Warrant of Fitness for rentals (including details)

[Sante]

Why surely? The current system already has a difference (21 days vs 90 days).

I just had a look at the tenancy laws in Germany (since I've heard people talk about them as something we could aspire to). Landlords there can give 90 days notice. The difference between there and here is that there when they give 90 days notice, they have to give a reason, and the tenant can contest the reason. Alternatively, landlords can offer a limited contract from the outset which states why the tenancy is going to be limited (e.g. needing to use it themselves or planning to sell).
Minimum lease periods are often long, starting at about 2 yrs. After that, the tenant can give 90 days notice.

I can't help thinking, though, about the differences between German culture and New Zealand culture. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find, for example, that whatever the equivalent of the TT is there considers anti-social behaviour, or even just rudeness by the tenant to be an entirely legitimate reason to end a tenancy with 90 days notice, whereas here it's hard to know: it's not grounds to end a tenancy in less than 90 days, and because of our no-reason 90-day rule it hasn't come up otherwise, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the TT would be frustratingly lenient about it.

[artemis]

Sante (or anyone else) - do you know if any research has been done into why tenants leave? We can get an idea of new tenancies from bond lodgement numbers, and probably tenants leaving will be broadly similar.

I don't think we should be changing the law on tenure until we know the size and scope of the problem. It may well be that it is usually the tenants who decide to leave.

We have had many tenancies over many years. Have only given notice of termination twice. Once was because the place was to be sold. Once because family was moving in. In both cases tenants were consulted well in advance and given much more than the required time to move. I don't think our experience is unusual. Maybe it is ....

[Perry]

Over many years, I have terminated once tenancy, only.
As in, it was my choice, rather than it ending because of
non-payment of rent, or the like.

The tenancy terminated involved a pair who became too
difficult to deal with. Amongst the constant complaints
was one about electricity supplied through a check meter.

According to them, someone else was using electricity
that was going through their meter, so they wanted to
read it every day. (A chore that involved me giving entry
to a locked area)

I suggested that an electrical inspector be hired to check
that their tenancy only was connected to that meter, on
the basis that I would pay the inspector's cost, plus what-
ever was involved in any re-wiring needed, plus a sum
that the inspector decided was appropriate to compensate
for the electricity consumed via the rogue wire that was
allowing electicity to be used by anyone else.

That was deemed a good idea until I added: if no fault is
found, you pay the inspector's fee. After recovering some
breath following on from the eye-brow-elevating shock of
that notion, the tenant promptly dumped the idea.

Not too long later, I dumped the tenants. They took it to
the TT and they lost.

Being a LL is such a great and easy life.

[Sante]

That's an interesting question artemis. I had a quick look. The only thing I could find was this: http://www.cresa.co.nz/wp-content/up...ment-final.pdf

The multi-choice options for why people last moved are too limited, or not focussed on our question, so can't tell us whether their last move was initiated by the tenant or the landlord.

However, one of the surveys relied on for the report found that a quarter of the tenants (95 people) would like to move from their current dwelling. Of those 95, only 16 people were anticipating becoming owner-occupiers, and only 2 wanted to move because of affordability (N.B. The interviews were from 2005 so that might have changed since then).

"aspects of housing other than tenure transition and affordability prompt house-to-house shifts. It appears that those factors involve the design, performance and maintenance of houses themselves."

"Issues of house size, house performance, dilapidation, undesirable design characteristics and problems of tenure security are consistently reported as the major prompts for residents wanting to shift in this research. Damp, cold and poor repairs and maintenance are repeatedly identified as problematic. Among the panel interviewees, many of the tenants wishing to shift reported that problems of house performance, maintenance and repairs were exacerbated by landlords being unwilling to address those issues. In addition, panel interviewees who had been tenants and shifted between interviews reported that the reason for their shift was that their landlord was selling up the house in which they were resident. That is, they found their tenure to be insecure."

So, in these interviews, tenants who wanted to move wanted to move because of inadequate landlord performance. And at the same time, tenants who actually had moved had moved because of landlord choice rather than their own.

Yes, the surveys are nearly 10 years old now, but I haven't seen anything that would make me think current responses would show a shift from landlord to tenant in the causes of tenant mobility.

[Time4us]

WOF on Rentals

"I can't imagine some landlords would be too happy about the thought of getting their rental "inspected" via a WOF for your house!"

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/7...speed-wobbles-

This is already happening in some countries and I believe will be here soon. There are more and more passive houses being built in NZ and I think that the "WOF" they are talking about in the above article will be a rating system of the home's energy efficiency. In some countries the home owner will be fined if the house is not up to standard. I don't think it will be a massive expense to bring existing homes up to the standard ( I am only speculating) but I think it will just be a matter of topping up insulation, draft stopping and possibly glazing.
Sure the initial investment will anger some landlords, but not only would this raise the value of the housing it would also provide tenants with a warm healthy home, and would entice them to pay more rent and stay longer.

I was wondering as property investors what your thoughts on this were.

[artemis]

.... I was wondering as property investors what your thoughts on this were.

Ummm, did you read the (long) thread on this?

[Time4us]

yeah artemis you are right I found it after I posted this.
But hey I can't find where to delete the post

[artemis]

Not sure I fully grasped this report, but it did look like you (Sante) have picked out a paragraph that was not really supported by the survey results, though maybe more so by interview results. I can't tell, but that might well be my lack of understanding.

For example, house size is the first item mentioned, and household size is not usually caused by the landlord. One sincerely hopes!

There's a big subjective element in reporting households wanting to move because the house is not suitable, for whatever reason. If the issues are annoying but not disastrous people might say they'd like to move but actually don't. Having said that, there seems to be high mobility, so wouldn't that indicate that people will move if they choose to? And can we assume they move to somewhere that suits them better? Otherwise sounds like they are a bit grumpy but not enough to do something about it.

If there is talk about new rules around rental tenure, then a new survey of why people move would be a very useful addition to the debate.

[artemis]

You can contact PT and ask if they will move your post to the other thread.

[flyernzl]

Also, don't forget that in countries like Germany where tenants have security of tenure, tenants must provide their own curtains, floorcoverings, light fittings, kitchen fixtures and bathroom fittings.
They basically rent an empty box and fit it out themselves.

How would that go down in NZ?
(You can't have the upside without the downside).

[Sante]

it did look like you (Sante) have picked out a paragraph that was not really supported by the survey results, though maybe more so by interview results. I can't tell, but that might well be my lack of understanding.

For example, house size is the first item mentioned, and household size is not usually caused by the landlord. One sincerely hopes!

...

If there is talk about new rules around rental tenure, then a new survey of why people move would be a very useful addition to the debate.

It seemed to me that the interview and the survey were asking different questions, and the survey wasn't really set up to answer the question we were asking, whereas the interview was. Mind you, it's a fair point that we can't tell how much part each motive mentioned played, so it's not possible to tell whether dwelling size or landlord action/lack of action was the larger problem.

[eri]

imho

this what HNZ

should be looking at to house single benficiaries

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/65660437/interest-grows-in-tiny-homes

keep'em on wheels too

so they can be moved where needed

people looking at sleep-outs should also keep these in mind

[Perry]

Very telling . . .

Regulation will destroy it. The reason they exist is
because of over regulation in the housing industry.

[speights boy]

Illegal 'hovel' could face closure

The property at 17 Raycroft St could be seen as the end of the road by some people. But the third world type dive provides cheap accommodation for those no-one else wants.

The accommodation is nothing flash - some might say squalid - but it has a certain market and potentially earns him $2800 a week before expenses.

Skilling said he knew he was not allowed to run the business in an industrial area but he had got away with it for two years.
He was thinking of stalling the closure by applying for a consent. "They know and I know I won't get it but I can stall the system."

The section could accommodate about 20 people and provided him with an income so he did not have to work.
"I called myself semi-retired because I knew this day would come and the council would catch up with me."

"I'm the one who is going to lose the most. I don't care where they go. These people don't care about me. I don't care about them. I'm providing a service."

He said tenants were turfed out if they did not pay - he was chasing one for $500.
"The amount Work and Income give these c...s is unreal.

Do you think I want to associate with these people?
I don't even know their names, don't want to."
He was selective about who was allowed in. "I only let people in who I know I can control."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/65660403/illegal-hovel-could-face-closure

[Maccachic]

At least someone is accommodating these people, I always wonder where the people go that Housing NZ turfs out?