New tenancy laws coming into effect Feb 11 2021

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › New tenancy laws coming into effect Feb 11 2021

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#2635672 14-Jan-2021 19:25

sir1963:

antonknee:

And equally the (in the majority) good tenants next door way way more likely to stay on, as they now have security of tenure and the ability to hang a picture on the wall.

Good tenants have always had security of tenure. Mine are even paying close on $200 a week below market rates for rent.

The picture hanging strawman is complete garbage.

Because of tenants liability now being limited to the bond or the insurance excess which ever is the lower its looking like taking out a gold plated insurance policy with low/no excess and adding the cost onto the rent is the only safe way to have tenants. Good tenants will end up paying weekly for the bad.

Insurance for letting out a house to tenants seems really high, and is one of the many costs a landlord has that has to be added onto any rent. I can't see how some make much money form it. But guessing many are relying on potential capital gains.

Jase2985

13735 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2635677 14-Jan-2021 19:47

mattwnz:

In certain places like Auckland. But NZ only has a small population, and plenty of land. The Question is what is the ideal population for NZ? WE are letting 70k people in a year, yet don't have enough house supply for them.

Maybe so but people want to live here and there just isnt 1/4 sections in the urban area any more. Auckland is densifying its development to try and build the houses needed within its current limits. but people still want the bigger sections and a large back yard.

urban sprawl doesnt help anyone.

the government needs to be encouraging big companies to setup outside the major centers but the fact is supply chains exist easily within those areas and not so much elsewhere.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2635678 14-Jan-2021 19:48

mattwnz:

In certain places like Auckland. But NZ only has a small population, and plenty of land. The Question is what is the ideal population for NZ? WE are letting 70k people in a year, yet don't have enough house supply for them.

I get that, but where do all these immigrants/returning Kiwis live? There must be houses for them. Otherwise we would have 1/4 million homeless every four years. Hoses seem to be there, the price is the problem.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2635689 14-Jan-2021 20:58

mattwnz:

Insurance for letting out a house to tenants seems really high, and is one of the many costs a landlord has that has to be added onto any rent. I can't see how some make much money form it. But guessing many are relying on potential capital gains.

Part of the problem is that getting reparations from rogue tenants is near impossible, as is the unwillingness of the police to prosecute for wilful damage.

Basil12

124 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 74

#2635717 14-Jan-2021 22:36

mattwnz:

Insurance for letting out a house to tenants seems really high, and is one of the many costs a landlord has that has to be added onto any rent. I can't see how some make much money form it. But guessing many are relying on potential capital gains.

The cost of such insurance will have increased following the Tenancy Tribunal using the Property Act (which until then had applied to commercial property only, as it was designed to do) a few years back to stop the insurance company seeking to reduce its costs by going after the tenants who burnt their home down by leaving a chip pan on on the stove when they popped out.

If the insurer can't mitigate a loss by subrogating (going after the party that caused the loss) it will end up in the premium.

Quik internet referral link

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2635779 15-Jan-2021 09:10

networkn:
It's like the argument that employers don't value their staff. Good staff are the most valuable asset a business can have, no way are you getting rid of good employees unless it's totally unavoidable. Same with Tenants.

You may not try and get rid of them but some landlords treat them like indentured servants who exist purely for the landlords convenience. Similarly many very good staff get treated like dirt by horrible managers.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2635780 15-Jan-2021 09:12

mattwnz:
Insurance for letting out a house to tenants seems really high, and is one of the many costs a landlord has that has to be added onto any rent. I can't see how some make much money form it. But guessing many are relying on potential capital gains.

Not really. Try getting insurance for any other business. It's far more expensive.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2635794 15-Jan-2021 09:33

Handle9:
networkn:

It's like the argument that employers don't value their staff. Good staff are the most valuable asset a business can have, no way are you getting rid of good employees unless it's totally unavoidable. Same with Tenants.

You may not try and get rid of them but some landlords treat them like indentured servants who exist purely for the landlords convenience. Similarly many very good staff get treated like dirt by horrible managers.

Garbage. Stop pretending that an extremely low number of landlords who would do this is common practice.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2635981 15-Jan-2021 12:20

sir1963:

Garbage. Stop pretending that an extremely low number of landlords who would do this is common practice.

Like how you implied the extremely low number of tenants who cause problems were a menace...

To your earlier point, look I think I'm an excellent tenant - stable job (single employer for 7 years, current employer for 3, six figure income), I always pay the rent on time, I am a very clean/tidy person. At the end of the day it's my home so I look after it. I still have had to move almost every year because landlords sell the house, want to put the rent up way too much, decide they don't want to be in the rental game anymore, decide they don't want to do basic repairs & maintenance. Being a good tenant does not guarantee security of tenure.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2635995 15-Jan-2021 12:52

antonknee:

sir1963:

Garbage. Stop pretending that an extremely low number of landlords who would do this is common practice.

Like how you implied the extremely low number of tenants who cause problems were a menace...

To your earlier point, look I think I'm an excellent tenant - stable job (single employer for 7 years, current employer for 3, six figure income), I always pay the rent on time, I am a very clean/tidy person. At the end of the day it's my home so I look after it. I still have had to move almost every year because landlords sell the house, want to put the rent up way too much, decide they don't want to be in the rental game anymore, decide they don't want to do basic repairs & maintenance. Being a good tenant does not guarantee security of tenure.

The number of claims via the tenancy tribunal is clear evidence that the problem tenants are bigger than you care to admit. Every landlord I know has their horror storey.

At the end of the day, if you rent , it's NOT your home. When I was renting I had to shift twice because the properties we sold.

And yes, the new laws are pushing landlords out. I am fortunate that we have our kids in all but one rental and that one is a long term tenant.

I have only ever asked one set of tenants to move out in 17 years, and that was because they were damaging so much of the property and claimed "not our fault". No care and no responsibility. When I rented, I always did lot of small repairs because I was bought up with the understanding that you always returned stuff in the same or better condition than you got it in the first place. Where tenants have done work on the property, I have paid them for it.

I have friends who are landlords, and they have pretty much the same stance as me, we are not there to extract every last cent we can from the tenants, the good ones rarely if ever get rent increases.

And yes, I have had bad tenants. Punched holes in walls and doors, failing to pay rent then doing a runner, broken windows, furniture, appliances, etc.

ALL the new laws have done is make me way way more cautious as to who I will have as a tenant, far more invasive in checking references, and when family and the long term tenants are not there then I will be keeping the rents clover to market rates.... just in case.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2636142 15-Jan-2021 15:55

sir1963:

The number of claims via the tenancy tribunal is clear evidence that the problem tenants are bigger than you care to admit. Every landlord I know has their horror storey.

At the end of the day, if you rent , it's NOT your home. When I was renting I had to shift twice because the properties we sold....

Of course there are problem tenants, but the majority of tenants are not causing issues. There are plenty of problem landlords out there, perhaps more than you care to admit.

Of course the tenancy tribunal records will show you more cases where the tenant is problematic. Most property managers ask if a tenant has ever been to the tribunal for any reason (including the tenant taking the landlord to the TT); and that if a tenant is the type to take a LL to the TT then they will run a mile. A tenant takes a massive risk in taking their landlord or former landlord to the TT because it can blacklist you from ever renting again.

I know this because I've taken a landlord to the TT before, and when I applied for a new rental recently I was point blank told the landlord considered me too high risk as a tenant because I had taken my previous LL to the TT (note - I won and the landlord got smacked down by the adjudicator for playing stupid games and not understanding their obligations under the RTA).

Equally every tenant I know has a horror story about an awful property manager or an awful landlord so game, set, and match I guess?

Obviously we have a differing point of view - probably to be expected given you're a landlord and I'm a tenant. I just can't help but see the law changes as mostly positive (if imperfect).

Edited to remove some statements I no longer feel add value to the thread.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2636152 15-Jan-2021 16:21

sir1963:
Handle9:

You may not try and get rid of them but some landlords treat them like indentured servants who exist purely for the landlords convenience. Similarly many very good staff get treated like dirt by horrible managers.

Garbage. Stop pretending that an extremely low number of landlords who would do this is common practice.

Lol. When landlords stop using thugs like Quinovic, who routinely ignore the existing law, then you'd have a point. Until then you're delusional to think that landlords are all saints.

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#2637248 18-Jan-2021 11:05

sir1963:

Every landlord I know has their horror storey.

Every tenant I know has their horror story too.

Ultimately there is nothing a tenant can do, no matter how "good" they are, to eliminate the risk of getting evicted from their home at short notice because the landlord is selling up or has "family moving in". That is a life-upending event. In NZ, the power balance is permanently tilted in the landlord's favour for that reason.

These recent legislative changes move the bar just a small fraction. We are still not remotely close to the kind of tenant protection that exists in true renting cultures, like Germany.

Side note: every landlord who, like you, threatens to leave their houses empty because of new renters' protections exposes the line about them providing a valuable public service as an complete fraud. If you don't want to live in or rent a house, then sell it so somebody else can. Holding onto it just proves that it was really all about the capital gains all along.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2637265 18-Jan-2021 11:42

allio:

sir1963:

Every landlord I know has their horror storey.

Every tenant I know has their horror story too.

Ultimately there is nothing a tenant can do, no matter how "good" they are, to eliminate the risk of getting evicted from their home at short notice because the landlord is selling up or has "family moving in". That is a life-upending event. In NZ, the power balance is permanently tilted in the landlord's favour for that reason.

These recent legislative changes move the bar just a small fraction. We are still not remotely close to the kind of tenant protection that exists in true renting cultures, like Germany.

Side note: every landlord who, like you, threatens to leave their houses empty because of new renters' protections exposes the line about them providing a valuable public service as an complete fraud. If you don't want to live in or rent a house, then sell it so somebody else can. Holding onto it just proves that it was really all about the capital gains all along.

ALL property ownership is "tilted"towards the owner, be it a house, a car or TV.

As for your side note. How many homeless people have you taken in and have them reside in your house ? Should we assume your belief is limited to other people taking risks.

I also don't see you acting as a guarantor for anyone, they damage a house, you cough up for the damages.

I don't see you shifting out so a more deserving family can have your place

Perhaps if you leave the house, someone else can shift in and claim squatters rights. Maybe people who work night shift can use your place during the day, you aren't using it then.

Perhaps you should be campaigning for the government to guarantee rents, guarantee repairs. Until that happens, I am expected by my insurance company to manage the risks, otherwise they will not pay up when things go wrong.

The alternative is I take out a gold plated insurance policy to minimise my risk, and add the cost of that onto the rent.

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#2637271 18-Jan-2021 11:55

sir1963:

ALL property ownership is "tilted"towards the owner, be it a house, a car or TV.

I don't understand why people keep drawing comparisons to cars and household objects. Shelter is a basic human need, and, in developed countries, a human right. Personal transport and entertainment are not.

As to how many homeless people I've taken into my house etc - I don't understand your argument at all. I'm not saying that everybody has some kind of basic obligation to devote every last corner of their lives to other people. What I said is that many landlords hold themselves out to be valuable members of society because they are "providing the service" of housing. Certainly all professional landlords say this (I've never met one who acknowledges that their 100% passive income is an extravagant privilege only made possible because the rest of society actually do productive work). The same people generally say that capital gains aren't the reason they buy and own properties (they certainly say this to the IRD). I'm saying that the fact that you would choose to hold on to an empty property which is generating no income, rather than sell it and invest in something else, reveals that to be a load of hooey.

Of course I don't want to personally assume the financial risk of someone else causing damage to a property. That's one of the (many) reasons that I'm not a landlord.

Perhaps you should be campaigning for the government to guarantee rents, guarantee repairs. Until that happens, I am expected by my insurance company to manage the risks, otherwise they will not pay up when things go wrong.

The alternative is I take out a gold plated insurance policy to minimise my risk, and add the cost of that onto the rent.

Yes, as a landlord I expect you to manage and underwrite the risks associated with your investment. If you don't like the financial result of that calculation, I expect you to sell your extra houses rather than leave them sitting empty and complaining about it.

Based on your posts in this thread, owning and renting multiple houses appears to have been a miserable, stressful and costly experience for you. Why then do you keep doing it? I can only assume it's been financially worthwhile despite all the bad stories.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13