Most Active - Last 30 Days
02-02-2017, 04:49 PM
Did you have a car alarm?
06-02-2017, 10:10 PM
No car alarm.
But I have managed to negotiate the Stratford fuel bill down from $8522.00 to $138.36, so that's got to be a win.
06-02-2017, 10:12 PM
There is your problem.
Originally Posted by flyernzl
07-02-2017, 12:03 AM
That's some negotiation! Or was the pump faulty?
Originally Posted by flyernzl
08-02-2017, 08:35 AM
No, my problem is with low-lifers who think it is fine to steal other peoples stuff.
Originally Posted by MichaelNZ
I thinks they figured out that I could not have put 3400 litres of fuel into an aircraft that only has two 46 litre fuel tanks. I suspect that the original debit was for all the fuel sold in that accounting period.
Originally Posted by sidinz
And I could wave my printed receipt for the correct amount at them.
01-03-2017, 10:18 PM
Hopefully it will have not escaped your notice that today is D-day for the Methamphetamine Standard deliberations. All the ‘experts’ are meeting in Wellington to study the entrails of a goat and come up with the rules and readings we landlords will need to live under for the next few years.
Of course, as is traditionally the case, they tried to do this without in any way actually talking to anyone who is a living and breathing Landlord. Experts, who have sat in an ivory tower and read a book, always know best on how other people should operate. However, with considerable effort, we have managed to inject one landlording representative into the process but there still seems to be considerable ignorance on the problems meth contamination create within the residential rental sector.
To help contribute to our side of the discussion I cobbled together an article on how Joe, a landlord, was inflicted with meth-using tenants and the problems he faced during the subsequent cleaning up process. Joe, of course, is an imaginary person, but the article was based on an actual case. The story has since been heavily reworked and received the publicity we were after, but here is the story in its raw original form:
Joe owns a property in the northern suburbs of Auckland. There are three residential houses on this property, and Joe rents them all out to support himself in his old age.
After one of the houses became vacant, Joe retained the property management department of a large Real Estate firm to find replacement tenants. They sought applicants for the tenancy of the three bedroom house, carried out the appropriate checks, signed up the new tenants on a fixed term tenancy and they moved in during May 2015.
The tenants were a couple with three school-age children. As the parents were unemployed, the rent was payable directly from their WINZ benefit to Joe.
Joe then took over the management of the property.
He immediately encountered problems with late night partying disturbing other residents and undesirable acquaintances hanging around the property.
Matters came to a head in February 2016 when the tenants turned hostile.
A regular property inspection (as allowed under the Residential Tenancies Act) was carried out in July 2016. Four methamphetamine tests at that time give a positive result. That inspection also found that the tenants had done significant damage to the property.
Two weeks later, Joe was featured in a news article on the difficult lives that residential landlords lead, and in particular the methamphetamine issue was discussed.
The following weekend the tenants at the property vacated without notice, despite the fixed-term tenancy still having seven months to run.
Although they had removed some of their possessions as they departed, when Joe was authorized to enter the property by the Tenancy Tribunal he was faced with removing and dumping seven loads of worthless furniture and rubbish at a cost of $1638.
Joe’s insurance company required Joe to carry out further meth testing costing $552 at his own expense before they took any meaningful interest in Joe’s claim under the landlord’s extension to his house policy.
The insurance company then engaged their own meth testing agency to carry out more extensive testing and provide a report on the required remediation. These indicated serious levels of meth contamination so extensive that Joe is faced with stripping out all carpeting, soft board ceilings, wall linings, all the cabinets, cupboards, wardrobes, doors and possibly window frames removed, the new heat pump and even the kitchen stove. On this basis, Joe will be left with only the timber framing, exterior cladding, timber flooring and iron roof.
This work was carried out in November, and the necessary retest was done in early December and failed to meet the necessary standard. More work then took place over a further two weeks by the remediators and yet another test was done mid-December. This also failed. With contamination levels between 0.65 and 1.07 μg/100cm2 in places. Following even more work, the property finally tested clear on 24th January, five months after the tenants vacated the property.
Soon after the tenants departed, Joe lodged a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal for access to the rental bond, which the tenants had lodged with tenancy Services. This bond, equal to four weeks rent, was eventually paid out to him but does not come anywhere near covering his actual costs. As Joe does not now know where the ex-tenants are living he cannot lodge a further claim against them for his losses as the window of opportunity that the claim process allows has now passed. In order to reopen the case, Joe applied for a continuation hearing at the end of October. The application was acknowledged, but he heard no more.
Three months later he inquired what was happening about this application, and was astonished to get the response “it looks as though this has gone through a twist and perhaps the Court schedulers have missed our request.” Obviously no urgency there. With this astonishing inefficiency you have to ask are they working for the luckless landlord or the absconding tenant?
So eventually Joe has a decontaminated house back. A hollowed-out and stripped decontaminated house. No floorcoverings, no stove, no light fittings, no curtains, no architraves, no ventilation system and a lot of the paint scraped down to bare timber. He now has his work cut out to get all of this back together into rentable state. To make matters even worse, the actually physical damage that the tenants did to the property by breaking windows and damaging other parts of the property is classed as a separate claim (or most likely several separate claims) on his insurance, each which will be reduced in value by the amount of his excess.
Will this sad situation continue? Already landlords are dropping out of the housing market, insurance companies are talking of cutting back or even eliminating their meth remediation cover, and the rental housing shortage is getting worse. There is the prospect of an updated methamphetamine contamination Standard later this year. Will it suffice to solve the problem? Probably not. It is a social problem as well as a legislative one. Action is needed urgently to hold tenants such as these fully responsible for the damage they do and the stress they inflict on others.
02-03-2017, 06:57 AM
I suggest you read Section 136 2(d)
Originally Posted by flyernzl
02-03-2017, 07:53 AM
So they moved in in May 2015 on a fixed term (1 yr?).
Inspection in June 2016 showed damage.
Any inspections between May 2015 and June 2016?
Did they turn feral between the last 2 inspections - I know that happens and people often say 'well they should have done inspections then' like it takes ages to trash a place.
Though it does say that he immediately had issues after he took over management.
In this sort of situation, where the cost of the damage isn't know for some time, can you lodge a 'starter' claim or do you have wait months for the full costs to be in?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)