(il)Legal Questions tenancy Application Form

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

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#224006 28-Oct-2017 12:17

Random question:

According to the tenancy act you cannot discriminate against renting to people based on

ethnicity
Age
gender
sexual orientation
employment status
religion

and a raft of other human rights linked discriminators.

so if a tenancy application form asks for

Ethnicity
Employment status
How much paying for current house
Kids ages and names
Photograph

etc - is that breaching the act? They are certainly questions not required to fulfill a credit check.

Also do you have the right to ask what feed back your current landlord gave for you when the tenancy firm phoned them?

Looking into what is happening to renters - i can see it really sucks. if we want to rent a house we will end up tieing up 4 x weekly rent in the tenancy bond scheme - a growing interest free loan to the govt or similar. and every time the rent goes up - we will be required to top up that bond with 4 x the increase. Basically we loose a substantial chunk of money for ever - or until we can afford to buy our own place.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1891832 28-Oct-2017 12:51

INAL but isn't there a difference between asking the questions and using them to discriminate.

I'm a landlord and wouldn't ask those question's, the Tenancy services site can answer some of your questions and also that if you suspect discrimination then report it.

I don't believe you have to answer those questions and would probably challenge it but I guess that may prejudice your chances but is it a place you would want to rent after that.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

SATTV

1670 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 657

ID Verified

#1891835 28-Oct-2017 13:01

Does not sound Kosher to me.

Is this from a professional property rental management company or a private landlord?

If the rent goes up you do not have to top up the bond.

Yes it is a pain to tie up that money for the time you are renting, you can even transfer it to the new tenancy when you move house so when you move you are not trying up two bonds for a time.

Also when you move in, take lots of photos, lots and lots of photos.

John

I know enough to be dangerous

eph

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#1891841 28-Oct-2017 13:15

As a landlord you usually ask tenant to give you copy of ID (for credit checks) and application form. So some of those questions are answered from these:

- age, gender, photograph from I.D.

- employment status - employment reference and/or benefit status on the application form

- kids - state all people who would be living in the house on application form

- ethnicity (and possibly orientation and religion) - when you meet the tenant to show them the house

To be honest most people usually can't really avoid answering those questions if they want to have a chance at getting the tenancy. In the end it's up to the landlord to choose anyway no matter what the tenancy act says.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1891861 28-Oct-2017 14:03

SATTV:

Does not sound Kosher to me.

Is this from a professional property rental management company or a private landlord?

If the rent goes up you do not have to top up the bond.

Yes it is a pain to tie up that money for the time you are renting, you can even transfer it to the new tenancy when you move house so when you move you are not trying up two bonds for a time.

Also when you move in, take lots of photos, lots and lots of photos.

John

actually - they can make you top up the bond if rent goes up. Sad but true.

From the tenancy site:

Increasing rent may affect bond

When lawfully increasing the rent, the landlord may ask the tenant to pay extra bond to equal the weekly rent. For example, the rent goes up by $10 per week. The tenant paid 3 weeks’ rent as bond. So the landlord can ask for an extra $30 to be paid to the bond. Extra bond needs to be lodged with the rest of the bond, by completing a bond lodgement form. Similarly, if the rent decreases, and if the total bond is more than 4 week’s rent, the tenant can apply to have the extra bond refunded to them.

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/rent-bond-and-bills/bond/charging-a-bond/

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1891864 28-Oct-2017 14:09

eph:

As a landlord you usually ask tenant to give you copy of ID (for credit checks) and application form. So some of those questions are answered from these:

- age, gender, photograph from I.D.

- employment status - employment reference and/or benefit status on the application form

- kids - state all people who would be living in the house on application form

- ethnicity (and possibly orientation and religion) - when you meet the tenant to show them the house

To be honest most people usually can't really avoid answering those questions if they want to have a chance at getting the tenancy. In the end it's up to the landlord to choose anyway no matter what the tenancy act says.

1. Professional org asked these questions.

2. If you cant discriminate based on employment status - then you cant ask either one would think. A credit check doesn't require employment information. Name, address, previous address and possibly drivers license.

3. Kids - Age and name is beyond what s expected and asking for childrens details is dodgy. Four kids aged 8-14 is okay. Explicit name, gender, age etc - not on.

The owner turned down every application. no one was suitable. We have paid rent for 8 years, never missed a payment, kept the house well, mowed lawns, trimmed hedges etc, employed etc. But not suitable. Would like to discover why - as it gives us an opportunity to address any concerns (although how many concerns a family with 4 kids moving into a four bedroom house can raise is pretty low).

muppet

2642 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1660

Trusted

#1891875 28-Oct-2017 14:50

(I am not a landlord)

As a landlord, if you get two people, how are you supposed to "pick one" if you can't say "that guy's had a part time cleaning job for 3 weeks, that lady's had a fulltime job for 5 years"?

I would have just thought it was a wise investment/choice. You're not saying "This *person* is better than that person" just "This person has better odds of being able to always meet the rent". So is that discrimination?

I can fully understand that saying "Oh that guy works at McDonalds and I think they make crappy food, so I'll pick the lady who works at Burgerfuel" is discrimination, or "I hate men, so I'll pick the lady" etc.

(I'm starting to doubt myself now, am I a bigger prick that I thought I was?)

To your point/question nunz, I would expect that much like when you get turned down for a job and the best reason why you get is "We didn't feel you had the right experience" or "It wasn't quite the right fit", you won't get anything really useful. I've never known a company to sit me down and go "well, here's the 6 reasons we said no" though I guess maybe it happens?

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.

eph

187 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 76

#1892028 28-Oct-2017 22:08

nunz:

1. Professional org asked these questions.

2. If you cant discriminate based on employment status - then you cant ask either one would think. A credit check doesn't require employment information. Name, address, previous address and possibly drivers license.

3. Kids - Age and name is beyond what s expected and asking for childrens details is dodgy. Four kids aged 8-14 is okay. Explicit name, gender, age etc - not on.

The owner turned down every application. no one was suitable. We have paid rent for 8 years, never missed a payment, kept the house well, mowed lawns, trimmed hedges etc, employed etc. But not suitable. Would like to discover why - as it gives us an opportunity to address any concerns (although how many concerns a family with 4 kids moving into a four bedroom house can raise is pretty low).

1. Asking all those questions doesn't seem very professional to me. I use TINZ application form as a reference (since I think they know what can they legally ask for) and they do not ask your ethnicity, kids names, current rent or photograph (thought that's on your ID of course).

2. Credit check doesn't require employment status of course but usually landlord asks for employer reference which implies your employment status.

3. I completely agree. Wrong to ask, too personal and irrelevant to tenancy.

Every landlord (and tenant) is taking a risk when starting new tenancy so if the landlord doesn't feel the tenant is right for him I don't think anybody can force landlord to accept the tenant. Same the other way around, if the tenant doesn't like the place or landlord for whatever reason nobody can force him to accept the tenancy.

Have you maybe tried asking the landlord why weren't you suitable? Maybe it was something unrelated to this discussion.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1892035 28-Oct-2017 22:53

Sexual orientation and religion has got something to do with credit checks?

I'd say go to the newspapers!

SATTV

1670 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 657

ID Verified

#1892061 29-Oct-2017 08:54

nunz:

actually - they can make you top up the bond if rent goes up. Sad but true.

From the tenancy site:

Increasing rent may affect bond

When lawfully increasing the rent, the landlord may ask the tenant to pay extra bond to equal the weekly rent. For example, the rent goes up by $10 per week. The tenant paid 3 weeks’ rent as bond. So the landlord can ask for an extra $30 to be paid to the bond. Extra bond needs to be lodged with the rest of the bond, by completing a bond lodgement form. Similarly, if the rent decreases, and if the total bond is more than 4 week’s rent, the tenant can apply to have the extra bond refunded to them.

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/rent-bond-and-bills/bond/charging-a-bond/

Well I learned something new today.

That sucks the big Kumera!

John

I know enough to be dangerous

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1892073 29-Oct-2017 09:44

nunz:

Looking into what is happening to renters - i can see it really sucks. if we want to rent a house we will end up tieing up 4 x weekly rent in the tenancy bond scheme - a growing interest free loan to the govt or similar. and every time the rent goes up - we will be required to top up that bond with 4 x the increase. Basically we loose a substantial chunk of money for ever - or until we can afford to buy our own place.

Bond of 4 weeks isn't unreasonable, considering you are taking possession of perhaps $1m worth of someone elses assets. If you respect it as you should you will get your money back.

I rented for 15 years and never had an issue with Bond except with one rogue landlord, was very easily sorted.

The tenancy tribunal is a very powerful advocate for Tenants.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1892179 29-Oct-2017 16:49

muppet:

(I am not a landlord)

As a landlord, if you get two people, how are you supposed to "pick one" if you can't say "that guy's had a part time cleaning job for 3 weeks, that lady's had a fulltime job for 5 years"?

I would have just thought it was a wise investment/choice. You're not saying "This *person* is better than that person" just "This person has better odds of being able to always meet the rent". So is that discrimination?

I can fully understand that saying "Oh that guy works at McDonalds and I think they make crappy food, so I'll pick the lady who works at Burgerfuel" is discrimination, or "I hate men, so I'll pick the lady" etc.

(I'm starting to doubt myself now, am I a bigger prick that I thought I was?)

To your point/question nunz, I would expect that much like when you get turned down for a job and the best reason why you get is "We didn't feel you had the right experience" or "It wasn't quite the right fit", you won't get anything really useful. I've never known a company to sit me down and go "well, here's the 6 reasons we said no" though I guess maybe it happens?

1 - If you pick a person based on their employment it is considered discrimination under tenancy act & human rights act. I don't think you are being a prick about it - it is human nature - but is also illegal. That's why you dont put questions like that on job interview application forms or tenancy forms. You have no legal reason to ask those questions - so by asking them you breach - in my understanding. it's liek the jounalist getting slammed by J adern when asking about kids. Under the current climate you cant ask those questions - but it si human nature to want to know. If I am investing time into an employee nad think they are likely to begger off sooner, rather than reward my investment of time and money by staying longer term, then I too will have some bias in my thinking. However its not legal.

2 - The turn down - no answer as to why - it is just no one was suitable - yet based on the legal information supplied no one could be judged un-suitable. I would hope we werent suitable based on a mis-understanding - but if it turns out current land lords dissing us then that would be something I could deal with and fix. However i dont know - and as theoretically ideal tennants would like to know where we fell short.

3 - I do reviews and give reasons if interviewing people. I try to use it as an opportunity to help someone do better next time or pointers towards personal growth. Example - I advertised for a tech with 3 years experience and turned down a guy with 3 years of degree. When he asked why pointed out academic learning is different to experience - gave him a concrete example of where exprience was required (from a job on my desk), then helped him get a job in a place where there were people who could support a new techie - whereas I didnt have that resource available.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1892180 29-Oct-2017 16:52

eph:

nunz:

1. Professional org asked these questions.

2. If you cant discriminate based on employment status - then you cant ask either one would think. A credit check doesn't require employment information. Name, address, previous address and possibly drivers license.

3. Kids - Age and name is beyond what s expected and asking for childrens details is dodgy. Four kids aged 8-14 is okay. Explicit name, gender, age etc - not on.

The owner turned down every application. no one was suitable. We have paid rent for 8 years, never missed a payment, kept the house well, mowed lawns, trimmed hedges etc, employed etc. But not suitable. Would like to discover why - as it gives us an opportunity to address any concerns (although how many concerns a family with 4 kids moving into a four bedroom house can raise is pretty low).

1. Asking all those questions doesn't seem very professional to me. I use TINZ application form as a reference (since I think they know what can they legally ask for) and they do not ask your ethnicity, kids names, current rent or photograph (thought that's on your ID of course).

2. Credit check doesn't require employment status of course but usually landlord asks for employer reference which implies your employment status.

3. I completely agree. Wrong to ask, too personal and irrelevant to tenancy.

Every landlord (and tenant) is taking a risk when starting new tenancy so if the landlord doesn't feel the tenant is right for him I don't think anybody can force landlord to accept the tenant. Same the other way around, if the tenant doesn't like the place or landlord for whatever reason nobody can force him to accept the tenancy.

Have you maybe tried asking the landlord why weren't you suitable? Maybe it was something unrelated to this discussion.

I asked the tenancy agency. Their answer was no one was suitable - end of discussion. No feed back or pointers possible.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1892182 29-Oct-2017 17:02

networkn:

nunz:

Looking into what is happening to renters - i can see it really sucks. if we want to rent a house we will end up tieing up 4 x weekly rent in the tenancy bond scheme - a growing interest free loan to the govt or similar. and every time the rent goes up - we will be required to top up that bond with 4 x the increase. Basically we loose a substantial chunk of money for ever - or until we can afford to buy our own place.

Bond of 4 weeks isn't unreasonable, considering you are taking possession of perhaps $1m worth of someone elses assets. If you respect it as you should you will get your money back.

I rented for 15 years and never had an issue with Bond except with one rogue landlord, was very easily sorted.

The tenancy tribunal is a very powerful advocate for Tenants.

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.

It is wrong for a Govt dept to take money and have use of it while returning nothing back to the "investor". At the very least it should earn interest at the cash rate.

As for 1m in assets. Most of NZ doesn't live in Auckland and even if we did - what dipstick pays rent of 50k - 150k per year rather than investing in their own assets? ( assuming a 5-10% rate of return on the 1m invested in the home) I am flabbergasted when I see rents of 1-4k per week being advertised. <humour>That's just stupid. I could buy a helicopter, fly it from rental in otara to work and still save money on that type of rent..and i live in Chch </humour>

We live in a 315k house in chch. While it has theoretically increased in value over last 8 years, it has had no maint - so what ever the landlord gets when selling it is pure profit. We more than cover the mortgage.

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.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1892186 29-Oct-2017 17:23

nunz:

networkn:

nunz:

Looking into what is happening to renters - i can see it really sucks. if we want to rent a house we will end up tieing up 4 x weekly rent in the tenancy bond scheme - a growing interest free loan to the govt or similar. and every time the rent goes up - we will be required to top up that bond with 4 x the increase. Basically we loose a substantial chunk of money for ever - or until we can afford to buy our own place.

Bond of 4 weeks isn't unreasonable, considering you are taking possession of perhaps $1m worth of someone elses assets. If you respect it as you should you will get your money back.

I rented for 15 years and never had an issue with Bond except with one rogue landlord, was very easily sorted.

The tenancy tribunal is a very powerful advocate for Tenants.

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.

It is wrong for a Govt dept to take money and have use of it while returning nothing back to the "investor". At the very least it should earn interest at the cash rate.

As for 1m in assets. Most of NZ doesn't live in Auckland and even if we did - what dipstick pays rent of 50k - 150k per year rather than investing in their own assets? ( assuming a 5-10% rate of return on the 1m invested in the home) I am flabbergasted when I see rents of 1-4k per week being advertised. <humour>That's just stupid. I could buy a helicopter, fly it from rental in otara to work and still save money on that type of rent..and i live in Chch </humour>

We live in a 315k house in chch. While it has theoretically increased in value over last 8 years, it has had no maint - so what ever the landlord gets when selling it is pure profit. We more than cover the mortgage.

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.

These are silly comparisons and reasonings. I can't even be bothered explaining why. Good luck. I'm out.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1892238 29-Oct-2017 18:53

networkn:

nunz:

networkn:

nunz:

Looking into what is happening to renters - i can see it really sucks. if we want to rent a house we will end up tieing up 4 x weekly rent in the tenancy bond scheme - a growing interest free loan to the govt or similar. and every time the rent goes up - we will be required to top up that bond with 4 x the increase. Basically we loose a substantial chunk of money for ever - or until we can afford to buy our own place.

Bond of 4 weeks isn't unreasonable, considering you are taking possession of perhaps $1m worth of someone elses assets. If you respect it as you should you will get your money back.

I rented for 15 years and never had an issue with Bond except with one rogue landlord, was very easily sorted.

The tenancy tribunal is a very powerful advocate for Tenants.

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.

It is wrong for a Govt dept to take money and have use of it while returning nothing back to the "investor". At the very least it should earn interest at the cash rate.

As for 1m in assets. Most of NZ doesn't live in Auckland and even if we did - what dipstick pays rent of 50k - 150k per year rather than investing in their own assets? ( assuming a 5-10% rate of return on the 1m invested in the home) I am flabbergasted when I see rents of 1-4k per week being advertised. <humour>That's just stupid. I could buy a helicopter, fly it from rental in otara to work and still save money on that type of rent..and i live in Chch </humour>

We live in a 315k house in chch. While it has theoretically increased in value over last 8 years, it has had no maint - so what ever the landlord gets when selling it is pure profit. We more than cover the mortgage.

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.

These are silly comparisons and reasonings. I can't even be bothered explaining why. Good luck. I'm out.

Bye - it's a pity none of us will get to benefit from your sagacious erudition explaining our paucity of logic or knowledge.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4