Proposed changes could “negatively impact” landlords and investors, says the trade body
The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand (REINZ) expressed disappointment in the Select Committee’s report on proposed reforms to the tenancy law, saying that the recommended changes could “negatively impact” landlords and investors.
Among the proposals in the final report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is the removal of a landlord’s right to use “no cause” 90-day terminations to end a periodic tenancy agreements.
Read more: Tenancy law overhaul won't significantly impact investor appetite
According to REINZ, feedback from a “range of property professionals has been disregarded in the final report.”
“Over the last eight months we have made clear our concerns around the fact that should the proposals go ahead – rental property owners will have limited abilities to remove tenants who are causing problems in their rental properties or causing trouble with neighbours,” said Bindi Norwell, chief executive of REINZ.
“There are already provisions in place to protect tenants who believe a ‘no-cause’ termination is retaliatory. Landlords who misuse this provision can currently be ordered to pay damages of up to $4,000. So, we don’t believe the current situation needs to change – our preferred approach was for higher exemplary damages for landlords who abuse no-cause terminations. This would be much more affordable for the government to implement, would require less education of landlords and property managers and wouldn’t add to the already significant backlog of tenancy tribunal cases.”
According to Norwell, a survey found that most respondents (63.1%) disagreed with the proposal.
“Breaking the results down, nearly three quarters (71.4%) of landlords/investors didn’t agree with the proposed changes, 21.2% agreed and 7.4% were unsure,” said Norwell.
“From a tenant perspective, more than half (61.5%) agreed with the proposal, yet more than a quarter (27.2%) disagreed with the change; the remaining 11.4% were undecided.”
Norwell said that it seems “at odds with the purpose of industry consultation that the Government would go out and consult on its proposals, and that feedback from a range of organisations and industry professionals, including those who deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis, has not been addressed.”
