Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rental law aims for closer bond

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

  • Rental law aims for closer bond

    Rental law aims for closer bond

    30.01.06
    By Anne Gibson

    The lives of more than half a million people who rent are about to be changed by a long-awaited and much-debated overhaul of rental housing law.

    Department of Building and Housing officials are working on draft amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which covers 480,000 rented properties and affects an estimated 600,000 tenants.

    Plummeting rates of home ownership and a surge in the number of people renting, locked out by ever-escalating house prices, has prompted the Government to move on changes to the 20-year-old act.

    Building Issues Minister Clayton Cosgrove said he wanted to strengthen the hand of tenants and landlords in a rapidly growing sector. He refused to specify what changes he had planned.

    Suzanne Townsend, Department of Building and Housing policy adviser, said a report was being drafted on the changes after submissions were received last year. Proposals would go to Mr Cosgrove, then to the Cabinet before May, she said. They fell into three broad areas: stability of tenure, enforcing Tenancy Tribunal orders, and establishing housing quality obligations.

    Proposals to set minimum housing standards were unlikely to be in the amendments, she said.

    But Scotney Williams, a lawyer specialising in tenancy law, fears the changes could drive landlords out of the sector because proposals discussed in the act's review included banning landlords from selling their houses.

    Lengthening the amount of notice landlords must give tenants from the mandatory 90 days to six months to a year were other proposals being discussed, he said.

    Under the act now, landlords must give 90 days' notice to terminate a tenancy but tenants only give 21 days.

    Landlords must give 42 days' notice if they are selling or need the place for family or employees. But discussions about reform have focused on extending tenants' rights further and encouraging more to enter long-term fixed tenancies.

    The Government wants to encourage a sector where people have the option of renting the same house all their life.

    New Zealand landlords own 1.2 properties on average and and are criticised for running the business as a hobby, evicting tenants without good reason, behaving unprofessionally and creating an unstable supply of rental accommodation. These points were made in DTZ NZ's Housing tenure aspirations and attainment report last year to the Government's Centre for Housing Research.

    Mr Williams said he feared the Government would swing the balance more in tenants' favour and landlords would find it even harder to evict bad tenants.

    Suzanne Townsend confirmed that stability of tenure was a key concern but said the thrust of the review would shy away from compulsion towards flexibility. Amendments would encourage landlords and tenants to establish long-term relationships and would not deny landlords the right to sell houses or flats, she said.

    Mr Williams questioned how the Government could address this issue when the biggest problem dogging the rental housing sector was that about 32,000 of the 40,000 cases before the Tenancy Tribunal were from landlords demanding rent arrears.

    If the Government was serious about security of tenure, it would pay state accommodation supplements directly into landlords' bank accounts, bypassing beneficiaries, he said.

    Key law changes

    * Residential Tenancies Act amendments will target three areas of concern:
    * Stability of tenure: encouraging long-term rental relationships like in Europe.
    * Enforcement of Tenancy Tribunal orders: make it easier for landlords and tenants to settle disputes.
    * Clarifying housing quality obligations: "reasonable state of repair" will be defined but proposals to set minimum housing standards are rejected.

    Latest breaking news articles, photos, video, blogs, reviews, analysis, opinion and reader comment from New Zealand and around the World - NZ Herald
    "There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says 'yes,' you know he is a crook." Groucho Marx

  • #2
    Lengthening the amount of notice landlords must give tenants from the mandatory 90 days to six months to a year were other proposals being discussed, he said.
    Please, NO
    DFTBA

    Comment


    • #3
      Clayton Cosgrove in the dark?

      The lives of more than half a million people who rent are about to be changed by a long-awaited and much-debated overhaul of rental housing law.

      Department of Building and Housing officials are working on draft amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which covers 480,000 rented properties and affects an estimated 600,000 tenants.

      Plummeting rates of home ownership and a surge in the number of people renting, locked out by ever-escalating house prices, has prompted the Government to move on changes to the 20-year-old act.

      Building Issues Minister Clayton Cosgrove said he wanted to strengthen the hand of tenants and landlords in a rapidly growing sector. He refused to specify what changes he had planned.
      So our elected leaders are planning on changing the laws that affect the lives of more than half a million people but is either unwilling or unable to specify what he is planning to do.
      Really this is too much. What a bafoon. How on earth could the minister responsible for changing the law not be able to specify what was planned.

      I wonder what he is sure he is going to do tomorrow.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Title says it All
        "Rental Law Aims For Closer Bond"
        Read as: The bond between the socialists and their core voters.
        Not between service providers and users.

        Comment


        • #5
          What do people mean when they say Socialist...and what is the name for a person who is not a socialist?
          Like, what do you consider yourself for example?

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi McDuck

            Most landlords are capitalists.

            Regards
            "There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says 'yes,' you know he is a crook." Groucho Marx

            Comment


            • #7
              One definition

              It has been said that socialism is giving people what
              socialists think they want/need.

              It is a system of political and economic theory where the
              government/state owns all the capital and all the industry.
              That includes all capital structures, such as buildings. I.e.
              all means of wealth creation except labour. Under
              socialism, everyone becomes a government employee.
              The state takes the profits and pays 'wages' to all,
              even nominal business enterprise 'owners.' It is
              destructive in that it removes any incentives or rewards
              for creativity, improved productivity, etc. Humans
              stagnate under such a system. It is evil.

              In NZ, we have a slightly watered down version, courtesy
              of Labour, where people get to have 'apparent, illusory'
              private ownership, but the State/government controls
              usage. It is just as evil. Take your residential rental
              accommodation (if any) as an example. You own it (with
              all the costs, risks, liabilities, responsibilities, etc.) but
              you cannot enter into a trading/contractual relationship
              with another person on terms that you both agree upon.

              The State/government (through the RTA) decides what
              you can and cannot do. I.e. the landlord must give 90
              days notice*, the tenant only 21. The landlord may
              surrender their rights under the RTA, a tenant cannot.
              That these are unequal terms is self-evident. In so doing,
              the State/government negates the law of contract, which
              still does apply in non-residential rental (leasing) activities.

              The electoral gamble is that residential rental property
              owners are less likely to vote for a socialist government
              than are the tenants. So giving tenants a guaranteed
              advantage over a property-owner is seen as gaining more
              votes than are being lost. A further illustration of the
              hypocrisy is vehicle rentals. All are equal. Cars hired for
              family use are done so on the same terms as those hired
              for business. Why should buildings be different?

              Such selective interference in commerce leads to one of
              socialism's worst attributes: 'protecting' people from the
              consequences of their own actions. The result of that is
              people never learn from their mistakes, because the
              results of those mistakes are carried by/transferred to
              someone else. Which is the government/taxpayer/society
              as a whole. So the mistake is repeated. Learning by doing
              and from errors (if any) is the way we evolve and
              advance as a species.

              All this is quite different from assisting someone who has
              been disadvantaged by some other action, largely beyond
              their control.

              An etymological antonym for socialism is capitalism. But
              that needs to be considered in context. My preference for
              an antonym is "free enterprise." In a free enterprise
              system, private persons can and do own capital, industry
              and capital structures. And they have largely unfettered
              control over them, including the option to gain or lose
              on what is done with them. An obvious exclusion is Town
              & Country Plan restrictions, which, by and large, are
              community based and equally applicable.

              * There are exceptions

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi McDuck

                A Socialist is an adherent of Socialism.

                Socialism = theory, principle, or scheme of social organisation which places means of production and distribution in the hands of the community.
                (Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary)

                In other words take from the rich or supposedly rich and give to the poor.

                Regards
                "There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says 'yes,' you know he is a crook." Groucho Marx

                Comment


                • #9
                  I was under the impression that Capitalism was not a system of running a Society at all...

                  rather ,that it was a much smaller subset of an idea about numbers and economics alone.

                  In other words a single piece of a jigsaw, not the whole picture.

                  Never offered up as a system to run a country on....or live a life by.





                  .
                  Last edited by McDuck; 31-01-2006, 08:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi McDuck

                    A capitalist is one who derives income and power from capital.
                    Exactly what a property investor does.

                    Capitalism = the economic system which generates and gives power to capitalists.

                    Exactly what NZ is and some political party is trying to change and has been for years.


                    Regards
                    "There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says 'yes,' you know he is a crook." Groucho Marx

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Back on point, Another article quoted that 32,000 of the 40,000 cases taken to the tenancy tribunal are regarding unpaid rent.

                      Surely this would be the main issue to tackle.

                      CJ the capitalist

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        McDuck

                        Very loosely speaking, you may be right. Capitalism is an
                        economic system (first) based on private ownership of
                        capital. It has been transmogrified or melded into a
                        political system. It has it's faults, but the principle is
                        sound. Viz. The results of your hard work and efforts are
                        yours - not something to be taken from you by a Robin
                        Hood in disguise (more like the big bad wolf) and given
                        to someone else who was too lazy to do what you did, in
                        a parallel way.

                        Ever read the revised standard version of The Little Red
                        Hen?

                        There's an esoteric dimension, too. Free Enterprisers get
                        that way by making some sort on initial self-sacrifice.
                        They recognise certain things that the socialist masses do
                        not. That spending several hot summer weekends at the
                        new investment property, doing a Spring clean, re-
                        decoration job, and tidying the grounds pays a dividend in
                        the future. All the while, the socialists are at the beach,
                        living it up for today. The free enterprise PI has a plan for
                        now and the future. The PI lives life. The socialist is lived
                        by life.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So if the banks are lending money to people to buy houses…
                          120 billion and on credit cards 131 billion,

                          And that money is coming from Japan and Germany etc…

                          And households are spending 110% of their weekly income….

                          Then aren’t the capitalists.... the Japanese and German investors…

                          Aren’t we just the labor?

                          ie the suckers.



                          .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In NZ, we have a slightly watered down version, courtesy
                            of Labour, where people get to have 'apparent, illusory'
                            private ownership, but the State/government controls
                            usage. It is just as evil
                            I don't think it is quite fair to call NZs system of government 'just as evil' as that of the USSR or Mao's China.

                            One important role of government is to enact laws to be implemented by the judiciary, and the purpose of laws, in many cases, is not to protect one from ones own mistakes, but to protect one from other's mistakes.

                            Thus, when wicked Mr Landlord makes the 'mistake' of failing to ensure that the innocent Mr Tenant can live in peace and quiet, then the law is there to help Mr Tenant right the wrong.

                            In a perfectly efficient market, then all properties would be cash neutral and in a habitable state - unfortunately the market is not efficient, and so the weak (or those that percieve themselves to be weak) may need protection from those that are strong (or those who so percieve themselves).

                            So, yes we need an RTA, and yes, it probably needs to be weighted in favour of the tenant to keep us wicked landlords on our toes.

                            BUT 6 months notice. Please, NO!

                            cube
                            DFTBA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The Politics of Inequality

                              Originally posted by cube
                              I don't think it is quite fair to call NZs system of government 'just as evil' as that of the USSR or Mao's China.
                              I agree. The comparison is yours. I referred to socialist party
                              governments, not NZ's system of government. Besides, they're
                              communist, rather than socialist and probably even more evil -
                              if that's possible.

                              One important role of government is to enact laws to be implemented by the judiciary, and the purpose of laws, in many cases, is not to protect one from ones own mistakes, but to protect one from other's mistakes.
                              Or unreasonable acts of commission. I have no demur with
                              such laws. But when justice is not served by the law,
                              what then?

                              Thus, when wicked Mr Landlord makes the 'mistake' of failing to ensure that the innocent Mr Tenant can live in peace and quiet, then the law is there to help Mr Tenant right the wrong.
                              But laws that presume all tenants to be angelic and all landlords to
                              be the devil are inequitable. They are social engineering,
                              slanted in favour of one group.

                              In a perfectly efficient market, then all properties would be cash neutral and in a habitable state - unfortunately the market is not efficient, and so the weak (or those that percieve themselves to be weak) may need protection from those that are strong (or those who so percieve themselves).
                              Laws are for the guidance of the wise and the obeisance of fools.
                              Most contributions I see here on the subject show that the TT
                              is a forum adjudicated upon by fools.

                              So, yes we need an RTA, and yes, it probably needs to be weighted in favour of the tenant to keep us wicked landlords on our toes.
                              Really? So you have no problem with 6-12 months notice?
                              Would it be more equitable if the tenants had to give the
                              same notice?

                              BUT 6 months notice. Please, NO!
                              Uh-oh, it seems you do.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X