Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants” is dwarfed by that of horror houses
120 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
In this situation, which is common, the landlord is not required to give the tenant any notice at all to vacate, except they must wait for the rent already paid to expire. (ie. if you’ve paid a week or a fortnight in advance, that time must elapse)
Not under the Residential Tenancies Act. As you note, the RTA doesn't cover flatmates or boarders* (whether of the landlord, or of the "head tenant", i.e. the person(s) with the Tenancy Agreement). Because flatmates and boarders aren't covered, there is no RTA requirement to wait until the rent already paid has expired. The landlord would have to give any overpaid money back (otherwise the flatmate could seek its return in the disputes tribunal), but they can still turn you out with zero notice. People who are going to be flatting or boarding can only get some rights by having a "flatmates agreement" or "boarders agreement" that specifies how much notice must be given by either party, or (if in a group tenancy) by making sure they're on the Tenancy Agreement too - though that carries the risk of making them jointly and severally liable for any damage or rent-skipping by their flatmates.
I suspect this information won't be necessary for most of the people reading here, but if you have children flatting, it may be useful for them.
*Boarders are covered by the RTA if there are more than 6 boarders in the property.I don't personally have much problem with landlords/head tenants being able to turf their flatmates out with no notice. It's a different deal when you're living with someone.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Also worth noting that the usual 90-days’ notice to vacate can be reduced to 42 days if the house is sold or is wanted by the landlord for a family member. This is not uncommon and is a panic-inducing situation for the tenant.
This happened to good friends of ours. The "family member" turned out to be "bulldozing the house and building a retirement village". After the stress of having to find somewhere else to live on short notice, none of the tenants wanted to take the landlord to the Tribunal, they just wanted to get on.
-
I wonder how strongly the whole 'horror tenants' issue, as well as the Glen Innes evictions, is tied to the housing bubble and attempts to preserve the status quo at any cost.
-
Tom, in reply to
I think this comment demonstrates one of the flaws of the WOF proposal. Compliance costs for landlords (which will be higher the greater the standards set by the WOF) could drive rents up beyond the affordability of the very tenants who the WOF process is trying to protect.
Rent prices are set by demand though, and the WOF isn't likely to increase demand substantially.
-
Moz, in reply to
I don't personally have much problem with landlords/head tenants being able to turf their flatmates out with no notice. It's a different deal when you're living with someone.
I was amused once when I called the cops and they took my word for it that I was the tenant and the former housemwate who claimed to still live there was taken away. Albeit he was "known to the police"...
I've been renting/in share houses for 25 years now, and I've had everything from landlords letting themselves in to help me deal with my excess possessions (try proving that! He admitted it to me), a landlord terminating my lease and letting the house to my housemates without telling me, then refusing to return my bond when they stopped paying rent. At the other end of the scale, one rent increase in seven years and hiring a lawnmower so we could mow the lawns (roughly once a year :) That guy used to drive past about tax time every year, then ring and say "have you been paying rent? I haven't looked at the account for a while".
The power imbalance is truly awful when you're trying to find somewhere, and bad agents are horrific. I have been through the whole keep the bond/charge for extra cleaning/bad reference experience with one lot, and we were basically forced to go to the tribunal so we could say to future landlords "the tribunal sided with us, and they're retaliating". It still meant that a lot of agents just would not deal with us at all, their computer said "bad" so they blocked us. No return calls, applications ignored, it was a waste of time and a lot of stress.
-
Moz,
Share housing in Australia is even more fraught, FWIW. A lot of leases absolutely forbid anyone not on the lease from being resident, or agents require that they have "agreements" with every resident that make going on the lease look attractive. And they often charge a week's rent to change the people on the lease. Kids have to be listed and permitted as a separate item, same as pets. But some agents prefer "families" so I'm not sure how much that is a problem.
But those requirement also seem to be rarely enforced, we've had inspections where there were obviously 7 people living there with 3 on the lease and the agent didn't blink. It does, however, mean that they can give you 24 hours to vacate whenever they want to. Which may be the idea.
I've lived in a couple of share houses where no-one resident was on the lease, and in one case no-one resident recognised any of the names on the lease. Quite who is liable when those ones turn to custard I have no idea.
-
Moz,
Oh, and can we talk about "renting while black"? I've lost count of the number of open inspections I've turned up to in Sydney where the agent has looked around, seen the one tall, affluent white guy and blatantly written off everyone else in the room. It's worth me dressing up a bit for that exact reason, but the flip side is that there's nothing I can do to stop them. It's also a hard call - should I go homeless in the vague hope that that will make it easier for someone less white and male to find somewhere to live?
Landlords are remarkably free from effective restrictions on who they can rent to. Or not rent to.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I don’t personally have much problem with landlords/head tenants being able to turf their flatmates out with no notice. It’s a different deal when you’re living with someone.
Huh? No problem with tenants being evicted with no notice, at the fiat of the landlord? I had this happen once, merely because my landlady got a new boyfriend and suddenly didn't need me anymore. If a family member hadn't taken me in, I would have been homeless.
I've lived in a number of places where the owner-occupier was renting out rooms to help pay the bills. Mostly it's worked fine, but the "no legal recourse" thing is scary. When I've suggested a written agreement they generally refuse.
If they accept rent in advance they are making a contract with you for you to occupy for that time. So they can't evict you until that time has passed.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Landlords are remarkably free from effective restrictions on who they can rent to. Or not rent to.
Key word, of course, being "effective". In NZ, at least, the Human Rights Act applies to residential tenancies other than ones where it's accommodation shared with the landlord. Proving discrimination on a prohibited ground would be pretty tough, especially in a hyperactive market like AKL or CHC, but it's still illegal.
-
Not wishing to threadjack, but the housing crisis in Chch is a scandal.
This single Mum in Chch is living in a damp, leaky caravan with her 3 kids. Six months trying to find any other shelter has been fruitless: rents are unaffordable, emergency shelters are full, Housing NZ says they can’t help.
-
Landlords are required to provide some form of heating. In one place I lived this was an open coal fire. I had to vigorously argue with the landlady that we needed a grate for the fire. (She said the last people had been happy to "just put things in the hole"!) Some weeks later she brought round a grate she'd got from a demolition sale, that was the wrong size for our fire. We cut it down with a hacksaw.
The expenses of rental property upkeep are tax-deductible, and landlords who make a "loss" over the financial year can use it to reduce their personal tax bill. Improvements raise the value of their investment, and they reap the rewards of capital gain on sale, which is usually not taxed.
Which makes it even more inexplicable why some landlords are loath to carry our essential repairs or provide even the basic necessities.
-
Moz, in reply to
the housing crisis in Chch is a scandal.
still a scandal.
I don't want to rehash the whole thing, and I'm not sure that rental tenancy reform is the most pressing issue here. I think the real solution is a change of government. But anyway, tenancies...
I have been on both sides of the share house issue, often, and I don't think the law can really do much. Most people are reluctant to kick out housemates, so by the time it gets to that point things are normally pretty ugly. And where that's not the case what can the law actually do? In that case a solution that doesn't take effect that same day is no solution.
The real problem is that if you're in that semi-official part of the market you don't have practically enforceable rights. So the government-level solution should be more aimed at removing the need for that market. Share houses should be reduced to cases where people choose to live that way for the advantages they get (ease of moving, lower costs, less paperwork, whatever).
Unfortunately the governments in both NZ and Aus are quite deliberately moving in the opposite direction - less stable housing, more poverty, fewer rights for poor people.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I have been on both sides of the share house issue, often, and I don’t think the law can really do much.
Well, apart from require formal agreements. Which would give everybody rights and responsibilities.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Landlords are required to provide some form of heating.
Really? Our place has nothing, other than a fireplace that we're forbidden to use because the chimney hasn't been swept in forever. All the heaters are supplied by ourselves.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I have been on both sides of the share house issue, often, and I don’t think the law can really do much.
Well, apart from require formal agreements.
Or, in the absence of a specific agreement, apply a form agreement to all such arrangements; much the same way that there're boilerplate employment terms in statute that can be altered but not lowered and apply in the absence of anything more specific.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
the government-level solution should be more aimed at removing the need for that market.
Which would require, for one thing, a massive increase in welfare payments and accommodation supplements.
-
Moz, in reply to
apart from require formal agreements. Which would give everybody rights and responsibilities.
How would that not just become another weapon to use against disadvantaged people? Whatever improvement you're suggesting has to be both cheaper and easier than signing a lease, and should also be better for the leasee/landlord than what we have now or they won't want to bother.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
apart from require formal agreements. Which would give everybody rights and responsibilities.
How would that not just become another weapon to use against disadvantaged people? Whatever improvement you’re suggesting has to be both cheaper and easier than signing a lease, and should also be better for the leasee/landlord than what we have now or they won’t want to bother.
Wait, I'm talking about situations where the landlord lives on the premises, which is not currently covered by the Act. What are you talking about?
-
Moz, in reply to
I'm talking about situations where the landlord lives on the premises, which is not currently covered by the Act. What are you talking about?
Share houses, where either the lease-holder or the owner has tenants who aren't covered by the act. Where it's a lease everyone can go on the lease but commonly don't. With owner-share situations AFAIK the owner can choose to have formal leases (definitely could circa 1990 when I was the tenant in one). I don't think the problem is "we lack a law that can be used" as "there's no practical way to give tenants more rights in the this situation"
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I have been on both sides of the share house issue, often, and I don’t think the law can really do much.
Well, apart from require formal agreements.
Or, in the absence of a specific agreement, apply a form agreement to all such arrangements; much the same way that there’re boilerplate employment terms in statute that can be altered but not lowered and apply in the absence of anything more specific.
Agreed.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Landlords are required to provide some form of heating.
Really? Our place has nothing, other than a fireplace that we’re forbidden to use because the chimney hasn’t been swept in forever. All the heaters are supplied by ourselves.
Somewhere, somewhere, there is a list, which I can't currently find. I used to have a hard copy.
Is it in the building regulations?Things like: must have cooking facilities; must have a shower or bath; must have a fridge or ventilated cupboard; must have a facility for washing clothes (ie. not the kitchen sink); must have a form of heating...
-
Lilith, the list you’re thinking of is the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. In theory, they’re still in force, via the Health Act. In practice, because they fall under the Health Act rather than, say, the Building Act or the Residential Tenancies Act, they’re so loose as to be useless. Sometimes adjudicators will accept them as requirements under s45(1)(c) of the RTA (The landlord shall…comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises), and sometimes (I’ve heard, don’t have evidence) they say a breach of the HIR must first be established by council health inspectors, who are all too busy looking for cockroaches in restaurant kitchens to go looking at mould in residential dwellings. Lots of the regulations have been superceded by the Building Code, and even if they haven’t, there’s still the Tenancy Tribunal interpretation to worry about.
The current interpretation of “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating” is that there has to be a power point in the living room so you can plug your heater in. Which seems completely contrary to what I was taught about statutory interpretation, but there it is. -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
“Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”
Our living room has said fireplace and chimney, so the house is compliant. I presume the law does not include words to the effect that such must be kept in working order at the landlord's expense.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
The current interpretation of “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating” is that there has to be a power point in the living room so you can plug your heater in. Which seems completely contrary to what I was taught about statutory interpretation, but there it is.
That seems quite perverse.
As for the rental WOF, the amount of noise from the sector has made me sure that acting unilaterally is the way to go. There are simply too many landlords who have interest in the welfare of their tenants or the standard of their dwellings to reach a reasonable compromise with the sector.
-
Anybody know figures on how much of the rental market is on periodic agreements vs. fixed-term? Other than a bit of living-with-the-landlord I've always had fixed-term leases. I can't really imagine choosing to live with a periodic agreement, mind you I probably overestimated my rights in the living-with-the-landlord situations...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.