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

  • #46
    I really don't have extra energy to collect evident, issue three times 14days notice, go to court in order to remove a bad tenant. A simply way to avoid those trouble – remove all possible risk tenants before the new policy kicked in.

    Sorry for those good tenants with low income, unlucky and vulnerable, we DARE NOT to take them in because we don’t know if they are good or bad. It is much easier just to filter them all because the new policy made removing bad tenants so difficult.
    Last edited by hacona; 19-11-2019, 11:15 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by PC View Post
      A sure sign of a bad law is it contains stupid arbitrary numbers.
      Why 3 months? Why not 4? Why 3 strikes in 90 days? Why not 3 strikes in 12 months?

      Because 3 strikes seems reasonable at a glance too most people. It's ninety days to make it a very high bar, without appearing so. It's a fairly extreme case that is causing infractions at that frequency.

      Neither of those numbers is arbitrary, they are specific by design.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by hacona View Post
        I really don't have extra energy to collect evident, issue three times 14days notice, go to court in order to remove a bad tenant. A simply way to avoid those trouble – remove all possible risk tenants before the new policy kicked in.

        Sorry for those good tenants with low income, unlucky and vulnerable, we DARE NOT to take them in because we don’t know if they are good or bad. It is much easier just to filter them all because the new policy made removing bad tenants so difficult.
        Exactly. Any landlord with half a brain will be vetting tenants to a much greater degree following this law change. Labour are closing the rental market to marginal tenants.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
          An empty house for 90 days with no income would often be preferred to a troublesome tenant smashing up the place, wouldn't you think?
          Certainly preferable to troublesome tenant who a landlord may not ever be able to remove.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by elguapo View Post
            Exactly. Any landlord with half a brain will be vetting tenants to a much greater degree following this law change. Labour are closing the rental market to marginal tenants.
            Which is fine IMO, private landlords shouldn't be servicing this segment of the market. That's the state's job.

            Comment


            • #51
              So, in your opinion - everyone - will you no longer consider any WINZ-supported applicants?
              Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

              Comment


              • #52
                What guaranteed service time does the Tenancy Tribunal give?
                Will we get a hearing within 5 working days or is it going to continue as wait yet another 3 months whilst the tenant for life continues to wreck havoc?
                The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates and a monthly salary - Fred Wilson.

                Comment


                • #53
                  In the context of the RTA, the words "tribunal," "guarantee" and "service" do not belong together in the same sentence. Or on the same page, even.
                  Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Lanthanide View Post
                    If they've already smashed up the place then presumably you could go to the TT and get them evicted anyway, no need to play silly games with "my relatives are going to live here for 90 days".
                    After the first hole is made in a wall, you make the "change of use" call to try to get them out before they make some more holes.
                    Seems a reasonable thing to do.
                    I suppose you would wait till they made three holes on three separate occasions before you would do anything?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
                      After the first hole is made in a wall, you make the "change of use" call to try to get them out before they make some more holes.
                      Seems a reasonable thing to do.
                      I suppose you would wait till they made three holes on three separate occasions before you would do anything?
                      Remember the context we're specifically talking about the end of a fixed term tenancy here, and how the landlord doesn't have any way to force a new fixed term on the tenant if they don't want it. Having a tenant trash the place right at the end of a fixed term tenancy and thus being able to claim 'change of use' as a reason to not renew the tenancy seems highly unlikely. And as I've stated several times, I expect the tenant would be able to make a claim to the TT if you didn't actually move a family member in, so you end up with the house being vacant for 90 days and then potentially paying some sort of penalty back to the tenant.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Lanthanide View Post
                        Remember the context we're specifically talking about the end of a fixed term tenancy here, and how the landlord doesn't have any way to force a new fixed term on the tenant if they don't want it.
                        I wasn't.
                        Originally posted by Lanthanide View Post
                        And as I've stated several times, I expect the tenant would be able to make a claim to the TT if you didn't actually move a family member in, so you end up with the house being vacant for 90 days and then potentially paying some sort of penalty back to the tenant.
                        I think it would quite easy for a family member to move in and remove that risk.
                        I do think there is merit as suggested today to not having WINZ customers as tenants.
                        That could reduce the risk that landlords now face.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
                          I wasn't.
                          Sorry you're right, I got my wires crossed, this conversation thread wasn't to do with ending fixed term tenancies at all.

                          Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
                          I think it would quite easy for a family member to move in and remove that risk.
                          Assuming you actually have a family member in the same city who can and is happy to do that.

                          Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
                          I do think there is merit as suggested today to not having WINZ customers as tenants.
                          That could reduce the risk that landlords now face.
                          Yip, totally agree. These people should be looked after by the state, not pawned off on to private landlords who have to shoulder the burden of costs and damages from their unruly behaviour. A lot of their bad behaviour can be traced back to poor government policies and run down public services (such as education and health); if people are going to keep voting in National governments that deliberately run down our public services because it lets them cut taxes, then they can pay more in taxes to house these people on the public dime.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Ok so I don’t like losing the flexibility of the 90 notice even though I haven’t used it in nearly ten years. But I seem to be reading in the HUD faqs that assignment to new tenants cannot be unreasonably turned down. That feels like a bigger risk to me since the reasons I might not accept a tenants suggested replacement can be quite subtle and not easy to explain. Any thoughts on that one? Will I eventually not be the one choosing the tenants?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Also according to the heralds Anne Gibson’s recent article it’s clear that these rules still need to get through parliament and could get changed. She points out that this might happen if the landlord lobby is strong enough. So how do we ensure we are making the best use of that power in the next three months?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Finding out what the gNats & Winston First think would be a good start.

                                Although it's not possible to take Winston First's word on anything political.
                                Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X