• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7 15 16 17 18 19 27 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 289
  1. #161
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,509

    Default

    It's ye olde pendulum again and this forum is a perfect example.

    Far too much gloat and whining from some quarters.

    It was your choice to enter into a commodity market. The Average person has as much tears to shed for yourselves as they do for oil producing countries right now. If you choose to enter into a business which involves supplying a social commodity then don't whine about the rules of the game.

    If it is "oh so tough" find yourself another business*. Now that I think about it, that's actually a very right wing sentiment. How ironic of me.

    *Ideally one which makes a profit from selling goods and services rather then gambling on capital increase.
    Last edited by PTWhatAGreatForum; 21-09-2016 at 10:53 AM.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    ^^^Does anybody take him seriously? ^^^

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    14,879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelNZ View Post
    It's ye olde pendulum again and this forum is a perfect example
    . . . . Ideally one which makes a profit from selling goods and services rather then gambling on capital increase.
    You make too many presumptions, Michael.

    There are many on here - I'm one - who have no eye to capital gain as a matter of business. I provide rentals to people that want them and the rent is my income. Capital gains (illusory - hereabouts [most everywhere] it's only a change in numbers) are not a consideration in my business decisions.
    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,710

    Default

    Agree. It is a bit of a black and white approach.
    I myself usually look for a win win financial relationships.
    Many people get involved in projects because of the social benefits they provide.

    For example, most of us take stuff to the good will shop.
    But if the staff at the good will shop started being rude and trashing the stuff
    and then charging you for parking while you unloaded...
    You might reconsider your involvement.

    There are of course many people who get involved in supposedly socially benifical projects with less than alturistic intentions.

  5. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    I provide rentals to people that want them and the rent is my income.
    but to Michael this is not a 'service'

    Michael - care to share your wisdom on the provision of a service 'accommodation provision' vs. services that you do seem worthy business?

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don't believe the Hype View Post
    Michael - care to share your wisdom on the provision of a service 'accommodation provision' vs. services that you do seem worthy business?
    Rental properties is a service but it's a bit poor for landlords to complain about the rules and marketplace conditions of the business.

    On that topic, anyone who thinks the National government will do **** for landlords is deluded. Ideologically, their position is to extricate the government from housing provision and they will do whatever it takes to achieve this aim at the minimum political cost.

    Diddums for you landlords who thought it was a great business. Some of you may well find yourselves the last cab off the rank.
    Last edited by PTWhatAGreatForum; 21-09-2016 at 03:03 PM.

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Upper Hutt
    Posts
    262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    Para 56 of what? The Appeal Court judgement? If so, can that be posted here to give better context to this discussion, please.

    Noting that s270 of the PLA refers to premiums, not any excess.
    In Holler v Osaki para [56] (page 22) (click on link to see full judgement)

    [56] We were not asked to address the application of ss 270 and 271 and do not do so.
    Clause (1)(b) of section 270 of the PLA mentions "insurance excess" as an example of cost that can be claimed. The context of "recover from the lessee any increased insurance costs" is quirky but I am sure the insurance companies can be accommodating to make the excess a future cost to enable a successful claim, if s 270 can be made to apply to residential tenancies.

    What I am looking for is a view from someone trained in law to see if my reading is a plausible interpretation.
    The Son of Glenn

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    147

    Default Hmm ... another wrinkle from the TT regarding the whole Osaki / insurance debacle.

    5. If the owner has property insurance but is not covered by insurance for an event being claimed, the insurer isto include in the letter the reasons why the property insurance policy excludes cover for those events.
    If you've been following the various posts on PT regarding the Osaki issue I think you'll spot the implications behind this ruling.

    TT# is 4039387

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,675

    Default

    Reads to me that it's about having insurance cover, but which excludes certain circumstances, rather than whether or not the landlord has insurance. They want proof via the insurer that it's really not covered under the specific policy.

    It doesn't say (yet) that they expect the landlord to have covers-everything-imaginable insurance.
    My blog. From personal experience.
    http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    14,879

    Default

    The way I read that - or, as the case may be, any insurance excess that the lessor may be required to pay in relation to any future claims for destruction or damage of that kind). - it applies to future claims, not historical ones.
    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13-02-2018, 12:10 PM
  2. Environment Court judge rules on Wellington view-blocking fence
    By PTWhatAGreatForum in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 22-07-2016, 09:14 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-03-2016, 03:32 PM
  4. Landlords ignorant of upcoming LVR rules
    By muppet in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 04:53 PM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-06-2013, 04:54 PM
  6. Landlords are liable - New File Share Law
    By klauster in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 16-08-2011, 09:18 AM
  7. Family Court rules on tenancy
    By Glenn in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-12-2007, 09:56 PM
  8. Landlords Court Fees Slashed
    By Glenn in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14-06-2006, 06:49 PM
  9. New rules for landlords Oct 19 2005
    By muppet in forum Regions News (UK)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-10-2005, 09:17 PM
  10. Landlords win court dispute to charge tenants for water
    By larrymiles in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-11-2003, 06:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •