Consultation on proposed RTA changes

[artemis]

Why would the tenant want to assign for a periodic when they can leave with 21 days notice anyway?
Assignment is seen as a reasonable way a person can exit a fixed term.
If you don't like the person they assign to just let them leave.
I think you are trying to make it harder than it is.

Every Jan/Feb in Wellington there are queues outside rental viewings, mainly in city and fringe suburbs.

There are daily stories on the local media around then especially but not only about good people who can't get a rental because of a huge rental shortage here. It's a good option to pass the tenancy on to mates if poss, periodic or fixed. The landlord cannot then unreasonably refuse the assignment. Not liking the potential assignee? Can't see that produced as evidence and cutting it at the Tenancy Tribunal, can you?

Maybe it is not going to be a problem, and in any case it will be a while before we find out. Meantime I am just flagging up a possible issue for landlords so they are aware. We can be sure that tenant advocacy groups will be well aware. Especially the large, well organised and very vocal Wellington group, mainly students.

[Wayne]

It's a good option to pass the tenancy on to mates if poss, periodic or fixed. The landlord cannot then unreasonably refuse the assignment. Not liking the potential assignee? Can't see that produced as evidence and cutting it at the Tenancy Tribunal, can you?

Maybe it is not going to be a problem, and in any case it will be a while before we find out. Meantime I am just flagging up a possible issue for landlords so they are aware. We can be sure that tenant advocacy groups will be well aware. Especially the large, well organised and very vocal Wellington group, mainly students.

Isn't this a key bit of the puzzle?
"A landlord's consent must not be taken to have been withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to an assignment, the landlord offers to accept a surrender
of the tenancy on reasonable terms."
Whether fixed or not if the LL lets then surrender the tenancy then it is done - it is the LLs out from taking on someone they don't want.

[artemis]

Isn't this a key bit of the puzzle?
"A landlord's consent must not be taken to have been withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to an assignment, the landlord offers to accept a surrender
of the tenancy on reasonable terms."
Whether fixed or not if the LL lets then surrender the tenancy then it is done - it is the LLs out from taking on someone they don't want.

A lot of emphasis on 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable'. Current practice is for the Tenancy
Tribunal to decide on a case by case basis. So we will have to wait and see if cases are brought and how they are decided.

My point is that it is a very grey area that landlords need to be clued up on before they are required to act very quickly and under pressure. Because some of the tenants will be clued up for sure.

[Wayne]

A lot of emphasis on 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable'. Current practice is for the Tenancy
Tribunal to decide on a case by case basis. So we will have to wait and see if cases are brought and how they are decided.

My point is that it is a very grey area that landlords need to be clued up on before they are required to act very quickly and under pressure. Because some of the tenants will be clued up for sure.

It doesn't seem very grey.
The Act is saying that if you offer to accept a surrender of the tenancy then you won't be deemed to have unreasonably withheld approval for an assignment.
So it would go like this
- tenant asks to assign
- you don't like the new tenant for whatever reason
- you offer to accept them leaving (fixed or not)
- they leave.
- if they don't leave and go to the TT your offer to let them vacate absolves you from needing to accept the assignment.
This does, of course, create an easy way for a tenant to get out of a fixed term and further erodes the usefulness of them (they are pretty useless from a LL perspective but can be good for the tenant).

[Keys]

Tenant selection for assignment should follow the same criteria as the first selection. Do not drop your standards. Simply saying you have to accept anyone is not a suitable position.

[Wayne]

Tenant selection for assignment should follow the same criteria as the first selection. Do not drop your standards. Simply saying you have to accept anyone is not a suitable position.

You're a very experienced PM - do you see anything there that would force you to take just anyone?
The clause below seems to be the 'out'
"A landlord's consent must not be taken to have been withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to an assignment, the landlord offers to accept a surrender
of the tenancy on reasonable terms."

[Keys]

The clause below seems to be the 'out'

Indeed it does. However, what is the point of having security of tenure for a FTC (fixed term contract) if the tenant can break it?

Just this week we have had a tenant accept the choice given them of a 15% increase in rent in return for the convenience of having a PC (periodic contract)

[Perry]

But isn't the real question here the matter of a tenant's 'right to' assignment of the LL's residential rental?

Isn't that the concern that Artemis is pointing out?

If that is so, it is possible that assignments-in-perpetuity could occur under the RTA.

[Wayne]

But isn't the real question here the matter of a tenant's 'right to' assignment of the LL's residential rental?

Isn't that the concern that Artemis is pointing out?

If that is so, it is possible that assignments-in-perpetuity could occur under the RTA.

But if the LL can just let the tenant go there can't be assignments in perpetuity.
Artemis and you are making something out of little.

[Perry]

But if the LL can just let the tenant go there can't be assignments in perpetuity.
Artemis and you are making something out of little.

Perhaps go back and read the hypothesis mentioned by Artemis in this post?

[Wayne]

Indeed it does. However, what is the point of having security of tenure for a FTC (fixed term contract) if the tenant can break it?

Just this week we have had a tenant accept the choice given them of a 15% increase in rent in return for the convenience of having a PC (periodic contract)

I think the security of tenure is for the tenant.

[Wayne]

Perhaps go back and read the hypothesis mentioned by Artemis in this post?

That is what I have been answering.
Yes the tenant can assign for a fixed or periodic.
The LL can't reasonably refuse.
But the RTA allows the LL to let them go instead and that won't be classed as unreasonable refusal.
So no issue other than an easy out for a tenant on a fixed contract.

[Perry]

I hope you're right in that perspective.

[Wayne]

I hope you're right in that perspective.

It's in the Act - tell me where I am wrong?

[Perry]

I don't suggest you are wrong. I suggest that the way things are worded in the RTA and the possible convoluted interpretations and fickle nuances of the TT Kangaroo Kourt Klutzes may produce unexpected outcomes. Something Artemis warns about being ready for.

E.g. Section 23 goes on about rent in advance and a LL requiring or seeking that, commits an unlawful act.

Unspoken - not even subtly commented on - is that a tenant can voluntarily pay (over two weeks) rent in advance and that's O.K.

I think there is also need to have regard to the opinions expressed by Artemis, here and here.

With the few experiences I've had, I have a very unfavourable view of TT Kangaroo Kourt Klutzes.