Life as a Landlord

[Perry]

Free or Not To Re

. . . and a Socialist party supported by blue-collar voters and those who derive their income from the public purse who promote policies intended to redistribute that wealth.

Surprisingly mild of you, Peter.

In the past, you've commented that the word "free" is utilised as a euphemism for: paid for by you, your co-workers, friends, family and neighbours, etc. I.e. Paid for by the 'taxpayer.'

I have the same jaundiced perspective on the word "redistribute."

First the preposition "re" is plainly wrong. All one has to ask is: when was the first 'distribution' effort made and why did it not work such that 'redistribution' is now required? The SPIN doctors will struggle to answer.

The stark reality of the mis-used word is plain to all who retain some degree of objective cranial functionality.

"Redistribute" means taking - via punitive tax regimes and other socialist government methods - money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it. Well, perhaps earned it solely by voting for the socio-commie government that facilitates such legitimised theft, in their favour.

Keep the blue stuff up top in 2020. (Once the latest Oz export clears.)

[Davo36]

After hubris comes Kiwibuild.

I like it.

[Bluekiwi]

Surprisingly mild of you, Peter.

In the past, you've commented that the word "free" is utilised as a euphemism for: paid for by you, your co-workers, friends, family and neighbours, etc. I.e. Paid for by the 'taxpayer.'

I have the same jaundiced perspective on the word "redistribute."

First the preposition "re" is plainly wrong. All one has to ask is: when was the first 'distribution' effort made and why did it not work such that 'redistribution' is now required? The SPIN doctors will struggle to answer.

The stark reality of the mis-used word is plain to all who retain some degree of objective cranial functionality.

"Redistribute" means taking - via punitive tax regimes and other socialist government methods - money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it. Well, perhaps earned it solely by voting for the socio-commie government that facilitates such legitimised theft, in their favour.

Keep the blue stuff up top in 2020. (Once the latest Oz export clears.)

Some very good points in here Perry.

The worm is turning here on Taxinda and The Penguin and The Joker (winny and crooky), we just need Bridges to be replaced by Upton and we have a chance.

I know just too many National supporters who cant stand Bridges and just will not vote for him.

[mrsaneperson]

Some very good points in here Perry.

The worm is turning here on Taxinda and The Penguin and The Joker (winny and crooky), we just need Bridges to be replaced by Upton and we have a chance.

I know just too many National supporters who cant stand Bridges and just will not vote for him.

New Conservative are getting real traction , its likely they will take out many of the NZ First voters partly due to Winnie's backward somersault , losing many voters by signing NZ into the UN Global Immigration Compact. Its possible they will be the new "Kingmaker".

"Life as a Landlord "is sadly being eroded by ill thought out policies designed to burden us all by those incumbent politicians and bureaucrats that have no inkling of practicalities.And our lives are remotely being turned upside down by those that have betrayed us.

I see the problems as follows, ALL stem from our UN global master:

Separatism is on the cards - race relations are at an all time low . In many quarters of life it is evident that some form of apartheid is already upon us..Many part Maori are pushing for autonomy , separate prisons, education , court and justice systems etc. The notion that part Maori are failing because of euro-centric systems and colonisation is sadly a popular idea among leftys to further more separatism..
Chris Hopkins Minister of Education has signed into the Education Act , Treaty of Waitangi obligations. The usual advisory committee made up of charlatans has been appointed to guide, you can see how it will play out, indoctrination and rewriting history .The UN affirmative indigenous special rights agreement that John Key signed us up too is now in full play .

Climate Change Hysteria - now also implemented into the education syllabus by Hipkins. Veganism is being encouraged in the prospectus!. Better quickly buy up those steaks because the UN directive is going to tax them to death , just like cigarettes.Steaks are killing the planet.. Fart gas from animals, causes global warming? Apparently so - don't argue - there's no debating as MSM will not allow opinions that dissent from the propaganda.. Farmers, and NZ's lifeblood of dairy and meat are doomed.

UN Global Compact on Immigration - illegals and legal migrants now have the same status. Purposely stated in the UNs directive is a policy of not publicly being able to talk negatively about their open borders document. .Recent UN Court verdict has upheld a refugees right to claim refugee status on a climate card basis, NZ now may have to accept thousands of people from Kiribati , Tuvalu and other low lying pacific island nations..

Islam - Of course Islam gets a great deal out of the UNs compact on Immigration . You will be forced not only to accept Islam but embrace it, eventually succumbing to Sharia Law.

Gender Fluidity - you can be a variable - alternate between being a boy or a girl. Its already in the education syllabus..This is the ""New Rainbow"" the one that Maurice Williamson didn't know about or quite probably didn't care. Part of the UNs "diversity plan".


Hate Speech - In order to support the insanity , by speaking out against any of the above topics - you may have committed a criminal act. Andrew Little , the drone from Labour is relishly salivating away in a corner somewhere trying to enact the legislation necessary..

So the resulting chaos will leave the UN in a perfect grab for even more power no doubt.

Some may think this may possibly be away from topic but in reality the policies above ultimately affect every part of our life.

[sidinz]

Climate Change Hysteria - now also implemented into the education syllabus by Hipkins. Veganism is being encouraged in the prospectus!. Better quickly buy up those steaks because the UN directive is going to tax them to death , just like cigarettes.Steaks are killing the planet.. Fart gas from animals, causes global warming? Apparently so - don't argue - there's no debating as MSM will not allow opinions that dissent from the propaganda.. Farmers, and NZ's lifeblood of dairy and meat are doomed.

Actually, I recently read an article by a pair of academics, one of whom was a vegetarian, saying that veganism is bad for the planet. These two argued that an omnivorous diet is more eco-friendly than a purely plant-based one. Bet those supermarket-protesting mouth frothers don't know that.

[Wayne]

Actually, I recently read an article by a pair of academics, one of whom was a vegetarian, saying that veganism is bad for the planet. These two argued that an omnivorous diet is more eco-friendly than a purely plant-based one. Bet those supermarket-protesting mouth frothers don't know that.

Can you give a precis on the reason it was bad for the planet?

[flyernzl]

One of the many frequent complaints about rental housing in New Zealand is the insecurity of tenure. While security of property occupation is one of the many benefits of home ownership, such security is said to be a benefit that many tenants in New Zealand never experience.

The Residential Tenancies Act is currently written with the unspoken implication that renting is a fairly short term exercise. The traditional pattern has been that when people leave the parental nest they move into rental accommodation. This rental was often either a bit trashed when they moved in, or youthful parties and rough living soon resulted in it being trashed anyway. After just a few years of living this sort of nomadic existence most people then partnered up and moved off into their own home.

Reflecting this assumption, right now a landlord can offer either a periodic tenancy (which can be terminated at short notice by either tenant or landlord) or a fixed term tenancy which seems to be intended to create a finite tenancy of just one or two years. No other types of tenancies are permitted under the Act as it is now written.

Last November Associate Housing Minister Kris Faafoi announced several more proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act. Among these was the requirement that all fixed-term tenancy agreements must automatically become periodic tenancy agreements upon expiry unless both tenant and landlord jointly agree. This proposal would mean that the landlord would be unable to unilaterally terminate the tenancy on expiry. Instead, the tenant would be able to decide to stay in or depart from the tenancy as they desire without any consideration at all for the wishes of the landlord. An accompanying proposal is to remove the ability for landlords to end a periodic tenancy agreement without stating a specific cause. The legislation would instead provide for a range of justified reasons to end a periodic tenancy, each of which will need to be proved with evidence at a Tenancy Tribunal hearing.

Effectively, if implemented, these two proposals would mean a lifetime tenancy for the tenant unless they could be proved to have failed to meet their obligations under either the Residential Tenancies Act or the Tenancy Agreement. Can you imagine the uproar if the Government ruled that, when you rent a car from Avis or Hertz, you could either return it on the date specified in the hire agreement or you could chose to keep that car for just as long as you liked?

Fundamental to these proposals is the belief that once a property becomes a residential rental it will stay that way permanently. Once a rental, always a rental. There is no consideration for the substantial number of properties that have, in the past, been rented out for a set time period while the owner is temporarily absent. In many cases, the owners of such properties may be away for work, health or other reasons but have the firm intention of returning to and reoccupying the property at some set future time. We already have some publicity around so-called “ghost houses”. Will the owners of these properties rush to rent them out if they then face the prospect of never ever being able to move back into these properties themselves?

The New Zealand Property Investors Federation has suggested that landlords, if they wish, could empowered to offer a third option, a residential tenancy of some five or ten years duration, thus giving willing tenants security of tenure. Those tenants who choose to have the security of a long lease, could accept this type of tenancy. In return for such security they would be responsible for payment of all the overheads of the property (such as rates and insurance cover) in addition to their rent, and would also be able to fit out the interior of the property with their own fixtures and fittings at the commencement of the tenancy. When the tenancy eventually ends the tenant would then remove all of their own fixtures and fittings and return the interior of the property to the condition it was in the day they started their tenancy.

Thus those tenants who choose this option would be able to decorate and redecorate their rental as and how they like, keep pets as they wish, hang pictures on the walls and even fasten mirrors to the bedroom ceiling should they be so inclined without any reference to or obligations by their landlord.

The landlord would maintain the exterior of the building and any interior maintenance or repair would then be entirely the tenant’s responsibility, relieving the landlord of this burden and giving scope for large-scale professionally run residential rental business that could offer a marketable return on investment to the public market.

This would be in accord with the German model, of which the benefits to the tenant are frequently promoted by those of leftish views who, as they do so, seldom mention the obligations that go along with it.

This form of tenancy, which is the norm available to tenants in several countries, once given legislative approval here, may increase the supply of social housing and go some way towards easing our housing crisis.

Representatives of the NZPIF met with Minister Faafoi in December and showed him the ramifications for marginal tenants if his proposed changes are enacted, plus the expected consequential decrease in supply of rentals and the resultant increase in rental prices. They then outlined this long-term tenancy model and confirmed that the NZPIF would be happy to work with both tenant groups and government officials to refine it and make sure it was balanced and worked for both landlords and tenants. However, throughout the meeting the Minister said these parts of the RTA Review were not negotiable.

So it would seem that we are about to be stuck with yet another ill-considered tinkering with the current 44 year old legislation, somewhat along the lines of fitting air-bags to a Morris Minor. No doubt there will be the usual cries of surprise, horror and claims of exploitation when the usual unforeseen consequences again become so glaring evident in a few years’ time.

[Perry]

You do say "seems to be intended . . ."

. . . or a fixed term tenancy which seems to be intended to create a finite tenancy of just one or two years.

But the RTA does not specify that.

13A Contents of tenancy agreement
(1) Every tenancy agreement shall include the following minimum information:
(p) if the tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, the date on which the tenancy will terminate.

Where has the 1-2 years notion come from?

Also, is the NZPIF liaising with the gNats to see what they might / would do / repeal, if they got in?

[Keys]

Fixed term. Security of income for the landlord. Lower rent charged.

Periodic term. Convenience for the tenant. Higher rent charged.

Bad credit? Higher rent charged.

[Wayne]

Fixed term. Security of income for the landlord. Lower rent charged.

Periodic term. Convenience for the tenant. Higher rent charged.

Bad credit? Higher rent charged.

Unfortunately a fixed term doesn't offer security of income - when the tenant stops paying you have to kick them out - income gone.
Fixed term is more a benefit to the tenant than LL IMHO.

[flyernzl]

And of course any fixed term will, at the tenants option, convert to periodic on the expiry of the term and there will be nothing the landlord will be able to do to prevent that.

[Jenks]

Here’s a question. When the new changes are made and put in place will that affect the current TA’s?
i don’t see how they can as these are agreements made between the LL and the tenant and altering them would have to be agreed on by both parties concerned and me (being the LL) I would most definitely NOT agree to changing the current TA’s I already have in place.

I’m assuming though that when the current TA’s come up for renewal, ours are only for one year, that this is when the new rules will be added and at this time I’m hoping that any problem tenants I have I can then decide not to renew their tenancy, they leave and the new tenants (hopefully better than the last) will have the benefit of these new rules.

Please tell me I’m right? Otherwise there’s going to be a few 90 dayers issued bloody quickly!

[Keys]

when the tenant stops paying you have to kick them out - income gone.

Am happy with that. Goes to the TT. Tenant gets recognised as a bad payer. Tenant wears the consequences.

[Wayne]

Am happy with that. Goes to the TT. Tenant gets recognised as a bad payer. Tenant wears the consequences.

My point is I wouldn't rent for less to get the supposed security of a fixed term.

[Keys]

My point is I wouldn't rent for less to get the supposed security of a fixed term.

And, you don't seem to get my point.

It is:

I will rent at market for a fixed term.

I will rent at market plus 15% for a periodic.

The tenant, in the end, pays for the convenience of being able to terminate. They pay for the risk to my client of bad credit. They pay for other items at the moment (eg lawns, whiteware) why not the added risk to my client?