Consumers’ Institute challenges tenancy booklet’s accuracy

Press, 5 July 1978, Page 27

Consumers’ Institute challenges tenancy booklet’s accuracy

The Consumers’ institute has challenged the accuracy of two points in a booklet written as a guide for landlords. The booklet was written by the Christchurch Landlords’ Association, whose president (Mr J. Kitson) said that the institute and the association appeared to differ in their interpretations of difficult portions of the ’'nt Appeal Act. The association had isought an independent legal

[opinion, and it seemed the; (institute had, too I The institute said that a [landlord was not allowed to [ask more than the equivalent of one month's rent in| [advance of tenancy. This included bond and rent. Bond 'payment could not be de-1 [manded once tenancy had. [begun, except with the! [agreement of the tenant, and Un this case the first rent; i payment and bond must not [total more than the equiva -[ I lent of one month’s rent.

Mr Kitson said that "there was nothing in the act’ to stop a landlord from asking for two weeks rent and part-pay-ment of the bond equal to another two weeks rent, before tenancy began. The rest of the bond could be paid after tenancy began, he said. The institute said that the booklet said a landlord could repossess rented properties., without notice, for any I breach of a tenancy agrec-i

.incut But this was “quite misleading a landlord had [to give reasonable written notice of intention to evict, giving a tenant fair chance ito comply. I Mr Kitson said that the booklet, in a section on evu,tion. did say that landloi U 'should give a written warning before eviction. Although the booklet said .this, there was nothing in i the act about written warn imgs. Mr Kitson said.