Consultation on proposed RTA changes

[ReelBuzz]

Rent reviews annually

Hi how & when would you recommend calculating and conducting rent reviews in the light of the law change to annual rent increases. Do we wait & see what happens to market rents or just apply increases now. Seeing as insurance & rates have increased significantly along with no letting fees, covering those losses is a packet now

[Peter Griffin]

Lots if great ideas. I think the insurance idea for lost rent and pets would be useful. I'll add it to my submission.

[artemis]

Hi Artemis - you seem well versed in submissions, would it be possible for you to post a submission here for people to copy the parts they agree with into individual submissions? You'd be more likely to get people to make submissions and have a common thread in the different submissions.

Nick G - Might be worth making the same suggestion on the FB forum you manage.

I see you have made a good start.

In the past I have made a few submissions, detailed and research based where poss. They take a lot of time.

No longer interested with this government. They are committed to forging ahead with their agenda, maybe making an occasional small concession to show they are listening.

So as I mentioned above I will make a submission. It will say - Let's do this. Fewer rentals, higher rents, pick of the best tenants.

PS One rental sold, one will be converted to commercial by end September, two rented to family. The latter all done legally with proper tenancy agreements and within the Bond Centre's market rents. The others attract good tenants due to condition and especially location.

[Nikau Valley]

Hi folks, I'm new here. A few of the points I'm making:

Most NZ landlords are just Mum and Dad very small investors. Many have a friendly, trusting and helpful relationship with their tenants, don’t use an expensive agent, do small repairs themselves, keep the rent reasonable (barely keeping up with inflation), and would allow a tenant to put up a picture or shelving if both agree. Most landlords would give a reason and be apologetic if they needed to reclaim possession.

This proposed law will destroy all that friendliness and trust. Many people will want to stop being landlords, for fear of not being able to take possession if they did need to. Those remaining landlords will run the tenancy as a business, through an expensive agency. Agents will charge maximum market rent, increase the rent annually, use tradespeople for the smallest repairs and demand far more evidence that a tenant is reliable before considering them. This all will cost more and the cost will be reflected in higher rents.

Not everything should be made a law – the government doesn’t need to run everything. The main problem with NZ housing appears to be moisture and cold. Recent insulation increases will help with warmth. Moisture and mould need to be controlled mainly by the tenants: airing daily, wiping mould away and keeping everything clean. This is simply a need whether one lives in a rented or owned accommodation and can’t be the landlord’s responsibility.

Sensible landlords already put such requirements into a tenancy agreement.


Regarding pets, New Zealand should be lowering the number of cats and dogs for environmental reasons. Encouraging even more dogs and cats to destroy native birdlife is the exact opposite of what an environmentally aware government should be doing.
Other environmental concerns are their use of resources, especially meat, and that their faeces further strains sewers and landfills.


You have also completely failed to consider a great danger to other tenants: allergens. 10% of the population can be allergic to dogs, with symptoms of rashes, sneezing, congestion, wheezing, vomiting from coughing, itching.

Cat allergies can even be deadly: “In some severe cases, reactions may progress rapidly to cause the victim’s airway to become inflamed and close up, requiring emergency medical attention. Those with severe, life-threatening cat allergies face tremendous challenges due to lack of public awareness about anaphylactic cat allergies” (see Wikipedia)

These allergens can remain in the air, carpets, rugs and between floorboards for years. However clean a house looks, the allergens can remain.

It is therefore safer for tenants to know that a rental property has never contained pets and better for landlords to know that no future tenants will be affected by allergens.

Furthermore, many people are very afraid of dogs and other tenants will prefer to know that there is a ‘no dogs’ policy.

[klauster]

The state of the housing market is not caused by landlords. The housing shortage is a direct result of a failing housing policies in terms of land, built- price, built-quality and lack of incentives to invest in replacing and upgrading the dated housing stock.
It’s also a failure to maintain, manage and divide the housing market in owner-occupied and rental housing by bullying landlords into a situation that is not good for property investors and renters alike.

My parents were renting for life a bigger house with kids and retired a 2-br apartment. I grew up in housing market that treats domestic (home owners & tenants) and commercial housing equal, saying tenants rights are based on their liabilities. That works like commercial leases, tenants sign a lease, renovate their new house before moving in and bring their own kitchen, appliances, etc and stay as long as they comply with the renting law.

If tenants are liable for any damage, pets, council fees charged to the household (water, rubbish collection, road service, etc) during the occupation, I would like it giving them the keys as landlord.

[klauster]

Because of the popularity of LL bashing supported by a two-speed law and divided housing market the political interest goes with the number of tenants. Assumingly it would be a political suicide for any party to side with LL's. So, what will be the consequence?

Exiting the market or toughening the application procedure to reduce LL’s risks. But how long is the taxpayer willing (or able) to carry exploding social costs for the increasing numbers of people, who don’t meet tougher application rules?

[elguapo]

So as I mentioned above I will make a submission. It will say - Let's do this. Fewer rentals, higher rents, pick of the best tenants.

That's what I see too. The biggest impact will be on the lower end of the rental market, supply will tighten, no one will dare to take a risk with anything other than a well proven, quality tenant. Tenants who are on the margins and have a poor reputation will simply to shut out of renting.

[Memphis Turnkey Property]

At the end of the day folks still need homes. Whatever happens politically it will wash out. No govt is going to try and house everybody so the worse it gets short term the faster things will swing the other way surely?

[elguapo]

Regarding pets, New Zealand should be lowering the number of cats and dogs for environmental reasons. Encouraging even more dogs and cats to destroy native birdlife is the exact opposite of what an environmentally aware government should be doing.
Other environmental concerns are their use of resources, especially meat, and that their faeces further strains sewers and landfills.

There are reasonable reasons for a landlord to be wary of pets (I've twice replaced carpets as a result), but these are plain weird.

[FJW]

Hi how & when would you recommend calculating and conducting rent reviews in the light of the law change to annual rent increases. Do we wait & see what happens to market rents or just apply increases now. Seeing as insurance & rates have increased significantly along with no letting fees, covering those losses is a packet now

I would start doing them now, however, I do believe one increase providing the market justifies it is ethical, depending of the tenants of course. But generally I think its fair and reasonable....

[annie brookes]

There are a lot of comments here about landlords selling up and some anecdotal evidence.

Is there any actual source anyone is aware of that identifies the number of distinct landlords as well as the number of rental properties in play at any point in time?
Evidence is king and it would be very worthwhile being able to track the impact I think.

[Perry]

Some such figures are held by Stats NZ. And possibly MBIE.

[annie brookes]

MBIE and Stats have some figures but much of it is analysis around the 2013 census so not really useful as a tracking indicator. MBIE only really have landlord ID counts which is different from the number of actual landlords that are active.
I did find the dwelling and household estimates report from Stats (stats information-releases/dwelling-and-household-estimates-june-2018-quarter) that runs up to Jun 2018 but that counts dwellings & households rented vs owned but nothing on the number of landlords.

Still, what was interesting there is both the actual number of rentals and the proportion of rentals of all dwellings continues to increase up to June.

So arguably if landlords are "getting out" of the business its so far been tiny and not reduced the absolute count or proportions at all by June. Then again it is an estimate too.

[Nikau Valley]

Weird green arguments

"Regarding pets, New Zealand should be lowering the number of cats and dogs for environmental reasons. Encouraging even more dogs and cats to destroy native birdlife is the exact opposite of what an environmentally aware government should be doing.

Other environmental concerns are their use of resources, especially meat, and that their faeces further strains sewers and landfills."

"There are reasonable reasons for a landlord to be wary of pets (I've twice replaced carpets as a result), but these are plain weird."

Elguapo, these are the arguments against cats and dogs that the Greens have been using for decades. This points out the government's hypocrisy.

[Nikau Valley]

Because of the popularity of LL bashing supported by a two-speed law and divided housing market the political interest goes with the number of tenants. Assumingly it would be a political suicide for any party to side with LL's. So, what will be the consequence?

From stats I've seen, the vast majority of landlords own one rental, some two and only very few own large numbers. This means that Mum and Dad investors count two votes against this madness, and if their adult offspring (average 2 people, perhaps with partners 4) have any sense and would like something to inherit they might also not vote for this crazy government again.