By Greg Ninness
A raft of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act came into effect on Thursday February 11, and it was a momentous occasion for the rental property market. Not because of the changes themselves, but because of what didn’t happen. The sky didn’t fall.
When the Government outlined the changes it intended to make, various interests aligned with residential property investors were in full howl about what a disaster they would be, for both landlords and tenants.
Some went as far as to claim the changes would cause a mass exit of investors from the residential property market, leading to a tightening in the supply of rental housing.
Well that didn’t happen. And in fact one of the problems the government is currently pondering is how to dampen investor demand for rental properties, which is running hotter than ever.
That would suggest that while many landlords may not like the changes, for most of them it’s not a big enough deal to make them throw their property toys out of the cot.
That aside, the most contentious of the changes is scrapping the ability of landlords to arbitrarily end a periodic tenancy by giving the tenant 90 days’ notice.
Under the new rules, if a landlord wants to end a periodic tenancy and the tenant doesn’t want to go, they will both have to make their case to the Tenancy Tribunal, which will decide the matter.
One of the main arguments advanced against the change was that it would make it harder for landlords to evict tenants that were noisy or unruly, causing problems for neighbours affected by the bad behaviour.
One of the points lost in that argument was that noisy or unruly behaviour is not the sole preserve of tenants in rented properties.
There are plenty of owner-occupiers who delight in throwing raging parties, playing loud music, having screaming rows, or even engaging in raucous intimate acts in the wee small hours, all to the potential annoyance of their neighbours.
Where a neighbour is affected by this behaviour, what can they do?
If it’s a simple matter of excessive noise they could call their council’s noise control people.
If criminal activity is suspected they could try their luck with the police.
And if they live in a multi-unit property such as an apartment block, they could take their complaint to the property manager and/or the Body Corporate Committee, who may be able to help.
But apart from that, if the offenders are owner-occupiers, there’s probably not much they can do.
If the offenders are tenants, they are subject to all of the above, plus the additional sanction that their landlord could apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to have them evicted.
So even with the changes that have been made to the Residential Tenancies Act, tenants still have a greater incentive to be considerate of their neighbours than owner-occupiers do.
However there will still be situations where neither landlords nor the Tenancy Tribunal an resolve tensions between neighbours, which is why its important to try maintain good relationships with yoyr neighbours if you can.
So if you are woken in the night by the couple next door having a flaming row or engaging in overly enthusiastic love making, don't stress it, just pull up chair, pour yourself a drink and enjoy the entertainment.
And remember to capture it all on your phone.
You may be tired the next day but you’ll be the most popular person loitering around the water cooler.
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
*This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers. See here for more details and how to subscribe.
141 Comments
If I remember correctly there was a survey conducted among landlords that asked how the new rules will affect their business. Somewhere between 40-50% answered that they'd get rid of their rentals.
Where are those people now? Please step up and be good on your word, there are FHBs waiting in line.
They're all over on Stuff.co.nz ranting and raving about how life is so unfair.
*cries into piles of capital gains*
It has been pathetic. The changes are pretty minor and generally cosmetic.
Spoken like a true DGM... when landlords do cosmetic youre the first with a shotgun i have to say
Spoken like a true unreasonable, whingeing landlord.
And btw I am not a tenant.
Put the landlord hate to one-side for a moment, what happens when tenants are partying and generally anti-social to neighbours? The reality of stronger tenant protection is that good tenants never needed it anyway, so prepare to put up with that stereo and motorbike noise because the landlord can't do anything about it now.
As per the article, how is that different to an owner operator doing exactly the same thing ? Ive been tenant and owner, both times I have started various cars/motorbikes I have been working on at 3am in the morning, had raucous piss ups on occasion, and cranked up the volume to 11.
There is no reason a tenant should be any different, or have less rights, to live the way they want to. Rent or Mortgage should make no difference.
I'd be prepared to wager that the vast majority of anti-social residents are tenants and not owner-occupiers, not including apartments at least
Why ?
Also anti-social is a very subjective term, we live by a reserve, kids down there sometimes smoking weed, loud music, drinking, on the whole nothing I didn't do as a teenager, it doesn't bother me. Others find the colour someone paints a house anti-social.
Given that students tend not to be home owners, I'd agree with you. But I don't see why the fact that students tend to both rent and throw noisy parties means that a family who rents a house doesn't deserve to be able to make a stable home for themselves.
I agree with you and am in favour of more protection for good tenants. My point is bad tenants are everybody's problem and should be able to be removed for repeated anti-social behaviour.
Honest question: why should tenants be able to be removed for anti social behavior? Talking about parties and things here - not stuff that damages the property. Being loud and annoying doesn't affect the landlord in any way. It does of course affect neighbours - but as pointed out, there are other remedies for that. Why should the penalty for being loud and annoying be getting kicked out of your home? Neighbours generally dont get a say on who does or doesn't live nearby. Bad neighbours are every body's problem - not bad tenants specifically.
Honest answer - tenants are tenants, and as such have a responsibility to act in a manner that doesn't disturb other neighbours. When they own the house they can do as they want - until then, there are expectations. The elevation of tenants rights to be equivalent to ownership rights is misguided. When you own it - do as you want. When you rent it - toe the line.
That seems misguided to me. When you own it, you can do what you want to the property- sure. But I think everyone, tenants and owners alike, have a responsibility not to disturb other neighbours. The fact that you own a house doesn't give you any more rights to piss off the neighbors by having really loud parties. Noise control officers dont say 'oh you own the place? That's ok, keep blasting music at 3am on Tuesday then'.
I don't disagree with you alt. My comments were in a context of tenants responsibilities only. In a civilised community all residents have an unwritten expectation to not disturb the neighbours. It's probably splitting hairs, but a tenant has a less secure tenure therefor a higher responsibility
Right, but that's just a straightforward factual claim: they have less secure tenure, so as a practical matter they have more responsibility because the consequences are different. But if we can - and are - giving them more secure tenure. It sounded like you were making something like a moral claim: that because tenants dont own the place they live, they have more of a responsibility than owners to be good neighbors. That's the claim I disagree with. That's why i think it's a good law. A lot of the time, people say about tenants who complain, 'dont like it? Buy your own house and you can do what you like,' I think the same applies here: if people want control over who their neighbours are, theres a simple remedy: buy all the surrounding houses, and then you can choose who lives in them.
That’s honestly a terrible take. If you rent your place to someone, it is their place to live in. They have paid for that right. Landlords don’t get to add additional laws that homeowners don’t have to abide by.
Uncle Bulgaria
It’s not an additional law.
It has always been part of a standard rental agreement as promulgated by Tenancy Services - a unbiased Government body who see tenants not disturbing one’s neighbours as a fair and reasonable expectation.
If the justification for it is to be able to evict tenants who disturb the neighbours, it is an 'additional' law in the sense that there are already laws and regulations in place for people to deal with neighbours who engage in anti social behaviour, whether they are tenants or landlords. It's a reasonable expectation that neither tenants nor owners disturb neighbours. There's no justification for having a special punishment for doing so because a person happens to be a tenant rather than an owner
al123
Welcome to the real world: if unruly and unsociable then find somewhere else.
Neither neighbours nor landlords need to put up with antisocial inexcusable behaviour. The solution to avoid loss of tenancy is with the tenant - pretty simple really.
I was referring to a bit more than the odd party and my thoughts are with the families living around the property, not the landlord.
Good point.
Also landlords should screen their prospective tenants, seeking multiple references etc.
I really have diddly squat sympathy for these whinging landlords. What a bunch of DGMs, Haha.
Many of my most anti-social neighbours have been owner occupiers. Teenage kids of middle class parents can be very anti-social at times...
But they can be removed for repeated anti- social behaviour. 3 times in 90 days, and the tenancy is likely to be terminated.
I do think this is a bit lenient, should be 2 times in my opinion.
Pretty hard to actually enforce that rule Fritz. The 3 x must be accompanied by a Police report so the bar is pretty high. There's been an article about a female in Christchurch(?)) who has 430+ convictions for fraud, KO has had to hire a security guard, and still she stays there. Personally I'd be using her car and or anything else for target practice. When the neighbours start handing back her own medicine she'll either move or change
Wow, big stereotypes there mate
I will get shot down for this but the mortgage payers are more likely to have to get up for work the next morning so less likely to be partying late or being anti-social.
What you do is allow people more of a sense of ownership, a stake in the ground, a part in the community, then behaving in a manner more appropriate comes quite naturally. Treating them like farm animals that you profit from will engender little positive action.
It's not hate. The changes are minor and still don't bring us to the requirements of most civilised, developed countries.
You aren't getting away with that....when we were tenants, we were amazing tenants. My wife is incredibly tidy, and several of the places we rented the property managers said the properties had improved over our tenancy. We never missed any rent payments. We are quiet people.
Yet despite that, we usually had very little freedom to personalis interiors, and we lived in one or two borderline unhealthy (cold, damp) homes.
Yes, but they are noise control issues. As I said the other day, noise control will probably be the fastest growing department at Auckland Council..... and it’s not just tenants who feel entitled to make some noise because they don’t care about their neighbours, it’s homeowners too!
"btw I am not a tenant"
Yeah so what does that have to do with anything? I called you a Dgm and clearly you agree with that
I misinterpreted the second part of your comment, which on reflection is totally understandable because your comment is totally incoherent...
As is the 'DGM' trolling...
I wonder what the average IQ of landlord trolls is, sub-90?
The average IQ in this country is 100. All is well and fine until you realise half of them is less than that.
well it is an average - lot of munters out there
CWBW... if exactly half the populations IQ is over 100 then the average for people you communicate with will be fractionally more than 50%. 50.00002% to be precise (based on a 5m population) or exactly one more in terms of numbers. ;)
The average IQ in Taranaki is 110, the average in New Plymouth is 118.
Seriously, I doubt your numbers in Taranaki, especially in NP.
CWBW... The Taranaki numbers were a joke but the 50.00002% stat was deadly accurate.
118 in New Plymouth is hilarious.
I thought the 50.00002% was funny because it is a correct and exact percentage based on a 5M population and CWBW being in the lower half.
Oh haha thats really clever, not, but you obviously think so...
Try reading your comment again, if you can actually read properly.
It makes absolutely no sense.
"Try reading your comment again"
no maybe you should do that, its too close to the truth for you to "understand" I suspect haha
Apart from politicians, landlords are the costliest group of beneficiaries in the country with massive tax deductions and accommodation supplements.
FH,
I have been a landlord for over 20 years and some rebalancing of a very uneven playing field was long overdue. Of course there are bad tenants, but lots of greedy, uncaring landlords as well. If that applies to you, sell and bugger off.
"I have been a landlord for over 20 years" is that at the mt maunganui pad you have, the one that made big capital gains that you gloat about. I could gloat here plenty but to me thats something that pratts with inflated egos feel the need to do. And yes we sold a large property with longstanding tenants to an already wealthy kiwi who promptly and savagely increased the rents from the fair levels we set. Tbh I subsequently met one lovely couple who were tenants who informed me they had moved out after I sold. That was after they got the large rent hike from the new landlord they decided to bite the bullet and buy a first home. These people were absolutely beaming about their decision, I even went and had a meal at their house. Perhaps if you want to gain some credibility for your 20 plus years of landlording you can explain how you have done something to help others less fortunate
Landlords are doing pretty damned well: huge capital appreciation and pretty good rental yields......
Most of them can well-afford to upgrade their properties (or at least maintain them properly) for the benefit of tenants.
TTP
Question is? how many of them bother to do so. And you may need to tone down that 'doing pretty well' comment matey. It's NZ dirty secret linen.
The more you voicing it, the more it can be read/heard by those junior doctor/specialist renters. The more of them will fly over across to OZ.
Exactly.
The landlord whingeing is pathetic.
It does their perception no favours.
We took a tenant to the tenancy tribunal on three issues, rubbish being left on the premises which required dumping (upheld), unpaid rent of approx 3 weeks (upheld) and unreasonable wear and tear on carpet and curtains. Despite insisting that the owners be non-smokers, the house had clearly been smoked in, permeating fabrics etc. The adjudicator commented that HNZ budgets on replacing carpets every 10 years and declined our final claim. The carpet was approx 12 years old and had become stained over their 3yr tenancy. In contrast, our private house has 22yr old carpet which is just starting to look worn. It is in remarkably better condition than the rental. The annoying thing is that this tenant couldn't be identified under new legislation but any reasonable landlord wouldn't want him as a tenant. If you are at the bottom end of the rental pool things are going to get tougher. Landlords will become increasingly selective with 'marginal' applicants .
Sorry to hear of your less than satisfactory experience. I do take my hat off to any landlord - the risks and headaches are manifold. Personally I wouldn't touch rentals with a bargepole, Cheetah's experience only reinforces that.
That sounds like a pain. But I disagree with you about the carpets. Think of it this way: even if a person is really careful, accidents and stains sometimes happen. It's not reasonable to expect tenants to live in fear of having to pay to recarpet a whole house if they accidentally stain a carpet in the course of a tenancy, especially if they have only been in the place a short time.
A few years ago we rented out our home while away for a year. Our tenants obtained a dog despite it being specifically against the tenancy agreement. It ruined a 1 square metre patch in middle of lounge that 2 attempts by professional carpet cleaners failed to come close to fixing so the only option was to replace the carpet. (It was new when they moved in a year earlier). Tenants didn't want to know, and tenancy services said if we pursued it the rule is we could only claim 1/30 of the cost of replacing the carpet as that was the proportion of the room that was ruined. Awesome.
Running a rental is a business. You probably should have bought a few extra square metres of carpet in case. If I dropped something in a store and ruined a bit of their carpet I certainly wouldn’t expect to refit the whole place.
We had tenants who parked a motorbike in the lounge.
If it leaked oil they had to replace the carpet.
No one is forcing you or anyone to be a landlord.
If it's so much hassle and you have lots of awful tenants, then either screen them better, or get out of it altogether.
The RTA gives increased protection to identifying bad tenants. You can do due diligence and still be caught out. A simple fix is for all tenancy tribunal decisions be public. Ps your hatred of landlords clearly shows. Sad.
No. In a tight market like this, making tenancy tribunal decisions public effectively removes the ability of good tenants who have been treated badly by their landlord to use the tribunal, because even if the tenant is in the right it will be near impossible to get another rental with a tenancy tribunal case against their name. Property management companies know this, which is why they routinely withhold bond for completely spurious reasons, knowing that most tenants won't fight it.
So I should be able to walk out of The Warehouse without paying for that new jacket - they're doing pretty damned well after all, they can afford it?
Nope. But if you did I suspect they would treat it as a cost of doing business rather than expect a big sob sad write up in the herald and for everyone to feel sorry for them.
I’d go so far to say that NZ has the lowest value rentals in the world.
A few of mine are empty rn ... it takes time to make the upgrades and time is money as we know, So rent will go up def. And yes, slowly getting out of the rental business, happier too.
The consequences haven't manifested yet. It's only when landlords go to find new tenants that you'll see any differences in landlord behaviour. I suspect that marginal tenants will have a much harder time finding a house. Landlords will be more cautious, and you'll probably see longer vacancy times during the tenant search process. I suspect that in 5 or 10 years many landlords will suffer bad experiences with "stealth bad tenants" who've hidden behind the new rules. Then you'll see landlords throwing in the towel, but it wont be obviously attributable to these rule changes.
Before implimentation strong landlord lobby / media tries to influence (Once omplimented will stop throwing tantrums) same as how now are trying to influence action that government plaining to curb speculation.
The problem is if the Landlord sells, where does he put his money. ANZ is currently paying 0.4% for a 24 month term deposit. Might as well leave the unruly tenant to it.
Simply just leave the rental unoccupied because it’s capital gain that really matters.
Classic. Yeah, just delete 50% of the earning potential of your property because putting a heat pump in is too hard.
Yes that "leave the property empty" is often just hyperbole from landlords with egos that need stroking, creating the illusion that they're astute investors. Reality is most of them couldn't afford to leave them empty more than a couple of months.
$500 a week is $25k a year. You would have to consistently select some pretty bad tenants to want to miss out on that. It makes no sense at all.
In higher end properties the yield is comparatively lower often about 1 or 2 percent. If the wear and tear on the premium fittings in the interior of the property is greater than the rental return leaving it empty is a no brainer. This is most often seen with the family Bach which can be empty for about 350 days a year.
Everyone can make generalities like these... it's obvious not all landlords will leave houses empty, some will... but how many and why. Previously, houses that were perfectly adequate and suitable as an affordable rental will no longer comply with the standards. The standards are more than superficial and often the landlords take the opportunity to make extra improvements or total renovations. For some, its either too expensive to make the changes, the landlord is planning to do something else with the house a year down the track or cannot be bothered and cant decide what to do. And other situations but all are reducing rental property supply.
Hopefully taxing unoccupied houses very heavily is one of the things that will be introduced soon. Add it to the list of stuff that already has a sin tax. And if you have a holiday home you can afford it.
Good question KK - am following with interest.
Put to OZ? at least they gave 250K TD guarantee, or just keep milking the vested interest of NZ governance.
A better question is:
"Why is the ANZ only paying 0.4% for 24 months?"
If your answer is "Because the RBNZ has manipulated the price of money to allow the ANZ to do that" then further ask yours self" Why is the RBNZ doing that?"
My suggestion is that the whole System/Economy is in so much strife they don't know what else to do, or rather, they don't have the courage and confidence in our people to do otherwise, and only extreme measures are keeping it afloat.
So those who 'sell-up' and stick, say, $1 million on TD with ANZ might only get their P&I back in 2023, but how much will those same properties yield the owners at that time? $2 million? $1 million or $500k? Who knows. But the ANZ depositor will get their ~$1.008,000 back. (And if they don't, then The System will have collapsed, and everything will be worth nothing)
It's called Risk.
And today's Risk is blindingly evident; all stacked up, in interest rates manipulated down to where they currently are.
It's not property prices we have to worry about now, but what's keeping them afloat.
Why does anyone think the world owes them a passive income?
We have actually seen it all in the form as massive rent increases.
And as for selling, you don't sell a house like you sell a car; give it a clean then up on trademe - Planned sales can take 6 months or more to come to market - and with prices going up 10% a quarter the incentive is to take your time, maybe paint the deck again... wait till that 90 days notice you sent in any of the days before yesterday matures - We will see a lot of the worse of LL's rentals hitting the market, and further rent increases as LL's target quality tenants
Do you believe the rent increases wouldn't have happened without these changes?
My landlord whacked ours up 5% this year. No reasons beyond them wanting more gains.
A Landlords' job is to charge you the absolute maximum you are willing to pay.
It's the same for any product or business; to do otherwise is to sacrifice profitability and possibly solvency.
If he'd whacked the rent up 50% per week, what would you have done? Pay it to stay, or moved?
That's the same question he tried to figure out the answer to when he upped the rent 5%.
Which totally bebunks the arguement that landlords will simply pass the costs onto tennants through rent. They're already extracting the most they can get away with.
The “most” that they can get a way with goes up when the government issues a market wide signal to increase prices. Landlords negotiating amongst themselves to do this would be cartel behaviour. The government legislating to “force” them to raise rents is just “Market forces” at work.
They can't force people to pay more than they are capable of. I keep seeing the "We'll just increase rents" argument all the time as though landlords (who always remind everyone when it's to their advantage it's a business) aren't already charging the max they can. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip as my ma used to say.
This is true. So, when that ceiling was reached we introduced more landlord welfare in the form of Working for Families and the Accommodation Supplement to enable higher rents again. Accompanying the earlier investor welfare that is the price-driving FHB Grant.
It's time we stopped welfare for property investment.
The one major difference there is choice. People, especially families have to have somewhere to live, almost everything else can be a matter of choice.
Screwing people who have no choice is why landlords are becoming (deservedly, for a great part) the most despised demographic around.
Did rates & Insurance increase - if yes then attribute rent increase to that otherwise move out of you mothers basement and experience reality.
It's one house, split into two apartments. The combined rent increase comes to $4160 /year. It's easy to compare that to annual increases in rates and insurance. Especially keeping in mind last years 5% increase, which was put down to insurance.
Not sure why the mothers basement remark was necessary.
I'm not a landlord, but on the subject of increases - my rates jumped by over 20% this year. Yes the CV went up too, by a similar amount, but that's a paper increase, something the rates unfortunately aren't. I haven't factored insurance rises in because I don't pay it, but I'm pretty sure they'll have jumped too
BTW - agree that "the mothers basement" comment was pretty superfluous
How much did your mortgage payments drop by though?
Which Council increased their rates by over 20%?
Dale
Like you I find it quite surprising one’s rates going up 20% in one year - if so there would be a significant public outcry and I would have it would have made national news.
If this is the case Hook needs to identify the council.
I think Hook is possibly under the illusion that because his property value (RV?) went up 20% he has assumed his rates go up by a similar amount - he links these two.
That is not the case, has been covered a number of times on this site, and is a pretty basic understanding when it comes to property.
Actually I think I have had this discussion with Hook, outlined how the annual RV multiplier varied.
From memory Hook was insistent it didn’t and was going to prove it by going back over his previous 7 years rate accounts. He however didn’t respond.
Hook, it looks as though you don’t really understand as to how your rates are calculated.
It should be an easy enough one to answer. I know some councils are looking to raise their rates that much because of underfunding, and/or overspending, but as far as I know none have done so yet.
Fraid so... the only way is up.
Social housing list about to explode in next year or so. Election 2023 will be interesting re housing stats.
I wouldn't go near the 'landlord' thing myself; I've heard too many horror stories and would sooner not have that level of on-going involvement with earning a return on investment, whether I used a rental management agency or not. However, the reason so many investment property owners will box on no matter what the new obligations are, is because access to properties for renters is currently so difficult (perhaps in some part due to tenancy law changes and investors selling out during boom price time) that market forces are driving rents (and therefore returns for landlords) through the roof. So they will hold but not because new tenancy laws are simply a storm in a teacup as Greg Ninness suggests. Maybe property investors will bail out when the house shortage looks as if it might get sorted, although that is no-where near on the horizon as far as I can see. When supply does start meeting housing demand the tinkering with tenancy laws will be well over so it will be business as usual.
I think the key claim was that rents would go up to compensate. I wonder which way rents went ;p
What a silly comment "The sky didn’t fall It will take many months perhaps a year or more before we see the true impact.
"Chicken Little" has become a standard NZ business model. Thing is, it works.
Whine on Stuff News and the government will rescue you.
This dumb government believes in welfare, but stupidly for everything, not just the needy.
It's their understanding of the economy.
Welfare only for the poorest and the richest. The middle gets screwed and pays the bill for all that.
Actually the poorest often get cut out. If you are severely physically disabled you can get often no help and no benefit even though employers think you are practically unemployable regardless of skills and experience, just due to an irrelevant physical condition to the work. It is a matter of how much you need to pay to live, often those with the highest medical costs that are not covered often get no assistance meanwhile banks are getting a few billion in slush funds to sprinkle on speculators and many businesses creamed millions. Those who had to wait through lockdown got benefits much higher than those with high medical costs with no support and no housing, those who were made redundant were paid far more than those made redundant even a week before and above even that of supported living (those facing the highest minimum cost of living). Yet even the supported living is not available to many of the severely disabled.
It is an interesting quandary in a disabled household one with a severely degenerative disease, one with a severe heart and immune condition after viral illness and some with a lesser injury, yet only the one with the injury is covered. Apparently your muscles rotted to useless tissue or your heart, lungs & immune system failing is not as back as broken leg & sore back that will heal. Apparently permanently lost muscles and organ health are not as deserving as a broken bone yet in NZ the distinction matters a lot. If you are ever disabled pray it is by accident and never by genetics or disease. Because if it is by genetics or disease you will face the highest costs not covered by any support and need to fight just to stay alive. If you are extremely lucky, forever alone and denied human contact and comfort you may get a minimal support less than a minimal rent in this country, but don't hold your breath even the most severely disabled still desire human contact and love so the likely chances are you will find no support whatsoever. When they say be kind it is mostly to those at the top of the heap and they expect the rest to trickle down with the middle standing on the bodies of those below.
I say this having obtained many high tertiary qualifications and decades of work experience. You could be disabled in a matter of a day even when you are standing in good health, a sudden unexpected heart attack or aneurysm, catching a disease that then leaves you crippled for life (e.g. legionaries through aircon, gardening or pool systems etc). It has happened to many family members and friends and many did not survive long. There are many ways you can win the anti lotto without entering into any high risk activities and even birth can mark you decades later. Do not trust in insurance to cover it or a job to stay, do not trust the govt who would often never support those in illness but would rather support those in jet setting wealth with more luxury welfare. All you can do is hope it never happens to you because if it does it will destroy all plans you have for a future. All savings can be depleted, your assets need to be sold and used up and all your investments drained for a little life left. Then once it is all gone rapidly then all that is left is utter deprivation and torture. That is your be kind govt. Where cooked food or any food is a luxury you will be lucky to experience once a day and a roof above you in any form, car or not is a good day.
One example of the poor getting shafted because the wealthy whingers whinged was the replacement of rates rises with a regional fuel tax. The poorer living further out paying so that wealthy landowners closer in don't have to.
Quite true.
ACC have a hidden voters list whereby certain people in roles at ACC who decline compensation have to cast a special vote on election day. This is because their details can't be made public in the register lest someone invoke retribution towards them.
I'm sure this is the case for many occupations though that personal details be withheld from public view.
NZX down again today. Has it finally realised that people are not interested in investing in NZ businesses? Buying houses would seem to be the only game in town.
NO VI.. it's the usual Feb downturn as reporting season rolls out. Our market is driven by offshore funds and institutions - not retail investors.
For the average investors, the REAL OPTION is a 89 day fixed term contract which comes with an European flavour.
The 89th day is the expiration date, the price is the returns after the cost of operations if you keep them and of course the exercise are your options.
The nice part is that instead of you paying to buy the option, the option is paying you- something like a hybrid bond or you becoming the issuer of the option!
There're many ways to get rid of bad tenants, most are legit while some are questionable- be creative.
Always use the contract 89, you are likely to get better behavioural outcomes from your tenants.
The new Residential Tenancy Act explicitly removes the "periodic" tenancy agreement clause. Good luck with trying to get your 89day FTC over the line - it won't be legal after yesterday
It actually doesn't even matter. we'd already issued 3 notices last Wednesday to those that don't meet our tenant standards and converting 2 of them into ABNB- which is absolutely viable even with internal tourism.
The government has a rental standards, we have our own tenant standards too- and there's plenty to choose from.
Wouldn't spend too much converting to Air B n Bs. With the Govt looking to free up some extra homes punitive taxes on them is likely or they may (hopefully) be banned outright. I mean the Govt is serious and it would help to increase rental supply.
Given that a lot of the concern about the new tenancy law seems to based on how it will affect the neighbours - I've lived next to an air bnb and it sucked. If people are really concerned about advocating for neighbours, banning air bnbs would be more effective than letting landlords kick out tenants whenever they feel like it
A lot of councils have, or are looking at, more restrictive bylaws on Air b and b too.
Houses 100% dedicated to AirBnB should be subject to all the same building WoFs, registration fees and council costs (toilet taxes etc) that motels are and any money owing on them should be at the same interest rate as those businesses as well.
Then a hefty capital gain tax should apply to them once sold for profit.
AirBnB should be what it's name suggests it is, an air mattress on the floor in someone's house. It needs rigorous control.
You can't do contracts like that under the new Act.
The sky didn't fall? Tell that to the hundreds of tenants who recieved termination letters over the last couple weeks because of these changes.
The Govt needs to impose huge tax on unoccupied homes. The homes have not gone. We just need to ensure they are being used for what NZ needs them for.
Haven't you heard, ghost homes are a myth. All those empty homes don't actually exist :). They don't have any official stats on it.
Evidently in the too hard basket. Certainly for Akl according to Phil Goff. I wonder how Vancouver managed it.
I made an estimate last year.
Anytime anyone quotes an Auckland figure it is always Gross. Vancouver figures are net .
Vancouver figures: Out of the total 186,043 homes that issued a declaration (99 per cent of all Vancouver homes), 178,120 were occupied (owner-occupied or tenanted), Gross vacancy rate was 7,923, 5,385 were exempt and 2,538 were vacant. That is their net vacant home figure is 2,538.
This means approx 1 in 73, or 1.4% of houses in Vancouver are vacant.
So to compare apples with apples we need to use net figures and since we don’t have those for Auckland, the best we can do is extrapolate the Vancouver methodology to calculate how many vacant houses on a net basis does Auckland have?
Auckland has 540,000 dwellings and the 39,000 vacancy rate quoted figure is Gross. If you assume that its exemption rate would be similar to Vancouver this would leave a net figure of 12,480 vacant houses, ie a net vacancy rate figure of 1 in 43, or 2.3% houses in Auckland are vacant.
At best it could be said that Auckland has twice the vacancy rate as Vancouver, not 10x as much as some quote.
But we also have nearly twice the vacancy rate also at the national level, so for starters, a higher Gross vacancy rate would seem to be a NZ thing.
I think Stats. NZ are working on some figure now.
All this assumption that every renter is a would be purchaser is just nonsense.
Not sure what you mean. If you ask many renters, I am sure many would say they would prefer to buy, so they aren't paying someone elses mortgage. There will also be a certain percentage who like renting, or move around the country and don't want to be tied down. But I would think most families would prefer to buy if they can.
Of course they would prefer to buy if they could who on earth would rather rent. There’s nothing like waking up in your own home.
Point is there are many people who will always rent regardless of what the market is doing and to label them all as being locked out of housing is ridiculous.
Are you serious? You havent seen the impact? How about a 53.3% increase in just ONE YEAR of the number of families on the public housing waitlist? How about record rent rises everywhere? And whose houses do you think those record numbers of First Home Buyers are buying? I mean if the above is considered "no impact" I'd hate to see how bad things will have to get before you consider there to be "impact".
How many rentals are now sitting empty? Or have been earmarked for renovation and sale once their current tenants are gone? Or about to be demolished and subdivided and rebuilt (then sold)? Landlords still have the option to not renew their current fixed term tenancies granted before this week, so over the coming year is when we will find out if those rentals continue to be left in the rental pool, or sold as soon as the tenants are gone.
It's so deliciously ironic. When would-be FHBs who are currently tenants whinge about their lot, they are called 'DGMs' and berated by landlords and the resident spruikers on this site. When things get a little harder for landlords, they are 'valid business concerns' rather than whinges from DGMs.
So funny.
My heart bleeds for landlords, not!!!!
There were a few landlords who sold, still at a profit, directly to the tenants who could manage to pay a mortgage on much lower payments per week and nothing of value was lost. There was a lot of social good and family stability gained. Some poor families could keep their kids in school and still access their local jobs. They had security if they ever needed to change jobs or were ill one week and back up savings & a solid investment for their retirement housing now to boot. We have a wave of renting retirees coming down the pipeline, all expecting their housing to be covered completely by the govt. Pray the housing crisis is fixed by then because retirees are more prone to illness and disability and they need the most costs in housing modifications to come.
I agree with you on the challenges those with disabilities face, however where are your facts re the wave of renting retirees coming down the pipe?
Isn't it too early to know the impact of these changes? I know of several renters who's tenancy is ending this week with the landlord selling in due course...Give it a couple months atleast.
A large number of landlords are going to have tenants on current 12 month fixed term leases, and cant get rid of them with a 90 day notice before Feb. They have to wait for the 12 months to be up, at which point they can give notice of non-renewal and exit. As tenants roll off those fixed term leases is when we will see whether landlords are choosing to exit or to retenant.
This is a petty article. Most landlords have no major problem with most recent changes, a few things they do have major concerns about. Selling up wasn't going to happen overnight, but if changes do result in problems down the track (e.g. as current good tenants move on, and future ones turn out to cause problems...) some will no doubt sell. It is a pity the media fan the flames of an us vs them mentality for landlords vs renters, both need each other and should be seeking a good relationship/outcome during a tenancy.
There's far too much blame on landlords for partly relying on capital gains. Need to go further up the tree to investment policies and housing policies by the govts over the last 20+ years.
If it weren't for the hassle I'd have jumped on the housing band wagon solely for the capital gains and bought at least one more house as a rental during my working career in NZ.
The short time I was a landlord was uncertainty in buying to where I'd relocated so rented myself. The rental income in the one never made up for rent paid on the other.
On the rented property the rental management company was good in selecting tenants. Only had good tenants and the last one was so good, did minor repairs, with me paying for materials. Gave him two weeks rent free for the inconvenience of having to move.
Landlords are not selling as greed has got the better of them. Expected capital gains and an unwillingness to put money in the bank. Also an inability to understand equities. They might regret not selling when interest rates begin to rise next year.
Any good financial advisor should be able to explain bonds though. Or REITs. Sell, take your profits, and put it into a REIT paying 7% dividends (with no stress about bad tenants) or corporate bonds with interest rates pegged to the cash rate so inflation proof.
Actually the opposite is more true- the problems with equities are precisely the reason why people invest in real estate.
NZ real estate is tried and tested to withstand the test of time, not so for other equities.
Buying and holding blue chip equities beats housing easily in terms of returns. Ask Warren Buffett.
If that is true, there must be plenty of Buffets around. Maybe they're invisible, that's why we don't see them.
Instead, I only see those who made it big are real estate folks- especially in NZ.
Dreams are free.
You are wrong. My broker alone has many clients who are are very wealthy. In excess of 5 million and some well over 10 million. Ordinary people who bought and held shares. Never panicked. They hold shares in companies such as Mainfreight and F and P and they have shares in the States and Aussie. Very happy people with no tenants and a huge income. You have no idea what you are talking about. You start small and just keep building it up.
100% correct. Real Estate may have leverage, but equities / businesses have scale, and this is why there is no one in the top 25 of the Forbes Billionaires List that has made it big with Real Estate. No tenants, no debt, no real estate agent clipping the ticket, and the most important thing, more time.
That is an international list. Take a look at the New Zealand rich list. Property, property, property. I wonder if tax laws have anything to do with that?
What about asking sir ron brierley a "knight in armour" or is that a night in amore ... but no more
"Landlords are not selling as greed has got the better of them.... Also an inability to understand equities."
Mary Holm did a good job this morning comparing a resi section in glenfield sold for £500 in 1965 now worth $550,000 with remarkably similar CAGR returns from sharemarket over a similar period... 10 point something percent from each class. She however ignored the potential leverage on the section and did include an allowance for share dividends yet no income against the section. As far as property investors go who don't (more likely do) understand equities, I doubt your average share investor has much clue. Come March 2020 they dumped all their holdings for pennies and headed for the hills.
Why do property investors use property managers then? Do they not understand how to operate them?
Or they prefer not to DIY manage and how is that different to individuals who use a fund manager or ETF... getting back to the point, property investors understood the covid situation well and did not bail. That has kept the property market strong and made it to cycle up through FOMO
Ex agent wrote "Landlords are not selling ....Expected capital gains"
Some jerk was prattling on about tenants being tenants? Ah excuse me mate I pay the damn mortgage, not you. I pay the insurance, everything, it comes out of the rent I pay, and the other tenants I organise. NOT YOU. SO. WHAT DO I GET FOR MY MONEY? I'll tell you, as long as the rent is paid, I OWN THE PLACE. I am entitled to full freedom of use, and full enjoyment. I have just as much right to be a crappy neighbor as anyone. Not that I am.
You want to know who the really crappy neighbors? The bloody boomers buying up central wellington apartments ad shutting down the CBD, destroying the venues the music scene, everything they supposedly moved their for. Who else is crappy, the bloody developers who didn't put in double glazing and sound proofing, and the god forsaken councilors who let them and a bunch of suburban pricks ruin the inner city, as if they didn't know exactly what they were moving in to and what was their first. That includes practice venues, artist spaces, everything. Your renters are second class citizens schtick can get knotted. We'll out number you at this rate soon, and then when we say jump, you'll say how high.
Not making any sense
"I'll tell you, as long as the rent is paid, I OWN THE PLACE. "
Quiet enjoyment » Tenancy Services
Tenants have the right to the 'quiet enjoyment' of the house they rent. This means the landlord can't harass the tenant or interfere with their reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. Tenants also need to respect the peace, comfort and privacy of their neighbours or other tenants.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.