"Scumlord"

[Zurdo]

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.

''Sometimes my brakes don't work.'' It doesn't matter how consistent her hot water was, that fact that sometimes she didn't have hot water is the most important. A basic 21st Century human right in the western world. She needs hot water, end of story. If your brakes don't work sometimes, it's a very serious problem....sometimes.

[Lilith7]

I think its blindingly obvious that there are always going to be some ratbag landlords & some ratbag tenants but when landlords are able to easily exploit people to this extent then something needs to change - & quickly.

[king1]

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.

Look the bloke has had judgements against him in the tenancy tribunal and is subject to an investigation by MBIE.

you can call it a conspiracy against landlords if you like, but I think everyone else can see these particular circumstances are well past the point where Stuff needs to provide evidence and everyone else needs to do some critical analysis about perceived bias in the article. 
 
Enough red flags have obviously been raised to warrant an investigation into his practices - the system is working as it should

[SueDonim]

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.

''Sometimes my brakes don't work.''  It doesn't matter how consistent her hot water was, that fact that sometimes she didn't have hot water is the most important.  A basic 21st Century human right in the western world. She needs hot water, end of story.  If your brakes don't work sometimes, it's a very serious problem....sometimes.

Your analogy is not quite the same (faulty brakes can kill you, faulty hotwater is a pain but not lethal) but maybe a car analogy is what people will understand. Many people have been through the situation where the car has a fault, the mechanic thinks it's fixed but it pops up again. And again. In the case of the hot water problem, we do not know what the landlord did to try to remedy it, only that he eventually installed a new one and is in the shit because he wasn't qualified to do that. So evidence of being a smartarse? Or a man at his wits end trying to fix this thing that he can't get a tradie to come to in a timely manner to do what's needed and just wants to get it sorted for his tenant? We don't know because Stuff doesn't tell us.

---

I think its blindingly obvious that there are always going to be some ratbag landlords & some ratbag tenants but when landlords are able to easily exploit people to this extent then something needs to change - & quickly.

Yes, there are ratbag landlords and ratbag tenants and there are processes to help both sides when things go wrong. Processes that tend to favour tenants simply because awards are made against people who cannot or will not pay. Exploitation goes both ways but I think overall it is landlords who are exploited more. That's not really relevant to the point I was trying to make about the article --- Stuff does not let the truth get in the way of a good story and these articles should be taken with a grain of salt.

[SueDonim]

Look the bloke has had judgements against him in the tenancy tribunal and is subject to an investigation by MBIE.

you can call it a conspiracy against landlords if you like, but I think everyone else can see these particular circumstances are well past the point where Stuff needs to provide evidence and everyone else needs to do some critical analysis about perceived bias in the article. 
 
Enough red flags have obviously been raised to warrant an investigation into his practices - the system is working as it should

What you and others here are saying is that you believe what is in the article, even though I brought up doubts because I've seen Stuff's previous unbalanced reporting of this kind.

I got curious enough to see whether my gut mistrust of the article was right and did a bit of digging - all resources freely available on the internet. I think I was more right than wrong. Maybe the landlord is a smartarse or maybe he's just become the scapegoat. What was clear is that Stuff conveniently failed to mention that the tenant who was awarded the $2400 had a higher award made against her and had to pay the landlord the, albeit small, difference. If Stuff didn't know that then they failed the most basic fact checking so either way are responsible for the lack of balance. What else I found was other awards against some of the names in the article and very little against the landlord. To make a comparison, you don't call a driver a dangerous driver because they got a parking ticket. You shouldn't call a landlord a bad landlord/person because they have sometimes got things wrong.

For the Herald* article I linked to above, I also checked further on that and found that the landlord seems to have had a run of bad tenants and can quite understand that they might just be at the end of their tether. I don't necessarily think the Herald is great either (their claim to be the "best journalism" in their beg for subscriptions makes me cringe every time I see it) but they do provide a lot better balance than Stuff. And in this case the facts that I checked stacked up.

The "conspiracy against landlords" is only a part of left wing politics and was not what this was about. My point was always that some elements of the media can't be trusted and the Stuff article was an example of imbalance. Elsewhere on this forum threads have tried to push people away from fringe disinformation and lead them to evidence. This was another example.

The idea that tenants are always vulnerable and must be protected is entirely wrong. Some tenants, and some landlords, are vulnerable. Most are not. And most have good professional relationships with each other. Imbalanced articles on Stuff and anywhere else in the media don't do anyone any favours.

*ADDED. When I looked back a whole paragraph has disappeared from one of the replies above. The Herald article is https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northland-age...7YJCXG7BM/.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Since joining the farcebook group dedicated to tenants I continue to be gobsmacked by some of the things people are doing to other people out there in renter land. The Stuff stuff is the tip of a much bigger iceberg. And of course there are useless tenants as well, that goes without saying. But these stories make me aware of just how lucky I am to have the lot I pay rent to. They may be several pounds of commonsense short of normal, you get that in corporates,  but at least they are well meaning and we have security.

So many just don't. And really, as a civilised nation we ought to be doing something about that. After all, shouldn't decent safe housing be a human right?

[SueDonim]

Since joining the farcebook group dedicated to tenants I continue to be gobsmacked by some of the things people are doing to other people out there in renter land. The Stuff stuff is the tip of a much bigger iceberg. And of course there are useless tenants as well, that goes without saying. But these stories make me aware of just how lucky I am to have the lot I pay rent to. They may be several pounds of commonsense short of normal, you get that in corporates,  but at least they are well meaning and we have security.

So many just don't. And really, as a civilised nation we ought to be doing something about that. After all, shouldn't decent safe housing be a human right?

"I continue to be gobsmacked by some of the things people are doing to other people"

As someone whose DH spent many many years doing the repairs and renovations on other people's rentals, and who now also has a few of our own, I continue to be gobsmacked by some of the things tenants do to their landlords and the houses they live in. And see landlords trying to do a good job, only to have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to fix what delinquent tenants have done to them. We haven't had any huge problems ourselves but have seen the worst case scenarios in DH's customers' experiences. Landlords who are good people trying to earn a living in an important service.

Elsewhere there's a thread about how many houses is too many per landlord. I'm still waiting to see someone come up with a sensible number, or even real reply. Meanwhile, the more I think about it the more I think it's how many houses does a landlord need to have before they know what they are doing. Some of the biggest landlord problems are out of ignorance. People who buy or are bequeathed a house and think they can make huge amounts of money without realising what is involved.

[king1]

Look the bloke has had judgements against him in the tenancy tribunal and is subject to an investigation by MBIE.

you can call it a conspiracy against landlords if you like, but I think everyone else can see these particular circumstances are well past the point where Stuff needs to provide evidence and everyone else needs to do some critical analysis about perceived bias in the article. 
 
Enough red flags have obviously been raised to warrant an investigation into his practices - the system is working as it should

What you and others here are saying is that you believe what is in the article, even though I brought up doubts because I've seen Stuff's previous unbalanced reporting of this kind.

I got curious enough to see whether my gut mistrust of the article was right and did a bit of digging - all resources freely available on the internet. I think I was more right than wrong. Maybe the landlord is a smartarse or maybe he's just become the scapegoat. What was clear is that Stuff conveniently failed to mention that the tenant who was awarded the $2400 had a higher award made against her and had to pay the landlord the, albeit small, difference. If Stuff didn't know that then they failed the most basic fact checking so either way are responsible for the lack of balance. What else I found was other awards against some of the names in the article and very little against the landlord. To make a comparison, you don't call a driver a dangerous driver because they got a parking ticket. You shouldn't call a landlord a bad landlord/person because they have sometimes got things wrong.

For the Herald article I linked to above, I also checked further on that and found that the landlord seems to have had a run of bad tenants and can quite understand that they might just be at the end of their tether. I don't necessarily think the Herald is great either (their claim to be the "best journalism" in their beg for subscriptions makes me cringe every time I see it) but they do provide a lot better balance than Stuff. And in this case the facts that I checked stacked up.

The "conspiracy against landlords" is only a part of left wing politics and was not what this was about. My point was always that some elements of the media can't be trusted and the Stuff article was an example of imbalance. Elsewhere on this forum threads have tried to push people away from fringe disinformation and lead them to evidence. This was another example.

The idea that tenants are always vulnerable and must be protected is entirely wrong. Some tenants, and some landlords, are vulnerable. Most are not. And most have good professional relationships with each other. Imbalanced articles on Stuff and anywhere else in the media don't do anyone any favours.

you should probably stop reading Stuff if it makes you cringe so much, you are clearly not politically compatible.  

Me, I tend to place a reliance on authoritative evidence, so multiple tenancy tribunal and MBIE investigations hold far more weight for me than someone gathering evidence online. Now if you're suggesting those claims by Stuff are manufactured as well then I might have a different opinion again...

I will assume you are not attempting to associate Stuff with the dangerous peddlers of disinformation that we try to limit here - that would be quite a stretch

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Since joining the farcebook group dedicated to tenants I continue to be gobsmacked by some of the things people are doing to other people out there in renter land. The Stuff stuff is the tip of a much bigger iceberg. And of course there are useless tenants as well, that goes without saying. But these stories make me aware of just how lucky I am to have the lot I pay rent to. They may be several pounds of commonsense short of normal, you get that in corporates,  but at least they are well meaning and we have security.

So many just don't. And really, as a civilised nation we ought to be doing something about that. After all, shouldn't decent safe housing be a human right?

"I continue to be gobsmacked by some of the things people are doing to other people"

As someone whose DH spent many many years doing the repairs and renovations on other people's rentals, and who now also has a few of our own, I continue to be gobsmacked by some of the things tenants do to their landlords and the houses they live in. And see landlords trying to do a good job, only to have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to fix what delinquent tenants have done to them. We haven't had any huge problems ourselves but have seen the worst case scenarios in DH's customers' experiences. Landlords who are good people trying to earn a living in an important service.

Elsewhere there's a thread about how many houses is too many per landlord. I'm still waiting to see someone come up with a sensible number, or even real reply. Meanwhile, the more I think about it the more I think it's how many houses does a landlord need to have before they know what they are doing. Some of the biggest landlord problems are out of ignorance. People who buy or are bequeathed a house and think they can make huge amounts of money without realising what is involved.

I think hoarding anything, be it cats or houses is a mental health issue.

We're just picky about judging, and love to reward greed.

[Lilith7]

I cannot agree with the idea that landlords are picked upon.

The disgraceful behaviour of a a group of landlords who, when govt gave extra funds to students because they were suffering hardship due to high rents immediately raised their rents by the exact amount illustrated very clearly that here was a group of individuals who wanted to make money & to annoy the govt; the welfare of those students simply didn't enter their consciousness.
They are exactly the sort of people who shouldn't be permitted to get away with such behaviour.

[SueDonim]

I cannot agree with the idea that landlords are picked upon.

The disgraceful behaviour of a a group of landlords who, when govt gave extra funds to students because they were suffering hardship due to high rents  immediately raised their rents by the exact amount illustrated very clearly that here was a group of individuals who wanted to make money & to annoy the govt; the welfare of those students simply didn't enter their consciousness.
They are exactly the sort of people who shouldn't be permitted to get away with such behaviour.

Was that this article https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic...ent-spikes? 2018 when landlords were dealing with increased costs, etc. It's another Stuff article but if you read all the way there is some balance. Maybe it's just recently that they have lost that ability.

On the actual subject, when you read a headline or article that says something basic like that, the first question is "have the landlords put off rent increases because their tenants are in hardship and now is the time we can do it fairly?"

If the supermarkets put their prices up right when the government has given more money to students, are they equally evil? Or power companies? Or fuel companies?  Anyone?

[SueDonim]

you should probably stop reading Stuff if it makes you cringe so much, you are clearly not politically compatible.  

Me, I tend to place a reliance on authoritative evidence, so multiple tenancy tribunal and MBIE investigations hold far more weight for me than someone gathering evidence online.  Now if you're suggesting those claims by Stuff are manufactured as well then I might have a different opinion again...

I will assume you are not attempting to associate Stuff with the dangerous peddlers of disinformation that we try to limit here - that would be quite a stretch

I rarely read Stuff - only this particular article because it was highlighted here. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't.

If you read the TT rulings associated with the people in the articles then you can see the selective picking from the information to create bias. There's an article in the Herald today that gives a good contrast in approach https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/land...2EFV6ZXGA/. The landlord clearly has done wrong and you can see that from the quotes from the tribunal. The whole article has a different feel - you don't need to look further because the quotes  are from the TT rather than the people, and make it obvious that the information is real. And you can still check under the TT if you did want to verify that they really are quotes. So I have no problem whatsoever with that article.

I don't at all think that Stuff comes into the same category as the anti-vaxxers and CTers etc that get all the attention, but it is a concern that it slides under the radar because it isn't so extreme yet people believe what they read in the media just because the media "says". In a way this has been a bit of an eye opener that even after all we've seen and read about the need for critical evaluation, everyone still thinks that it's only the extremists that have a problem. Everyone, and I really mean everyone, needs to take a step back and be a little bit aware of what's going on around us. Most media is thinly disguised entertainment and can be enjoyed on that level while giving us an indication of what is going on in the world, but when something is important, we need to learn to be that little bit questioning.

[Lilith7]

I cannot agree with the idea that landlords are picked upon.

The disgraceful behaviour of a a group of landlords who, when govt gave extra funds to students because they were suffering hardship due to high rents  immediately raised their rents by the exact amount illustrated very clearly that here was a group of individuals who wanted to make money & to annoy the govt; the welfare of those students simply didn't enter their consciousness.
They are exactly the sort of people who shouldn't be permitted to get away with such behaviour.

Was that this article https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic...ent-spikes? 2018 when landlords were dealing with increased costs, etc. It's another Stuff article but if you read all the way there is some balance. Maybe it's just recently that they have lost that ability.

On the actual subject, when you read a headline or article that says something basic like that, the first question is "have the landlords put off rent increases because their tenants are in hardship and now is the time we can do it fairly?"

If the supermarkets put their prices up right when the government has given more money to students, are they equally evil? Or power companies? Or fuel companies?  Anyone?

I think  there was a short interview with some of those greedy landlords at the time; there was no doubt that the welfare of their tenants just didn't come into it. 

Their focus was money & sticking two fingers up at govt. & that was made crystal clear by both the speed with which it was done & the amount of the increase being exactly the same amount as that which had been given to students for hardship. 

[king1]

you should probably stop reading Stuff if it makes you cringe so much, you are clearly not politically compatible.  

Me, I tend to place a reliance on authoritative evidence, so multiple tenancy tribunal and MBIE investigations hold far more weight for me than someone gathering evidence online.  Now if you're suggesting those claims by Stuff are manufactured as well then I might have a different opinion again...

I will assume you are not attempting to associate Stuff with the dangerous peddlers of disinformation that we try to limit here - that would be quite a stretch

I rarely read Stuff - only this particular article because it was highlighted here. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't.

If you read the TT rulings associated with the people in the articles then you can see the selective picking from the information to create bias. There's an article in the Herald today that gives a good contrast in approach https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/land...2EFV6ZXGA/. The landlord clearly has done wrong and you can see that from the quotes from the tribunal. The whole article has a different feel - you don't need to look further because the quotes  are from the TT rather than the people, and make it obvious that the information is real. And you can still check under the TT if you did want to verify that they really are quotes. So I have no problem whatsoever with that article.

I don't at all think that Stuff comes into the same category as the anti-vaxxers and CTers etc that get all the attention, but it is a concern that it slides under the radar because it isn't so extreme yet people believe what they read in the media just because the media "says". In a way this has been a bit of an eye opener that even after all we've seen and read about the need for critical evaluation, everyone still thinks that it's only the extremists that have a problem. Everyone, and I really mean everyone, needs to take a step back and be a little bit aware of what's going on around us. Most media is thinly disguised entertainment and can be enjoyed on that level while giving us an indication of what is going on in the world, but when something is important, we need to learn to be that little bit questioning.

you've definitely got that anti mainstream media vibe going on there...

[SueDonim]

I rarely read Stuff - only this particular article because it was highlighted here. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't.

If you read the TT rulings associated with the people in the articles then you can see the selective picking from the information to create bias. There's an article in the Herald today that gives a good contrast in approach https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/land...2EFV6ZXGA/. The landlord clearly has done wrong and you can see that from the quotes from the tribunal. The whole article has a different feel - you don't need to look further because the quotes  are from the TT rather than the people, and make it obvious that the information is real. And you can still check under the TT if you did want to verify that they really are quotes. So I have no problem whatsoever with that article.

I don't at all think that Stuff comes into the same category as the anti-vaxxers and CTers etc that get all the attention, but it is a concern that it slides under the radar because it isn't so extreme yet people believe what they read in the media just because the media "says". In a way this has been a bit of an eye opener that even after all we've seen and read about the need for critical evaluation, everyone still thinks that it's only the extremists that have a problem. Everyone, and I really mean everyone, needs to take a step back and be a little bit aware of what's going on around us. Most media is thinly disguised entertainment and can be enjoyed on that level while giving us an indication of what is going on in the world, but when something is important, we need to learn to be that little bit questioning.

you've definitely got that anti mainstream media vibe going on there...

Ha. Just the ones that won't let the truth get in the way of a good story.....