Banned: Rental bidding; No reason giv terminations plus Rent Increases Min. Annually.

[Learning]

The links aren't working for me.
To end a periodic 90 days notice is required. Will that also be limited to selling the house, or the tenant has breached their obligations?

[Lanthanide]

Fixed the links, it seems the ministry of housing and development is purposefully returning 'page not found' when accessing the PDFs from outside of their own website. The answers are in the FAQ.

[artemis]

They will do very little. You can fill the differences in policies between Labour and National with the thin side of a piece of paper.

Remember that Judith Collins is responsible for housing policy in National. I would be extremely disappointed if she comes up with beige policy. I do not expect to be disappointed.

It is quite likely that she was waiting for yesterday's announcement. For sure she has been all over the 'consultation' on the RTA reform.

[Perry]

Remember that Judith Collins is responsible for housing policy in National. I would be extremely disappointed if she comes up with beige policy. I do not expect to be disappointed.

It is quite likely that she was waiting for yesterday's announcement. For sure she has been all over the 'consultation' on the RTA reform.

Right, Artemis, but recall what was said in an earlier post.

Aside from distracting people from the ten thousand houses that aren't, this is all about Comrade Taxcindarella et al vote-buying by being seen to be doing something, no matter how disastrous the unintended consequences may be.

The gNats need votes, too.

[Perry]

Bit of media coverage is here.

[donna]

90 days notice when you want to live in it or sell up is ridiculous - who takes that long to decide sell? Often it's an impulsive move, I doubt most homeowners take 3 months or decide to sell but 'wait' 3 months to list it.

Maybe tenants will be given notice even if landlords later on change their minds and this may end up being more disruptive for tenants.

Is there a ruling on 'change of mind' i.e. if the landlord's circumstances change during the 90 days do they have to offer it back to the existing tenants?

cheers,

Donna

[Lanthanide]

90 days notice when you want to live in it or sell up is ridiculous - who takes that long to decide sell? Often it's an impulsive move, I doubt most homeowners take 3 months or decide to sell but 'wait' 3 months to list it.

I would suggest that landlords that 'impulsively' decide to sell an investment property are not the sort of people that the government (or generally society at large) want as landlords.

Running a rental property is a business that provides housing for tenants and should be treated like one, not a place to sink your money for a few years and then pull out later when it's convenient for you. If this makes investment properties less attractive to 'mom and pop' landlords who aren't serious about being landlords then I think that's a good thing.

[Perry]

Legislative Idiocy Reigns Supreme

I would suggest that landlords that 'impulsively' decide to sell an investment property are not the sort of people that the government (or generally society at large) want as landlords.

Running a rental property is a business that provides housing for tenants and should be treated like one, not a place to sink your money for a few years and then pull out later when it's convenient for you. If this makes investment properties less attractive to 'mom and pop' landlords who aren't serious about being landlords then I think that's a good thing.

You make it sound egregiously-all-too-conveniently fickle.

LLs may decide to sell because of the ever-increasing punitive legislative demands from the W'gton woodenheads. (Talk of balance is no more than that.) Same for someone posted o'seas for a year or so. I suspect they will now leave their owner-home empty, now.

The article content linked to in an earlier post would make an impression on the average person, but not, of course, on socio-commie zealots.

But they've [legislative changes] so far had little effect on rent prices, which have continued to rise unabated. Earlier this year Statistics NZ figures showed rents were rising at twice the rate of inflation thanks to growing demand. [Or declining supply]
"Every change Labour has made so far in this area has restricted supply and pushed up rents," said National Party leader Simon Bridges. "These changes will be no different, hurting those they say they want to help."

Then there's an uncommon glimmer of common sense from a most unlikely source, here.

Robert Whitaker of Renters United said large numbers of New Zealanders were now renters, and very few of those behaved badly or belonged to a gang.

"The vast majority of tenants are nice, law-abiding people who pay their rent on time and look after the house, and all they want is the ability to stay in the house ... so they can live a settled life."

No one seems to want to notice or comment on the evidence that a range of Draconian measures based on single digit percentages of the problem LLs and tenants is going to have a nasty, all-bad and unintended consequence for the "vast majority," - those who the current crop of socio-commie clowns in gummint say they want to help.

Want proof that they haven't got a clue what they're doing?

Get your calculator out . . . (Roll over, Arnold Nordmeyer and his 'Back Budget.')

Ten thousand affordable houses a year, anyone?

Wherefore art thou, O Twitfordeo?

[Bob Kane]

That's exactly the situation that "changing use" covers - when the landlord or a family member is going to move into the house, it is no longer being used as a rental.

I predict that "changing use" will become the new "no cause" termination action.
You get rid of the tenant but have an empty house for a while.
Well worth it as the alternative is untenable.
Another reason for termination - extensive alterations - could be useful - have an outstanding maintenance issue and use it to remove the tenant.
Something like replacing the roof or changing a sewer pipe.

[Lanthanide]

I predict that "changing use" will become the new "no cause" termination action.

Doubtful. The FAQ I posted a link to on the previous page explicitly noted that tenants had said in the past they had been evicted due to purported 'change in use' of the rental, only to discover that the landlord had put it up for rent again but at a much higher rate. The new provision requires that the house will be used by family for at least 90 days.

So the ministry is obviously aware of this tactic and no doubt will take steps to prevent it from happening. I'm not entirely sure what you could do to totally prevent it in all cases, but I'd imagine allowing the tenant to apply to the TT and have the landlord pay a penalty fee to the tenant to the equivalent of the bond would be pretty discouraging to many landlords.

[Bob Kane]

An empty house for 90 days with no income would often be preferred to a troublesome tenant smashing up the place, wouldn't you think?

[Lanthanide]

If they've already smashed up the place then presumably you could go to the TT and get them evicted anyway, no need to play silly games with "my relatives are going to live here for 90 days".

In addition, a landlord can also apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunalcan end a tenancy where on balance, the Tribunal considers that the landlord’s application to endthe tenancy is legitimate and fair, taking into account the impact on the tenant.

And again if they have some sort of penalty imposed, and you need to provide proof that relatives did actually live there (such as utilities signed up in their name, letters addressed to them at that house etc), then having a house empty for 90 days AND getting a penalty payable to the troublesome tenant may not be better.

[artemis]

Doubtful. The FAQ I posted a link to on the previous page explicitly noted that tenants had said in the past they had been evicted due to purported 'change in use' of the rental, only to discover that the landlord had put it up for rent again but at a much higher rate. The new provision requires that the house will be used by family for at least 90 days.

So the ministry is obviously aware of this tactic and no doubt will take steps to prevent it from happening. I'm not entirely sure what you could do to totally prevent it in all cases, but I'd imagine allowing the tenant to apply to the TT and have the landlord pay a penalty fee to the tenant to the equivalent of the bond would be pretty discouraging to many landlords.

Detail not yet available, obviously, but family member only has to intend to live there for 3 months, according to the FAQ.

[PC]

A sure sign of a bad law is it contains stupid arbitrary numbers.
Why 3 months? Why not 4? Why 3 strikes in 90 days? Why not 3 strikes in 12 months?

[Perry]

A sure sign of a bad law is it contains stupid arbitrary numbers.

While there's some sense in that, better a number than open-ended, methinks.