Originally posted by Davo36
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Life as a Landlord
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by artemis View PostThe National government may have many faults but the social investment approach is not one of them. Instead of spraying funding randomly they have been targeting huge amounts of funding in exactly the way you said, based on data and not feelz or lobbying by groups with agendas.
Two examples. The Young Parent Payment, initially aimed at 16/17 year old parents, since extended to 18/19s and maybe extended further. Data showed that these young parents stay on benefit longer than any other group. It is very expensive per family as it involves wraparound services and a system of responsibilities on both sides. The number of teen parents is now around half the number in 2008, some of which will be because of the YPP.
The second example is the proposal to attach extra school funding to individuals with specific risks. Rather than to the community composition, which is what the decile system does.
Each of those has performance measures.
Neither is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and there are other social investment initiatives as well. When I mention the YPP to people I know, few have ever heard of it. One of the reasons for that is opposition parties never ever mention it so the policy gets no airtime. So it stays under the radar, a quiet achiever where those involved are just getting on with it.
As for winners and losers, a tad too Trumpist for me, the real world isn't that black and white- despite what the right wing "winners" would have us believe.
CraigLast edited by Perry; 02-10-2017, 05:54 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mrsaneperson View PostIn that case you absolve everyone from any kind of personal responsibility .Having that kind of thinking has led us exactly to where we are at this present moment in time with our decayed society.
Until we stop blaming everything and everyone else for problems of our own making, be it obesity, drug use etc then we will have a repetitive endemic of losers and failures .
Throwing money at the problem and ignoring root causes is in essence why all these things are continuing to escalate around us.
Largely the buck has to stop at the individual in whatever control they have over creating their own destiny!
Do you think people who are not normal and not quite sane can be held responsible for their actions?
How do you feel about those that are not smart enough to think ahead and realise the consequences of their actions?
Get tough with them?
Don't give them any money?
Beat them until they become sane?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Davo36 View PostBut those with low IQs for instance will be losers. Nothing much they can do except work in a low paid job.
A low paid job that is then off-shored.
So you have lots and lots of time on your hands whilst on the dole. So you turn to drugs, alcohol, crime etc.
And it's happening in developed countries all over the world.
What do we do with those with low IQs?
You can't raise their IQ.
They use drugs, alcohol and commit crimes.
How can you reduce the bad effects they cause?
Lock them up? For how long? In a prison or a medical detention centre.
Execute them? For having a low IQ?
Tell them they need to be responsible for their actions? And that will raise their IQ and they'll start behaving?
There seem to be a lot of opinions on how to treat these people but I haven't heard anything that might work.
These people aren't going away.
Hopefully someone can suggest some workable solutions.
Comment
-
I believe research shows that age 4 is about when parents cease to have much influence on underlying personality.Free online Property Investment Course from iFindProperty, a residential investment property agency.
Comment
-
Those of you who follow this column assiduously will know that, back in June, I wrote about a tenant who would not leave the property on the termination of her tenancy.
To recap, I served her a 90-day notice in December requiring her to vacate in March. When the termination date rolled around she refused to move out. After some fairly prolonged but eventually unfruitful discussions I then applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for confirmation of the order. This hearing took place in May and she did not appear at the hearing, later claiming that she did not receive the posted notice until after the day after the scheduled date.
Despite her absence the order was made. As she still would not vacate I then had to get an Eviction Order at the District Court. Again, she did not appear at that hearing. I then had to pay the Court $200 for a bailiff to serve the notice at the property and post Possession Notices on the exterior doors. After his departure she then returned to the property, removed the notices, and re-entered.
Finally, after she barricaded herself into the property it took the combined efforts of five policemen to gain access by dismantling the living-room ranch slider and then physically drag her out. Apparently they then took her off to the station and issued her with a trespass order.
So I then thought that, finally, was that. I had regained possession of the property. Silly me. Just a few days later I received written notification from the Court that she had filed for a rehearing on the grounds that the original 90-day notice was discriminatory. What amazed me even more was that, although the notes attached by the Court to the Eviction Order clearly stated that any appeal must be made within five working days of the Order being issued, her appeal was both dated and accepted by the Court on the sixth day.
As a result of that out-of-time appeal, I then got a notice that the possession order was ‘stayed’. It appeared that I no longer had possession.
As soon as I received this piece of paper of course I contacted the burocracy to find out just why they accepted her application when it was out of time by their own rules.
“We can’t discuss that” they replied, “It will need to be brought up at the next hearing and sorted out then”. Blank wall stuff.
So as a result of this stay of proceedings she was now presumably still the tenant at the property but of course she could not actually enter there because of the police trespass order. All her possessions remained in the house and I could not touch them as she was still the legal tenant, so for some months all I have been able do was go ahead with some planned renovations in the bathroom and the kitchen all the while making sure her possessions and chattels are warm, dry and safe.
Eventually, in mid-October, the Tenancy Tribunal finally reheard the case. My opening argument was that any claim that the original 90-day notice was discriminatory would need, under the provisions of the RTA, to be filed by her within 28 days from the receipt of that notice, and she openly admitted that she had not done that.
The adjudicator accepted this evidence and her argument therefore failed at the first hurdle. The hearing (which had been set down for ninety minutes) was now over in just twelve. I now had legal possession once again as at that second Tribunal hearing date. In October we have now gone full circle and are back to exactly where we had been in May.
But of course I am now presumably owed another 19 weeks rent for the time between that first hearing and the second – a matter of some thousands of dollars. Also presumably I now have to wait out another 35 days from the date of regaining possession while the legislated time for storing her chattels and belongings passes. It’s a good thing that I actually have the financial resources to carry all this through, an amateur landlord with just one property could well find himself in deep cash-flow doo-doo given this sort of carry-on.
Just to complicate the whole exercise I have recently been advised that she has now filed a claim for exemplary damages for the condition of the property during her tenancy and for damage to her possessions due to those conditions. I have been given a date in December for this hearing, which will be a full twelve months from the date of issue of the original 90-day notice. It’s enough to make you beat your head against a brick wall.
Comment
-
Nightmare. The rehearing nonsense without explanation.... I feel for you.
Are the possessions worth more than the cost of storing them? (excluding personal documents -> authorities)Rentex Limited Property Management - Est. 1988
Comment
-
How can she claim that the 90-day notice was discriminatory? 1) She was granted the tenancy, whatever her ethnicity/marital status etc. 2) You don't have to provide a reason for a 90-day notice (yet).
Yeah, I want to know where the exemplary damages from tenants to landlords are, for stuffing them around to the tune of thousands of dollars on trumped-up claims and sheer bull-headed stupidity. Not to mention wasting the taxpayers' money.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
Comment