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
-
My first flat was periodic, and I considered it a concession when I agreed to a fixed term lease in return for the landlord replacing the awful carpet and undersized hot water cylinder. My second flat was a year to begin with, then went periodic. It's a pain when you're young and mobile, to be tied in to a fixed term and need to find someone to take over the lease when you want to move in with someone else, or buy a house, or go on your OE.
-
izogi, in reply to
Share housing in Australia is even more fraught, FWIW. [….] 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.
I was never in a flatting situation in Australia, but for the 3 years in VIC we still found the de facto standard rental tenacy agreements to be quite scary. Consumer Affairs Victoria has a nice, template agreement somewhere on its website. I read it once for fun, and it looked reasonably fairly weighted on both sides. Nobody actually uses it, of course. In Melbourne we found it difficult to find any property which wasn’t being rented through an agent. Agents all had an identical standard agreements that’s extremely weighted in their favour, right down to the exact text layout, with the only difference being their varied agency letterheads on top.
The worst part of this agreement, buried in everyone’s fine print, is that if you apply to rent a property, and are then offered it, then you’re committing to accepting the offer and renting it for the entire year’s lease! Put this into the context of doing the rounds, searching maybe 10+ properties on a Saturday, each of which has 20 interested couples looking through it. There’s no way to be confident that you’ll be offered any specific property which you apply for, so it’s completely impractical to apply for only one at a time, just in case you’re successful.
Upon querying, of course, it was laughed off with a smile, as if they were amazed we’d actually read the thing, and we were told that it was never enforced. In fact, many disturbing clauses which we saw on the standard agent-provided tenancy agreements, and had little choice about signing if we wanted a place to live, were never enforced. They basically put them there because they know they can get away with it, and that prospective tenants have next-to-no choice. Their main interest seems to be simply to have the flexibility of picking and choosing reasons to evict anyone they like if that person turns out to be inconvenient.
Other people’s experience may vary, but despite a multitude of crappy issues with some NZ landlords, I’ve never yet in New Zealand struck that feeling of a total lack of control in reasonable tenancy terms as we found in Victoria.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Lilith, the list you’re thinking of is the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. In theory, they’re still in force, via the Health Act.
Aha! Thank you.
In practice I have successfully used 10-day-letters for landlords in breach of these regulations. (when there was no heater provided; when the oven stopped working and the landlord didn't fix it) -
Good to hear, Lilith – though the landlord’s responsibility to fix the broken oven comes from the RTA rather than the HIR; and I’m surprised but pleased to hear that you successfully used it to get a landlord to provide a heater. If the landlord knew his/her rights better - or rather, was more up with the play, since it's definitely arguable whether it really is a landlord's right to only provide a power point - and let you take it to the Tenancy Tribunal, I’m afraid you would have been out of luck.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
If the landlord knew his/her rights better – or rather, was more up with the play, since it’s definitely arguable whether it really is a landlord’s right to only provide a power point –
It's even possible they acted out of basic human decency. Tax-deductible decency.
-
A friend just reminded me that one of her landlords refused to provide more than one plug to the household. It had to be moved between kitchen sink, laundry tub and bath.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
A friend just reminded me that one of her landlords refused to provide more than one plug to the household.
But, but, the horror tenants!
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
It’s even possible they acted out of basic human decency. Tax-deductible decency
Of course, and lots do - and buying a heater is probably counted as capital expenditure and therefore not tax deductible, except (then, not any more) for depreciation, so is even more a sign of decency if it's put in for sitting tenants, with no rent increase to match. I'd assumed yours had resisted human decency because you'd mentioned 10-day letters.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
You'd expect a rent increase for providing some form of heating?
In this instance it was an oil-column heater, costing around $60.
I'd like to offer a bouquet to the excellent landlords out there who deal fairly, provide safe and healthy houses, order prompt repairs when required, and don't unduly bother their tenants. Sadly, you're not the norm. We need a rental WOF system.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
You’d expect a rent increase for providing some form of heating?
Not for a $60 oil column heater, no. But the WoF requires fixed and effective (i.e. enough kW to heat the living space) heating – which ideally means heatpumps, woodburners, flued gas heaters, and other heating fixtures that tend to cost upwards of $1500 but which are cheaper for tenants to run than conventional resistant electric heating or the horrific unflued gas heaters. At present, the only incentives for landlords to install such heating are decency; the potential to attract better and longer term tenants; and the possibility of charging more rent.
I say “ideally”. Of course, I won’t be at all surprised to see some landlords refusing to install the $1500+ options, and opting instead for $60-ish wall-mountable heaters of one kind or another, which will meet the wording of the WoF, but won’t help the tenants’ energy bills one iota.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
At present, the only incentives for landlords to install such heating are decency; the potential to attract better and longer term tenants; and the possibility of charging more rent.
Government subsidy, tax-write-off, increase in value of property.
-
Moz, in reply to
Government subsidy, tax-write-off, increase in value of property.
Of which the first appeals to everyone, the second only to those who can't do maths, and the latter deserves a hollow laugh.
We're trying to buy a house right now, and the one good thing is that green features are worthless in the market, with the exception of solar PV. I'd almost go so far as to say that "weird green stuff" costs the vendor money if it's visible (double glazing being the obvious one, people here seem to assume it means there's a neighbourhood noise problem). That's great for us in the unlikely event that we can find something affordable that has the features, but since 99% of houses don't, it's a negative because we're going to have to add them but won't be able to recoup the cost when we sell. Probably, obviously we can hope "the market" changes it's mind.
In Oz we have a "rental green star" system at least in Victoria, but again, there doesn't appear to be a rental price premium attached to higher star ratings.
-
As I understand it, landlords can claim the cost of a new heating system back through depreciation (as it’s a chattel). This may need to be paid back to IRD if the house is subsequently sold for a higher value. ( source )
Bottom line, the landlord can’t lose.
And their property will be more attractive for tenants and may command a higher rental.
-
Sacha, in reply to
their property will be more attractive for tenants and may command a higher rental
we're battling the same mentality that exports logs and milk powder
#ambishus -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
we’re battling the same mentality that exports logs and milk powder
And considers them to be the height of export success, to boot.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
Thanks Lilith, I'd assumed that the removal of depreciation meant a total removal of depreciation - interesting to see it's still available for chattels.
The Heat Smart subsidy for installing energy efficient heating is no longer part of the Warm Up New Zealand subsidy programme (the scheme is now targetted insulation only because most of the cost-benefit of the programme came from installing insulation in the homes of community services card holders (*guilty look*)). I think some councils still provide some heater subsidies, but they're generally targetted and not as accessible as they were a few years back.
As for property appreciation... well, that seems to happen regardless if you're in Auckland. Otherwise, as Moz points out, the market doesn't yet value energy-efficiency measures. -
Lilith __, in reply to
Otherwise, as Moz points out, the market doesn’t yet value energy-efficiency measures.
I can't speak for Auckland, but down here in the South Island where we get freezing-cold winters? I'm sure it does.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I’d assumed that the removal of depreciation meant a total removal of depreciation – interesting to see it’s still available for chattels.
Nope. Houses no longer depreciate at a specified rate, but the chattels still do in accordance with IRD's published depreciation rates.
This article does a pretty good job of explaining the transition: landlords who were doing a depreciation claim on house-plus-chattels prior to 1 April 2011 cannot retroactively separate out the chattels and claim depreciation on them going forward. If, however, they were depreciating the chattels separately and/or they buy new chattels after 1 April 2011 they are entitled to claim the depreciation at the published rates.
That's fair enough when one considers that chattels don't (as a nearly-universal general rule) appreciate so they will eventually need replacing from a value of $0. It was a nonsense to depreciate something with a potentially indefinite life - subject to adequate maintenance - and a likely appreciating value, but the stuff inside it wears out and needs replacing and that's exactly what depreciation is for. -
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
I can’t speak for Auckland, but down here in the South Island where we get freezing-cold winters? I’m sure it does
Christchurch research suggests otherwise. "Many of the voluntary measures introduced by Governments to improve the energy efficiency of residential housing are still not considered important by buyers, indicating that a more mandatory approach may have to be undertaken to improve energy efficiency in the established housing market, as these measures are not valued by the buyer."
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I can’t speak for Auckland, but down here in the South Island where we get freezing-cold winters? I’m sure it does
Christchurch research suggests otherwise.
I was talking about having a good heat source for winter - a logburner or heat pump. And insulation to keep the heat in. It's not really the same issue.
-
True. And after reading that previous paper, I found this, which would suggest that the market has (as I would see it) woken up to insulation in the last few years. I doubt insulation would have made that list at all 10 years ago.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
the market has (as I would see it) woken up to insulation in the last few years. I doubt insulation would have made that list at all 10 years ago
I'm glad to hear it. I do think there's a case for making some of these things mandatory from a public health point of view. Which brings us back to our rental WOF.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Otherwise, as Moz points out, the market doesn’t yet value energy-efficiency measures.
It does in Christchurch: no insulation in ceiling and lack of effective heating (heat pumps/woodburner) definitely devalue a house. However double glazing and solar or heat pump hot water are still seen as luxuries for older houses.
Retrofits are where many of us are stuck: it's expensive to double-glaze and insulate the walls of an existing house unless major renovations are being done. Doesn't matter how many energy-efficient lightbulbs are used, if the house has single glazing in the south, it will be damp and cold.
Heatpumps are dreadful in a draughty old house: they distribute dust and create cold currents. Before moving into our present 1920s house, my son had never had asthma. Within 6 weeks of being here -- with a heat pump -- he was choking. Two years later the quakes gave us a woodburner: no more asthma!
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
I'm glad to hear your son's asthma has gone, Hebe, but I'd hesitate to lambast heatpumps as "dreadful in a draughty old house" based on a sample of one (see also anecdotal evidence). As you'd moved house, there would be a lot of other exposures that would have changed at the same time, asthma tends to improve with age regardless, and even if the heat pump was causing or contributing to your son's asthma, that doesn't mean that they will generally cause or exacerbate asthma in other children. In many cases, replacement of existing inefficient heat sources with heat pumps improves asthma symptoms.
I would of course recommend insulating and draught-stopping before installing an expensive new heat source. Personally, I like a nice fire, and although we have a heat pump, in an ideal world I'd have both - but I have no professional opinion on whether heat pumps or woodburners are better for health.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Lucy, I'm sure it's not necessary to be patronising.
As you may know, logburners are not an option for many people in Chch due to tight air-pollution restrictions. And much of our housing stock is old, and made much damper and draughtier by earthquake damage.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.