New tenancy laws coming into effect Feb 11 2021

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

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

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2637525 18-Jan-2021 19:18

What if we drew a line, tried to be fair.

1. A landlord can dump a tenant in say 30 days. Any reason.

2. A tenant can dump a landlord in say 30 days. Any reason.

30 days could be 21, or 42 as I assume it still is now. Either way, isn't that fair if both sides have an equal opportunity to flee?

alasta

6705 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2637552 18-Jan-2021 20:06

Anecdotally I feel like attitudes between landlords and tenants are becoming increasingly combative, and that's a real shame. I have always gone out of my way to look after places that I have rented and my landlords have always treated me well as a result. Yes there are some bad landlords out there, but there are lots of really good ones who fully deserve to have their property respected.

I have rented for my entire adult life and I don't ever expect to become a landlord so, in principle, I support the idea of giving renters more certainty where possible. Unfortunately I have also seen the results of tenants going rogue, and I honestly believe that the idea of gathering evidence of three transgressions over 90 days is unrealistic and unworkable.

That's why I'm with the landlords on this particular issue.

mrdrifter

576 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2637556 18-Jan-2021 20:24

Having been both a Tenant and Landlord (and both at the same time), it appears this thread has just gone back and forward over the same ground for the last few pages, just face it, there are rubbish landlords and rubbish tenants, but the majority aren't the ones who causes issues one way or the other and again it's the few that ruin things for everyone else. The rules should not favor one or the other but balance fairness and ideally stability for both. Personally I think limiting liability to the bond/insurance excess is a stupid idea that will result in some serious damage being caused, but at the same time I'm in favor of not being able to kick someone out for spurious/no reason. The problem with strengthening/enforcing all the rules on one side is that situations do change for both parties over time and you can't always predict what life will throw at you.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2637647 19-Jan-2021 06:45

sir1963:

So the plan is..leave school, buy a house and skip the need to rent.

Or is it that you must live with your mum and dad until you can buy ?

How do university students get on ?

Perhaps its privatise health so that all that money can pay off the $300-400 BILLION for all that rental housing.

But plenty of single self employed people have large houses to run their business from, hair dressers, book keepers, osteopaths, physiotherapists, etc etc etc.

Maybe if I'd said "Rental property shouldn't exist and landlords should be banned" then these would all be fine, valid points. But that's not what I said at all.

I refuse to buy into the narrative of 'woe is me' from property investors, who will endure year after year of trading loss and only come sunny side up on a totally tax-free gain.

At a time of massive housing supply issues, continued migration and spiraling homelessness, I refuse to believe it's in the best interest of the country. And now we have monetary policy which is preserving the stupidly high prices that have been created because we're so far up the creek, it seems like we're committed to going over the waterfall - even though we could easily choose not to.

Frankly the perverse impacts of mass investment in rental property and lack of government intervention have set this country back decades and these attitudes are both of result of the problem and directly making it harder to change course.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2637696 19-Jan-2021 07:15

GV27:

Maybe if I'd said "Rental property shouldn't exist and landlords should be banned" then these would all be fine, valid points. But that's not what I said at all.

I refuse to buy into the narrative of 'woe is me' from property investors, who will endure year after year of trading loss and only come sunny side up on a totally tax-free gain.

At a time of massive housing supply issues, continued migration and spiraling homelessness, I refuse to believe it's in the best interest of the country. And now we have monetary policy which is preserving the stupidly high prices that have been created because we're so far up the creek, it seems like we're committed to going over the waterfall - even though we could easily choose not to.

Frankly the perverse impacts of mass investment in rental property and lack of government intervention have set this country back decades and these attitudes are both of result of the problem and directly making it harder to change course.

How far back does perverse investment and lack of Govt intervention go?

How massive is housing supply issues? How long for? Same with migration

I assume there was no housing crisis till 2017?? What do you want a Government to do? I dont really see a spiralling homelessness, I do see the same houses turning over, over and over, too many buyers not enough sellers

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2637700 19-Jan-2021 07:31

tdgeek:

How far back does perverse investment and lack of Govt intervention go?

How massive is housing supply issues? How long for? Same with migration

I assume there was no housing crisis till 2017?? What do you want a Government to do? I dont really see a spiralling homelessness, I do see the same houses turning over, over and over, too many buyers not enough sellers

Realistically, prices were on an upward track since the 1980s, but a combination of higher personal rates and extremely loose migration settings in the early 2000s triggered the fastest rises, even quicker than post-GFC.

There were several re-writes of the Income Tax Act during that time, which represents missed opportunities. Black and white CGTs or resourcing IRD to enforce the existing catch-all provisions was not done, and should have been. Finally the relationships between Councils, development and land supply is still not fully understood. We still have unresolved issues when it comes to body corp reform and leaky buildings too.

The Unitary Plan and the recent MPS around rapid-transit corridor building height limits will help undo some of the damage. But we now have $130b of extra money sloshing around the economy - no surprises for guessing where a bunch of that is going.

As for spiraling homelessness, check out how the Government is tracking on its target of reducing Priority A waiting lists for housing.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2637709 19-Jan-2021 08:02

GV27:

Realistically, prices were on an upward track since the 1980s, but a combination of higher personal rates and extremely loose migration settings in the early 2000s triggered the fastest rises, even quicker than post-GFC.

There were several re-writes of the Income Tax Act during that time, which represents missed opportunities. Black and white CGTs or resourcing IRD to enforce the existing catch-all provisions was not done, and should have been. Finally the relationships between Councils, development and land supply is still not fully understood. We still have unresolved issues when it comes to body corp reform and leaky buildings too.

The Unitary Plan and the recent MPS around rapid-transit corridor building height limits will help undo some of the damage. But we now have $130b of extra money sloshing around the economy - no surprises for guessing where a bunch of that is going.

As for spiraling homelessness, check out how the Government is tracking on its target of reducing Priority A waiting lists for housing.

Homelessness. "The" government? Ok, political. What happened to social housing under the previous Govt? Sold. I see they have now reversed their policy on that. Under the new regime social housing is being built. IIRC 3000, despite Covid wrecking 2020.

When I get time, I'll look at how many houses are net built (new houses not demo and rebuild) every year. What is immigration each year. How many young adults leave school and add to housing needs, how many pass away. The more I think about it the more I feel its not a housing stock shortage its a buyers vs for sale mismatch. Generally due to low interest rates which is a global factor. The 96000 returnees is quite high, and more cashed up than the traditional immigrants

But there was apparently no housing crisis we were told, so that why there was never any intervention, but now its an issue? Apart from land supply, you havent stated how the Govt can fix the shortage of houses. Maybe the RMA gets rehashed? hasn't happened so far by anyone. Will that reduce house prices by $250,000? Will it make land cheap?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#2637737 19-Jan-2021 08:39

tdgeek:

But there was apparently no housing crisis we were told, so that why there was never any intervention, but now its an issue? Apart from land supply, you havent stated how the Govt can fix the shortage of houses. Maybe the RMA gets rehashed? hasn't happened so far by anyone. Will that reduce house prices by $250,000? Will it make land cheap?

Many Govts - I'd say from National in the mid 1990s all the way through to today. And yes, there's a bit they can do. Severely curtailing the ability for objections to development in central areas with decent transport links would be a start - the NPS is a first salvo, but the inner Auckland area is a mess of volcanic view-shafts and height limits; so while villas in Mt Eden and Ponsonby are protected, we have thousands of houses being built in the North West with no public transport connections at all. Filling in gaps in Auckland's transport networks to connect brownfield developments in existing areas in preference to greenfield development - which might require revisiting transport agency funding and council debt limits. Auckland is still paying 50% of the CRL costs despite it being a nationally significant piece of infrastructure and decades overdue, but it's money the council can't spend on public transit and rapid transit in other areas to unlock more development.

That's before you get to tax, vacant housing, buyer's subsidies etc. The Helen Clark Foundation proposes we bail out home owners to the current value of their owner-occupied homes and then deliberately crash the market by hiking interest rates and using demand-shaping tools like DTIs and capital gains taxes - TBH I'm not totally opposed to that either.

DaveDog

336 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2637739 19-Jan-2021 08:41

tdgeek:

What if we drew a line, tried to be fair.

1. A landlord can dump a tenant in say 30 days. Any reason.

2. A tenant can dump a landlord in say 30 days. Any reason.

30 days could be 21, or 42 as I assume it still is now. Either way, isn't that fair if both sides have an equal opportunity to flee?

It simply isn't fair as it's much easier for a landlord to find a new tenant than a tenant finding a new home. That's an imbalance in the market.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2637748 19-Jan-2021 08:55

DaveDog:

tdgeek:

What if we drew a line, tried to be fair.

1. A landlord can dump a tenant in say 30 days. Any reason.

2. A tenant can dump a landlord in say 30 days. Any reason.

30 days could be 21, or 42 as I assume it still is now. Either way, isn't that fair if both sides have an equal opportunity to flee?

It simply isn't fair as it's much easier for a landlord to find a new tenant than a tenant finding a new home. That's an imbalance in the market.

So there is a glut of tenants? That appears to be a favourable

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2637751 19-Jan-2021 09:04

sir1963:
From tenancy.govt.nz

"

Assignment of tenancies – All requests to assign a tenancy must be considered. Landlords cannot decline unreasonably. If a residential tenancy agreement prohibits assignment, it is of no effect."

And perhaps to protect tenants, what you are doing should come under the laws of a boarding house. Only seems fair and reasonable.

Perhaps it should - flat mate and boarder situations are ultimately impacting someone’s shelter so maybe there should be a stronger legal framework around this.

I think you need to do more reading on assignment - because landlords can decline for reasonable reasons but they do have to fairly consider the assignment, and there are options. Start here on page 30.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2637752 19-Jan-2021 09:10

tdgeek:
What if we drew a line, tried to be fair.

1. A landlord can dump a tenant in say 30 days. Any reason.

2. A tenant can dump a landlord in say 30 days. Any reason.

30 days could be 21, or 42 as I assume it still is now. Either way, isn't that fair if both sides have an equal opportunity to flee?

Making things equal does not necessarily make them fair - equity vs outcome.

I now can’t find the specific homelessness comment (I think it was from you) I wanted to reply to - but in NZ 1% are homeless, the highest of the 35 high income OECD countries.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2637755 19-Jan-2021 09:12

GV27:

Many Govts - I'd say from National in the mid 1990s all the way through to today. And yes, there's a bit they can do. Severely curtailing the ability for objections to development in central areas with decent transport links would be a start - the NPS is a first salvo, but the inner Auckland area is a mess of volcanic view-shafts and height limits; so while villas in Mt Eden and Ponsonby are protected, we have thousands of houses being built in the North West with no public transport connections at all. Filling in gaps in Auckland's transport networks to connect brownfield developments in existing areas in preference to greenfield development - which might require revisiting transport agency funding and council debt limits. Auckland is still paying 50% of the CRL costs despite it being a nationally significant piece of infrastructure and decades overdue, but it's money the council can't spend on public transit and rapid transit in other areas to unlock more development.

That's before you get to tax, vacant housing, buyer's subsidies etc. The Helen Clark Foundation proposes we bail out home owners to the current value of their owner-occupied homes and then deliberately crash the market by hiking interest rates and using demand-shaping tools like DTIs and capital gains taxes - TBH I'm not totally opposed to that either.

I dont like fiddling. What I would like is build subsidies funded by seller stamp duty, revenue neutral. Along with obviously timely consenting. Make it so when I buy, doing a build is a no brainer. Increase buyer interest rates and use that to fund builds by reducing interest rates, that type of thing. That will provide a natural market movement, increase new stocks (helps the apparent housing stock shortage) and reduce buyer demand for existing homes. Win Win

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2637762 19-Jan-2021 09:29

antonknee:

I now can’t find the specific homelessness comment (I think it was from you) I wanted to reply to - but in NZ 1% are homeless, the highest of the 35 high income OECD countries.

Ive read here we are 100,000 houses light. Say 300,000 plus, people. If we are 1% homeless thats say 500,000 people. Ok, that make sense. We have recidivist homeless, how many Im unsure. We have people in crowded houses. But do we have 100,000 families in cars? We are now building social housing , but in terms of house prices this isnt relevant as these people are not buyers they are social housing waiters, which is off course a real issue but they are not part of the demand factor that affects house prices

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2637812 19-Jan-2021 09:42

DaveDog:

tdgeek:

What if we drew a line, tried to be fair.

1. A landlord can dump a tenant in say 30 days. Any reason.

2. A tenant can dump a landlord in say 30 days. Any reason.

30 days could be 21, or 42 as I assume it still is now. Either way, isn't that fair if both sides have an equal opportunity to flee?

It simply isn't fair as it's much easier for a landlord to find a new tenant than a tenant finding a new home. That's an imbalance in the market.

Actually I would argue it just as hard for a landlord to find a good tenant. And now its going to get MUCH worse because of the difficulty in removing bad tenants landlords are now forced into be extra fussy.

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