Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Banned: Rental bidding; No reason giv terminations plus Rent Increases Min. Annually.

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

  • #16
    Consequences are higher rent, less availability, less investment and even harder for a tenant to get a foot in the door.
    Tenants are getting done over again. But not a peep of protest from the so called "tenant advocates".
    The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates and a monthly salary - Fred Wilson.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by PC View Post
      But not a peep of protest from the so called "tenant advocates."
      They use the same make and brand of blinkers that the Comrade-socio-commies in W'gton use.
      Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

      Comment


      • #18
        As an addendum: I wonder if this sort of legislation will push more ma & pa PIs out of the market?

        And if they're lucky enough to re-take the Treasury benches, what are the gNats going to do about it? Or saying, for now? If anything.
        Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

        Comment


        • #19
          Does anyone have any insight as to what "changing how it is used" covers? I have a property that we currently rent that we plan to move into ourselves when I retire in a couple of years. Currently has a long term tenant. Does this legislation mean that I have no right to move into my own home?

          Also I do have an example where the 6 month rule could be a problem - I have a couple of units in a large building currently undergoing leaky building remediation, where rent levels on individual units change quickly depending on what stage the remediation is at. I cant put the rent up in advance to compensate, so probably looking at a few months loss of potential rent rise

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Perry View Post
            A
            And if they're lucky enough to re-take the Treasury benches, what are the gNats going to do about it? Or saying, for now? If anything.
            Where are the useless Nats?
            Worse bunch of commies than the COL. At least the COL force rents up.
            Would be nice to have an opposition party.
            The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates and a monthly salary - Fred Wilson.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by simongu View Post
              Does anyone have any insight as to what "changing how it is used" covers? I have a property that we currently rent that we plan to move into ourselves when I retire in a couple of years. Currently has a long term tenant. Does this legislation mean that I have no right to move into my own home?
              That's exactly the situation that "changing use" covers - when the landlord or a family member is going to move into the house, it is no longer being used as a rental.

              Also I do have an example where the 6 month rule could be a problem - I have a couple of units in a large building currently undergoing leaky building remediation, where rent levels on individual units change quickly depending on what stage the remediation is at. I cant put the rent up in advance to compensate, so probably looking at a few months loss of potential rent rise
              Why can't you put the rent up in advance to compensate?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Perry View Post
                From the perspective of PT Forumites, what were / are the problems that these measures were aimed at? (Were there any?)

                Looks a lot like window dressing by comrade Taxcindarella et al, than anything else. A good distraction from the 10,000 affordable houses debacle, for, if they'd done that, scarcity and cost of residential rentals and related problems would adjust themselves via market forces, would they not?

                Also from the perspective of PT Forumites, what were / are the likely unintended consequences of these measures?
                The problem Labour is trying to solve is that they are unsure of re-election next year. Tenants are a significant block of voters who can be appealed too. Landlords are a very small number of voters, who are unlikely to vote Labour. Therefor, sticking it to Landlords and being seen as benefiting tenants increases their chance of re-election.

                The unintended consequences will be a significant increase in rents, but this is a problem for 2021 and can simply be blamed on greedy landlords. Labour can then float the idea of rent controls.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Perry View Post
                  And if they're lucky enough to re-take the Treasury benches, what are the gNats going to do about it? Or saying, for now? If anything.
                  They will do very little. You can fill the differences in policies between Labour and National with the thin side of a piece of paper.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Lanthanide View Post
                    That's exactly the situation that "changing use" covers - when the landlord or a family member is going to move into the house, it is no longer being used as a rental.


                    Why can't you put the rent up in advance to compensate?
                    Thats great, thanks

                    Market pressure - while remediation is going on rents are held down by competition - there are over 100 rental units in the building so quite an active market. As the remediation moves to higher floors / further away should be able to lift the rents. Hopefully we get done before the legislation becomes effective!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Advertisement:

                      Lovely property. Fully complies with the Healthy Homes Regulations, double glazed, zoned for good schools.

                      Fixed term tenancy offered $600 per week.
                      Periodic tenancy offered $720 per week.
                      www.3888444.co.nz
                      Facebook Page

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        In return landlords have options to tightened application rules and better planning for recovering the costs incurred by law changes.
                        Guessing bad times for inexperienced LL and investors who depend on property managers which acting only as tenancy administrator, charging and nothing else… and of curse, the real losers are renters with none or bad renting history, people with low income, unlucky and vulnerable people.

                        Just out of curiosity, my game changer is the abolishment of fixed-term tenancies impacting TA to students, contract workers (or limited stay on assignment), trading properties as limited time rental, owners renting while on oversea contract, etc – thoughts to keep it simple?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Perry View Post
                          ...what were / are the likely unintended consequences of these measures?
                          Dictating arbitrary rules make life for people with low income, unlucky and vulnerable people more difficult, promoting the affordable houses debacle…

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Keys View Post
                            Advertisement:

                            Lovely property. Fully complies with the Healthy Homes Regulations, double glazed, zoned for good schools.

                            Fixed term tenancy offered $600 per week.
                            Periodic tenancy offered $720 per week.
                            Which one is the market rent? Periodic tenant could argue at the TT that you're overcharging for the same property.

                            Also there's not been a lot of detail on the changes, here's the actual summary here: https://www.hud.govt.nz/assets/Resid...of-Changes.pdf

                            It seems that the proposed changes means that most fixed term tenancies will roll over to periodic if the tenant chooses to do that and the landlord can't really stop them. Right now the landlord can refuse a new fixed term for any reason, but under the proposals only the same reasons for ending a periodic tenancy are allowed for a landlord not wanting to extend the tenancy. So in my reading if you want to extend another fixed term, but the tenant wants to keep renting but without a fixed term, you're pretty much screwed unless you evict them under one of the narrow set of provisions that allows for that.

                            Which makes me wonder what the point of a fixed term tenancy is for the landlord, now, since for 12 months you're preventing yourself from access to most of the early termination clauses, but on the flip side at the end of those 12 months you're subject to those same clauses again if you want to renew and have no real way to stop the tenancy becoming periodic if the tenant wants that.
                            Last edited by Lanthanide; 18-11-2019, 12:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Lanthanide View Post
                              ...unless you evict them under one of the narrow set of provisions that allows for that.
                              I've heard of the removal of the no reason 90 day termination but will there be a specific list for termination imposed?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Follow the link I posted, straight from the horses mouth instead of media regurgitation (link on the right): https://www.hud.govt.nz/residential-...6/rta-reforms/

                                There's also a FAQ on the same page.

                                Originally posted by From the FAQ
                                Fixed-term tenancy agreements will not end at the end of the initial term unless specified grounds for this have been met, for instance, the landlord needs to sell the house, or the tenant has breached their obligations. If these grounds don’t apply, fixed-term agreements must be become periodic agreements unless both the tenant and the landlord agree otherwise. This means tenancies will not end just because parties cannot accommodate a further fixed-term agreement.
                                Edit: updated links to point to the landing page instead of the PDFs directly. As far as I can tell, the ministry of housing and development is returning "page not found" results when you click through to these PDFs from places other than their own website. Super shitty and breaks web standards, hence why the previous links broke.
                                Last edited by Lanthanide; 18-11-2019, 01:38 PM. Reason: Fixing links

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X