(il)Legal Questions tenancy Application Form

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › (il)Legal Questions tenancy Application Form

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1892319 29-Oct-2017 23:30

(Not a landlord)

Probable reason for asking the kids names and ages. A family with primary school aged kids would most likely get chosen over a family with teenage kids. If any of the "kids" are actually aged 18 or over - run tenancy and credit checks on them as well. And if accepted their names also go on the tenancy agreement. Or property may have features that would make it unsafe for very young kids - EG a stream in the back yard.

Bond - a landlord can't apply for eviction due to unpaid rent until the rent is at least 3 weeks overdue. So even if there is no damage to the property, often 4 weeks bond won't be enough to cover overdue rent and water charges up to the tenancy ending. And landlords often won't accept bond transfers as they can't tell beforehand if the old landlord will definitely agree to release the bond on the old tenancy.

Employment status - Landlord probably doesn't want to rent to someone on a benefit. Unless that benefit is say the invalids benefit or another type that the tenant is unlikely to loose in the future. If employed - compare the rent to the applicant's income. Higher income means less likely to default on the rent because the car / fridge / TV / whatever broke down. Less likely to complain of dampness due to not running any heating whatsoever in the middle of winter.

Declined for no reason - Do you have any pets? Especially dogs. As that is a very common reason for being declined.

gcorgnet

1096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 273

ID Verified

#1892381 30-Oct-2017 07:21

nunz:

It's the fact that 2k or more of my money is no longer earning interest or of any benefit to me - for as long as I rent. I could possibly die of old age - never having seen that money again and missing out on 6-8k of interest ( asuming 10%) or worse, forking out three times that in HP, credit card or other interest we did pay and that 2k could have been used to pay.

Mate, 2k is at a minimum what home owners have to fork out to the Coucil every single year in the form of rates and as far as I know, as a tenant, you still benefit from the services provided with that money.

Yes, it sucks having to fork out that much money when you starting up and trying to get into the house (especially if you add another week rent for the stupid agency letting fee) but that's just part of life. So many stories of tenants trashing houses so I think the landlord deserves to have that money set aside in case something goes wrong. I the grand scheme of things, 4 week rent is not the end of the world and perhaps if you can't get that money together to secure the house you want to live in, then maybe the landlords would have the right to doubt your ability to make rent.

BTW, I am not a landlord.

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#1892624 30-Oct-2017 14:27

(I am a landlord of 15 years)

I think it's pointless asking for ethnicity in an tenancy application form - this is something that is readily identifiable (to a degree) during the showing of the property to that prospective tenant. In my experience, ethnicity means precisely nothing in the rental game anyway. I've had both good and bad tenants of many ethnicities - it's certainly no indicator of character, good or otherwise.

I do think it's important to know a tenant's employment status and their place of work. One of my landlording brethren used this to great effect years ago when one of his tenants stopped paying rent and became unresponsive, so he went to the tenant's workplace. I dare say it's quite embarrassing to have your landlord turn up to your place of work asking for rent money - and in this case it was paid fairly promptly thereafter.

Landlords need to know that a prospective tenant has the means to pay every week, and usually that means asking for their employment status. If someone says to me "hey I have no job but here's the proof I just won first division", well then welcome in and here are the keys son! Trust fund baby? No problem. Three jobs in three months? Hmmm, this suggests a problem with commitment (unless they are an independent contractor of some sort).

I used to have a lot of beneficiary tenants 10-15 years ago and it was a pretty mixed bag. Some were fine, but I have some horror stories about others - the sort of parasites that get WINZ to pay the bond and first couple of weeks rent, then never pay another cent, camp out until the Tenancy Tribunal hearing is scheduled, and then scarper in the night leaving all their trash behind (up to 7 weeks after moving in). Then they move on to the next sucker. This is why I have a property manager now - I was clearly a very crap judge of character lol.

Asking how many kids there are (and of what age) is purely about determining the types of issues the landlord may face: 3-5 year olds are notorious for drawing on walls in my experience. One of my properties is entirely upstairs with external stair access off a balcony - certainly not suitable for crawling babies/toddlers etc. So knowing the ages can be relevant for health & safety reasons. However knowing their names seems creepy as others have alluded to.

The bottom line is that if you don't feel comfortable answering a particular question, just don't answer it. Either way, the property manager will make a decision in the best interests of the owner. It is their job after all.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1892645 30-Oct-2017 15:24

Wheelbarrow01:

One of my landlording brethren used this to great effect years ago when one of his tenants stopped paying rent and became unresponsive, so he went to the tenant's workplace. I dare say it's quite embarrassing to have your landlord turn up to your place of work asking for rent money - and in this case it was paid fairly promptly thereafter.

I think that might be illegal. While you can certainly sympathise with the landlord and his right to be paid his rent, I wouldn't suggest anyone do this as it might turn around to bite them if the tenant claims they are being harassed.

Twitter: ajobbins

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1892852 30-Oct-2017 22:28

nunz:

It is wrong for a Govt dept to take money and have use of it while returning nothing back to the "investor".

Do you think you would feel differently about bond if you were a landlord?

nunz:

I think if a tenant has been around for long enough with no damage there should be some reasonable rate of returned bond. Maybe some kind of rental trust worthiness rating? In fact, with a reasonable 5-7% interest rate, your bond would double in 10 years - paying back the capital and using the interest to cover what was your bond. Now that seems fairer than no interest and no bond return.

good idea, but bond is to cover against risk. as long as you have someone else's house, that risk remains.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1892894 31-Oct-2017 07:45

nunz:

I think if a tenant has been around for long enough with no damage there should be some reasonable rate of returned bond. Maybe some kind of rental trust worthiness rating? In fact, with a reasonable 5-7% interest rate, your bond would double in 10 years - paying back the capital and using the interest to cover what was your bond. Now that seems fairer than no interest and no bond return.

Great idea that the bond should be placed in an interest bearing or pooled investment account and the tenant gets a return at the end of the tenancy. I don't agree that the bond should reduce or be given back over time. It only takes one incident and it is a kind of insurance policy. That would be like me cancelling my car insurance because I haven't had a crash in 10 years.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Wheelbarrow01

1784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2638

Trusted

Chorus

#1892920 31-Oct-2017 08:44

ajobbins:

Wheelbarrow01:

One of my landlording brethren used this to great effect years ago when one of his tenants stopped paying rent and became unresponsive, so he went to the tenant's workplace. I dare say it's quite embarrassing to have your landlord turn up to your place of work asking for rent money - and in this case it was paid fairly promptly thereafter.

I think that might be illegal. While you can certainly sympathise with the landlord and his right to be paid his rent, I wouldn't suggest anyone do this as it might turn around to bite them if the tenant claims they are being harassed.

It's no different to a debt collector turning up at someone's workplace. It does happen and there's no law against it that I am aware of. Harassment is characteristically repetitive, so I wouldn't consider turning up to a tenant's workplace on one occasion to be harassment. Camping out in front of their workplace with a sign is perhaps another story....

esawers

559 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 94

#1892940 31-Oct-2017 09:50

[Landlord]

We have quite a detailed application form, it's totally up to you whether you fill it out or not. Most people miss out some questions, but to be honest the people we normally choose are the ones who have filled in as much info as possible, and we have had a good chat to (we manage the properties ourselves). We don't discriminate but we try and find the right fit for the property/neighbours. One of the houses has a shared driveway which goes right past the deck, so we normally avoid young children.

We do ask current rent, we don't want people getting into financial difficulty because they have moved from a house paying $300/week to a house paying $400/week. Maybe they can afford that rent increase, but it minimizes our risk if we choose someone who is already comfortably paying that rent.

I also look up shortlisted applicants social media, one couple looked absolutely ideal, both working full time, talking about having a family, but we turned them down when we checked her social media, she had been in 3 jobs and 3 different houses in the last 6 months, and they had only been together for 6 weeks!

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1893260 31-Oct-2017 18:10

Aredwood:

(Not a landlord)

Probable reason for asking the kids names and ages. A family with primary school aged kids would most likely get chosen over a family with teenage kids. If any of the "kids" are actually aged 18 or over - run tenancy and credit checks on them as well. And if accepted their names also go on the tenancy agreement. Or property may have features that would make it unsafe for very young kids - EG a stream in the back yard.

Bond - a landlord can't apply for eviction due to unpaid rent until the rent is at least 3 weeks overdue. So even if there is no damage to the property, often 4 weeks bond won't be enough to cover overdue rent and water charges up to the tenancy ending. And landlords often won't accept bond transfers as they can't tell beforehand if the old landlord will definitely agree to release the bond on the old tenancy.

Employment status - Landlord probably doesn't want to rent to someone on a benefit. Unless that benefit is say the invalids benefit or another type that the tenant is unlikely to loose in the future. If employed - compare the rent to the applicant's income. Higher income means less likely to default on the rent because the car / fridge / TV / whatever broke down. Less likely to complain of dampness due to not running any heating whatsoever in the middle of winter.

Declined for no reason - Do you have any pets? Especially dogs. As that is a very common reason for being declined.

guinea pigs. No other pets. Not even a cat.

Paid rent with no misses for 8 years.

Kids aged 9-14.

Not even a speeding ticket.

Employed.

White

middle class.

No tattoos and no membership of kkk, nazi party, skin heads or anything more dangerous than the local anglican church.

Good credit rating.

we are so WASP we make graham crackers look off colour.

and yes - that sounds racist but WASP is about as safe as it gets in many peoples opinions.

Educated. boring cars ( honda fit and a big horn).

We really are as benign as it possibly gets.

both emplyed - wife part time.

Married.

Holy cow ( no not hindu) I'm so boring I should take myself out back and shoot myself.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1893261 31-Oct-2017 18:12

gcorgnet:

nunz:

It's the fact that 2k or more of my money is no longer earning interest or of any benefit to me - for as long as I rent. I could possibly die of old age - never having seen that money again and missing out on 6-8k of interest ( asuming 10%) or worse, forking out three times that in HP, credit card or other interest we did pay and that 2k could have been used to pay.

Mate, 2k is at a minimum what home owners have to fork out to the Coucil every single year in the form of rates and as far as I know, as a tenant, you still benefit from the services provided with that money.

Yes, it sucks having to fork out that much money when you starting up and trying to get into the house (especially if you add another week rent for the stupid agency letting fee) but that's just part of life. So many stories of tenants trashing houses so I think the landlord deserves to have that money set aside in case something goes wrong. I the grand scheme of things, 4 week rent is not the end of the world and perhaps if you can't get that money together to secure the house you want to live in, then maybe the landlords would have the right to doubt your ability to make rent.

BTW, I am not a landlord.

I'm formulating a letter to give to our MP re that. it's not fair that good tenants penalised for bad tenants. maybe should start a new thread with ideas for what might work as a fairer bond process.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1893273 31-Oct-2017 19:08

Copy of letter formulating a fairer bond process with Tenancy Services. - It is a draft work in progress. Thoughts, ideas, comments appreciated.

And no - i have no expectation the Govt will take notice - but who knows - maybe I;ll be pleasantly surprised.

Dear Mr Webb,

I am writing to you to ask if you would consider supporting or creating a bill in Parliament redressing an issue I believe is blatantly unfair to a large proportion of New Zealanders.

The issue at hand is the matter of bond for tenancy lodged with Tenancy Services. The current legislation has a tenant lodging a bond, often the equivalent of four weeks rent, with Tenancy Services. This money is held in trust until the tenant no longer rents, at which point it is refunded.

The purpose of the money held in trust is to ensure that a landlord has reasonable redress if a tenant damages a property or fails to pay rent. At first glance this seems a reasonable answer to the issue of bad tenants damaging property or skipping after not paying rent. However there are two points of unreasonableness in this process.

1 – This law penalises good tenants by forcing them to face financial privation by removing from them fair use of money that belongs to them. They are being treated as untrustworthy and bundled in with bad tenants. It in effect penalises the blameless in order to remediate the issues caused by bad tenants.

2 – The Govt gets full use of the bond money, but pays no interest for making use of it. In effect the bond is free use of a citizens money without recompense to the owner of the money. This is exaction by any modest definition. At the very least a fair rate of interest should accrue on the bond being held as the tenant has lost use of that money. In many cases it is not just a loss of interest on the money that affects a tenant but they end up paying higher interest via HP, credit cards etc, which the bond could have been used to pay for.

So how to resolve this issue? How to protect the landlord while not penalising good or reasonable tenants.

My solution is a simple one:

I believe every bond held by Tenancy Services should attract interest. That interest should be compounded and used to ameliorate the amount of bond that is required to be held on behalf of a tenant.

For example: If a lump sum, at 10% compounding interest, doubles in value every 7 years – then at the end of 7 years, the bond held by Tenancy Services should be returned to the tenant, as their “account” would have a sum in it that satisfies the land lords need to have a level of protection for themselves.

A system based along these lines would allow a tenant to receive a modest return on their bond – satisfying common moral decency. Further more it could be made to be a system that rewards “good’ tenants by returning a percentage of their bond over a period of time and still providing protection against “bad” tenants – who would not be eligible for refunds.

It could be argued that a system like this would be hard to legislate, as no one knows what level of return on investment the Govt held funds would attract. By using the idea of a tenant ‘account’ fluctuations in investment returns can be managed – some years returning more than others, while protecting the Govt from having to pay out if not enough ROI has been returned to cover the pay outs.

Further more – if the original bond doubled in value over seven years – and the original bond was returned at the end of seven years – Tenancy Services is still in possession of the other “bond” that has been earned in interest. That bond continues to be held on behalf of a landlord but if a tenant finishes their tenancy that bond remains the property of the Govt – or possibly only a smaller percentage of it is paid to the tenant as they have already received back their bond. In effect the tenant has provided a time limited loan which has ongoing benefit to the Govt.

Fairness would dictate some level of return on usage of the bond – but again it could be a percentage of the profits earned on the “second interest bond”.

The question would also arise – what happens if having had their bond paid back, the tenant ends up having to pay damages to a landlord or their rent increases – increasing their bond. In this eventuality it would be incumbent on the tenant to “top up” their bond back to the required level. This means that tenants who consistently damage property or skip on rent will be financially penalised for their behaviours – while reasonable tenants would not be penalised by having to maintain a bond owing to others actions.

I have written four example scenarios to explain how this process might work below.

In effect – any capital from a tenant is paid back to the tenant when enough compounding interest has been accrued to replace the original lump sum.
As long as there are no drawings on the account a small interest payment is made on the balance left after the lump sum is paid out. This rewards the tenant for the free use of the original capital amount
Mr Webb, would you and/or the Labour Party be prepared to look at introducing legislation that redresses what is an unfair burden on good tenants? If so – when?

I thank you for your time reading this letter. I know it is a bit long but I believe this is an issue that bears addressing.

Regards

Shane Hollis

Scenario One: The Reasonable Tenant.

J Bloggs – Rents a house at $500 per week and pays the four weeks bond of $2000.
After five years they move to a new house. The bond stays with Tenancy Services.
After 7 years, the amount of interest earned in the Tenancy Services account equals $2000 and the original bond is returned as no claim has been made on the bond.
Thereafter a nominal payment of 3-5% interest is paid to J Bloggs as no claims are made.
After 10 years J Bloggs buys a home. No payment is due from Tenancy Services.
The account is closed.
Scenario Two: An Unreasonable Tenant

J Bloggs – Rents a house at $500 per week and pays the four weeks bond of $2000.
J Bloggs moves after a year – damages of $700 are owed to the landlord.
J Bloggs – Rents a house at $500 per week and pays $700 (the difference of the four weeks bond owed ) to Tenancy Services
This repeats for the next seven years.
At the end of seven years – no bond pay out is made as the funds have been drawn on over that time. Tenancy Services still retain the original bond and the interest on that bond.
Scenario Three: A ‘Repentant’ Tenant

J Bloggs – Rents a house at $500 per week and pays the four weeks bond of $2000.
J Bloggs moves after a year – damages of $700 are owed to the landlord.
J Bloggs – Rents a house at $500 per week and pays $700 (the difference of the four weeks bond owed ) to Tenancy Services
Over the next seven years J Blogs moves several times BUT no damages are paid out.
At the end of 7 years with no drawings on the ‘account’ the bond has doubled in value and the original sum is paid out ($2000)
Thereafter nominal payment of 3-5% interest is paid out while there are no drawings on the account.
Scenario Four: A Changed Tenant.

J Bloggs – Rents a house at $500 per week and pays the four weeks bond of $2000.
After five years they move to a new house. The bond stays with Tenancy Services.
After 7 years, the amount of interest earned in the Tenancy Services account equals $2000 and the original bond is returned as no claim has been made on the bond.
A year later J Bloggs moves and damages of $400 are paid to the landlord.
J Bloggs moves into another rental that requires $2000.
J Bloggs pays $400 to top up their account. No interest is payable to J Bloggs.
After seven more years with no drawings on the account – a lump sum of $400 is payable
Thereafter a nominal payment of 3-5% is paid out as long as there are no drawings on the account.

Geekzone

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

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#1893597 1-Nov-2017 12:53

I would like to add an amendment to that - something that I have been mulling over for some time.

The current tenancy laws enable a property owner or a landlord to no-fault eviction of 90 days.

Moving house is a significant cost, especially if there is a family involved, and is currently borne by the tenant.

My last quote for a move between Auckland and Tauranga was vic $7,000 - for a 3 bedroom house / workshop + shed.

My thoughts are along the line that the landlord also deposits 4 weeks rent ( like the tenant does for bond), in an affiliated account linked to the bond account.

If, for any reason, the landlord / property manager invokes the 42 day / 90 day eviction - house being sold, family moving back in ( yeah right), then those funds are used to finance the tenant moving costs, up to the value of the landlords deposited funds.

This is NOT for covering tenants who have been evicted due to damage, non-payment, etc.

The landlords funds and the tenants funds are kept separate, but under the same tenancy lodgement number.

Good idea, dumb idea ?

Worth discussin ?

gcorgnet

1096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 273

ID Verified

#1893607 1-Nov-2017 13:06

SepticSceptic:

I would like to add an amendment to that - something that I have been mulling over for some time.

The current tenancy laws enable a property owner or a landlord to no-fault eviction of 90 days.

Moving house is a significant cost, especially if there is a family involved, and is currently borne by the tenant.

My last quote for a move between Auckland and Tauranga was vic $7,000 - for a 3 bedroom house / workshop + shed.

My thoughts are along the line that the landlord also deposits 4 weeks rent ( like the tenant does for bond), in an affiliated account linked to the bond account.

If, for any reason, the landlord / property manager invokes the 42 day / 90 day eviction - house being sold, family moving back in ( yeah right), then those funds are used to finance the tenant moving costs, up to the value of the landlords deposited funds.

This is NOT for covering tenants who have been evicted due to damage, non-payment, etc.

The landlords funds and the tenants funds are kept separate, but under the same tenancy lodgement number.

Good idea, dumb idea ?

Worth discussin ?

Surely you're not expecting someone to else to finance your move across the country, right?

Adding more artificial costs to the landlord will only do one thing: bring up rents which I am sure is not in the tenants best interest

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1893608 1-Nov-2017 13:14

gcorgnet:

SepticSceptic:

I would like to add an amendment to that - something that I have been mulling over for some time.

The current tenancy laws enable a property owner or a landlord to no-fault eviction of 90 days.

Moving house is a significant cost, especially if there is a family involved, and is currently borne by the tenant.

My last quote for a move between Auckland and Tauranga was vic $7,000 - for a 3 bedroom house / workshop + shed.

My thoughts are along the line that the landlord also deposits 4 weeks rent ( like the tenant does for bond), in an affiliated account linked to the bond account.

If, for any reason, the landlord / property manager invokes the 42 day / 90 day eviction - house being sold, family moving back in ( yeah right), then those funds are used to finance the tenant moving costs, up to the value of the landlords deposited funds.

This is NOT for covering tenants who have been evicted due to damage, non-payment, etc.

The landlords funds and the tenants funds are kept separate, but under the same tenancy lodgement number.

Good idea, dumb idea ?

Worth discussin ?

Surely you're not expecting someone to else to finance your move across the country, right?

Adding more artificial costs to the landlord will only do one thing: bring up rents which I am sure is not in the tenants best interest

it's not an artificial cost - i know one couple who have signed year long leases and been moved on in under 4 months - four houses in a row. Family moved back, landlord wanted to do repairs on their own house, sold the house etc. it costs them $400 - $500 in letting fees, plus moving fees plus time off work etc etc - every single time. I think landlords also should be called to responsibility if they waste peoples time. The tenants weren't at fault but they pay the price.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#1893610 1-Nov-2017 13:20

SepticSceptic:

I would like to add an amendment to that - something that I have been mulling over for some time.

The current tenancy laws enable a property owner or a landlord to no-fault eviction of 90 days.

Moving house is a significant cost, especially if there is a family involved, and is currently borne by the tenant.

My last quote for a move between Auckland and Tauranga was vic $7,000 - for a 3 bedroom house / workshop + shed.

My thoughts are along the line that the landlord also deposits 4 weeks rent ( like the tenant does for bond), in an affiliated account linked to the bond account.

If, for any reason, the landlord / property manager invokes the 42 day / 90 day eviction - house being sold, family moving back in ( yeah right), then those funds are used to finance the tenant moving costs, up to the value of the landlords deposited funds.

This is NOT for covering tenants who have been evicted due to damage, non-payment, etc.

The landlords funds and the tenants funds are kept separate, but under the same tenancy lodgement number.

Good idea, dumb idea ?

Worth discussin ?

LOL, you cannot be serious surely??? Why on earth you would think you've got some right to stay in somebody else's property indefinitely? Your rights go as far as the tenancy agreement (and/or associated laws). The period is either fixed in the contract or stated in law. You've signed the contract, you've agreed to the terms. That's it.

Btw. following your reasoning maybe there should be another deposit from tenant when they give their 3 WEEKS (as opposed to 3 MONTHS from landlord) notice so it would be used to finance landlord's cost associated with finding new tenant and lost rent when the house is empty.

Current laws strongly favour the tenants, I would strongly oppose adding any additional imbalance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4