Tenancy Reforms - July 2019 Edition

[Bob Kane]

What's the difference between a bedroom and a living room?
If the room has no heating - it's a bedroom.
If the room has a fixed source of heating - it's a living room.
Suddenly we will see houses with 'a large open, master bedroom' with a 'tiny living room'.

[artemis]

Is a studio flat a bedroom or a living room?

[Keys]

Suddenly we will see houses with 'a large open, master bedroom' with a 'tiny living room'.

Signing one of these soon. Owner occupier even put a wardrobe in the old lounge and removed one from the bedroom.

[donna]

"Landlords will have to say whether they are insured and for how much in the tenancy agreement, and make any insurance details available on request. If they don't they can be fined $500."

Why does the tenant knowing how much my insurance is for matter to them?

Yeah just another breach of privacy IMHO. What happens if you've chosen not to insure your property? I recall there was an investor on here who did the numbers and worked out it was worth the risk (not) having the insurance for his many rentals.

cheers,

Donna

[Wayne]

Yeah just another breach of privacy IMHO. What happens if you've chosen not to insure your property? I recall there was an investor on here who did the numbers and worked out it was worth the risk (not) having the insurance for his many rentals.

cheers,

Donna

If you choose not to insure then you tell them you aren't insured - end of story.

[flyernzl]

Which will be the case for all Government owned HNZ tenancies.

[Bob Kane]

If you choose not to insure then you tell them you aren't insured - end of story.

Why not tell them you aren't insured?
Regardless of whether you are or not.

[flyernzl]

Actually, when you think about it, the Government have rather shot themselves in the foot here.

Post-Osaki up until now, HNZ tenants had unlimited liability for any accidental damage they caused.
This was because the ruling was "the tenant is entitled to cover under the landlords insurance policy for any accidental damage caused that is covered by that policy".

Thus we had the strange situation where a corporate lawyer renting a house in Paratai Drive from a private-sector landlord (who had insurance) had his liability eliminated while a solo mother of five renting a HNZ house and struggling along on a benefit had unlimited liability because the Government never insures any of its properties. Real 'Alice in Wonderland' stuff!

Anyway, under the new rules, that solo mother presumably now has her risk reduced to just the four weeks rent limit. HNZ now has to pick up the tab for the rest.

[Perry]

Yeah, but liability for and paying for are poles apart - we all know that.

I suspect HNZ (aka the hapless taxpayer) almost always paid for virtually all damage, in full.

[artemis]

What about unit titled properties where the building envelope and common areas are insured but the interior of apartments may or may not be. I assume both would need to be reported to tenants. And if no landlord insurance for an individual apartment that caused a wider building issue? Tenant liable for all damage if they caused the issue? Or for max 4 weeks rent amount if there is landlord insurance. Either way would the BC insurance pay out?

(That tragic London tower block, for example, where one apartment started the fire and the whole building was impacted.)

[Wayne]

Why not tell them you aren't insured?
Regardless of whether you are or not.

Because that would be lying and wrong!

[donna]

But if there's no come back on you whether the property is insured or not - why give your information to yet another third party who can share it with 'tenants'. It's none of their business how much 'your' property is insured for and all it will do is create more 'envy' and 'greedy landlords' mentality.

I want to know 'why' the tenant is entitled to know how much the property is insured for - for what reason does sharing this information serve other than pi$$ them off?

cheers,

Donna

[flyernzl]

B . . . other than pi$$ them off?

cheers,

Donna

Yup, you've nailed it in one.

An angry tenants is an anti-landlord tenant - just what the powers-that-be want so they can get ongoing support for yet more anti-landlord legislation.

[Wayne]

But if there's no come back on you whether the property is insured or not - why give your information to yet another third party who can share it with 'tenants'. It's none of their business how much 'your' property is insured for and all it will do is create more 'envy' and 'greedy landlords' mentality.

I want to know 'why' the tenant is entitled to know how much the property is insured for - for what reason does sharing this information serve other than pi$$ them off?

cheers,

Donna

For a start you have to tell the tenants because that is the law.
I'm not sure you have to tell them how much the house is insured for - I thought you had to basically tell them what was insured and what the excess was.
In an event the tenant would supposedly be up for the excess or 4 weeks rent (or was it the bond) which ever is less.
I suspect that they would need to understand what the insurance company calls an event (and therefore what sucks up an excess).

[Keys]

You are required to tell them the excess on the insurance and when the insurance is up for renewal. If they ask then they must be given a copy of the policy which can be downloaded from the insurance web site.

Nowhere does the legislation say that you need to tell them the value of the insurance.