"Scumlord"

[Lilith7]

Sounds just charming; insisting on 'tenants who vote National'




https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-...risis-hero


"Bennett says his rentals are often the cheapest on the market, and it isn’t realistic for the Government to expect his “entry level homes” to be “four or five star” quality.

“They’re [MBIE] going on about vulnerability like I'm forcing people to live in these homes.”

However, his former property manager, former tenants and a previous Tenancy Tribunal ruling say the properties were neglected, and Bennett played a crucial role in that.

Liz Ranger, owner-operator of the now-defunct QCPM, was once family friends with Bennett.

“Lee Bennett needs to be shut down,” she says.

Another former tenant, Teryn Powell, also went to the Tenancy Tribunal in 2020 with complaints about disrepair and Bennett.

Powell says Bennett was pleasant, even “lovely”, when her tenancy began, but as problems persisted the relationship soured.

Powell went without consistent hot water for more than two months, forcing her and her toddler to shower at her parent’s house.

When she suggested a rent reduction or compensation, Bennett “laughed in my face”, she says.

While Bennett sees his rentals – now fewer than 40 – as helping those who can’t afford to live elsewhere, Ranger believes it means Bennett has got away with not acting on issues, because his vulnerable tenants wouldn't complain.

Lack of repairs and misleading information

Ranger says she sometimes instructed tenants to issue her a 14-day notice to get work done in a timely and professional manner.

She says if she hired an external contractor to progress necessary repairs, she’d get an “abusive” call from Bennett. “He’d say ‘you’re bankrupting me’.”

[SueDonim]

If the headline implies that the landlord was scum he'd probably have a good case for defamation, but in fact in normal English it means that he is the lord of the scum - ie it's his tenants that are the scum.

Seriously, it does sound like he's a smartarse, but Stuff never let the truth get in the way of a good story so who knows? He has clearly had some awards against him, but the examples given are all small. Taking one example...

"Powell went without consistent hot water for more than two months, forcing her and her toddler to shower at her parent’s house... [snip]...Bennett tried to fix it himself by installing a replacement gas heater that provides hot water when needed. Texts from Bennett, supplied to the tribunal, said he had a background as a gas installer, but did not hold a current registration. Bennett, who did not attend the tribunal hearing, says he only “investigated” the issue and hired someone else to fix it."

Did he totally ignore the problem for two months? Or did he spend two months trying to sort out an intermittent problem without success? The kind that the electrician says "not electrical" and the plumber says "not plumbing" and the tenant and landlord are both stuck between a rock and a hard place. And by deciding to go for the gas option (which is better anyway) he might then have had to wait weeks for the gasfitter so tried to do what he could himself. That's a very likely scenario that Stuff would conveniently leave out. It does say that the Tribunal awarded against him, but that's always something to take with a grain of salt too. The bottom line is that the stories in the article create more questions than answers.

[zqwerty]

Surely it's a play on the word slumlord.

[Zurdo]

He sounds like a landlord, maybe one of many, in my town, he owns over 50 rentals...although when there was a sniff of Capital Gains Tax, he dumped 2 or 3 in my street, maybe others too. They are all worse than the Government rentals, he only does minimal repairs, only just pass any inspection...so all good. (one of my kids had one of his rentals, no complaints, but no insulations, no heatpump, etc, etc.) A service to the community I expect....

[SueDonim]

Surely it's a play on the word slumlord.

I have no doubt that it is, but it reverses the meaning. He might be a slumlord but the article actually doesn't demonstrate that he is and these days if he was, he would be getting hit far harder than the awards shown in the article. He indicated that he both keeps it cheap to provide cheap rent, but has also spent big dollars on renovations. So possibly working towards full compliance as required. Until July 2024 many of the new rules still only kick in after a change in tenant.

---

He sounds like a landlord, maybe one of many, in my town, he owns over 50 rentals...although when there was a sniff of Capital Gains Tax, he dumped 2 or 3 in my street, maybe others too. They are all worse than the Government rentals, he only does minimal repairs, only just pass any inspection...so all good. (one of my kids had one of his rentals, no complaints, but no insulations, no heatpump, etc, etc.) A service to the community I expect....

Capital gains tax is only a factor when you sell. Rental investors don't usually sell, although in a large portfolio selling a few might clear debt and the height of the pricing was probably a good time to do that. Other than that, investors don't sell and won't be affected by CGT.

Insulation did have to be done by 2021 but heatpumps (or equivalent) are only mandatory for new tenancies at the moment.

[king1]

I’m here to solve the housing crisis

he thinks he's doing the world a favour, so the rules shouldn't apply to him...  a whiff of entitlement

[SueDonim]

I’m here to solve the housing crisis

he thinks he's doing the world a favour, so the rules shouldn't apply to him...  a whiff of entitlement

Or maybe thinks that a lot of the housing crisis has been caused/contributed to by draconian rules, some of which are pretty ridiculous and should never have been applied.

[Lilith7]

I’m here to solve the housing crisis

he thinks he's doing the world a favour, so the rules shouldn't apply to him...  a whiff of entitlement

Exactly.

I think the point is that things should never have been allowed to get to such a state & its something which should be addressed fairly swiftly.

[king1]

he thinks he's doing the world a favour, so the rules shouldn't apply to him...  a whiff of entitlement

Or maybe thinks that a lot of the housing crisis has been caused/contributed to by draconian rules, some of which are pretty ridiculous and should never have been applied.

Rules are always draconian/ridiculous/[insert adjective of choice] to those that don't agree with them... hence, entitlement.

[SueDonim]

Or maybe thinks that a lot of the housing crisis has been caused/contributed to by draconian rules, some of which are pretty ridiculous and should never have been applied.

Rules are always draconian/ridiculous/[insert adjective of choice] to those that don't agree with them... hence, entitlement.

There are those who don't know the industry/business [insert word of choice] who disagree for no good reason, and there are those who do know the industry/business who make submissions to tell the government what is wrong with its plans and why they are bad/won't work. The government goes ahead anyway (because most of them don't understand the industry) and the people affected tend to continue to disagree, especially when the results they forewarned come about.

[Zurdo]

I think that's true with most things - pick a subject. A car dealer selling dodgy cheap cars, exactly the same situation, they are getting the poor into vehicles, there are problems, customers complain, the dealers are being picked on...they just want to make money, give us a break !

[king1]

Rules are always draconian/ridiculous/[insert adjective of choice] to those that don't agree with them... hence, entitlement.

There are those who don't know the industry/business [insert word of choice] who disagree for no good reason, and there are those who do know the industry/business who make submissions to tell the government what is wrong with its plans and why they are bad/won't work. The government goes ahead anyway (because most of them don't understand the industry) and the people affected tend to continue to disagree, especially when the results they forewarned come about.

that's kind of irrelevant really, even if the forewarned issues do occur - you've simply done your civic duty by making submissions and can feel good about that.  But it does not entitle anyone to disregard the rule of law as it is then set in legislation, simply because they disagree(d).

[king1]

I think that's true with most things - pick a subject.  A car dealer selling dodgy cheap cars, exactly the same situation, they are getting the poor into vehicles, there are problems, customers complain, the dealers are being picked on...they just want to make money, give us a break !

Should a car dealer really be selling dodgy cheap cars...

[SueDonim]

I think that's true with most things - pick a subject.  A car dealer selling dodgy cheap cars, exactly the same situation, they are getting the poor into vehicles, there are problems, customers complain, the dealers are being picked on...they just want to make money, give us a break !

Same old generalisation. Some car dealers sell dodgy cheap cars. Others sell good cheap cars so that people who can't afford or don't wish to buy a new one get to have a car. Why shouldn't they make a living if they are doing what they do with honesty and integrity? Just like landlords. Give us a break!!!!!!!!!!!

---

There are those who don't know the industry/business [insert word of choice] who disagree for no good reason, and there are those who do know the industry/business who make submissions to tell the government what is wrong with its plans and why they are bad/won't work. The government goes ahead anyway (because most of them don't understand the industry) and the people affected tend to continue to disagree, especially when the results they forewarned come about.

that's kind of irrelevant really, even if the forewarned issues do occur - you've simply done your civic duty by making submissions and can feel good about that.  But it does not entitle anyone to disregard the rule of law as it is then set in legislation, simply because they disagree(d).

I didn't say anyone should disregard the law. You complained about people with a sense of entitlement. I complained about people who feel entitled to an opinion when they don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion and the fact that some of those people are lawmakers who ignore the information they are given. And from the OP's first post, the article doesn't actually show that the landlord in question has done anything really wrong. He has clearly been up for a few minor transgressions but it sounds like they were more getting caught by circumstance than deliberate.

[king1]

I think that's true with most things - pick a subject.  A car dealer selling dodgy cheap cars, exactly the same situation, they are getting the poor into vehicles, there are problems, customers complain, the dealers are being picked on...they just want to make money, give us a break !

Same old generalisation. Some car dealers sell dodgy cheap cars. Others sell good cheap cars so that people who can't afford or don't wish to buy a new one get to have a car. Why shouldn't they make a living if they are doing what they do with honesty and integrity? Just like landlords. Give us a break!!!!!!!!!!

so how do we feel about the landlord in question who doesn't seem to be behaving with honesty and integrity?

[SueDonim]

Same old generalisation. Some car dealers sell dodgy cheap cars. Others sell good cheap cars so that people who can't afford or don't wish to buy a new one get to have a car. Why shouldn't they make a living if they are doing what they do with honesty and integrity? Just like landlords. Give us a break!!!!!!!!!!

so how do we feel about the landlord in question who doesn't seem to be behaving with honesty and integrity?

My whole point is that we don't know how he is behaving. Stuff doesn't present a balanced view and I gave an example of how the "story" presented might have panned out in reality. He might be a bad landlord. Or he might be someone who is working through what he needs to do on the houses and leaving the sitting tenants on cheap rent in the houses that haven't been brought up to standard. If he was flagrantly ignoring the legal requirements he would have had a lot more fines than the few that are quoted. Like I said above, the insulation needs to have been completed by now, but most of the rest of the stuff can stay as is until next July unless the tenant changes. So he can work on one house at a time as the tenants turn over, and the sitting tenants can benefit from cheap rent in the meantime.

[king1]

that's kind of irrelevant really, even if the forewarned issues do occur - you've simply done your civic duty by making submissions and can feel good about that.  But it does not entitle anyone to disregard the rule of law as it is then set in legislation, simply because they disagree(d).

I didn't say anyone should disregard the law. You complained about people with a sense of entitlement. I complained about people who feel entitled to an opinion when they don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion and the fact that some of those people are lawmakers who ignore the information they are given. And from the OP's first post, the article doesn't actually show that the landlord in question has done anything really wrong. He has clearly been up for a few minor transgressions but it sounds like they were more getting caught by circumstance than deliberate.

Lawmakers need to take into account the views of various different stakeholders and are legally required to make the best decisions for all, not just a single stakeholder...  The entitlement clearly comes from not wanting to accept the decisions and policies of aforementioned lawmakers, basically thinking they know better.  But as I alluded to, the big picture is where the lawmakers work. I know though, it is difficult to accept if they don't take on board your perspective.

[king1]

so how do we feel about the landlord in question who doesn't seem to be behaving with honesty and integrity?

My whole point is that we don't know how he is behaving. Stuff doesn't present a balanced view and I gave an example of how the "story" presented might have panned out in reality. He might be a bad landlord. Or he might be someone who is working through what he needs to do on the houses and leaving the sitting tenants on cheap rent in the houses that haven't been brought up to standard. If he was flagrantly ignoring the legal requirements he would have had a lot more fines than the few that are quoted. Like I said above, the insulation needs to have been completed by now, but most of the rest of the stuff can stay as is until next July unless the tenant changes. So he can work on one house at a time as the tenants turn over, and the sitting tenants can benefit from cheap rent in the meantime.

The two months without consistent hot water is somewhat suggestive...

[Lilith7]

Perhaps we should simply address the issue with a few new laws to prevent exploitation.

There are some excellent landlords out there doing the best they can in difficult times & any new measures needn't affect them - just the absolute ratbag landlords.

[SueDonim]

My whole point is that we don't know how he is behaving. Stuff doesn't present a balanced view and I gave an example of how the "story" presented might have panned out in reality. He might be a bad landlord. Or he might be someone who is working through what he needs to do on the houses and leaving the sitting tenants on cheap rent in the houses that haven't been brought up to standard. If he was flagrantly ignoring the legal requirements he would have had a lot more fines than the few that are quoted. Like I said above, the insulation needs to have been completed by now, but most of the rest of the stuff can stay as is until next July unless the tenant changes. So he can work on one house at a time as the tenants turn over, and the sitting tenants can benefit from cheap rent in the meantime.

The two months without consistent hot water is somewhat suggestive...

What does "consistent" mean? Stuff doesn't tell us.
To what extent did it not work? Off once a month, once a week or once a day? Stuff doesn't tell us.
What did the landlord do when the problem was reported? Contact a tradesman? Did the tradesman come in a timely fashion or was the landlord also a victim of being messed about?
And so on.

My main point at the outset is about taking articles like these with a huge grain of salt. Did Stuff make any attempt to provide the other side of the story? Did Stuff seek out the evidence to ensure that what they were printing was factual? This forum has had a lot of discussion about critical analysis of what can be read online. The concepts don't just apply to CTs on the fringe. People need to learn to be critical and check whatever they read if they are going to give credence to it.

---

Perhaps we should simply address the issue with a few new laws to prevent exploitation.

There are some excellent landlords out there  doing the best they can in difficult times & any new measures needn't affect them - just the absolute ratbag landlords.

The last thing we need is new laws. So much of today's problems have come about because there were too many new laws that have caused price hikes and rental shortages as owners have coped with the expenses that were thrown at them. Ratbag landlords are already taken care of through the Tenancy Tribunal.

The "woe is me" stories you see in the press always have another side. Look up the evidence on some and you may find a totally different perspective.

---

Lawmakers need to take into account the views of various different stakeholders and are legally required to make the best decisions for all, not just a single stakeholder...  The entitlement clearly comes from not wanting to accept the decisions and policies of aforementioned lawmakers, basically thinking they know better.  But as I alluded to, the big picture is where the lawmakers work.  I know though, it is difficult to accept if they don't take on board your perspective.

Yes, the lawmakers are required to make the best decisions for all, and that is where they fail so woefully. The vocal idiocy get listened to, the professionals who put forward quality best practice evidence and technical detail get ignored so legislation gets passed that ends up costing everyone unnecessarily.