Bad tenant warnings

[ThePolice]

You are all warned that Sarah and Joanne Ingham the infamous twins are back in town and looking for a property. They have been the subject of several tribunal decisions in this town.

Two of our members has passed on the following information.
First one from a recent tribunal hearing.
Ref Tribunal number NN 486/03
TraceyAnne Orlowski
Bluetack like liquid sprayed on walls and doors and window sills.
Broken vents in basement
Rabbit hutch smashed through basement lining
Drain unblockers needed twice. No reimbursement. As she usually did she
blamed the previous tenant even though she had been there for 32 weeks
before the first block. The kids had dropped pill bottles down.
Always disputes water rates and only pays after a tribunal hearing.
Rent sometimes late
Oven as dirty as it could get
11 Light bulbs missing
Thick engine oil all over the new driveway
Broken locks through abuse
Lots of broken windows and only get paid after extensive mediators
involvement. She is still arguing with the mediation decision a month
after the order/hearing which she was at.
On vacating, missing keys which claimed I never gave her. Somehow she
was mysteriously able to gain entrance to the property a day after she
vacated?
When she left the curtains left and had to get them back through the
tribunal, then she said it was just a mistake.

Second one from the previous year NN 272/02 dated 26 September 2002.

Mark Dunlop and Nicky Syme

Tribunal found in favour of landlord $1432.86 less bond of $500 remainder owed at that time $932.86

The Police

[donna]

Which town?

Is this going to be a regular service you are offering (for free of course )? Better to be informed than not - feel free to keep them coming.

Regards,

Donna

[muppet]

Hi Donna

I think The Police is based in Nelson and knows you know who

Regards

[donna]

I stood in the supermaket queue yesterday idly flicking through the women's magazines and see the Ingham twins are having problems in Nelson because the landlords won't give them a second (fiftieth?) chance.

I've been talking to friends about the age that children can understand "consequences" and when they should be allowed to make certain choices. I'm guessing that these two never thought of these consequences when they were younger.

[Glenn]

You might be interested to hear that I have showed a couple of houses to the lovely ladies.
I really find it a fascinating reflection on our society that so many people are interested to know about their fate. I do not consider that they would be unmanageable. I have offered to rent them one place on the following basis.
1 That WINZ pays the rent directly to me.
2 That they are given a short fixed term tenancy as a trial. (This is provided for in the RTA) and
3 that the owner is happy to have them (trusts me that I can manage them)
The problem is they do not want to rent the properties that I have offered them. They want something really nice. Now who would blame them but then I ask you all?
Who of you would blame me or anyone else for not wanting to trust them?
If we do not judge people on their past behaviour we have to judge them on their nice smile, race, family and martial status and religion. The media have asked me questions like
“Are they with their husbands?”
“Are they Muslims”
“what about their children”

Now really you kiwis surely it is about time to stop looking at these issues. There are laws about judging people on these issues.

We have to judge them on their past actions.

[Marcus]

I do not consider that they would be unmanageable. I have offered to rent them one place on the following basis.
1 That WINZ pays the rent directly to me.
2 That they are given a short fixed term tenancy as a trial. (This is provided for in the RTA) and
3 that the owner is happy to have them (trusts me that I can manage them)

This makes great sense for tenants that I may have suspicions about. I’m going to bank that one thanks Glenn.

Regards,
Marcus

[inzvestor]

I have offered to rent them one place on the following basis.
1 That WINZ pays the rent directly to me.

Are they not of an age where they can start working and not be a drain on society?

Why should the taxpayer fund their lifestyle?

Good on you for taking on this challenge.

Maybe as they grow older they will realise their stupidity / and consequences of their actions and keep a low profile.
Will insurers still cover you if you have known problem tenants?

[muppet]

Hi Guys

Inzvestor wrote

Maybe as they grow older they will realise their stupidity / and consequences of their actions and keep a low profile.

I am afraid it is a form of lifestyle where it is much easier to sponge off the Government instead of being useful members of society.
There are all too many people in this country who are doing this sort of thing.

Still they make entertaining reading for the public.

Regards

[Glenn]

Good comments everyone.
I never really think of these types of people ever working (not counting the horizontal work they have become infamous for).
From time to time I get some professional beneficary say they have been told by WINZ to get a job. They often will start one of those stupid job creation activities like a course to be a security guard, or what ever. They never ever seem to result in a regular job though.
Some landlords can choose to never deal with these people. I do not find it too bad. They all need a home of sorts and if you manage them ok and treat them ok then the return can be really good. This is because most landlords are afraid to get their hands dirty dealing with the lower levels of society. Niche marketing is another way of putting it. Get the sums wrong and boy you loose big. But hey get the sums wrong on a block of shops some time and have them empty for years and see how the upper classes can also deal a cruel blow to you.
I am just as happy taking money from drug addicts, mental cases, and boy racers as I am happy taking it off doctors, lawyers, and manufacturers. They all need a slightly different appoach but their money works just the same.
Glenn