Any landlords here?

The reform of the residential tenancies act is currently open for discussion. There is a chance to have your say in regards to this reform .
" What we are consulting on....
The discussion document includes the following proposals:

substituting the ability for landlords to terminate tenancies for any reason with specific and justifiable criteria for ending a tenancy
setting the amount of notice a landlord needs to give to terminate a tenancy to 90 days under all circumstances
limiting rent increases to once a year
better equipping tenants and landlords to reach agreement about pets and minor alterations to the home
whether further controls for boarding houses are needed to provide adequate protection for boarding house tenants
introducing new tools and processes into the compliance and enforcement system."

I really do want to "have a say" as I feel that it is all on the side of the tenant.
One example is, to increase the term of notice to 90 days. What if tenant stops paying rent, you give the 90 day notice that is suggested, no bond will cover the rent that will be due after 90 day, let alone the rent that was outstanding in the first place. So, are landlords allowed to increase the bond to cover the 90 days?

..... Limitings rent increases to once a year. Surely that will be a bigger hike in rent so landlord can cover increases in insurance and bank costs etc. Do landlords set the rent higher to cover for these, guaranteed, increases?
.... To allow pets and minor alterations. Excuse me, it is my house. You want a pet that may foul my carpets? You want to make minor alterations? Please do it in your own home or pay me a substantial bond to cover the eventuality.
As for limiting reasons to terminate tenancies? I somewhat agree as some landlords say relatives are moving in then re-rent at higher rent. But how limiting will heir "reasons" be? Tenant does damage to house, you want them out. You have 90 days to live in fear of the further damage they may do. Don't start me on the Osaki agreement that says the damage can not be claimed if the landlord has insurance. Who pays the excess? Who pays the rent whilst the damage is rectified?

OK, my rant is over.... for now. What are your thoughts please?

Hi
I have one rental in Papakura and one just outside Christchurch.
Getting real sick of being the "whipping boy" of the media.
It is so stressful wondering each month will they pay all the rent ...what needs fixing this time...and that is even though I have great Property Managers.

It is such a one sided system already...Landlord wants house back for any reason...90 days notice but if the Tenants wants out for any reason they only have to give 21 days notice.
How is that fair?

I am on the www.propertytalk.com forum and there are quite a few landlords who are giving up. Can you blame them?
Who is going to house the Tenants that have to move out when the Landlord gives up and sell to one of these first home buyers...the government?...and where is that money going to come from ?...us taxpayers.

I can't see myself continuing to rent both house once I up sticks and head for hills and live off grid.
Why would I want the stress?

So that will be another 6 tenants out looking for a rental

thanks
Richard

We sold ours a few years back. Tenants were keeping dogs regardless of what our agreement said and with the proper notice given they would move the dogs down the road to other family to mind while manager went through. Neighbours were telling us what was going on but under the current system as you know you just can't go thumping in there demanding to inspect.

Hand basin in bathroom had a huge chunk broken out of it and during inspections they would load up towels etc to lay on the basin so the manager didn't see until we put the house on the market and the purchasers picked it up during an inspection. The told the new owners it was like that when they moved in and the new owners wanted to keep them! The other house had a fire in the laundry that ''someone'' had a go at filling the damaged wall (we were never informed) and on that occasion it was the ''independent'' South Auckland based property manager who failed to do her duty there. She also hired her hubby to undertake repairs without consultation nor a proper invoice and She also removed the new curtains I installed 12 months earlier and ''re-sold'' them and the nets ''because she likes bargain hunting for her landlords at garage sales..''' I kid you not!

The last one was kicked out of Housing NZ for failure to pay rent however because the TT moves so slowly for hearings it wasn't registered when our manager took her on. I had a collection order taken out on her because what she did the HNZ she did to us, she has since gone on (according to the TT orders search function) to do it to another landlord and agency.

So do what Phil Twatford suggests and if you don't like it, put your money elsewhere. I coulnd't believe it when I heard him the other night on the news. Pity he and his govt didn't take a lesson out of Aussie's experience under the Keating Govt when they tried similar and LL's sold up.

Propertytalk is an excellent place to be and ask for advice. I'm on there and have detailed some of the above under the property managers tab (re the south auckland independent manager's conduct).

I rented our present home for 3 years while living overseas and never had any problems. I don't think I would be able to rent the house now as it doesn't have insulation in the walls (but does have a heat pump and a log fire) I saw on the news today that now they are looking for heating in bedrooms.

I think this legislation is a backlash against rogue landlords who let out slums. If its not a home you would be happy to live in then you shouldn't be renting out. There is no excuse for leaking roofs, rotten floorboards and window frames, lack of heating or mould on the walls - unfortunately all too common, especially in student flats, and in low income areas.
I think it will ultimately back fire with landlords withdrawing or making rentals really hard to get. And of course the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

Anakei wrote: [SNIP]
I think this legislation is a backlash against rogue landlords who let out slums. [SNIP]

I think that this legislation is the logical conclusion of decreasing rates of home ownership since the 1990's;
More and more of NZ population are renters as time goes on, so there will be more and more support for tenant-friendly politicians...
State housing, arguably used to "set a floor" on the rental market - why would you rent a dump from a private landlord if you had the option of renting a basic no-frills house that is "safe and sanitary" from the government for the same or less $?

Driving this is;
A market which seems to be focused on investing in non-sustainable capital gains (real estate capital gains faster than increases in rents, wages and salaries) rather than improving real productivity (which lifts business profits, wages and salaries - increasing tenants ability to pay higher rents...).
Restrictions on subdivision and building (eg restrictive covenants in most new suburbs) that make it hard to build sufficient "affordable, safe and sanitary" homes to keep up with our rate of population growth (we aren't building houses fast enough).

Of course would-be first home owners get priced out of the market, thus are forced to rent...

Anakei wrote: [SNIP]
I think it will ultimately back fire with landlords withdrawing or making rentals really hard to get. And of course the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

max2 wrote: [SNIP]
So do what Phil Twatford suggests and if you don't like it, put your money elsewhere. I coulnd't believe it when I heard him the other night on the news. Pity he and his govt didn't take a lesson out of Aussie's experience under the Keating Govt when they tried similar and LL's sold up.[SNIP]

Ramsay wrote: [SNIP]
I can't see myself continuing to rent both house once I up sticks and head for hills and live off grid.
Why would I want the stress?

So that will be another 6 tenants out looking for a rental[SNIP]

My reading between the lines is that "that is exactly the plan" - landlords selling up "en mass" will push down house prices allowing many renters to become first home owners (whom might take better care of their own homes and will be in a better position to make and benefit from long term decisions regarding their home).

Taxpayers have already "picked up the tab" - accommodation supplement, "emergency" motel accommodation, medical treatment for those made sick by sub-standard housing, etc

My reading between the lines is that "that is exactly the plan" - landlords selling up "en mass" ...Spark is right.

So where do these mum and dad investors put their money then? hopefully not banks.

Government at the moment doesn’t seem to be making it attractive for those who have managed to save for their retirement, or do well, to put that cash anywhere else and is good at helping those who don’t know how to work hard at the expense of those who went without in their earlier years in order to get ahead.

iSor wrote:
So where do these mum and dad investors put their money then? hopefully not banks.

Government at the moment doesn’t seem to be making it attractive for those who have managed to save for their retirement, or do well, to put that cash anywhere else .

I would suggest opening an account with Superlife. Put half the money into the fund 'US 500 ETF' and half in 'NZ top 50 ETF'. Should make 7% per year after tax at least. Don't touch it until retirement. Aim for 25 times your annual retirement expenses by the time you retire. Much better yields than renting a house and absolutely no hassles.

iSor wrote: My reading between the lines is that "that is exactly the plan" - landlords selling up "en mass" ...Spark is right.

So where do these mum and dad investors put their money then? hopefully not banks.

Government at the moment doesn’t seem to be making it attractive for those who have managed to save for their retirement, or do well, to put that cash anywhere else and is good at helping those who don’t know how to work hard at the expense of those who went without in their earlier years in order to get ahead.

this Country (and no doubt Aussie as well) very quickly needs to have a public conversation with enforceable outcomes about anti social behaviour, double dipping on social security/welfare payments and long term public funding of career ''parents''. I was in a right ole mood yesterday upon receiving an IRD child support payment demand for our subbie. We were informally told 3 weeks ago one was coming our way and we advised our subcontractor who lives with his 4 children and partner. His reply was he had another child elsewhere..... he (or current partner) have been diverting his payments into her bank account so I can only assume CS swooped on what was going in there. Fast forward to yesterday and the notice is for 30% to be deducted, not 18%.

For those unfamiliar with how child support works, deductions start at 18% for one child and go to a max of 30% for 4 or more children. In other words his partner is on the sole parents benefit (or whatever its called now) with disability payments for at least one child, accommodation supplement, tax credits etc while living as a two parent family and with another extended family member.

All three adults have and are working on a cash basis in the cleaning industry and it appears we are the first employer to have him on the books.

Re the anti social behaviour, there are no consequences if you ''have nothing'' and have a court order deduction coming out from your benefit for whatever damage or non payment of rental expenses. It just keeps coming out in $5 increments while the landlord has to find the money to repair the damage to be able to get the property back onto the market. If you (like me) do have a court order for repayments, once the original amount has been re-paid you then have to go back to Court to be able to claim collection costs. Truly why would Landlords bother anymore? As I said in my earlier posts, our tenant came from HNZ background where she defaulted on her rent, she defaulted with us on rent, water and repairs, and has since done it to at least one other Landlord elsewhere. Now I have had a house on Auckland's North Shore and I have had interests in South Auckland and North Waikato, all with mortgages and all professionally managed. I can say the behaviour didn't changed with the socio economic status of any of these districts.

Finally its all very well for non landlords to think insurance covers damage. Those of you long enough here will remember our rural rental burning down. Inside the inspectors found hydroponic gear (undamaged) and in the barn all the usual accompaniments to growing indoors. Because of the intensity of the fire little was left to prove the tenants had fiddled with the meter board (two independent fires started in it, electricians worked on the board some weeks prior and gave it the all clear) and thus were not charged. We had the normal household insurance and Landlord preferred policy which should have paid us 12 months of loss of rent (the property was uninhabitable for about 2 years from memory) however the policy had a fine print not disclosed very well that the tenants would have to be charged with causing the damage.

For anyone who has had damage done to their rental its rare the tenants stick around. The current ? Act allows a landlord to serve it on the vacant property (as being the last known address of the tenant - was 60 days) but it takes months to have anything heard in the tenancy tribunal. Really why bother?

In our rural rental case the tenant was a mother of 5 (also living with father of the last 3) and WINZ paid my property manager directly for the rent (then it was $400 per week). I know she wasn't working and I don't believe Dad was either. This is where we need urgently to have a conversation to address ^^ and get the above scenarios off the table. Only then can anyone (the good landlords and the good tenants) start to move forward to be equally fair with everyone getting a good deal, what both parties deserve!

iSor wrote: [SNIP]
So where do these mum and dad investors put their money then? hopefully not banks.

Government at the moment doesn’t seem to be making it attractive for those who have managed to save for their retirement, or do well, to put that cash anywhere else and is good at helping those who don’t know how to work hard at the expense of those who went without in their earlier years in order to get ahead.

Part of the problem is that our taxation system treats property favourably compared to over other investments.
Another part is that the rules under which banks operate favour property lending over other investment lending (risk weightings for residential mortgages compared to other bank lending - Basel Comittee on Banking Supervision etc).
Plus, I suspect that the boom and bust of the 1987 share market crash has for the rest of their lives, "put a generation off of the idea of investing in shares".

Nora wrote: [SNIP]
I would suggest opening an account with Superlife. Put half the money into the fund 'US 500 ETF' and half in 'NZ top 50 ETF'. Should make 7% per year after tax at least. Don't touch it until retirement. Aim for 25 times your annual retirement expenses by the time you retire. Much better yields than renting a house and absolutely no hassles.

I am not an AFA (Authorised Financial Advisor), but I will suggest that you do your homework well (I admit that I have some money in shares) - Superlife isn't the only game in town...
You might find this interesting: www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Risk_and_return

Spook, I agree with you 100% in all that you say. And you too Max.

We have been landlords four times. One ended in court and the adjudicator made the tenant leave the court to go to his bank and withdraw the over-due rent (as a bank cheque) as well as giving them two weeks to vacate the house. Unheard of I would suspect - but it didn't help in the mess they left behind and the cost of cleaning it up. Second time the house was flooded and tenants were never found. Third time I booted her out and it cost $10,000 to get a small cottage back into a habitable state. Fourth time saw an elderly couple living in said cottage who treat it as they would their own home and they've made it as pretty as a picture.

Without any changes to the law, it has always been slewed in favour of the tenant and from now on it will only get worse. Never in a month of Sundays would I be investing in rental accommodation and I should think that many others will soon join this line of thought. The only reason we rent out the cottage is that it happens to be on the farm; if it wasn't I certainly wouldn't be purchasing something to rent out.

As an aside, my stepson works for builders who have the Housing Corp. contract up here. He comes home with some hair raising stories, with photos to back them up, of the damage done to H.C. homes. These tenants make pigs look like guests in an upmarket hotel!. H.C. houses are not allowed to have solid doors just in case the person punching a hole through it hurts themselves. This evening he told me that the builder had sent in a $30,000 repair bill for the house he's been working on. And we, my friends, are paying for this. The private landlord doesn't have the option of the taxpayer so has to take out his own insurance - and hope like hell he can actually find somebody to insure him, and if he can, the premiums aren't going to cripple him.

On top of the government inspired insulation of rental homes, I should think this will have landlords looking at other places to invest their money.

Cheers,
Ronnie

most overseas countries have much more draconian rules about renting than we do. I'm afraid the holiday is over for property speculators unless this govt gets booted out next term. Most people are unable to invest in shares as they don't have the cash to do so, but they can borrow to get into a rental property. When this govt. halts negative gearing, it's all over!

tonybaker wrote: most overseas countries have much more draconian rules about renting than we do. I'm afraid the holiday is over for property speculators unless this govt gets booted out next term. Most people are unable to invest in shares as they don't have the cash to do so, but they can borrow to get into a rental property. When this govt. halts negative gearing, it's all over!

'Which they attempted to do in Aussie and had to back down as LL's left the market in droves. Why does NZ which has such a small taxpayer base not learn from others mistakes?

Why can't people accept not everyone wants to own their own home or will be in a position to own their own home if private LL's leave the market?