Earthquake - landlord wants his house to live in - kicking out tenants

[orangeback]

Have a friend that's just been informed to move out as they want there own rental to live in, as there house is not liveable, since the chch quake
What's your thoughts ???

[FJRider]

As I recall ... a minimum of 28 days notice is legally required ... :blank:

Any less ... see a lawyer ... and phone the papers ... :msn-wink:

[Mully]

As I recall ... a minimum of 28 days notice is legally required ... :blank:

Any less ... see a lawyer ... and phone the papers ... :msn-wink:

I thought it was 21 days, but I'm happy to be corrected.

How much notice were they given?

[Usarka]

The landlord needs to give 42 days notice if them or member of their family intends to occupy. A bit cuntish in the circumstances if you ask me but most landlords are parasitic cunts anyway :bleh:

(21 is the notice that the tenant is required to give or the notice to end a fixed term tenancy).

Edit: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/faqs-ending-tenancies#ending1

[FJRider]

Considering I have read recently of landlords getting pissed-off that some (lots of) tennants are trying to get out of their contracts (packing up and leaving town)

The boot is on the other foot ... publicity required me-thinks ...

[bogan]

get out some vivids and draw cracks all over the walls, landy comes round 'nah mate, she's pretty fucked aye. We'll still live here if you lower the rent a bit though' :bleh:

All good if they have given the required notice though I reckon.

[Mully]

The landlord needs to give 42 days notice if them or member of their family intends to occupy. A bit cuntish in the circumstances if you ask me but most landlords are parasitic cunts anyway :bleh:

(21 is the notice that the tenant is required to give or the notice to end a fixed term tenancy).

Edit: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/faqs-ending-tenancies#ending1

There ya go then - I stand corrected.

Although OP doesn't say how much notice they were given - and the potential poll responses aren't exactly unbiased....

[Usarka]

Most tenants are cunts too.

[speedpro]

If "you" were the landlord and "your" house was trashed and "your" family needed somewhere to live "you" would do exactly the same thing. I personally wouldn't feel too good about it but my family comes before tenants any day

[steve_t]

If "you" were the landlord and "your" house was trashed and "your" family needed somewhere to live "you" would do exactly the same thing. I personally wouldn't feel too good about it but my family comes before tenants any day

+1

10 chars

[BoristheBiter]

That sucks, but that's what comes with renting.
One of the reasons we finally bought our own home.

[blackdog]

That sucks, but that's what comes with renting.
One of the reasons we finally brought our own home.

It is BOUGHT for fuck's sake, BOUGHT!

(unless you brunged it with you)

[98tls]

My thoughts are its a perfectly normal thing to want to do surely,your house is fucked,you own another thats not.Not exactly rocket science is it.

[mashman]

A bit cuntish in the circumstances if you ask me but most landlords are parasitic cunts anyway


Most tenants are cunts too.

nice balanced argument you're having with yourself there :rofl:

[Usarka]

If "you" were the landlord and "your" house was trashed and "your" family needed somewhere to live "you" would do exactly the same thing. I personally wouldn't feel too good about it but my family comes before tenants any day

Yeah fuck them if they want a roof over their head they should get a decent job and buy a house.



nice balanced argument you're having with yourself there :rofl:

Don't worry I'm a cunt too!

[mashman]

If the landlord is really that screwed... surely they could both live together until the tenants can find somewhere decent? times of need and all...

[Usarka]

If the landlord is really that screwed... surely they could both live together until the tenants can find somewhere decent? times of need and all...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

funniest post ever!

(i wish it wasn't)

[oneofsix]

:devil2:made me say it but ...
The landlord only wants for mates out so he can charge more rent on the property with the predicted shortage of accommodation.
Landlord would have to give the correct notice and I am sure the tribunal wont look kindly on anyone shafting their tenants to suit themselves.

[mashman]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

funniest post ever!

(i wish it wasn't)

what happened to the Cantabrian spirit? Was it just a flash in the pan and now it's business as usual towards ones fellow man? heh, you may say i'm a dreamer.....

[Tink]

As full circumstances are not told.. who knows .. but legally 42 days by LL is yup right. I personally would not kick out my tenants, I would ask them about moving, and if they would consider it... if they said no, I would accept it.. or give them 42 days.

(PS they are not cunts, they just lost their home, like many others.. , the only one entitled to that title is the ones that stole, pillaged, etc )

My advice to all tenants, know your rights .. don't listen to here-say.

[onearmedbandit]

Fuck off, the landlord and tenant entered into an agreement, a legally binding agreement at that too. I understand that they own the place and are just renting it out, but it's an agreement there to serve both parties. If it was me I'd understand his request but politely inform him that I have a set amount of time, stated in the contract signed by both him and me, in which to vacate. However I will do my best to vacate as soon as possible.

[Ronin]

nice balanced argument you're having with yourself there :rofl:

He did say 'too'

[sil3nt]

The rules on earthquake-damaged homes are:

- If the house is earthquake-damaged, tenants can give two days' notice and then stop paying rent.

- Tenants should first take advice from authorities on whether the house is really uninhabitable or discuss it with the landlord.

- Landlords must give tenants seven days' notice if the property is earthquake-damaged.

- Landlords should also check with authorities about whether the property is safe.

Real estate agent Sue Pullman said her firm manages approximately 600 properties and agents are working their way through them. She said the agents have been counselling tenants for the lasty week.

Without tenants' agreement, landlords should not touch their property.

"Under no circumstances can landlords go in and shift people out. It's actually unlawful," said Helen Gatonyi of the Tenants' Protection Association.

Kim Willems of the Canterbury Property Investors' Association said even if a house is uninhabitable, landlords are still not entitled to remove tenants' belongings.

"There still is a proper process to go through. They're not entitled to enter the premises and take the tenants' possessions and put them on the lawn."Doesn't mention landlords wanting the house so normal rules must apply. Sucks for them.

[Fatt Max]

Hard to really see a winner in this one, contractural agreement v moral duty. Two very valid and emotional sides to the story.

Yes, if your place was fucked and you had a rental, then its familiy first, as long as you observed the requirements for notice then fine. We dont know the full story though, but lets say these tenants had been good, paid rent on time, looked after the place etc etc then I would try and see if I could help them out, dunno, store some of their gear for free for a while, give them a break on the rent, help them shift.

Tis a very hard one to call once you add the emotional upheaval of the events down there into the mix.

[jasonu]

If "you" were the landlord and "your" house was trashed and "your" family needed somewhere to live "you" would do exactly the same thing. I personally wouldn't feel too good about it but my family comes before tenants any day

+1 to that Mike

[Mom]

Have a friend that's just been informed to move out as they want there own rental to live in, as there house is not liveable, since the chch quake
What's your thoughts ???

He has to give 42 days notice to his tenants to move if he wants to live in the property himself. Lawful and not that uncommon as a tenant. Bummer though, it might be hard to find alternative housing down that way at the moment.

[BoristheBiter]

It is BOUGHT for fuck's sake, BOUGHT!

(unless you brunged it with you)

Shit mate a bit aggressive for a spelling mistake.

[Flip]

Sucks to be a Tennant in Christchurch at the moment.

There might however be some good prices on unique character fixer-uppers shortly, thinking about the uninsured ones that won't have EQC cover.

[Jantar]

It is BOUGHT for fuck's sake, BOUGHT!

(unless you brunged it with you)

We did. We brought our from Alexandra. And it hit a power pole on the way and took out power to over 900 comsumers.

[BMWST?]

Sucks to be a Tennant in Christchurch at the moment.

There might however be some good prices on unique character fixer-uppers shortly, thinking about the uninsured ones that won't have EQC cover.

sucks to be a landlord.....how would you feel if your properties were turned into firewood....eqc cover is only 100.000 innit?

[orangeback]

There might however be some good prices on unique character fixer-uppers shortly, thinking about the uninsured ones that won't have EQC cover.
I don't understand how people aren't insured. as if you borrow money for a house you need to have it insured as part of there policy, to get the money, i thought ? and if you didn't your an egg and more certainly a bigger egg if you didn't after the sep Quake.

[98tls]

I don't understand how people aren't insured. as if you borrow money for a house you need to have it insured as part of there policy, to get the money, i thought ? and if you didn't your an egg and more certainly a bigger egg if you didn't after the sep Quake.

About it though if a cash buyer maybe theres nothing to say it has to be insured,if not and they buy a house and dont insure it they have gambled and lost.Tough.

[onearmedbandit]

sucks to be a landlord.....how would you feel if your properties were turned into firewood....eqc cover is only 100.000 innit?

And then your own house insurance kicks in after that.

[FROSTY]

I don't see the problem at all PROVIDED the landlord follows due process.

[neels]

42 days notice and they can move in, which as mentioned is sometimes used to get rid of tenants quicker than the 90 days notice normally required, sux for the tenants though.

I can't see why they'd kick out their tenants to move in though, would make more sense to rent somewhere else and have the insurance pay, and keep the rent coming in on the rental.

Unless of course they had rented out their house and were renting themselves, which is becoming more common for the tax advantages over just living in your own home and paying the mortgage, would mess the books up a bit though.

[mashman]

OP


Try a little humanity. As much as you may scoff. Get yer mate to offer that the owners move in, giving them time to move out. Charge a little less rent, win win. Where's the problem? Everyone is housed and safe. Move from there. Not everyone gets what they want, but at least everyone is catered for :yes: what's so fuckin hard?

[onearmedbandit]

Try a little humanity. As much as you may scoff. Get yer mate to offer that the owners move in, giving them time to move out. Charge a little less rent, win win. Where's the problem? Everyone is housed and safe. Move from there. Not everyone gets what they want, but at least everyone is catered for :yes: what's so fuckin hard?

We don't know the full story but from what we have it sounds like the landlord is trying to force them out, which he legally can't do. If he had approached them in the first instance on some middle ground he might have got some sympathy. But if he's trying to force them out, then fuck him. He provided the property to rent, and therefore has to follow the same laws as the tenant.

[mashman]

We don't know the full story but from what we have it sounds like the landlord is trying to force them out, which he legally can't do. If he had approached them in the first instance on some middle ground he might have got some sympathy. But if he's trying to force them out, then fuck him. He provided the property to rent, and therefore has to follow the same laws as the tenant.

I understand that :yes:. Perhaps the landlord is desperate, perhaps the tenant has been screwing the landlords wife, i care not. There has been an earthquake I believe? Why would you begrudge the landlord living there if he has nowhere else to live? It ain't like he's gonna trash the place, or is a complete stranger... and you will be leaving the property in 42 days... Yeah, the landlord sounds bang out of line, so yeah, this'll teach the guy a lesson :facepalm:

[Yow Ling]

For those who think their landlords are arseholes, consider this . 300k house rented for 300pw thats 15k per year (5% gross) 1500 pa rates , 800 insurance, 1000 maintence , 1200 agent fees leaves 11500, if he has no mortgage he pays around 29% tax leaving about 8K.
if he has a mortgage then he could claim intrest as a cost and run a LAQC, that got canned from 1 april this year,

So for around 3% return he has to put up with all sorts of shit, and when an earthquake strikes and hes kinda homeless, he still has to wait 42 days to move into his own house. Why do we bother? can get 5.55% from the bank pay the tax and have no bother.

[onearmedbandit]

I understand that :yes:. Perhaps the landlord is desperate, perhaps the tenant has been screwing the landlords wife, i care not. There has been an earthquake I believe? Why would you begrudge the landlord living there if he has nowhere else to live? It ain't like he's gonna trash the place, or is a complete stranger... and you will be leaving the property in 42 days... Yeah, the landlord sounds bang out of line, so yeah, this'll teach the guy a lesson :facepalm:

Why would you begrudge him? Because it sounds like the landlord doesn't give a fuck about what happens to his tenants. And he doesn't have to. But he has to follow the law. If this happened to me, I'd inform him that I will start looking for a new place immediately but that I by law have certain rights that he agreed to that allow me to occupy the premises for a set period. Depending on the circumstances I might offer that the landlord move in with us.

Are there not grants or insurance cover available that would provide temporary accommodation for the landlord and his family? It would be more likely that he would have this option than the tenant would (excluding the EQC).

[mashman]

Why would you begrudge him? Because it sounds like the landlord doesn't give a fuck about what happens to his tenants. And he doesn't have to. But he has to follow the law. If this happened to me, I'd inform him that I will start looking for a new place immediately but that I by law have certain rights that he agreed to that allow me to occupy the premises for a set period. Depending on the circumstances I might offer that the landlord move in with us.

Are there not grants or insurance cover available that would provide temporary accommodation for the landlord and his family? It would be more likely that he would have this option than the tenant would (excluding the EQC).


I don't disagree with any of your points, never have, especially the landlord coming across as a cunt... and IF, the landlord has nowhere else to go and his current place is "dodgy", then he probably needs somewhere now, somewhere familiar being favourite (based on trying to kick tenant out ASAP), cunt or not. There is a potential for a win win. I marvel at the attitudes of, I want my property back and fuck off I know my rights. Sounds like they're as bad as each other. Isn't a win win, in times of disaster and constant worry, good enough these days? and just because someone is being a cunt :rofl: pathetic... they'd rather fight over the principle of current "ownership" :facepalm: than help each other out. Where's that kiwi spirit gone? up and vanished like a fart in the wind (tm shawshank).

I'm sure there's plenty of $$$ available, but if there is space at his own place and the tenant would share, then there's less work for the landlord finding somewhere to live (somewhere they will be in 42 days time anyway) and there's a spare property for someone else that may need it. So potentially a win win win win win (last win for less tax $$$ doon the gurgler). But nah, much better to argue the principle :blink:

[BMWST?]

For those who think their landlords are arseholes, consider this . 300k house rented for 300pw thats 15k per year (5% gross) 1500 pa rates , 800 insurance, 1000 maintence , 1200 agent fees leaves 11500, if he has no mortgage he pays around 29% tax leaving about 8K.
if he has a mortgage then he could claim intrest as a cost and run a LAQC, that got canned from 1 april this year,

So for around 3% return he has to put up with all sorts of shit, and when an earthquake strikes and hes kinda homeless, he still has to wait 42 days to move into his own house. Why do we bother? can get 5.55% from the bank pay the tax and have no bother.

because he can sell the house for more than he bought it for..ussually,which is pretty well unheard of with other "investments",ie he makes a modest retuen whilst somoone else buys an asset for him then he has an appreciating asset for ....free really

[marty]

because he can sell the house for more than he bought it for..ussually,which is pretty well unheard of with other "investments"

try selling a house in chch at the moment. or just about anywhere for that matter.

my old house in hamilton that i sold for $200k in 1997 has just come on the market again. for $250k. not exactly a spiffing investment!

friends of mine in new brighton that bought their house 8 years ago for around $250k, now have....nothing.

[Nasty]

For those who think their landlords are arseholes, consider this . 300k house rented for 300pw thats 15k per year (5% gross) 1500 pa rates , 800 insurance, 1000 maintence , 1200 agent fees leaves 11500, if he has no mortgage he pays around 29% tax leaving about 8K.
if he has a mortgage then he could claim intrest as a cost and run a LAQC, that got canned from 1 april this year,

So for around 3% return he has to put up with all sorts of shit, and when an earthquake strikes and hes kinda homeless, he still has to wait 42 days to move into his own house. Why do we bother? can get 5.55% from the bank pay the tax and have no bother.

if you are only getting that amount of return you are not a good investor ... I have managed properties for people and the anticipated return is a min of 6-8 % ... but that aside ... its bloody hard to get rid of a tenant in the first place - if the landlord needs to house his family by getting rid of tenants fine as far as I am concerned as long as its all done legally.

[CookMySock]

Tell him to read finger :yes:

[tigertim20]

given how fucked up things are in christchurch, perhaps all involved can be a little more charitable. shitty situation for everyone. perhaps you 'friend' could share the house with landlord at 1/3 of the rent untill your 'friend' can find another place?

With so many people taking off, Id say many landlords would be quite open to signing a contract for a lease of say 2 years minimum, at an agreed (cheap) price, if it meant getting their house occupied. should be some good deals for living to be had. might be a blessing in disguise for ya mate.

[YellowDog]

It is BOUGHT for fuck's sake, BOUGHT!

(unless you brunged it with you)

Many in CHCH wish they had not ever bought and could get the fark out of there.

Existing house prices of undamaged houses will also be worth sod all.

[onearmedbandit]

perhaps you 'friend' could share the house with landlord at 1/3 of the rent untill your 'friend' can find another place?



Sounds great, if the landlord had started with that option.

[Toaster]

That sucks, but that's what comes with renting.
One of the reasons we finally brought our own home.

Brought it? You live in a campervan do ya?!

[BoristheBiter]

because he can sell the house for more than he bought it for..ussually,which is pretty well unheard of with other "investments",ie he makes a modest retuen whilst somoone else buys an asset for him then he has an appreciating asset for ....free really

but you normally repay 3 times what your morgage was in the first place so if you buy a house for 300k, 20% deposit so you will have to sell it for around 720k to make money.

[sidecar bob]

I guess this is a situation where the golden rule applies. He who has the gold, makes the rules.
If the landlord hadnt got in debt to the eyeballs to create wealth for himself, he wouldnt have any choices about where to live now.

[mashman]

Sounds great, if the landlord had started with that option.

Nice to see the playground attitude is alive and kicking.

[onearmedbandit]

Nice to see the playground attitude is alive and kicking.

He started it Miss!

[Grasshopperus]

So for around 3% return he has to put up with all sorts of shit, and when an earthquake strikes and hes kinda homeless, he still has to wait 42 days to move into his own house. Why do we bother? can get 5.55% from the bank pay the tax and have no bother.

You bother because you stand to make a huge, tax-free, capital gain on the property which you've conveniently chosen to ignore in your calculations. Property prices are ridiculous and in this country such pricing is a self-propagating disease.

"Let's keep buying and selling the same properties back and forth within ourselves and keep increasing the price of them. That'll create tangible wealth" If everyone believes that everyone else's property is valuable then you'll be able to sell some crappy bungalow (or hardytek leaky special) at "market rates". It's like a huge groupwank. Property bubble.

I think we can now officially debunk the 'safe as houses' cliche in NZ

I believe I'm entitled to a +1 from Mashman for this post

[sidecar bob]

You bother because you stand to make a huge, tax-free, capital gain on the property which you've conveniently chosen to ignore in your calculations. Property prices are ridiculous and in this country such pricing is a self-propagating disease.

"Let's keep buying and selling the same properties back and forth within ourselves and keep increasing the price of them. That'll create tangible wealth" If everyone believes that everyone else's property is valuable then you'll be able to sell some crappy bungalow (or hardytek leaky special) at "market rates". It's like a huge groupwank. Property bubble.

I think we can now officially debunk the 'safe as houses' cliche in NZ

I believe I'm entitled to a +1 from Mashman for this post

And along the way, he has to deal with total fucktards that dont pay him any rent, wreck the house & leave a skip load of rubbish about the place & move on.
The tangible wealth comes at a price, if at all.
I guess that its better than sitting on ones arse & hoping the govt will keep them well funded in their retirement though.
Some people arent smart enough to make money any other way, but you cant begrudge them for attempting to be self sufficent later in life.

[Yow Ling]

You bother because you stand to make a huge, tax-free, capital gain on the property which you've conveniently chosen to ignore in your calculations. Property prices are ridiculous and in this country such pricing is a self-propagating disease.

"Let's keep buying and selling the same properties back and forth within ourselves and keep increasing the price of them. That'll create tangible wealth" If everyone believes that everyone else's property is valuable then you'll be able to sell some crappy bungalow (or hardytek leaky special) at "market rates". It's like a huge groupwank. Property bubble.

I think we can now officially debunk the 'safe as houses' cliche in NZ

I believe I'm entitled to a +1 from Mashman for this post

So I guess you rent then ? Gen Y or Z earn lots and broke

[Usarka]

The economist reckons nz house prices are 20% overvalued. Similar to Ireland before....the economy crashed and burned. And they didn't have an earthquake to lend a hand.

I'm just stepping outside, must wear my hardhat.

[mashman]

You bother because you stand to make a huge, tax-free, capital gain on the property which you've conveniently chosen to ignore in your calculations. Property prices are ridiculous and in this country such pricing is a self-propagating disease.

"Let's keep buying and selling the same properties back and forth within ourselves and keep increasing the price of them. That'll create tangible wealth" If everyone believes that everyone else's property is valuable then you'll be able to sell some crappy bungalow (or hardytek leaky special) at "market rates". It's like a huge groupwank. Property bubble.

I think we can now officially debunk the 'safe as houses' cliche in NZ

I believe I'm entitled to a +1 from Mashman for this post

ooo, errrrr, hmmmmm, WTF do i know :)... but def +1 for puntastic cliche busting... that and the perceived wealth of the incoming population pushing prices up.

[Brett]

You bother because you stand to make a huge, tax-free, capital gain on the property which you've conveniently chosen to ignore in your calculations. Property prices are ridiculous and in this country such pricing is a self-propagating disease.

"Let's keep buying and selling the same properties back and forth within ourselves and keep increasing the price of them. That'll create tangible wealth" If everyone believes that everyone else's property is valuable then you'll be able to sell some crappy bungalow (or hardytek leaky special) at "market rates". It's like a huge groupwank. Property bubble.

I think we can now officially debunk the 'safe as houses' cliche in NZ

I believe I'm entitled to a +1 from Mashman for this post

I think NZ has far too much of a focus on investing in property, but the other side of the coin is that I love property (mostly finding land and building/developing new buildings with different architectual styles). HOWEVER...I don't think many in Chch are going to be making much by way of capital gains at present...property prices are going to take a hammering simply due to perceived desireability. (sp?)

[steve_t]

I think NZ has far too much of a focus on investing in property, but the other side of the coin is that I love property (mostly finding land and building/developing new buildings with different architectual styles). HOWEVER...I don't think many in Chch are going to be making much by way of capital gains at present...property prices are going to take a hammering simply due to perceived desireability. (sp?)

The other other side of the coin is that there are fewer habitable houses now. Prices in Chch could go up which is highly likely given the rent hikes being reported. It still depends on supply & demand

[Grasshopperus]

So I guess you rent then ? Gen Y or Z earn lots and broke

No, I own my house, well 50% of it, bank owns the rest. Gen Y thanks for asking.

[orangeback]

got three weeks notice today :bye::angry::angry:

[steve_t]

got three weeks notice today :bye::angry::angry:

Uhh... tell your landlord that you legally need to be given 42 days to leave, not 3 weeks, and that's only if the house is being used by him or for his family. 90 days otherwise.

[imdying]

Uhh... tell your landlord that you legally need to be given 42 days to leave, not 3 weeks, and that's only if the house is being used by him or for his family. 90 days otherwise.IIRC this is the law. IANAL :laugh:

[neels]

Uhh... tell your landlord that you legally need to be given 42 days to leave, not 3 weeks, and that's only if the house is being used by him or for his family. 90 days otherwise.
Unless he is the landlord, in which case the tenant can give him 3 weeks notice that they are leaving.

Not that there should be any problem renting out a house in chch at the moment...

[Flip]

Sure sucks to be a tenant at the moment.

And the government has killed the tax advantages for landlords so few new rentals are going into the rental stock.

Do you know that 70,000 people have left Christchurch and need accommodation in other cities.

I guess the National government will have to invest billions into new rental houses. No I didn't think so either, so I guess rents are going up.