If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
How can it be retaliatory? The deadline had not passed, ergo the tenants had not (yet?) put in any claim under the RTA.
I think it was in May the Ministry issued a statement that any evictions brought on due to compliance (or lack of it) would be (can't remember exact wording) and there are laws to protect tenants against such action.
The article says that they planned to ask the LL for $4000, not that they had asked for it. if there has been no action, there can be no retaliation.
From the sound of the article, they were issued with a 90 day notice stipulating compliance as the reason. Therefore retaliation against the law change could be argued. After all, thousands of tenants have remained in their rentals during upgrades, why would these tenants be any different? Smells like a protest from the LL where the tenants get the short end. The unspoken rule of never giving a reason for a 90 day notice was broken leaving the LL wide open.
Closed October last year and no word on the HUD site when proposals will be available. Suspect the government is running scared as social housing waiting list skyrockets, Kiwibuild goes the other way, rental shortages persist and rents keep rising. Possibly waiting for a mandate in 2020 to push through their reforms.
Well this is interesting - that Renters United chap cites the analogy of employment - he clearly hasn't done his homework as freelancing and fixed term employment contracts are already preferred over the so called 'job for life' he's referring to.
How to kill the NZ economy in 4 steps. Labour will stifle NZ businesses so they fail to compete globally. Those who can will just move offshore where conditions are more open and favourable, much like the Chinese businesses who have recently set up shop in other Asian countries to avoid the USA tariffs. National did well reversing the exit of our professionals and making it attractive to come back home. Labour will do the reverse and so the see saw goes as we go from Labour to National to Labour every 8 years.
i imagine many tenants will be looking for an instant kiwi win by furiously texting + calling property mangers and owners for insulation statements etc
to build their case for a tribunal claim of $4000 or threats to the same end
There seems to be a widespread belief that all a tenant has to do is say "Hey, there is no insulation", text or call MBIE and $4000 will be instantly extracted from their landlord and sent to them.
How many wol actually proceed when they discover that they have to assemble a claim, submit it to the TT, pay $20.44, wait for a hearing date and then actually appear to present their case?
All the while of course the penalty is " . . .up to $4000" so the reward may actually just be a hundred or two.
Well today I went and took the measurements of my one currently vacant South Auckland property.
The living room is 20.72 sq.m, but there is an adjoining dining/kitchen area of 12.33 sq.m, so under the rules I have to heat 33sq.m as there is an open void in the wall between.
I paid $2550 in 2017 for a 3.5kw heat pump now installed in the living room.
The calculator tells me that I need 6.2Kw !!
However, if I now install doors between the two areas, the living room room only would need 3.6Kw.
So it would probably make sense to install those doors, and then just top up the last 0.5Kw with a fixed heater. That would leave the diners and kitchen occupants to shiver.
I have used the calculator on a two storey home with no doors between the living area and the upper hall.
I then used the formula in the act on the same house
there is a 2kW difference
i will try some less complex homes soon and see where the difference is occurring
From the sound of the article, they were issued with a 90 day notice stipulating compliance as the reason. Therefore retaliation against the law change could be argued.
Retaliation against the law? Or a simple 'This property is no longer legally allowed to be rented out. Therefore, you must move out.'?
The living room is 20.72 sq.m, but there is an adjoining dining/kitchen area of 12.33 sq.m, so under the rules I have to heat 33sq.m as there is an open void in the wall between.
So hang on, even if you have a physical wall between the living room and the kitchen, if you take the door off the hinges, leaving an open doorway between them, this now counts as open plan? And (in my case) the 18 deg must reach into the farthest corners of the laundry and porch areas, which are off the kitchen with the door also taken off the hinges?
Comment