Bash the LL Bill

[flyernzl]

NZ First just lost the votes of 274000 landlords when they supported the 'Bash the Landlord' bill in Parliament today.

RTA amendment bill:

- Removal of the 90-Day No (Stated) Cause Termination of a Periodic Tenancy.In cases of poor tenant behaviour, landlords would now be required to issue three separate notices within a 90-day period before engaging the Tenancy Tribunal. Unfairly, this is not the case for Kaianga Ora (Housing NZ) and social housing providers who will still be able to end a tenancy without having to give a reason.

- Tenants will be able to make minor alterations to the property without prior consent

- Expiring fixed term tenancies will automatically become Periodic Tenancy Agreements, unless both parties otherwise agreed. Tenant can unilaterally decide to stay - effectively, lifetime tenancies

- The Tenancy Tribunal to have authority to impart higher financial penalties and grant anonymity to parties absolved of actions by the Tribunal

- Rent increases limited to once every twelve months.

- Landlord fines: Currently the Tenancy Tribunal can make awards up to $50,000 against a landlord.The threshold is doubled to $100,000 and those who operate larger numbers of tenancies will face larger fines

- Assigning a property to another tenant: Landlords cannot unreasonably decline a request by tenants to assign a fixed-term tenancy.|

- Tenants' names can be removed from a Tenancy Tribunal decision.

[donna]

Unfairly, this is not the case for Kaianga Ora (Housing NZ) and social housing providers who will still be able to end a tenancy without having to give a reason.

This is elitism. Well I wish them all the luck they'll need dealing with all the tenants private landlords refuse to accept into their properties.

I wrote a blog post on Anti-landlord sentiment.

[Don't believe the Hype]

i just heard an amendment being proposed by Photo op Faffoi is to allow those impacted by domestic violence to end a tenancy on 2 days notice... while i'm a supporter of efforts to end domestic violence I don't understand how this government thinks it is OK to leave the Landlord to pick up the cost of a property vacated on 2 days notice...

Surely the government would create a program where the tenant could give notice, move quickly and pay the rent for the notice period so the victim of DV is safe and the financial victim of a coward thug in the home is also safe.

[donna]

Correct the 2 day notice for domestic violence is in - and the Bill has passed into law. Maybe there'd be reason enough to claim against insurance - for loss of rent?

When will there be some clarity around some of the new conditions e.g. - alterations - what exactly can a tenant to your property?

cheers,

Donna

[Perry]

KiwiBuild Strikes Politberg & Sinks

Media Item Here

The new law increases the power of tenants over LLs in several key areas.

LLs will be required in most instances to permit the installation of ultra-fast broadband and allow other minor alterations to houses such as hanging pictures or securing furniture to walls.

National leader Judith Collins has promised to repeal the law changes if elected, saying that the changes will drive up rents and the Government was "bashing LLs." "It's really really hard to be a LL right now," Collins said. "All the things that the Government have pushed onto LLs, they have forgotten someone pays, and that's tenants."

The National Party's minority review during the select committee opposed the bill, in particular the end to no-reason-given evictions. "In principle National is a party of private property rights. LLs are not a social service," social housing spokesman Simon O'Connor said.

THE COALITION'S COST
Between June 2017 and June 2020 national weekly rents rose from $427 to $485 on average, an increase of $58 according to MBIE bond data.

LLs will be able to terminate tenancies within 14 days if a tenant assaults them.

That's cold comfort if the LL's dead or hospitalised and I wonder how?

[Keys]

Trying, unsuccessfully, to find an on line accurate version of the bill.

Anyone got a link to the actual legislation? Not someone's interpretation of it?

[learner]

Hello Perry

I wonder what's the reason for the discrepancy between 2 days' notice by the tenant in domestic violence cases, but 14 days' notice by the landlord for tenant violence towards the landlord? I would have thought the tenant could be given 2 days' notice as well if the landlord gets assaulted.

There must be a good reason for the difference.

[Sanya]

Trying, unsuccessfully, to find an on line accurate version of the bill.

Anyone got a link to the actual legislation? Not someone's interpretation of it?

The bill page is here. http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/gove.../versions.aspx

SOP 565 is an interesting read. Covers the 2 day notice of domestic violence. Effectively the landlord subsidises the rent which would otherwise be payable by the person(s) subjected to violence for a period of two weeks as the rent is reduced. In addition to a rent reduction, the remaining party(s) (if any) can apply to terminate the tenancy agreement on the grounds of hardship. If there are no remaining tenants the tenancy agreement terminates with the 2 day notice.

BTW, if I read it correctly, the SOP has bought forward prohibition on rental increases in less than a 12 month period to be effective immediately (or more specifically, the day after the day of Royal Assent).

These last minute changes appear to have been purposely withheld from the opposition and the public so they could be rammed through under urgency. I note the SOP mentions the Ministry of housing and urban development produced regulatory impact statements on the 2nd and 21st of July for the SOP contents.

[Perry]

I wonder what's the reason for the discrepancy between 2 days' notice by the tenant in domestic violence cases, but 14 days' notice by the landlord for tenant violence towards the landlord? I would have thought the tenant could be given 2 days' notice as well if the landlord gets assaulted.

There must be a good reason for the difference.

There will be a reason of some sort, the 'good' of which will depend (I suspect) on whether or not one is a tenant or LL.

The existing / previous RTA does specify that violence towards PMs, LLs, their family members, etc. is reason for the TTKK to order an eviction. On that wording I presume it's necessary for a TT application to be made. That may still be the case.

Despite the assertions by FarGoneBoy that the overwhelming majority of rental relationships were good, I suspect that the new legislation will create so many problems than it 'fixes' such that when things go wrong, the W'gton woodenheads will be scratching their heads in puzzlement.

Interesting to note the specific W'gton woodenhead's designation. Munster for Public Housing. Why is he pushing legislation that deals solely with private housing, if his title means what it says?

[donna]

When you extend the boundaries - it's human nature to fill them. What's going to happen I think is in some areas there will be a lot of anti-social behaviour because now it's acceptable.

When is it acceptable to do wrong 3 times - if it's wrong the first time, it's still wrong the 2nd and 3rd time.

I guess maybe the LLs job could become easier when it's the neighbours reporting to the Police the bad behaviour. If the police wash their hands of it then there's the media - watch this space there could be a lot of bad publicity coming the Government's way from disgruntled homeowners.

cheers,


Donna

[Perry]

Police won't get involved, because the RTA excludes their 'jurisdiction' from certain residential rental matters, when they are between a LL and tenant.

Section 82 is hard to see a workaround. Section 77 (1) - when read together with section 82 - seems to support the Police position that any dispute between a tenant and a LL is a matter for the TT in the first (originating) instance. (Appeals are different)

[crashy]

Looks like I will be waiting for a tenant who is an older professional, who offers to pay 6 months in advance (the last 2 tenants did this and they got pushed to the front of the queue). Bummer for all the struggling blue color workers who "always pay their rent on time and keep the place tidy" because it's no longer good enough. I'm not looking for the first person who offers to pay me rent. I'm looking for the BEST tenant in the entire rental pool. That's often a person who isn't short of a buck. There's no law that says I have to rent a premium property to a D grade tenant. Guess what, I own the property, and it's MY choice who I rent to. I'd rather have it vacant than rent it to someone who is highly likely to upset the neighbours with parties and loud cars (bummer for all those under 30), likely to trash the place due to domestic violence, or who might stop paying rent because they might just not feel like it because "all landlords are evil billionaires".

Actually, the best tenants in my experience are older people on a working visa. They have more respect for the property and landlord, they keep their nose clean, they have very few visitors, no parties, they don't whine like a stuck pig, and they like to stay put for 3 years.

The more idiotic laws you throw at me, the less likely I'm going to be to offer the property to someone who needs it, rather than wants it. I'm putting up the rent too, because the risk has increased, and the work involved has also increased. You can keep making idiotic laws, I can keep raising the rent. The tenant is the loser every time

[Perry]

Can't Fix Stupids in W'gton

And the corollary is simple. It's been pointed out to the woodenheads, time after time after time. As private LLs abandon the business of residential rentals, or do what crashy describes, who loses? Tenants - that's who! But also the gummint itself.

The cost to the gummint's coffers (I.e. taxpayers) for ever more promised-but-undelivered affordable and / or social housing will just keep increasing.

It is really hard to comprehend why gummint Munsters can be that / so thick.

Of head and hide.

[Alexy]

- Tenants' names can be removed from a Tenancy Tribunal decision.

I assume only if the tenants win the case in TT?

[jimO]

I assume only if the tenants win the case in TT?

dont count on it