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

**orangeback** · 5th March 2011, 22:54

Originally Posted by Flip

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** · 5th March 2011, 23:06

Originally Posted by orangeback

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** · 5th March 2011, 23:16

Originally Posted by BMWST?

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:Me** · 6th March 2011, 13:01

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

**neels** · 6th March 2011, 15:29

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** · 6th March 2011, 15:39

Originally Posted by orangeback

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

what's so fuckin hard?

**onearmedbandit** · 6th March 2011, 15:46

Originally Posted by mashman

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

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** · 6th March 2011, 15:55

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

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

. 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

**Yow Ling** · 6th March 2011, 16:07

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** · 6th March 2011, 16:10

Originally Posted by mashman

I understand that

. 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

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** · 6th March 2011, 17:57

Originally Posted by onearmedbandit

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

pathetic... they'd rather fight over the principle of current "ownership"

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

**BMWST?** · 6th March 2011, 18:05

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 6th March 2011, 18:09

Originally Posted by BMWST?

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** · 6th March 2011, 18:36

Originally Posted by 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.

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.