(il)Legal Questions tenancy Application Form

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#1893612 1-Nov-2017 13:28

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.

If they signed fixed term contract then the landlord cannot break it even when he's selling the house. They would have to agree to early termination.

So if the property being sold is rented for a fixed-term, the property must be sold with the tenancy and tenants in place. The buyer will then become the new landlord for the rest of the fixed-term. The landlord may be able to sell the property empty if the tenant agrees, in writing, to end the fixed-term early.

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#1893625 1-Nov-2017 13:31

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

I used AKL Tauranga as an example - sure, it would cost less if moving within adjacent suburbs.

However, how can this be an artificial cost. It's the same as bond - if the tenant moves along under their own volition, then there is no cost to the landlord.

For those families who pay their rent on time, keep the property well, and as soon as their lease is up, they are forced to move at their expense because the owner wants to sell up or move in family. It's a significant cost financially.

MikeAqua

8030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

#1893720 1-Nov-2017 16:31

Bonds ...

Suck when you first pay them. When you move houses it isn't so bad.

I have always assumed the interest from the bonds pays for the service.

Mike

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1894479 3-Nov-2017 00:10

Among the changes that Labour is proposing to tenancy laws. One of them is making the charging of letting fees to tenants illegal. I fully agree with this change, as currently property managers have an incentive to keep on changing tenants each year, as they make more in letting fees by doing so instead of letting the same tenant stay for ages. Apart from this change, I don't see the need for many other changes.

As for fixed terms, If you only signed a 1 year term, there is always a risk that it might not be renewed after that year. What happened when you asked the landlord if you could sign up for a longer term?

But as always, Alot of the problems with the rental market are simply because there are not enough rentals available and houses are expensive. More tenants than available properties means that landlords can be picky, and there is not much incentive to upgrade poor condition properties, as almost anything that is offered for rent will get tenants applying for it. If 5 groups of ideal tenants apply for a property, the landlord can only accept 1 group as they only have 1 property available. Not fun if you are 1 of the other 4, but again high house prices mean that the landlord can't just say: Just a sec, ill buy another house so I can offer you a tenancy.

nunz:

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.

Other possibilities:

Having guinea pigs might still be offputting to a landlord. As some cage types that sit on the lawn leave big rectangle patches of dead grass if the cage doesn't get constantly moved around. And some cross lease and body corp properties have strict "no pets" clauses. Meaning the landlord would be in breach if they allowed you to have the guinea pigs on the property. And have heard of a case where someone would let their guinea pigs run around inside the house. So far safer and easier for a landlord to simply say "no pets"

As for your skin colour - being white is no guarantee that the landlord is not being racist. I have heard of cases of landlords only renting to tenants from the same culture or home country that they are from. Partly as they can use connections back in their home country to apply pressure to the tenants families if they don't pay the rent. Or it makes it more likely that the tenants won't be aware of their rights under NZ law. So easier for the landlord to break the law.

Your cars - make sure that they are spotlessly clean both inside and out. As some landlords check this as a proxy for how likely you are to keep the house clean.

NB - what do you mean by "we are so WASP"? Assuming it is a reference to your skin colour?

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user

#1894696 3-Nov-2017 12:34

Aredwood: Among the changes that Labour is proposing to tenancy laws. One of them is making the charging of letting fees to tenants illegal. I fully agree with this change, as currently property managers have an incentive to keep on changing tenants each year, as they make more in letting fees by doing so instead of letting the same tenant stay for ages.

The letting fee has to go for that reason but also because it's a barrier to people moving from sub-par accommodation.

Aredwood:NB - what do you mean by "we are so WASP"? Assuming it is a reference to your skin colour?

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

eph

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#1894723 3-Nov-2017 12:47

cadman:

Aredwood: Among the changes that Labour is proposing to tenancy laws. One of them is making the charging of letting fees to tenants illegal. I fully agree with this change, as currently property managers have an incentive to keep on changing tenants each year, as they make more in letting fees by doing so instead of letting the same tenant stay for ages.

The letting fee has to go for that reason but also because it's a barrier to people moving from sub-par accommodation.

I wonder how are the RE agents going to get around that. It's primarily their pay when the property is advertised through them. I personally cannot imagine few hundred dollars would be worth it considering how stressful and time consuming is to look for new tenants (for me as landlord). Surely means a lot more work for the managers to change the tenants as well?

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1896557 7-Nov-2017 08:30

cadman:

Aredwood: Among the changes that Labour is proposing to tenancy laws. One of them is making the charging of letting fees to tenants illegal. I fully agree with this change, as currently property managers have an incentive to keep on changing tenants each year, as they make more in letting fees by doing so instead of letting the same tenant stay for ages.

The letting fee has to go for that reason but also because it's a barrier to people moving from sub-par accommodation.

Aredwood:NB - what do you mean by "we are so WASP"? Assuming it is a reference to your skin colour?

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

1 - Pets were allowed with this house.

2 - Landlord accepted no body.

3 - WASP - White Anglo Saxon Protestent - white, middle class, middle of the road - so bland and boring you could use me as chalk. WASP usually means completely benign, boring, unoffensive, middle of the road, solid .... ie no quirks or surprises. Self derision for how architypically middle class I appear.

4 - Cars - spotless as use them for work so appearance is important. In fact, again very WASP. boring middle of the road, neither expensive or poor, no bright colours (grey), nana cars.

I seriously need to get a life upgrade - I'm boring myself.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1896560 7-Nov-2017 08:33

eph:

cadman:

Aredwood: Among the changes that Labour is proposing to tenancy laws. One of them is making the charging of letting fees to tenants illegal. I fully agree with this change, as currently property managers have an incentive to keep on changing tenants each year, as they make more in letting fees by doing so instead of letting the same tenant stay for ages.

The letting fee has to go for that reason but also because it's a barrier to people moving from sub-par accommodation.

I wonder how are the RE agents going to get around that. It's primarily their pay when the property is advertised through them. I personally cannot imagine few hundred dollars would be worth it considering how stressful and time consuming is to look for new tenants (for me as landlord). Surely means a lot more work for the managers to change the tenants as well?

Letting fees are a bit of a legal black hole is some ways. As renters its not like we are paying the agency for a service. They represent the landlord and charge the land lord. To charge rentors is a conflict of interest or double dipping. What exactly am I paying $500 for? Letting me see the house? That's on behalf of the land lord. Legal paperwork - conflict of interest as they represent the landlord.

MikeAqua

8030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

#1896592 7-Nov-2017 09:37

nunz:

eph:

cadman:

Aredwood: Among the changes that Labour is proposing to tenancy laws. One of them is making the charging of letting fees to tenants illegal. I fully agree with this change, as currently property managers have an incentive to keep on changing tenants each year, as they make more in letting fees by doing so instead of letting the same tenant stay for ages.

The letting fee has to go for that reason but also because it's a barrier to people moving from sub-par accommodation.

I wonder how are the RE agents going to get around that. It's primarily their pay when the property is advertised through them. I personally cannot imagine few hundred dollars would be worth it considering how stressful and time consuming is to look for new tenants (for me as landlord). Surely means a lot more work for the managers to change the tenants as well?

Letting fees are a bit of a legal black hole is some ways. As renters its not like we are paying the agency for a service. They represent the landlord and charge the land lord. To charge rentors is a conflict of interest or double dipping. What exactly am I paying $500 for? Letting me see the house? That's on behalf of the land lord. Legal paperwork - conflict of interest as they represent the landlord.

I detest letting fees. It would be more sensible to charge the landlord all the fees. They will then recover them via rentals.

If I have to pay one, I see myself as a customer of the agency. They work for me too and accordingly I expect a level of service. It's a lever to pull as/when required.

I have to say the rental agency that we deal with as tenants are good. Any issues have been promptly dealt with. We have a good relationship with our property manager. Much easier than dealing with an individual landlord.

Mike

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1896623 7-Nov-2017 09:47

i think it's about time there were some legislation on rental property.

I have heard of (and I believe them) landlords renting property that they wouldn't let their dog live in, for a good rental, and then blame and charge the tenants for the property's issues

- eg known (by landlord) "leaky" house, so the house grows mould everywhere, and tenants go somewhere else, but are charged penalty for causing mould to carpets, curtains, ceiling, of the entire house when they leave! this really did my head in. because you know what? the next unsuspecting set of tenants will come in and effectively pay to clean the landlord's leaky house every 6-12 months, while paying his mortgage as well.

on the other hand, i'd love to be a landlord. but where I live, the crap properties are the ones that give good return. i cannot bring myself to buy a lousy property, knowingly rent to some poor folk to pay my mortgage, and then collect capital gains. which if I did, i'd be rich! (you could call sour grapes here). but i also don't want to buy some upmarket property for a lot of money, rent it for a big loss, well why would i want to do that?

will the govt fix it? let's see.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#1896633 7-Nov-2017 10:01

MikeAqua:

nunz:

eph:

cadman:

Aredwood: Among the changes that Labour is proposing to tenancy laws. One of them is making the charging of letting fees to tenants illegal. I fully agree with this change, as currently property managers have an incentive to keep on changing tenants each year, as they make more in letting fees by doing so instead of letting the same tenant stay for ages.

The letting fee has to go for that reason but also because it's a barrier to people moving from sub-par accommodation.

I wonder how are the RE agents going to get around that. It's primarily their pay when the property is advertised through them. I personally cannot imagine few hundred dollars would be worth it considering how stressful and time consuming is to look for new tenants (for me as landlord). Surely means a lot more work for the managers to change the tenants as well?

Letting fees are a bit of a legal black hole is some ways. As renters its not like we are paying the agency for a service. They represent the landlord and charge the land lord. To charge rentors is a conflict of interest or double dipping. What exactly am I paying $500 for? Letting me see the house? That's on behalf of the land lord. Legal paperwork - conflict of interest as they represent the landlord.

I detest letting fees. It would be more sensible to charge the landlord all the fees. They will then recover them via rentals.

If I have to pay one, I see myself as a customer of the agency. They work for me too and accordingly I expect a level of service. It's a lever to pull as/when required.

I have to say the rental agency that we deal with as tenants are good. Any issues have been promptly dealt with. We have a good relationship with our property manager. Much easier than dealing with an individual landlord.

That's what is likely going to happen - the landlords will likely try to dissolve it in the rent (and maybe increase it) but the overall effect would probably be positive for the tenant.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1898520 9-Nov-2017 20:45

Batman:

i think it's about time there were some legislation on rental property.

I have heard of (and I believe them) landlords renting property that they wouldn't let their dog live in, for a good rental, and then blame and charge the tenants for the property's issues

- eg known (by landlord) "leaky" house, so the house grows mould everywhere, and tenants go somewhere else, but are charged penalty for causing mould to carpets, curtains, ceiling, of the entire house when they leave! this really did my head in. because you know what? the next unsuspecting set of tenants will come in and effectively pay to clean the landlord's leaky house every 6-12 months, while paying his mortgage as well.

on the other hand, i'd love to be a landlord. but where I live, the crap properties are the ones that give good return. i cannot bring myself to buy a lousy property, knowingly rent to some poor folk to pay my mortgage, and then collect capital gains. which if I did, i'd be rich! (you could call sour grapes here). but i also don't want to buy some upmarket property for a lot of money, rent it for a big loss, well why would i want to do that?

will the govt fix it? let's see.

Its why I am leaving the current house. Black mould growing up from the floor - and mould coming out from the gaps in the wall paper. Flashing leaks so water running through ceilings and dripping into my daughters room, bathroom etc.

Next year they will be forced to add insulation. There is no easy weay this house will come up to code as there is a tin roof on the 60 year old upstairs extention and no room for insulation in the walls - plus aforementioned leaks in the flashings.

There are some good relocatable options. Tight tidy houses.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1898521 9-Nov-2017 20:48

better watch out that they don't incur a penalty for "causing" the mould.

PS who says they are going to comply? as long as there are renters there will be rentals that rent. it's not like it's blowing black smoke causing the fire service to come and inspect

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1898535 9-Nov-2017 21:35

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 ?

How about, if you don't like the 90 day no-fault eviction, you contract out of it and sign a rental agreement with something else. If you sign a 5-year fixed-term agreement (or whatever), or an agreement providing for 6-months notice for a no fault agreement, then it's binding. Plenty of people sign fixed-term rental agreements, or agreements with non-standard conditions in them.

Another cumbersome and elaborate bureaucratic rules seems misplaced.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1898536 9-Nov-2017 21:35

scuwp:

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.

The interest returned goes to paying for the tenancy services + tenancy tribunal.

This is why there are no associated "plus court costs" associated with any claims from either party that end up in the tribunal. You can also call them and get all sorts of advice from them for "free".

Lets put it this way, if they landlord could expect you to pay for an insurance cover to do what the bond does, you would end up paying MORE and you would get $0 back at the end of it.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4