doesn't care that water can leak into the shops next door, which are attached to this building and owned by him.
It should be done as a package of measures with the aim of decreasing property prices, increasing home ownership and bringing 'investment property' into line with other business activities from a financing and tax perspectives.
At times I think I should sell my residential rentals and invest in something like IT. One can depreciate that stuff at 30%. Or perhaps I should buy some fishing quota and a fishing boat and lease it out. The depreciation on that stuff is great. Bill English favours dairy farms. I seem to recall he owns three of them. That is a great tax dodge along with forestry blocks that farmers are keen on. Wonderful tax efficient investments.
No I think the best move would be to sell the houses and buy more commercial to house what ever I can get. How about another liquor store. They seem popular. The Indians love working in them. Brothels are popular as well but they are not good payers and the neighbours hate them.
However I doubt I will do anything like that. I am unusual. I care for my tenants even the poor ones living in "just ok" properties. They do not think they are being taken advantage of. Neither they nor I want to have the Government messing in our lives. Government servants are not good custodians of wealth and good cheer.
So you are not in favour of equitable arrangements, then?
I.e. oblige LLs / rentals to have a fit-for-purpose WoF, but
don't oblige tenants don't have to have a fit-to-rent licence.
I demur. Based on the number and nature of TT applications:
bad tenants are a much bigger issue. Especially given how
heavily the RTA leans in their favour.
DBH runs seminars for LLs, impressing upon them all their
obligations. But the DBH does not run any seminars for
tenants, to impress upon them, all their obligations. Why
do you suppose that is?
So you are not in favour of equitable arrangements, then?
I.e. oblige LLs / rentals to have a fit-for-purpose WoF, but
don't oblige tenants don't have to have a fit-to-rent licence.
No. Who would be the arbiter of good vs. bad tenants? I would think many of the same people who aren't exactly paragons of virtue themselves.
DBH runs seminars for LLs, impressing upon them all their
obligations. But the DBH does not run any seminars for
tenants, to impress upon them, all their obligations. Why
do you suppose that is?
Welcome to the world of commerce. The law is biased towards the customer, especially in the case of B2C transactions. Problem is, property attracts people who believe the rules of commerce do not apply to them. And shockingly in some instances they are correct. Just have a look at bank lending policies for example.
Actually Perry I think its our own fault.
When I first started with rentals ( 18 years ago) I searched around and found some tenancy agreements from different organizations.
What struck me after a few years of doing Quality Systems was that no one spelt out to their tenants exactly what's expected as part of the agreement.
Everyone did and still does assume that tenants actually know what is expected from them. THEY DON'T.
And they are often afraid to ask.
So I hashed an agreement together that I used until I handed over to a property manager.
Two things are interesting. I have yet to see a property manager that uses anything but the State hand outs or similar one page sign here's.
When I did have to go to tenancy with my agreements I always won.
The agreement set out all the usual stuff but then had/has another two pages of landlord and tenants responsibilities. They had to read and sign or no tenancy.
Like a workplace its stupid to assume a worker(tenant) knows the rules of engagement. Today in the workplace it has to be spelt otu as part of their contract and it's my opinion we would all be better served if we did th same with tenancy agreements.
One day when I have nothing to do I may rewrite it.
A bit more than that. I have Cisco networking hardware and Fujitsu Sie.mens servers in my business and they are depreciated at 50% DV..
50% that is outrageous. How do you sleep at night. We all know that it is possible to make some computers last longer than 2 years. By claiming that sort of depreciation it could be argued that there is less tax money left to help poor people. If you did not squander your money on IT play things you could buy houses to provide homes for needy men getting out of Kiamarama sex offenders unit like I do.
What struck me after a few years of doing Quality Systems was that no one spelt out to their tenants exactly what's expected as part of the agreement.
Comiserations. Customers doing dumb things aren't exclusive to property. In my industry there is a minority of clients who should never be allowed near a network connected computer.
50% that is outrageous. How do you sleep at night. We all know that it is possible to make some computers last longer than 2 years. By claiming that sort of depreciation it could be argued that there is less tax money left to help poor people. If you did not squander your money on IT play things you could buy houses to provide homes for needy men getting out of Kiamarama sex offenders unit like I do.
The 50% is the DV (diminishing value) rate. So longer than 2 years.
Except that they are not customers in the usual sense of the word, they are people who contract to rent a physical asset and under the contract they have legal obligations.
Somewhat of a difference.
and that's why you don't understand rental housing and landlords.
So you are not in favour of equitable arrangements, then?
I.e. oblige LLs / rentals to have a fit-for-purpose WoF, but
don't oblige tenants don't have to have a fit-to-rent licence.
No. Who would be the arbiter of good vs. bad tenants? I would think many of the same people who aren't exactly paragons of virtue themselves.
That wouldn't be the same people who make value judgements about LLs and rentals, by chance?
That wouldn't be the same people who make value judgements about LLs and rentals, by chance?
Put it this way - If I, as a business owner, found myself in need of a agent and parasitic support services, I'd seriously question my suitability for the industry.
I take a lot of pride in knowing my stuff, working at the coalface and giving my customers good value and conscientious service.
DBH being the parasitic support services referred to?
YOU may do all the things you claim, (as do I) but
YOU also expend a lot of digits running down others:
a lot of that disparagement being hearsay.
I'll weigh carefully the need for a rental WoF, if tenants
are also required to have some sort of certification.
But you appear to desire un-even-handed legislation,
by your own earlier admission, fobbing off the notion
on the basis of 'who would police it.'
Comment