Life as a Landlord

[Wayne]

And is that not the nub of it all?

<> So out of touch they can't speak plainly.

or

<> Speak gobbledegook so it's meaningless and they can't be held to it.

Neither option gives any optimism.

Yip - doesn't give me any hope.

[artemis]

It's about outcomes rather than inputs. So the government pays for results not effort or time. If the results don't happen the contract is cancelled.

(I skipped questions not interested in but overall understood the general thrust. I spent too long working in the beltway, obviously.)

[Perry]

If the results don't happen the contract is cancelled.

Nice idea!

I'm not averse to the general idea of no results = no pay; but is it realistic / enforceable / fudgeable / repudiatable / likely?

[flyernzl]

Reminds me of that long-ago "Yes Minister" proposal for failure standards.

"Alas I am an expert, so therefore I shall rise no further."

Mostly, for Government projects:
"Its been a success, so we will expand it and give it more money"
or
"Oh dear, its been a total failure, so obviously its been underfunded and we'll better give it more money".

[artemis]

Nice idea!

I'm not averse to the general idea of no results = no pay; but is it realistic / enforceable / fudgeable / repudiatable / likely?

It's a lot easier to start something than to close it. But still there have been plenty of contracts not renewed under various governments. Quietly usually, especially in the private sector. Every time there are redundancies mentioned in the media, some rationalisation has happened.

Couple of cancelled contracts that spring to mind - some Problem Gambling Foundation locations, some third party health providers. Waipareira Trust had several cancelled and made a fuss.

Anyway, no need for people to do any part of the survey mentioned, but better to have some input when invited,rather than be dealt captain's calls.

[Perry]

A Bridges Too Far

Those observations accepted, is the language not overly lofty, cryptic, patronising and quite out-of-touch with the common person?

I.e. The gNats to a tee?

[eri]

if it's change you want

don't pointlessly complain to us

we can't change ANYTHING

tell them!

0800 255 266

[email protected]

of course if it's

i complain

there for i am

carry on

[Perry]

You do know the meaning of the word "futility," don't you?

Hell! Maybe some gNat gNumpty might even read this discussion? (Faint hope)

Keep carping, keep calm and keep carrying on.

Maybe Andrew whatshisname might even take time to mention this to some gNominally gNat gNome, in some sort of vain hope?

[eri]

dear blah, blah blah

i tried to participate in the social services survey you have at https://www.national.org.nz/

but i got a bit stuck with the difficulty of the questions...

i think many people probably have the same problem...

could you reword the questions into something less legalise and more common speak?

ps, it's never a good look to speak down to your hoped for supporters

this is where trump does so well

[eri]

have sent it for you P

will be interesting to see of you/me/we

get a response

[Perry]

Thanks.

I tried it with Winston First - the Porkies Principality Prince.

Even met with his deputy.

What about the failure to implement the xxx hustings promise?

Not enough people voted for us was the response.

For that lot, there's always a way out.

[Bob Kane]

But in this case it isn't about controlling the house or what people do TO it - it is about controlling what the people do IN it.
There seems to be the idea that because the people are renting they should behave differently to how others can behave.

No, tenants should behave in the same thoughtful and considerate way everyone else behaves.
What's wrong with that?

[flyernzl]

Do landlords have moral and social obligations towards their tenants?

The legal obligations of a residential landlord are clearly spelt out within the Residential Tenancies Act. In essence, the landlord must provide a clean sound habitable property that meets all relevant building, health and safety standards. As far as the Act goes, that is the end of it. However, there now seems to be growing social pressure that those who rent out homes should also be expected to provide some sort of pastoral care.

Recent unfortunate incidents at some University Halls of Residence have generated cries that those institutions have failed in their duty of care for those students who are living within their halls. This may well be true for that particular rental situation, but does this necessarily translate to a similar obligation in the private sector rental market?

Over the years I have, from time to time, made attempts to help a few tenants in my rentals to sort their lives out and extract themselves from some sticky situations. Of course, I have no particular skills in this area and possibly may have made a few similar mistakes myself in the dim distant past, but perhaps life experience does help. Usually these attempts relate to those tenant’s financial situation, perhaps where some short-term tragedy has occurred – job loss, relationship breakup, or a sudden large and unanticipated expense. By working with an otherwise sound tenant who is actually willing to make an effort and who is worth keeping in that property, these life hiccups can over time be sorted.

I have just emerged from a short stay in hospital occasioned by a quite unexpected but urgently needed surgical operation. While in the ward, I got talking to the young fellow occupying the next bed. He had been admitted early the previous day, but then his particular operation had been moved back in favour of more urgent cases, so he was fairly upset. Talking with him further, he certainly had good grounds for agitation. Already the father of two small children, his wife had given birth to a third just two weeks ago, and was still recovering, having had a fairly rough time of it. He works in an hourly-rate contractor gig, so has no sick pay, holiday pay, or other income to tide him over while he was hospitalised. With no money coming in and presumably nothing to fall back on he was, quite obviously, a worried man. So worried, in fact, that by the middle of that day he packed up and discharged himself rather than wait any longer for his treatment.

I assume that he and his family lived in a rental property. How would you handle this situation if you were his landlord and if he now fails to pay his rent as and when due? Certainly, we know what would happen if he was a heavily-mortgaged home owner – the Bank would issue a sternly worded letter reminding him of his responsibilities and also charge him a hefty penalty on the missed payment, but somehow landlords are meant to be rather more forgiving, caring and considerate.

So how much social welfare should a landlord offer? There are many landlords who already seem to view their property business as partly an act of charity. “Oh, these tenants are really good, and have been with us a long time. We keep the rent down and they are so grateful”. In some cases, these landlords even boast that it is quite some years since they last reviewed the rent they charge. While it is their asset, their money, and their choice, quite why this is considered a good and honourable thing to do is never really explained. In any other business, just because a someone has been a valuable and reliable customer for a substantial length of time seldom leads to favourable treatment – consider the enticements your power supplier, your bank or your phone company offers to prospective new customers compared to what they charge you and those others they already have ensnared in their net.

Housing New Zealand (or their latest iteration, Kāinga Ora) have an obligation to house the most needy and desperate in our society. Private landlords do not. Like any privately-run business, landlords may pick and choose their customers, and if those customers – the tenants - prove to be unsatisfactory, they currently have the right to cease dealing with them. That is the fundamental difference between private enterprise and Government institutions, the ability to pick and choose your customers. The Government must deal with everyone, private businesses can be selective.

HNZ have adopted the policy of “sustaining tenancies”. Thus under political instruction Housing New Zealand won’t terminate tenancies, even in extreme cases. This has led to a number of well-reported incidents, such as a recent case in Hastings that left many locals living in fear. Intimidation, swearing, relentless partying, multiple burnouts and abusive behaviour took over a once quiet street. The intimidation and threats of violence from a group of tenants were not addressed because of the “sustaining tenancies” directive and the policy of not issuing 90-day notices. All their neighbours, not just other tenants but also nearby owner-occupiers, have been badly affected. They have to live alongside the gang members, suffering intimidation and noise every day. There are no sanctions for bad behaviour, it’s only other people’s money that pays for it all.

So HNZ are assumed to have the resources, the skills and the taxpayer funding to either undertake this pastoral work themselves or farm it out to other providers. However, I and most other individual landlords certainly do not. Yet looking at the most recently proposed tenancy law changes it would seem that similar social work obligations are now going to be imposed on private sector landlords. We will effectively be required to offer life-time tenancies with minimal opportunities to regulate any unsavoury behaviour, and when such behaviour does occur we will be in the front-line – vulnerable, unprotected and no doubt the target of reproach by neighbours and social agencies.

This does not bode well for the future.

[mrsaneperson]

Great Post as always flyer.

The one thing missing from it though is the word communist. By that I mean this government we have is installing a communist mandate upon all of us in the name of equality, a pseudo form of equality at that.
Everyone must be the same, no individuality, no one must be less well off etc. Freedom of expression or difference of opinion from that of the governing force is being classed as hate speech. This conveniently sidelines any opposing political parties ensuring the grip on power is an absolute.
In the last few months under reforms of the Residential Tenancie Act, either current or upcoming, landlords have been dealt a fascist authoritarian blow by this ragtag coalition government :

1.Tenants are now only responsible for a maximum of 4 weeks rent due to careless damage or the excess on landlords insurance policy whatever the lesser.
If you don't have insurance and the tenant carelessly burns your house down you're stuffed.

2. Anonymous tenant identity in regards to tenant lodging complaint against landlord and winning case. So now tenant can ensure no future landlord will know anything about a past tenancy situation that was ruled in their favour when searching through tribunal orders.

3. Fixed heating requirements for open plan design type lounges. A $20 bar heater from the Warehouse is no longer enough, many $$$$ expenditure are being forced upon us by idiot so called do gooders that think this will stop tenants from getting sick. No thought given to the cost of power to run these appliances that the most needy tenants will not have dollars for.

4. 150mm minimum ducting requirements for bathrooms and kitchen.
Many places have only the 100mm ducting in place or often have other means or measures to counter moisture formation. Tough your existing even if effective measures need to be ripped out, thank you fascist.

5. No cause termination not permitted.
Yes, so you have those tenants you want to get rid of because time after time they let you down and caused you a multitude of problems. You now need to terminate with a reason which they may well challenge.

I've probably missed out some of the other socialist communist policies newly enforced upon us but the irony of this government, whose policy is personal responsibility vetoed and your responsibility for everyone else's is flawed bankrupt ideology that as demonstrated in other countries - Venezuela comes to mind - leads to the wreckage of a once great country.

[Wayne]

2. Anonymous tenant identity in regards to tenant lodging complaint against landlord and winning case. So now tenant can ensure no future landlord will know anything about a past tenancy situation that was ruled in their favour when searching through tribunal orders.

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.