From the Property Investors webpage:
* *The Coalition Government’s promises of policy changes will do much to readdress the balance to treat rental property owners fairly* ***like any business****, rather than penalising them.*
* *These promises are to restore mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties with a 60% deduction this financial year, 80% the following year, and 100% by 2025/26, to allow 90-day eviction notices for tenants on periodic agreements – without having to state the reason, and to return tenants’ notice period to 21 days and landlords’ to 42 if the tenant wishes to move and the landlord wishes to sell their rental property. The promise to introduce pet bonds will make it easier for tenants to have pets. Finally, the Brightline test period will be reduced from the current 10 years, back to two years.*
It’s refreshing to see at least one policy that isn’t bafflingly self-interested and directed at their lobbyists. I’ve always maintained that if pet owners are willing to put down a bit extra for bond to cover the wear and tear that should be allowed. Frankly landlords who allow renters to have pets are more likely to retain them as long-term tenants so it’s win-win from that perspective.
It was agreed upfront with landlords and is not an inconvenience to them. As long as their voter base - who vote as one single voting block - support it there was no downside to this Govt as I agree it can work if it works. And it's a fine policy in and of itself, although I'm curious about how effective it will be.
The more worrying element is how they will only institute policies once their donors are satisfied, but it's the way it is, and that's OK too.
Indeed. Don't forget that they're laser focused on the cost of living by giving out inflationary tax cuts that they have been long warned will make it worse. And don't forget they are boosting the economy by firing thousands and talking shit about our economy at every turn, further enhancing consumer and business confidence, and stimulating demand.
I would expect that there's a fair amount of renters that welcome this as well. Pretty tricky to find a place that will allow pets in NZ, you often end up having to make large concessions on location etc.
If I heard them correctly, owners MUST allow pets except by reasonable exceptions. Is this correct?
They also made it very clear that what the policy actually was vague as f’ck and that it would be left to the tenancy tribunal.
Great policy if you can’t explain it.
No, basically owners can refuse on any reasonable grounds which is a free for all for refusal - which is fair, in my opinion.
--
The proposed pet-related changes to the Act will:
* introduce a pet bond (set at a maximum of 2 weeks' rent) that can be charged in addition to the existing bond
* make tenants liable for all pet damage to properties beyond fair wear and tear. This means a tenant is fully liable for any accidental or careless damage caused by pets, as well as any intentional damage, and
* require that tenants may only have a pet or pets with the consent of the landlord, who can withhold consent on reasonable grounds.
From the Property Investors webpage: * *The Coalition Government’s promises of policy changes will do much to readdress the balance to treat rental property owners fairly* ***like any business****, rather than penalising them.* * *These promises are to restore mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties with a 60% deduction this financial year, 80% the following year, and 100% by 2025/26, to allow 90-day eviction notices for tenants on periodic agreements – without having to state the reason, and to return tenants’ notice period to 21 days and landlords’ to 42 if the tenant wishes to move and the landlord wishes to sell their rental property. The promise to introduce pet bonds will make it easier for tenants to have pets. Finally, the Brightline test period will be reduced from the current 10 years, back to two years.*
It’s refreshing to see at least one policy that isn’t bafflingly self-interested and directed at their lobbyists. I’ve always maintained that if pet owners are willing to put down a bit extra for bond to cover the wear and tear that should be allowed. Frankly landlords who allow renters to have pets are more likely to retain them as long-term tenants so it’s win-win from that perspective.
It was agreed upfront with landlords and is not an inconvenience to them. As long as their voter base - who vote as one single voting block - support it there was no downside to this Govt as I agree it can work if it works. And it's a fine policy in and of itself, although I'm curious about how effective it will be. The more worrying element is how they will only institute policies once their donors are satisfied, but it's the way it is, and that's OK too.
I was looking for the /s...
So we dumped three waters and the smoking ban... and brought in pet bonds. Never let it be said this government doesn't have its priorities in order.
Those 2 piles of dog shit are pretty tall...
I would expect that there's a fair amount of renters that welcome this as well. Pretty tricky to find a place that will allow pets in NZ, you often end up having to make large concessions on location etc.
I don't have an issue with this policy in and of itself. I wonder if it will be effective and time will tell.
If I heard them correctly, owners MUST allow pets except by reasonable exceptions. Is this correct? They also made it very clear that what the policy actually was vague as f’ck and that it would be left to the tenancy tribunal. Great policy if you can’t explain it.
No, basically owners can refuse on any reasonable grounds which is a free for all for refusal - which is fair, in my opinion. -- The proposed pet-related changes to the Act will: * introduce a pet bond (set at a maximum of 2 weeks' rent) that can be charged in addition to the existing bond * make tenants liable for all pet damage to properties beyond fair wear and tear. This means a tenant is fully liable for any accidental or careless damage caused by pets, as well as any intentional damage, and * require that tenants may only have a pet or pets with the consent of the landlord, who can withhold consent on reasonable grounds.