Some interesting TT decisions.

[Nice]

I side with the tenant on the subletting issue. Landlords have benefiited greatly by increased rents, at considerable cost to the working classes and the taxpayer.

Obviously the tenant needed a bit extra to pay the rent and the landlord kicks them for it.

It's scenarios like this which demonstrate many landlords are greedy, selfish and deserving of tough regulation.

This could only be construed as a breach of contract if the contract was fair, and for this to be so, property would have to operate in a competitive market and it does not.

In respect of the lock and walking out, this is an understandable reaction to the situation. If the landlord was operating with integrity, this would greatly decrease their chances of attracting problems to themselves. So it's their karma and all... It's no different to certain posters here who seem to have far too much experience in the Tenancy Tribunal.

The tenant was also an idiot for not turning up to the hearings and appearing to play silly-buggars with the Tenancy Tribunal.

The media, as usual, does not report the 'facts' very well. The amount awarded to the landlord in respect of AirBNB was $2,650. The remainder (Total $11,513.29) was in respect of standard, run of the mill matters.

If the tenant had turned up to the hearing they would likely have improved the outcome. At minimum, it would not be any worse.

The tenant hardly qualifies as working class when he set out to sublet the property from day 1.

The trouble was the Landlord did treat the tenant with integrity, the tenant saw an opportunity to screw the Landlord over and pusposely set out to do so.

Once the tenant was out, the property was relet for another $100 a week within days.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Once the tenant was out, the property was relet for another $100 a week within days.

That sort of inflation is unconscienable and a great example of why such landlords need to be squeezed.

The trouble was the Landlord did treat the tenant with integrity, the tenant saw an opportunity to screw the Landlord over and pusposely set out to do so.

You and your compatriats here would be among the first to whail loudly if the council took the same approach and started 'taxing' landlords.

Actually, I'm starting to think that's a good idea. It's only fair to tax 'evil landlords' seeing same 'evil landlords' think it's ok to tax tenants.

"Be careful what you wish for" is something which needs to be often repeated here, unfortunately.

[Nice]

That sort of inflation is unconscienable and a great example of why such landlords need to be squeezed.

It's happened before so can happen again.

Build more houses.

This is not desperation that is driving this price up, it is a luxury well appointed penthouse apartment with stunning views. It was under rented previously, the rest of the building is leasing at the level we listed it. The property was taken within days. It doesn't bother my conscience at all.

Now, low end properties in 'working class' suburbs that continue to increase in price with no additional service or maintenance are another story; that is where conscience should be more prevalent !

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Build more houses.

This is not desperation that is driving this price up, it is a luxury well appointed penthouse apartment with stunning views. It was under rented previously, the rest of the building is leasing at the level we listed it. The property was taken within days. It doesn't bother my conscience at all.

Now, low end properties in 'working class' suburbs that continue to increase in price with no additional service or maintenance are another story; that is where conscience should be more prevalent !

I have put 2-and-2 together and realised you have a vested interest in this matter. That's good you should turn up and answer for yourself.

So, how would your landlord feel if the council adopted the same ideology/mindset as them and rated (taxed) their revenue on the rental property?

Or, as typical with landlords, you only see what's good for you (greed) and are blind to the many contradictions of your position?

[Nice]

So, how would your landlord feel if the council adopted the same ideology/mindset as them and rated (taxed) their revenue on the rental property?

Or, as typical with landlords, you only see what's good for you (greed) and are blind to the many contradictions of your position?

Council does not tax on revenue, IRD does that; like they do on every business.

If Government dosn,t want us private owners to run a business in providing rental property, then they need to take up the slack somewhere themselves, as they are proposing to do. There are no contradictions with my position, I provide a service to people that need it; and funnily enough, I like to cover costs for both myself and my clients. Do you expect this to be done as a charity ?

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

If Government dosn,t want us private owners to run a business in providing rental property, then they need to take up the slack somewhere themselves, as they are proposing to do.

So you think it's OK for landlords to profit from the services which the council are providing property owners?

I will break this down for you-

Tenant rents property, makes a profit on this and landlord wants a share. This is the crux of your most rediculous case.

Landlord rents out property, makes a profit on this, but you are avoiding the obvious - and that's should the council also receive a share?

To keep things consistent.

There are only 2 possible answers to this question - yes or no. And you know full well what I am asking... So, which is it?

[Nice]

So you think it's OK for landlords to profit from the services which the council are providing property owners?

I will break this down for you-

Tenant rents property, makes a profit on this and landlord wants a share. This is the crux of your most rediculous case.

Landlord rents out property, makes a profit on this, but you are avoiding the obvious - and that's should the council also receive a share?

To keep things consistent.

There are only 2 possible answers to this question - yes or no. And you know full well what I am asking... So, which is it?

The council does receive a share, its called the rates. The council cost is the same if a tenant rents it or the owner live in it.

The tenant has unlawfully rented the property out, deliberatly breaking all manner of signed agreements and made a profit. Why should they be able to deliberately profit from an unlawful act ?

For the record, not that it is particularly any of your business, but the owner has undertaken at the outset to contribute 50% of any of the profit gained to charity, and has iterated this to me in light of the current media focus.

It is your question and blinkered approach that is ridiculous surely ?

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

The council does receive a share, its called the rates.

And the landlord received their share - it's called "rent". You have not answered the question.

As for soapbox claims they will "donate 50% to charity" that is a bit rich in the circumstances. The real question is - would they have donated to charity if it was business as usual?

It is fine to donate to charity for (at least part) self interest. I donate to charity as an insuarnce policy for continued good luck and continued income. This is in addition to wanting to see certain outcomes manifested as a result of my (and others) support.

I know for certain there are others here (no names) who also donate to charity.

But, after the fact...?

Public relations purposes?

Conditional on a court case going the way they wanted?

My Goodness....

[Wayne]

So you think it's OK for landlords to profit from the services which the council are providing property owners?

I will break this down for you-

Tenant rents property, makes a profit on this and landlord wants a share. This is the crux of your most rediculous case.

Landlord rents out property, makes a profit on this, but you are avoiding the obvious - and that's should the council also receive a share?

To keep things consistent.

There are only 2 possible answers to this question - yes or no. And you know full well what I am asking... So, which is it?

Can I make it more simple for you - tenant breaks contract!
Tenant is caught and has to redress as is right!!!

[Keys]

Nice.

I can see you too may have to put MichaelNZ on your ignore list. I had him there for a couple of years and have, just recently, unblocked him. I came close, a few years ago, to being banned from here due to the penchant some posters have to wind me up. As soon as I note it now, I block them.

Good result.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

I can see you too may have to put MichaelNZ on your ignore list.
[...]
As soon as I note it now, I block them.

You are the only person I have ever heard brag here about their extensive "block list".

My block list is exactly zero. I practice engagement, not echo chambers.

I came close, a few years ago, to being banned from here due to the penchant some posters have to wind me up.

Your business website and your posts over at Trade Me have a certain flavour about them. Additionally, you are the most experienced poster here regarding the Tenancy Tribunal - a dubious honour really.

If you weren't so combative with people you may get a different outcome.

[eri]

the sound

of 1 hand clapping

bliss to my ears

...

hey

wouldn't it be cool

if top right of all posts said




Join Date ........................Jan 1999
Location ..........................waikikamukau
Posts ..............................1999
members have blocked .....10

[Sportsvee]

the sound

of 1 hand clapping

bliss to my ears

...

hey

wouldn't it be cool

if top right of all posts said




Join Date ........................Jan 1999
Location ..........................waikikamukau
Posts ..............................1999
members have blocked .....10

And we had a Like button.

[Keys]

And we had a Like button.

[Nice]

And we had a Like button.

And a Dislike button ?