News
RTA changes swing favour towards landlords
Tuesday 24th of February 2009
Kevin Reilly, Manawatu Tenants Union co-ordinator, believes National is giving “more power to the landlords” if:
- Damages are not limited to the amount of bond paid by tenants
- Letting fees fail to be removed
- Funding of tenants’ advocates is slashed.
In relation to damages, both Reilly and Gatonyi believe very few tenants intentionally damage their rental properties.
“What happens is that in the course of normal living they sometimes have an accident. In these cases the proposed amendment to limit the liability of a tenant to the equivalent of four weeks’ bond recognised this,” says Gatonyi.
The two tenant groups also favour the advocacy provisions in the original changes proposed by Labour.
Gatonyi says advocates provide a real answer in helping to address the imbalance of power between landlords and tenants, and in particular between professional property managers and tenants.
“When things go wrong, they really go wrong. A good advocate can help things get on track very quickly, working both with the tenant and the landlord,” she says.
Gatonyi and Reilly also believe advocates would save taxpayer money by keeping cases out of the Tenancy Tribunal.
Reilly argues that tenants fund the tribunal and bond office through payment of bonds and that some of that money should be used to fund advocates.
“Currently there is $5.5 million to $6 million in unclaimed bonds. That could be used to pay tenants’ advocates.”
He is also firmly against letting fees being charged to tenants and believes landlords should pay them.
Want to read the full article?
Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.
You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.
Latest News
Latest Comments
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
Paul Flood: The danger is that the 'goalposts' (regarding what is acceptable or unacceptable adviser conduct) may be susceptible to change. Our 'Principles based' legal/regulatory environment lends itself to “prevalence-induced concept change” over time, perhaps not so much in the written laws and Code, as in the interpretation of the prescribed principles.
13 hours ago Steve Wright
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
Just a tip, if you use more than six, six letter words in a sentence you lose most Kiwi's. So avoid client/adviser confusion when writing your post or article if you would like it read and understood.
Ironically, my last sentence was not likely read.
15 hours ago Backstage
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
All things said are great aspirational goals for a great financial advice industry, it mirrors what both the legislation and the code requires.
However, like most things discussed it talks about what's expected not how it's done. The hardest aspect of financial advice today isn't what it is, it is how it is done.
The how only comes from those that have done it, the how is only provided with examples. Guidance documents that spell out what's required along side how it it done.
We’re still dealing with the same issues we started with in 2021, figuring out the how. And figuring out the how in every advice business is consuming resources that could easily be shortcut by the FMA demonstrating what they are expecting.
It's not about “do it this way” its about this is the sorts of things we’re looking for.
In the absence of standards and expectations, guesswork prevails. That represents significant risk to FAPs and the result is onerous overcooked advice processes for multiple advice operations and undercooked she’ll be right for single operators focused on getting the work done.
Both approaches have potential for harm and as its been said earlier, leaves advisers open to explain they haven't been speeding with the authorities have pulled them over.
The advice industry needs guidance on the how we know the what already.
2 days ago Jon-Paul Hale
Who is responsible for notifying policy changes?
Sticking an oar in, while we have “service” requirements the expectation that an adviser is responsible for discussing said change is relying heavily on assumption.
1. That the client hasn't moved and contact details haven't been updated. It happens more often than many think.
2. It assumes there is a servicing agreement in place to provide service. Remember the requirement is to scope service not provide it. A client deciding to have ad-hoc service on their request is a legally valid position to have.
3. If there is a service agreement that's realistic to what is expected, how long does the adviser push the issue to have the discussion before moving on with everything else they have to do? Again, a point that is not clear in the guidance to date.
The challenge of the present rules is the adviser is responsible for ensuring the client understands the advice provided.
How do you ensure you're covering this if a client doesn't engage despite genuine attempts to manage it?
There's still a lot of “what if’s” in this whole are we’re only going to have clarity on once someone is taken to task about it.
But first we need to have clarity on what ongoing service actually is, because right now demonstrated by the direct providers a letter once per year with a please call if you want to discuss is the current minimum…
2 days ago Jon-Paul Hale
FMA outlines its latest expectations for advisers
To correct errors in my previous post: "policies, templates, and controls" should read "policies, processes, systems and controls", and "is more conductive" should read "is more conducive".
3 days ago Paul Flood