Life as a Landlord

[mrsaneperson]

No, I would look at the tenancy ruling and the overall case aspect and decide for myself.
Now that transparency won't be available to me or other landlords. This will lead to increased vetting assurances.

Many of these new clauses this government have brought in actually work against tenants best interests as ultimately cost factors of these new clauses are uploaded onto the people - the tenants - the legislation sought to protect.

How does it teach personal responsibility if you carelessly cause a house to burn down worth a million dollars but you're only liable up to 4 weeks rent?

It's a hijack by communist socialist ideology.

[Keys]

Searching for court fines and convictions must now be part of the due diligence.

[Learning]

No, I would look at the tenancy ruling and the overall case aspect and decide for myself.

Rubbish! Two applicants equal in all else. One has TT order in their favor, the other has never been to TT. Maybe one in ten would read the order before turning them down.

How does it teach personal responsibility if you carelessly cause a house to burn down worth a million dollars but you're only liable up to 4 weeks rent?

Better than the Osaki method of tenant not responsible for their own actions, period!

[sidinz]

Why shouldn't they be anonymous if they prove their case?
At the moment prospective LLs look and see they have raised a case and that discredits them whereas it is the LL in the case who should be discredited.

Winning at TT, as we all know, doesn't mean they were in the right. I had a tenant take me to the TT and win, despite the fact that she was the one who caused the mould in the flat.

[Perry]

Right. It might not be so bad if most TT's dispensed REAL justice instead of 'social' justice.

Makes me I wonder if the TT Kangaroo Kourts have been given the same directive as Housing NZ? (As Peter referred to.)

But instead of a policy of “sustaining tenancies,” it's one of “sustaining tenants.”

[Wayne]

Winning at TT, as we all know, doesn't mean they were in the right. I had a tenant take me to the TT and win, despite the fact that she was the one who caused the mould in the flat.

And that there is the reason it should be anonymous - you will judge anyway, even if they win.
No idea about your specific case but the tenant won!

[Perry]

Right or wrong, what does anonymity do to a LL's ability to search for TT decisions?

[Wayne]

Right or wrong, what does anonymity do to a LL's ability to search for TT decisions?

Why do they need to see the names on decisions that have gone in the tenants favour?
The details should still be there - just not the tenants name.

[eri]

as Perry said

these aren't 'level-field' decisions made by legal professionals in a court of law

but adjudicated decisions where the tenant's 'word' is taken over the LLs, unless the LL has 'paperwork' to disprove it

the adjudicators generally do as fair a job as they can but there is no equality in the decision room as the adjudicators have been directed to be biased in favour of the tenant in an attempt to balance perceived imbalances of the real-world

[Wayne]

as Perry said

these aren't 'level-field' decisions made by legal professionals in a court of law

but adjudicated decisions where the tenant's 'word' is taken over the LLs, unless the LL has 'paperwork' to disprove it

the adjudicators generally do as fair a job as they can but there is no equality in the decision room as the adjudicators have been directed to be biased in favour of the tenant in an attempt to balance perceived imbalances of the real-world

So a tenant is best not to take a LL to the TT because, even if they win, they will be judged and it will be harder to get a rental in future.
Great system!

[eri]

don't get distracted

the focus needs to remain

on more affordable housing

[Perry]

Why do they need to see the names on decisions that have gone in the tenants favour? The details should still be there - just not the tenants name.

How do you search, if not using a name?

[Wayne]

How do you search, if not using a name?

You can't - the person won't be there and that is fine by me.
You can search for the LL so see what bad things they have done.

[mrsaneperson]

The more they meddle, the worse it gets for those whom the comrade-socio-commies are supposedly trying to help.

Shock! Horror!

But no surprises there. Least not for those of us who live in the real world.

[Above from Perry , and i fully concur]

[flyernzl]

In the time since the recent British elections the results have received little in-depth coverage and analysis in our local media. Apart from the shocked surprise at the outcome by many of those closet-socialists active in the media, most commentators have shrugged their shoulders and gone back to analyzing Trump.


Yet it is interesting to look not only at the overall result but the ebbs and flows of the various UK electorates and the population profiles within and consider how this may reflect potential changes in the New Zealand political arena.

Generally, in mature democratic democracies, politics becomes a competition between two major political parties. For most of recent history, these parties tend to comprise a Conservative party mainly supported by the farming and white-collar business and professional sectors who promote policies intended to create wealth, and a Socialist party supported by blue-collar voters and those who derive their income from the public purse who promote policies intended to redistribute that wealth.

However, we now see that these distinctions are breaking down, not only in those who support such parties but also within the parties themselves. This has been coupled with the recent advent of a professional political class. In the past, an individual would move out into the working world, achieve some success and reputation within that sphere, and then be sufficiently motivated both by their own experiences and the experiences of those around them to progress into political action. These people, those who possess actual real-world experience, have now been replaced by theoreticians, those who have formulated their ideas and beliefs second hand by reading, listening and absorbing the pre-packaged opinions of others.

The quite rapid changes in the nature of employment have hastened these changes. Gone are the days when you joined a major employer on entering the workforce and stayed there, secure and well-fed, until you eventually achieved the gold watch and the retirement cheque. As well as now moving from company to company, perhaps from occupation to occupation, many people have also ended up in the gig economy. Self-employed contractors are not now just highly qualified professional experts and consultants, they can be Uber drivers, Airbnb operators and cleaners. This is insecure employment, vulnerable to any sudden changes in the political or economic environment, and carrying few if any employment benefits.

We can now see that, in the UK elections, many traditionally blue-collar voters abandoned Corbyn’s socialist promises to nationalize this and tax that and opted for more certainty, less change, and (by leaving the EU) reducing the risk of Johnny Foreigner coming in and stealing their jobs. The number of voters choosing this option vastly outnumbered those holding secure office jobs in large prosperous cities who’d like to remain in the EU because it makes it just so much easier to pop over to Majorca for their summer holidays. Thus the working class are now tending to vote conservative while the educated and professional middle class veer towards socialism. Generally, it would seem that more insecure you feel about your current status in society these days the more conservative you will become.

Our own two socialist parties now strongly exhibit this trend. Gone are the muscular horny-handed manual workers from both the political and electorate ranks of the Labour party, while the ranks of the Greens have, right from the start, been heavily populated by schoolteachers and academics. These days, to become a Labour party MP, forget the hammer and sickle, move from University into either an MPs support staff role or take a job in an NGO, cultivate contacts within your local party branch, and prepare to pounce when the time is right. For National, there is a similar route – possibly moving from University though a top law or accounting firm and on to the governing board of a multinational company before gracefully accepting the offer of a seat in the Beehive.

Thus we now get a Government almost entirely consisting of people who have grown up and matured in a social and economic hot-house, the path smoothed out in front of them and with minimal exposure to the vicissitudes and tribulations of the real world. Having always been able to view humanity from the top down with an air of supreme detachment, they are then able to formulate and enunciate grandiose plans that are quite detached from reality and practicality. The result? - we end up with lofty promises to end homelessness, reduce child poverty and build 100,000 affordable homes within ten years. After hubris comes Kiwibuild.

Our housing market may well be ‘broken’, as Shamubeel Eaqub claims. However, is introducing a plethora of controls, regulations and taxes the answer? Real world experience indicates probably not. You and I fortunately live in a country where most of us have access to a vast array of clean and generally wholesome reasonably priced food available in almost unlimited quantities. Sure, there are rules around food storage, handling, and other health-related issues, but there is no overriding and controlling Ministry of Food arranging the supply and marketing, it comes to us by the magic of the free market. Yet in societies where rationing, government control, ten year plans and state food markets are imposed we invariably find food shortages, endemic corruption, high prices and poor customer service, sometimes even ending in famine.

So if freeing up the market so that it expedites efficiency and supply works for the food industry, why would it not also work for housing? Do we really expect that the current plethora of limitations, consents, restrictions, imposed costs, red tape, tax penalties, and over-the-top requirements will provide a responsive and freely functioning lowest possible cost housing and residential rental market? And if it does not, will imposing even more of such demands as prescribed by those MBAs and Ph.Ds now holding the reins of power prove to be the solution?


Back out in the heat and dust of the real world, well away from the air-conditioned four-windowed lofty high-rise corner offices of downtown Wellington or Auckland, I suspect not.