Nat/act/nzf 2023

[mistaTea]

mistaTea;1048087 And good for you. Thanks. I was asked if I thought there is an imbalance in contract law. I do not. Even when coalition statutory changes come into force, it will just change the mix of rights and obligations. The whole housing and rental market is riddled with the effects of government policy, requirements and subsidies. This of course benefits landlords as well as tenants. There is not an uncontrolled free market. The fact NZ households seems to prefer to invest in residential housing by a margin over investing in equities indicates where the balance of cost/benefit of entering contracts has lain.

But there is no requirement to sell it if you want to stop renting it to someone (as you seem to think there should be. Sure, if a tenancy has legally ended. You can keep you investment property empty, or keep it is an extra home. It could become an expensive exercise, with negative returns in a consolidating property market. Not a good investment. However that is up to you if you can, and are prepared to bear those costs.

If I have a tenant living in one of my properties - and I decide I no longer wish to rent the property out to the tenant, I quite rightly have an avenue to do so. From 2025, when the Residential Tenancy Act amendments with no cause evictions take effect. Will the amendments be retrospective - and apply to pre-exisiting agreements?

Whether I am doing it because I intend to sell the property, or prefer to rent the property out to someone else I know, or have split from my wife and need my own place to live, or want to move my whole family into the rental is actually none of my tenants business.

I don’t have to provide evidence or a good story as you seem to think. All I have to do is give a minimum of 90 days notice.

You are desperately trying to make a big deal out of a non-issue.
You had the conniptions over my posts.

I am glad we finally agree there is no issue here.

[Bjauck]

I am glad we finally agree there is no issue here.

We have to agree to disagree as to whether no cause evictions are good public policy.

[mistaTea]

We have to agree to disagree as to whether no cause evictions are good public policy.

No, no.

We can just agree.

Storm in a teacup. A non-issue.

[dobby41]

Let's just say you own a property, and you lease it to someone on a contract. The renter has no obligation to give reason (cause) why they might choose to terminate the contract and leave. You however think that you the owner and lessor of the property should be obligated to have a reason 'cause' for terminating the contract?

Why would you suggest and support this imbalance in contract law, where one party has to give cause, whereas the other party need not give cause?

You are correct that there is an imbalance in the relationship between renter and LL.
In the contract, there are conditions - conditions around the quality and maintenance of the property.
There are also actions that a tenant can take if the tenant feels that any of those conditions haven't been met - they can (ultimately) go to the tenancy tribunal to seek remedy after they have issued the LL a 10-day notice to repair.
In many cases what happened (under the 90-day no-cause termination) the LL would decide that the tenant was a troublemaker and seek to remove them by saying be gone in 90 days.
Many tenants felt an implied threat of this and would put up with issues that they shouldn't have to put up with (leaks, mold due to leaks, ovens not working, etc).

That is where the imbalance is.
A shortage of rental accommodation means tenants had to put up with what they shouldn't have to put up with.
So the tenant

[mistaTea]

You are correct that there is an imbalance in the relationship between renter and LL.
In the contract, there are conditions - conditions around the quality and maintenance of the property.
There are also actions that a tenant can take if the tenant feels that any of those conditions haven't been met - they can (ultimately) go to the tenancy tribunal to seek remedy after they have issued the LL a 10-day notice to repair.
In many cases what happened (under the 90-day no-cause termination) the LL would decide that the tenant was a troublemaker and seek to remove them by saying be gone in 90 days.
Many tenants felt an implied threat of this and would put up with issues that they shouldn't have to put up with (leaks, mold due to leaks, ovens not working, etc).

That is where the imbalance is.
A shortage of rental accommodation means tenants had to put up with what they shouldn't have to put up with.
So the tenant

Yes, yes you lot have no shortage of made up sop stories to share.

But you can’t get away from the fundamental fact that the LL owns the property and can rent it or not. There must be an avenue for the LL to stop renting the property without having to make up a reason.

Otherwise you just force them to lie. “I need you out because I am going to renovate and sell”. Then after the person gaps it “Ahhh, my circumstances have changed and I will rent it out for a bit longer. He he”.

It’s just silly.

If there is a problem with dodgy LL’s not ensuring that their properties meet the legal minimum requirements then you address that issue, but you don’t remove the whole 90 day notice as a lazy and clumsy way of doing it.

If the LL has done what they are legally required to do and the tenant is overly demanding and keeps pestering the LL with wanting this and that then too f*cken right the LL can give them the boot , no reason given, 90 days notice and get someone else in who won’t be such a headache.

[Bjauck]

Redacted post.

[Bjauck]

Redacted post

[Balance]

Interesting editorial opinion by NZ Herald (one of the biggest recipients of Ardern's media bribe - $10.5m to NZME) urging Labour to do something, anything to rise up and be a real Opposition to the Coalition.

Sounds like a cry for help by the woke left leaning Herald which does not allow any criticism of the Maorification of NZ to be published.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/labo...HEIYBDCPKDKZY/
paywalled

Since the election, Labour’s loyal supporters have been waiting for the real opposition to the coalition wrecking-machine to please stand up. Some of Labour’s old guard have left the red team. Some were forced out when losing their once safe electorate seats like Mahuta (Hauraki-Waikato), Kelvin Davis (Te Tai Tokerau), Peeni Henare (Tāmaki Makaurau but still a list MP), Rino Tirikatene (Te Tai Tonga), Michael Wood (Mt Roskill), Tamati Coffey (East Coast) to name a big few scalps as the 2020 red wave turned into a blue lagoon.

Now is the time for Labour to take a deep dive into itself and consider who and what it represents. Changes must happen. In other words, stand down and step aside.

Bunch of tired, useless and clueless Losers - Rejected by the majority of NZers.

[Joshuatree]

You're the best example of a repetitive tired clueless antikiwi there is,congrats on reaching the top of the blubber heap.👍

[fungus pudding]

You're the best example of a repetitive tired clueless antikiwi there is,congrats on reaching the top of the blubber heap.��

Who is? .