Landlord wants new Tennant to pay split advertising fee on Rental: Legal?

Forums › Off topic › Landlord wants new Tennant to pay split advertising fee on Rental: Legal?

Zepanda66

393 posts

Ultimate Geek

#268175 3-Mar-2020 13:12

Ive been looking for my first rental. And came across this interesting listing.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/property/residential-property-to-rent/auction-2559745607.htm?rsqid=46e8493d446146f5a9b0e4b279acdd70-007

However what caught my eye was something unusual listed on the move in cost it all looks pretty normal until

3. Half split advertising fee $100

Is it legal for the landlord to request the tennant to pay half of this? this seems like an admin fee or something? Came across as kind of dodgy to me. If it was an actual real estate agency then sure maybe but this seemed like a red flag. What do you think?

http://www.speedtest.net/result/7315955530.png

1 | 2 | 3

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2431781 3-Mar-2020 13:12

Hmmmm. Here we go.

I am the Geekzone Robot and I am here to help. I am from the Internet. I do not interact. Do not expect other replies from me.

gcorgnet

867 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#2431786 3-Mar-2020 13:14

Probably a knock on effect to the recent (stupid) law changes that forbids agencies to charge a letting fee. This is how they used to get paid but can no longer to so. So it's now to the landlord to pay for this which they pass (half of) on to the tenant. Logical... what else did we expect?

MikeB4

15245 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2431794 3-Mar-2020 13:30

It seems a mean thing to do but not unexpected. Landlords in NZ and their agents in my opinion are way less than ethical. They are the biggest link in the housing crisis.

Mike

Consultant

The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

He waka eke noa

wellygary

4684 posts

Uber Geek

#2431796 3-Mar-2020 13:31

The Advertising fee would be the least of my concerns with that place....

I'm rather taken by the "no formal kitchen, only suit simple cooking of busy full time working person" along with the wiring....

tripp

3510 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2431810 3-Mar-2020 13:57

I will never understand why people don't include this stuff as a business expense. Sure pass that cost on to your tenant but put it in as the rent you are requesting.

It's like landlords getting upset about letting fees. I have pointed out a number of times its the landlord that goes to the agent to manage or find a tenant for their rental, you have engaged someone to do work for you so you should pay for it (and put that in a cost of business and then work out rent you want to charge).

For above i would almost class this as key money which can't be asked for. Advertising is part of the business when you have a rental etc.

tripp

3510 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2431811 3-Mar-2020 13:59

God the person is even asking for a payslip. Big red flags for this.

jonathan18

4618 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2431833 3-Mar-2020 14:35

wellygary:

The Advertising fee would be the least of my concerns with that place....

I'm rather taken by the "no formal kitchen, only suit simple cooking of busy full time working person" along with the wiring....

And where does that sit in regards to providing the necessities of a 'kitchen'? I recall stuff in the media earlier this year about a dodgy listing that didn't provide adequate kitchen facilities; I thought that had mentioned a stove was a requirement, but I now can't find the article (I recall it said the listing got pulled from TM after the publicity - anyone else recall this?).

Digging around I found this page which referenced the Housing Improvement Regulations, clauses 7 of which states:

(3) There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette—

(a) an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water; and

(b) adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.

Interesting to know if a microwave meets that requirement!

Edit: Oh, I see a BBQ in the last photo on the TM listing - I wonder if that's a formal part of them meeting their obligations?!

Further edit: I note the listing description states an 'electric stove' is included, but none appears visible in the photos; if there is, my point is wrong. That said, this is the kind of place (and no doubt the type of landlord) to avoid, given their clear desire to cut corners and maximise returns, let alone the dodgy fees.

Scott3

963 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2431836 3-Mar-2020 14:42

Not allowed. See key money here:

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/rent-bond-and-bills/letting-fees-and-key-money/

gcorgnet:

Probably a knock on effect to the recent (stupid) law changes that forbids agencies to charge a letting fee. This is how they used to get paid but can no longer to so. So it's now to the landlord to pay for this which they pass (half of) on to the tenant. Logical... what else did we expect?

Seems unlikely - Letting fees were only permitted where the landlord used a property manager (which oddly could be themselves if they met critera). This appears to be a private listing.

In terms of what we expected, I think that building the cost of listing the propriety into the rent would be a reasonable expectation, as opposed to asking for illegal key fees.

tripper1000

1203 posts

Uber Geek

#2431837 3-Mar-2020 14:42

If you check the sellers other listings it seems to be a house they've split up into 2 or 3 to capitalise on. I suspect that if they installed a proper kitchen in that "flat" they'd run into strife with consents - that is clearly substandard - but if you were dopey enough to rent it (rather than report it), would you have moral grounds to complain? I wouldn't be paying for it, let alone paying B.S. "advertising fee's".

MikeB4: It seems a mean thing to do but not unexpected. Landlords in NZ and their agents in my opinion are way less than ethical. They are the biggest link in the housing crisis.

It is important to have a scapegoat to distract the public if you wish to perpetuate a situation. Hitler knew that.

If you don't understand the cause of the problem, you have no hope of solving it. The politicians don't want you to understand the problem or you might hold them to account for it.

It is simple economics - supply and demand are out of balance. Supply (of land) is restricted by selfish environmentalists/NIMBY's (via zoning rules, resource management act etc), demand is driven by births and immigration. You need to either increase supply and/or decrease births & immigration. Any suggestion to increase supply is met with enviro opposition, and any suggestion to offer free birth control or reduce immigration is hysterically labelled racist/xenophobic etc.

Landlords are in the business of supplying houses to rent and have zero net effect on housing stock. They neither destroy nor create houses so they neither cause nor solve the problem. Clearly they are scapegoats to anyone objective. Rising rents are tangible proof that there are not enough rental's to meet rental demand, in the same way rising house prices reflect there is not enough houses to meet buyer demand. If you shift stock from the rental pool to the private owners pool you are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul and are not contributing to nor solving the fundamental shortage.

Geektastic

14636 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2431838 3-Mar-2020 14:43

tripp: I will never understand why people don't include this stuff as a business expense. Sure pass that cost on to your tenant but put it in as the rent you are requesting.

It's like landlords getting upset about letting fees. I have pointed out a number of times its the landlord that goes to the agent to manage or find a tenant for their rental, you have engaged someone to do work for you so you should pay for it (and put that in a cost of business and then work out rent you want to charge).

For above i would almost class this as key money which can't be asked for. Advertising is part of the business when you have a rental etc.

Yes, this.

Same with bank holiday surcharges. If you can't work that into your normal menu charges then you ought to find another job. Paying staff for all the days you intend to be open is a known cost.

MikeB4

15245 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2431926 3-Mar-2020 14:54

tripper1000:

If you check the sellers other listings it seems to be a house they've split up into 2 or 3 to capitalise on. I suspect that if they installed a proper kitchen in that "flat" they'd run into strife with consents - that is clearly substandard - but if you were dopey enough to rent it (rather than report it), would you have moral grounds to complain? I wouldn't be paying for it, let alone paying B.S. "advertising fee's".

MikeB4: It seems a mean thing to do but not unexpected. Landlords in NZ and their agents in my opinion are way less than ethical. They are the biggest link in the housing crisis.

It is important to have a scapegoat to distract the public if you wish to perpetuate a situation. Hitler knew that.

If you don't understand the cause of the problem, you have no hope of solving it. The politicians don't want you to understand the problem or you might hold them to account for it.

It is simple economics - supply and demand are out of balance. Supply (of land) is restricted by selfish environmentalists/NIMBY's (via zoning rules, resource management act etc), demand is driven by births and immigration. You need to either increase supply and/or decrease births & immigration. Any suggestion to increase supply is met with enviro opposition, and any suggestion to offer free birth control or reduce immigration is hysterically labelled racist/xenophobic etc.

Landlords are in the business of supplying houses to rent and have zero net effect on housing stock. They neither destroy nor create houses so they neither cause nor solve the problem. Clearly they are scapegoats to anyone objective. Rising rents are tangible proof that there are not enough rental's to meet rental demand, in the same way rising house prices reflect there is not enough houses to meet buyer demand. If you shift stock from the rental pool to the private owners pool you are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul and are not contributing to nor solving the fundamental shortage.

A house/Flat/Apartment does not get more expensive to own once purchased because of low stock. Landlords are increasing rents because they can and because they are greedy. I agree that NZ needs to tidy up its laws and processes concerning consents but even that does not help those caught in the rent trap due to rising rents and diminishing ability to save to meet the deposit of housing market out of control. Renters are not the problem home owners/sellers, landlords and agents are the problem.

Mike

Consultant

The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

He waka eke noa

tripper1000

1203 posts

Uber Geek

#2431982 3-Mar-2020 16:45

The implicit presumption here is that rentals are old and freehold and that the rent rises go straight into the landlords back pocket.

The truth is few are free hold, old rentals are unattractive to quality tenants and most rentals run at a loss - therefore subsidising the tenants living costs. To the majority of landlords, rent rises simply mean the property is running at less of a loss & few would define that as greed.

The IRD recently ring-fenced tax refunds from rentals, (yeah serve it up to those greedy Landlords!) removing the incentive for landlords to run the business at a loss and effectively removing a rental subsidy. This caused a fundamental shift in market behaviour that forced up both rental pricing and housing market demand/prices (uh-oh - well lets make up by deleting 90 day no-fault evictions! Wait now I've got antisocial neighbours that the landlord can't help me with - uh-oh!).

Rentals now need to be either cost neutral/profitable (which equals rent rises for most) or the landlord needs to buy another property (exacerbating demand/purchase prices) so that the ring-fenced tax refunds that can no longer be put back into the first rental can be recuperated into the new/2nd rental.

Emotional reactions to mathematical (& therefore predictable) problems solve nothing. The economic illiteracy of the media and voting public are exacerbating the problem here!

MikeB4

15245 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2431984 3-Mar-2020 16:54

When we were considering doing some extended travel we looked at renting out our home. We contacted a couple of agents and they advised that we should charge around $1,000 per week based on their formula. It currently costs us around $120 per week. When I told them that was a ridiculous amount one of them advised he would refuse to manage it unless I charged that amount. I would never charge that amount of rent for my home and simply could not sleep at night. I have no intention of being part of the problem. I told them to bugger off.

Mike

Consultant

The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

He waka eke noa

gbwelly

903 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#2431990 3-Mar-2020 17:07

MikeB4:

A house/Flat/Apartment does not get more expensive to own once purchased because of low stock. Landlords are increasing rents because they can and because they are greedy.

A lot of landlords are just in it for the capital gains (shorter term), or to have a passive income when they retire (long term), I'm not going to debate a CGT here, my point is many do not see it as passive income currently and are satisfied with just breaking even. The issue is a combination of factors such as post Christchurch insurance ($36 p/m 10 years ago, $100+ today) healthy homes compliance, rates increases, and ring fencing of losses. A rental property needs to wash it's own face now, no more writing off losses against PAYE. The tenant is paying the mortgage and IRD is wanting a cut of it too so it's no surprise that it's cheaper to own than rent.

Jase2985

9742 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2431992 3-Mar-2020 17:07

i wouldnt be paying $320 for that

1 | 2 | 3