Tuesday, July 31, 2012

What can I do if a tenant commits a breach in a fixed term tenancy?

If the tenant is in a fixed term tenancy and they breach their agreement, do we need to keep them until the end?

No matter whether tenants are on a fixed term or periodic tenancy, if they have breached the agreement there can be steps taken to resolve the issue, including eviction if needed.  The only difference is under a periodic tenancy a tenant can be given 90-days-notice-to-vacate without a reason given.  We feel if a tenancy has been unsatisfactory enough to terminate, the provisions of eviction under the Residential Tenancies Act are preferable to issuing a 90-day-notice-to-vacate.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

A dog for every hole?

What is 'below average'?

I’ve been doing a large number of rental appraisals, and recently was asked to view a property in Lower Hutt which was, ahem, below average.   It and it’s neighbor were both in a serious need of repainting, not to mention the rot in the exterior boards including a windowsill which had been repaired with tin.  The front ‘yard’ was concrete and filled with left-over bits and pieces, some weedy garden boxes, bonnets and other panels of cars, moss and slime.  The front door knob and lock had recently been replaced (the last tenants didn't return the keys), but daylight showed around the handle as it didn’t quite fit the hole.  Inside the picture wasn’t much better.  Cobwebs, dirty splattered carpet and walls, bits and pieces from the last tenants, including towels in the bathroom, a filthy toilet… you get the idea.  There was an open fire there, but the landlord said ‘I just tell tenants not to use it as I’m not sure if it is safe’.  I’d bet a dollar it wasn’t safe.  Why it wasn’t checked out or blocked up is beyond me.  If someone is cold, they’ll risk using the fire, safe or no. 

Building code, what building code?

The backyard featured more concrete and a shed constructed by some long ago tenant and used as an extra bedroom over the years.  It wasn’t to building code, needless to say.  The rent was about $100 per week less than it would have been if some really basic cosmetic stuff was deal with (i.e. clean up and chuck out the rubbish, put drapes back on the tracks), and then get a good deal on insulation and heat pump, and hell, maybe splash some paint around, particularly on the street frontage.  The landlord told me ‘it costs too much to do the clean-up.  I just tell the new tenants they can have the first week free if they clean the place up’.  I reckon it costs less to clean it than a weeks rent, and the additional rent by improving the property would pay it back in no time, the rest is then gravy.

Background checks are for wimps!

Obviously they haven’t heard that providing a property ‘reasonably clean and tidy’ is a requirement of the Act, and besides, any tenants who wanted to move into it in that state would not be the kind to do a great tidy up, and leave it tidy themselves, so perpetuating the problem.  How many free weeks do they want to give away?  The landlord went on to tell me that he doesn’t do background checks, because ‘if they can stomp up with the bond, and they seem OK, then they’ll be good enough’.  I hear drug dealers and pimps are pretty flush with cash, but hey, what would I know?  I do background checks and I don’t seem to get those kinds in our properties.

It's never cheaper than now.

I left the property smiling, glad that there are properties like these to take the tenants I won’t take.  I feel sad for the property owner though, they’re missing out on thousands of dollars every year, and getting bad tenants damaging their property to boot.  It’s never going to be cheaper to fix the issues there because they will just get worse in time.  If their plan is to sell the property at land value, then fine, they should keep improvements to a minimum.  However, every human being deserves a clean home.  Thank goodness they were only wanting dogs.