• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 103 of 110 FirstFirst ... 3 53 93 101 102 103 104 105 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1092
  1. #1021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    Guide or law: it's indicative of a 'mentality.'

    Just another example of anti-LL hate speech, really.
    Well put.

    Flyer very well written have you considered posting a copy to the Privacy Commissioner for his enlightenment?

  2. #1022
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    5,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don't believe the Hype View Post
    Apply to whom? I'd offer a refund on the unused portion if they vacate early if they weren't contracted to a fixed term.
    To the TT. They may offer 52 weeks, give you 52 weeks and sign that they are happy with that but, once moved in, they can ask for all but 2 weeks back. You are then stuck with them for the remainder of their FTT.

  3. #1023

    Default

    Yeah I know. I'm kinda joking.

    Just making the point that we won't stop credit checking unless we are in a position of not providing credit. The only way we're not providing credit is with full yr rent paid upfront (which is as likely as catching a glimpse of the tooth fairy)

  4. #1024
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    14,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keys View Post
    They may offer 52 weeks, give you 52 weeks and sign that they are happy with that but, once moved in, they can ask for all but 2 weeks back.
    You've got me worried, now, Keys.

    I thought your position was that: while a LL cannot ask for more than two weeks in advance, that same LL did not breach s23, if a tenant volunteered (say) a month in advance and the LL accepted that.
    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

  5. #1025
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don't believe the Hype View Post
    Yeah I know. I'm kinda joking.

    Just making the point that we won't stop credit checking unless we are in a position of not providing credit. The only way we're not providing credit is with full yr rent paid upfront (which is as likely as catching a glimpse of the tooth fairy)
    Had a tenant pay 6 months in advance, 6 months fixed term at their request. Actually parents paid, we gave them a discount. Completely trouble free tenancy.

  6. #1026
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7,626

    Default

    ^

    how dare you accommodate foreigners

    when kash-less kiwis in akomodation krisis

    it's like you're running business!
    Last edited by eri; 04-06-2019 at 07:24 PM.
    have you defeated them?
    your demons

  7. #1027
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    5,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    You've got me worried, now, Keys.

    I thought your position was that: while a LL cannot ask for more than two weeks in advance, that same LL did not breach s23, if a tenant volunteered (say) a month in advance and the LL accepted that.
    Yip, that is correct Perry. The tenant offers and the landlord accepts. That protects the landlord from being taken to the TT for asking for more. However, once paid and the tenant in place, the tenant can ask for it back. Not something I want to test at court. Not an incentive for me to take on a tenant.

  8. #1028
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don't believe the Hype View Post
    As far as I'm concerned a prospective tenant doesn't have to provide any information but the more information they offer up the better their chances of getting accepted.

    I'm also happy to not ask for their permission to do credit check where no credit is required. 52 weeks rent paid in advance should remove the need for a credit check.

    The Privacy Commissioner has withdrawn the guidelines for the time being, as there were complaints that they were confusing, contradictory and produced without industry consultation.

    A fail then. Those highly paid bureaucrats should be embarrassed.

    Though they have said the guidelines will only be tweaked and they will be doing a spot of consulting this time.

    Will Tenancy Services update their application template to indicate the guidelines? And will it make any difference IRL?

  9. #1029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    The Privacy Commissioner has withdrawn the guidelines for the time being, as there were complaints that they were confusing, contradictory and produced without industry consultation.

    A fail then. Those highly paid bureaucrats should be embarrassed.

    Though they have said the guidelines will only be tweaked and they will be doing a spot of consulting this time.

    Will Tenancy Services update their application template to indicate the guidelines? And will it make any difference IRL?
    Thanks Artemis.

  10. #1030
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    The past month has given us the not entirely unexpected sight of two of our Lords and Masters laid low.

    Firstly, the Privacy Commissioner has had to ‘temporarily withdraw for review’ his guide to the information that landlords may require from prospective tenants, and what he believed should not be required. This exemplar appeared to adopt an idealistic stance, where privacy concerns overrode all other considerations. Implemented, it would have made tenant selection a hazardous process. Fortunately, sanity quickly prevailed and the document has now been removed from the public’s view.

    The second, and much more agonising, fall from grace is the now open and public admission that Kiwibuild is a dog. A dog with fleas, as one commentator put it. Anyone with housing industry knowledge gained from practical experience rather than from textbooks and ideology knew this right from the start. Unfortunately, the political chattering classes and blinkered academics were so firmly convinced that they knew better than the real world what the real world wanted that it has taken many months of wasted time and resources before the futility of creating houses few want or could afford in places where they prefer not to live could be publicly admitted.

    As the Greeks pointed out so many years ago, after Hubris comes Nemesis.

    So we now have what is being called Reset Time, presumably time to think about the next move. Some options have already been openly discussed, Rent-to-Own and Build-to-Rent. Of course, any program to advance these alternatives will also run into exactly the same constraints as have hit Kiwibuild – the problems of lack of land availability, scarcity of labour, high material costs and festoons of red tape.

    Within the Kiwi psyche property developers have been so vilified and maligned that the word ‘greedy’ is automatically prefixed to their occupation. Thus any attempts to create new housing on a substantial scale is instantly met with strident protests, sit-ins, sabotage, land claims and raucous accusations of ecological devastation. Look at what is happening right now at the Fletcher Building Otuataua Stonefields development. Really, who needs to suffer those indignities? Unfortunately, without property developers you don’t actually have any new properties. Hence the belief that only the Government could do it better, cheaper and more quickly.

    Meanwhile, the war against private residential landlords continues. Last week the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20, GST Offshore Supplier Registration, and Remedial Matters) Bill was given the Royal Assent, the final stage for it to become law. Snuck in quietly, overshadowed by Minister Twyford’s downfall, and completely ignored by the media, this Bill will prevent private landlords from offsetting any loss they may make from their rental business against their other income for tax purposes. You may make a loss from growing herbs, breeding dogs and, yes, running a motel and quite legally offset that loss against other income, but not if you rent out a house. Yet another specific targeted penalty for and only for residential landlords. Interestingly, it does not seem to occur to the zealots that the most likely reaction to a landlord facing a loss that they can no longer offset will be to eliminate that loss by increasing the rents they charge. Has that thought not occurred to anyone?

    Yet Build-to-Rent proposals are being promoted as the solution to the lack of rental housing at the very same time as private investors are being forcefully expelled from the market. Apparently it is quite OK to be residential landlord if you are a large corporate owning a substantial number of rentals, but not if you are Ma-and-Pa owning just a few. Again, the political think-tanks and parliamentary claque are blindly following some idealistic will-o’-the-wisp off into a seductive and delusional never-never land.

    The bottom line is that residential landlording in New Zealand is and remains a low-return high-workload activity. I have seen a number of corporates grow enthusiastic over the idea of building a large portfolio of rentals, but then they have faded quietly away once the harsh light of economic reality sets in. The large-scale Hobsonville development was going to incorporate a substantial number of brand new long term rentals, but again I have not seen any further mention of that particular idea over recent years.

    Sure, the concept works in some overseas jurisdictions where the laws and customs around renting are quite different from those in place here. Transferring their operations into New Zealand, how will these property ownership companies feel about:
    - tenants being able to freely damage the property, and then have no responsibility for the resultant, often substantial, repair costs as long as they claim that the damage was 'accidental';
    - being obligated to act as an unwilling and unpaid debt collector for Watercare;
    - being bound to keep housing their tenants until the expiry of any fixed-term lease, but the tenant in reality being able to leave at any time they wish;
    - having to give a tenant the exclusive possession and occupation of a property worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars but only being able to legally to extract a security bond of four weeks rent – probably somewhere around 0.003% of the property value?

    The reality is that these ownership companies will only enter and remain in the market if they can make and continue to make a profit. Given current building costs, they are almost certainly going to require substantial initial grants of either taxpayer money or Government land to be able to construct their buildings. Having done so they will then need to set their rents at a level to allow for the cost of professional management, trade costs on all maintenance, and still have enough left over for a dividend for the shareholders. Thus it is likely that even more subsidies will be required to make the project fly and prevent further Government shame.

    So once again the dreamers and the schemers in the halls of Government seem to be courting the delusional pie-in-the-sky of Build-to-Rent while at the same time ignoring any advice from those of us out there in the real world, those of us who have survived for years in the heat and dust of the market, those of us who already own around 540,000 homes housing some one and a half million of our fellow citizens. We could be the solution to the problem.

    This combined knowledge is available. Landlords are willing to offer it, but have never been asked. Occasionally, we have been offered limited choices between pre-packaged opinions. Otherwise we are at best ignored and at worst abused oppressed and blamed. Without a healthy dose of reality, all that Beehive dreaming and plotting comes to nothing. Wasted time, wasted effort, wasted resources.

    Last edited by flyernzl; 02-07-2019 at 10:12 AM.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Tenant vs Landlord at TT - what if Landlord is a no show?
    By AbutheRoo in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 18-06-2013, 07:40 PM
  2. Life
    By Maccachic in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-10-2012, 06:04 PM
  3. Auckland PIA Central Group: Practical Landlord Tips & Landlord Insurance
    By Auckland PIA in forum Property Investor Associations (NZ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-11-2011, 11:46 AM
  4. The last decade in the life of.....
    By martin smith in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 12:05 AM
  5. GO AND HAVE A LIFE
    By Glenn in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-09-2009, 04:17 PM
  6. My Next Life
    By TidBit in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-05-2008, 11:09 AM
  7. Whenever life gets you down…
    By Josko in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-01-2007, 11:09 AM
  8. Life in the Old country
    By Wayne in forum General (NZ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 07:09 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •