Tuesday, March 1, 2016

TWFORD TRYING HARD TO BE DICK OF THE WEAK

Just when you thought that Labour couldn't get much worse along comes Phil Twyford, their Spokesthingy on Housing galloping to the rescue with his quite bizarre notion that landlords shouldn't be able to specify 'no pets' and that tenants should be able to carry out 'modifications' to the dwelling as of right and without having to seek permission of the owner.

Don't know what planet Mr Twyford comes from but it sure ain't Planet Earth.   With his background as a 'journo' and Union organiser  (funny that) and as the Director of Oxfam he demonstrates his absolute ignorance of business and the realities of the housing market.

Just why any landlord would want to offer up 'his' house to a tenant who could then proceed to modify it as he/she saw fit without reference to the owner sure beats the hell outa me.   That, along with having to agree to the tenant having pets when you didn't, would surely cause responsible landlords to exit the market, reducing the numbers of rental stock, and pushing prices up.   A huge own goal by Twyford which demonstrates yet again how unfriendly Labour is to business.

Some two decades ago I owned a rental property in a complex close to Eden Park.   Good location and individual off-street tenant parking.   I can say with some certainty and from bitter experience that you go into the landlord game with the deck stacked against you.   What you want are good tenants who respect your property.    It doesn't just happen ... you have to work on it.   My solution which worked a treat.   If the rent was say $200/week  I put 10% of that into a special account in the tenants name.   If the rent was paid on time and if the property suffered no damage beyond reasonable wear and tear then I paid that sum over to the tenant at he conclusion of the tenancy.   At regular intervals I gave the tenant a print-out showing how his nest-egg had grown.    Worked a charm for both me and the tenant.

Clearly Mr Twyford is devoid of real life experiences and it shows.



14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wonder if you could reference that item Veteran. By modifications I believe he meant things like insulation and hot water pipe lagging and perhaps secondary double glazing, not whacking a an extra bedroom on the side.

All the simple stuff that rogue landlords seem to overlook as by law there is little or no regulation. All the bad press stems from accidental and amateur landlords with lack of people skills. The market needs to be regulated. If it was not for regulation the back lot car dealers would still be putting death traps on the road and for the life of me I cannot see the difference between the two.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

The reality is that getting the rent off a lot of them is hard so I can't see them doing nice modifications to houses they don't own. Much of the tenant's alterations will, I suspect, be new doors cut through walls with chainsaws and that kind of stuff. My house = my rules.

3:16

Anonymous said...

Well Anon 3:16 You have an opinion, a bit like gravedodger who thinks that a renter is a social failure or a loser. If you look on the bright side the tenant may want to put down some paving stones to replace the non existent lawn so his kids don't bring mud in the house...no that can't be it because all tenants are low lifes ready to rip off honest hardworking landlords at the slightest whim.

I do not bandy the word wanker around lightly but that is the most wankerish comment I have see in a long time.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... from the Hutt News ....

Those living in rental properties needed more rights and greater security, Twyford said.

“Renters don’t have the right to have a pet, they don’t have the right to make basic alterations and they can be kicked out on the whim of the landlord within 90 days, no justification needed.

“That’s more than half our population living in those conditions. Is that any way to live? To raise a family?” He said tenants deserved greater rights and Labour would “have to change that”.

Nothing there about insulation, lagging or double glazing. In return, care to reference where my co-blogger Gravedodger said that renters were social failures or losers ... mind you, that could be true with the likes of crimdotcon.

I repeat. Landlords have the cards stacked against them. Ever tried to evict a tenant for unpaid rent ... took me six weeks and a court order to do that ... six weeks plus the three weeks unpaid rent + court costs and that was the best part of $2k gone west never to be seen again plus the cost of cleaning because the flat was left in a mess ... salutatory lesson.

Anonymous said...

Well Egbut I dabbled in rentals a few years ago and found my cynicism to be well founded. Hard and expensive lessons were learned. Wife and I have just re-entered the market and I'm not going to be Mr Sucker twice. I'll present a nice house in really good condition and maintain it but I'm not allowing tampering without my approval and supervision. I like the idea of giving back some $ at the end in exchange for being a good tenant and will think about that.

3:16

gravedodger said...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/8/n/n/p/k/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.18nic8.png/1450641017050.jpg

Legups poster girl in Christchurch as reported in in stuff this week.
Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Salutary lesson indeed. Get out of the market as you and other part time landlords are ill-equipped to be in the business.

In the hands of large professional companies working under a regulated regime most of the problems disappear. There is not a market in the world that does not carry risk but you expect remuneration without risk and because you did not do the research or discovery the risk became fact.

Lord Egbut

gravedodger said...

Legup your new besty took a commercial operation to the cleaners by playing a victim card with devilish cunning.
You of course will have a very sensible and fair solution if you only get the chance and dearest Anna Ria Melroy/Smith/Whatever will be enabled to move from house to house paying little more than empty promises laced with blatant lies

Prior to ripping off her latest suckers she had a previous;
Stuff reports
"Last year Alan Fraser, 61, of Hampden, took Melroy to the tenancy tribunal, where she admitted under oath to going by different names. She changed her name just weeks before applying for the tenancy of his Gloucester St property. The 2014 tribunal terminated the tenancy of Melroy, and she was ordered to pay the landlord over $1700 in rent arrears for his Christchurch property."

Frazer is yet to see a single cent of the ordered reparation

This fat lying, unscrupulous cow is only one of a growing army who, using the sanctimonious garbage you promote to abuse the too often kind hearted souls who try to make a real difference while you just enable using your keyboard warrior cloak of sanctimonious male bovine excrement.

Anonymous said...

All landlords good, all tenants bad, yes, I get it now. It's funny how some landlords present themselves as social workers doing the country a favour.

Due diligence and research by professional agencies would have uncovered a large percentage of low lifes or those with previous hence my remarks about amateurs, even rank amateurs and the need for housing to be handled in a proven and adult way, not as a get rich scheme.

What Veteran has done is take a quite innocuous, possibly off the the cuff, remark that without clarification can be interpreted in which ever way suits your political leanings.

I rather think the moderate approach is hardly sanctimonious and as NZ is new to mass renting I think the Govt. should be looking for guidance to countries where renting has been the norm for 200 or more years.

The financial downside to the country in terms of absenteeism, mental and physical health, divorce and single parents in an unregulated market is huge and well documented. The Govt. will not recognise the problem as long as their carrot for the next election is the possibility that you can buy your own house...a disappearing dream for many.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

The Veteran said...

Milord .... Seems to me Twyford's comments were quite unambiguous. He took aim at the fact at some landlords did not allow pets and that tenants did not have the right to make basic alterations and finished off by saying "(Labour) will have to change that".

Slam dunk really and no amount of dissembling/obfuscation changes that.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I did notice the bit where he said that tenants have the right to add a bedroom to the side of the house. I can't wait for your take on the disappearing police commander and the ongoing naivety of those entrusted with our defence. Brownlee at his best?

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

MiLord ... getting silly. The comment about adding a bedroom to the side of the house came from you, repeat you, not me.

Twyford is 'their' Housing spokesman for C*********s. We have a right to take his comments seriously or are you saying that all comments from Labour Spokespeople are to be treated with a grain of salt ... hold on, think you've nailed it. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Very well, as you seem to be operating from a position of insider knowledge Please define "basic". Putting up a towel rail?, installing a bathroom fan? Insulation? smoke alarms, wired in burglar alarm?

What exactly did he mean by basic. He's on the phone ..ask him.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

No Egbut ... it's up to 'him' to define basic ... he said it. But the essential point is that the tenant doesn't own the home and any alterations, however minor, should be done only with the landlords permission.

I think this strand has run its course.