Speaker by Various Artists

and if they have the confidence and the time and the energy, they go to the Tenancy Tribunal

The confidence and the time and the energy is also a huge thing to need when this is a situation in which tenants often rely crucially on former landlords providing good references. There's a clear reason to fear ever being discovered to have taken a landlord to the Tenancy Tribunal, lest it become a disadvantage when looking for somewhere else to live in future. Often the much safer course is to simply shift out and find somewhere else, leaving the landlord to get away with it and treat the next tenants just as illegally.

After a certain amount of experience, we steered clear of property agencies because they'd often turn out to be the less-good landlords. Rather than knowing the law and sticking to it, agencies would often know the law and be fully aware of every part of it they could get away with ignoring and suffer minimal consequences.

Yay, Eli! *waves*

It's lovely to see the cabinet papers referencing the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 as a living document.

Part 1 of the regulations are all good, if delightfully antiquated (regular mention of the privy, or the understandable but now outdated assumption in Clause 6 that a fireplace and chimney will be the standard method of heating). Houses must be fitted with an approved form of heating, be free from dampness, have adequate sanitation facilities etc.

Part 2 is more problematic. While we'd both agree that crowding is Bad for Health, I'm not so keen on it being made the landlord's fault. People crowd because they can't afford to rent enough bedrooms for everyone in the household. Many landlords limit the number of occupants allowed, but those who don't, or who set the limit high, provide those families with somewhere to live, even it's not ideal. I'm not sure that fining the landlord would improve those families' circumstances.

On the plus side, inflation since 1947 means $40 plus $10/day isn't going to sting landlords so much. The Treasury Inflation Calculator tells me $40 in 1947 would be $2898 now (and the $10/day would be $725/day), so it was clearly meant to be a meaningful fine at the time.

There’s a clear reason to fear ever being discovered to have taken a landlord to the Tenancy Tribunal, lest it become a disadvantage when looking for somewhere else to live in future.

I agree entirely. I'd really like to see adjudicators able to rule that so long as a party to a hearing is mostly innocent in the matter, their names be left off the public Tenancy Tribunal (TT) documents. That won't help with the reference of course, but would help when landlords do TT searches on prospective tenants.

This is really great news.

That it is.

I'd really like to see adjudicators able to rule that so long as a party to a hearing is mostly innocent in the matter, their names be left off the public Tenancy Tribunal (TT) documents. That won't help with the reference of course, but would help when landlords do TT searches on prospective tenants.

I hadn't considered that.
We've just moved house, and the former landlady has announced that she wants to make deductions from our bond to compensate her for the time she's spent cleaning a house that she deemed generally fine at the time of final inspection (we didn't deal with the bond at that point because there was some gardening required and a missing key). Aside from being pretty sure she's not allowed to deduct for costs not directly incurred, it's the principle of having spent about 18 hours of person-time cleaning and then being told that, actually, that wasn't sufficient; and no, we did not live in a hazard to health.

Since there's no assurance that our next move will be a purchase, the fact that we challenged her in the Tenancy Tribunal is a publicly-available negative for future landlords is a huge disincentive to stand up to her.

The approach in the UK tends to be to cancel ones rent payment a bit early, such that the outstanding rent exceeds the bond amount.

Matthew, if you can resolve the problem at mediation then you won’t end up in the TT records. I’m afraid she can claim for cleaning costs when she’s done the cleaning herself, and there’s a set rate/hr the TT allows – but if she wants to do so, she needs to demonstrate that the property needed cleaning, so she’ll have to produce photographs showing it hadn’t been left “reasonably clean and … tidy”.

I’m afraid she can claim for cleaning costs when she’s done the cleaning herself, and there’s a set rate/hr the TT allows – but if she wants to do so, she needs to demonstrate that the property needed cleaning, so she’ll have to produce photographs showing it hadn’t been left “reasonably clean and … tidy”.

Ah, bother.
Given that she said she's spent the thick end of three weeks cleaning the place, I don't think there'll be enough bond to cover her claimed costs.
Of course, if it's taken three weeks to clean after we spent 18 hours on it, I'm surprised that she let us stay there for five years!

…the thick end of three weeks cleaning…

Which for some reason reminded me of this…
;- )
This is a job for…

I doubt she’ll be able to claim 3x40hrs cleaning. The place would have to have been an utter pigsty when you left to claim that, which seems unlikely after you’d spent 18 hours cleaning it yourself. The amounts I see awarded at the TT for cleaning are often around $400, but that’s almost invariably in conjunction with other awards for rubbish removal and weeding and so on that suggest the outgoing tenant’s efforts at cleaning had been low to non-existent, and also often when the tenant hasn’t appeared to dispute the matter. Assuming you have at least average housekeeping standards, I think the absolute maximum the TT would be likely to award would be in the region of 10 hours (and more likely much less than that); and the going rate for cleaning by the landlord will be $20 or thereabouts.

Of course, if it's taken three weeks to clean after we spent 18 hours on it, I'm surprised that she let us stay there for five years!

But in those five years fashions have changed, new colours for the season, new kitchen appliances, new carpets, everything up to and sometimes including the kitchen sink.
Repairs and renovations, yeah, sure, they get tax relief on those things but why should that stop them trying to get you to pay. All too common.

It really doesn't surprise me that this Government would introduce measures to "up the game" for landlords, after all, the "market" will sort it out by getting rid of "unprofitable" landlords, like charities and housing associations and letting their mates have their cake.

We've just moved house, and the former landlady has announced that she wants to make deductions from our bond

Things I don't miss about renting #27 in a long list. I don't envy you that.

Does NZ have the semi-secret tenants database(s) that real estate agents maintain? In Oz the problem is not official records, it's getting nasty things in the shared databases used by landlords. I know people who are unable to rent for reasons that seem extremely unlikely (including stories like yours, Matthew). Although interestingly some landlords have access but are easily persuaded by prospective tenants when the property is even slightly hard to let.

I am extremely cheered by the news that remediation could become a requirement.

In Oz we have that everywhere I've been (SA example), and in urgent cases tenants can simply have the work done, pay for it, and deduct the cost from the rent they pay (landlord will be ordered to reimburse any remaining amount if they move out, and I strongly suspect only god would help any landlord who tried to kick tenants out in that situation). I've been through the urgent repairs with a private rental from landlords who treated us like serfs and had to be ordered to pay for a new hot water cylinder (we paid for it and took it out of the rent, which they refused to accept).

Oh, and FWIW, the landlord saying "that's too expensive, I had a mate lined up to do it much cheaper in a few days" was met with "the law gives you 24 hours. Clearly you had no intention of complying with the law. I could fine you for that". I think the landlord failed to impress the tribunal lady.

Not quite the right place to post it - but the punative 'blame the unemployed/disabled' approach the UK conservativers are driving and National are following here is starting to come unstuck - with the admission they are simply telling stories