Bond to be held by authority

Press, 27 September 1982, Page 27

Bond to be held by authority

Tenants’ bonds should be held by an independent authority and invested on the tenants’ behalf, according to the Christchurch Tenants’ Protection Association. The association’s chairman, Mr Andrew Alston, said that the scheme had worked successfully in Australia. “It is the tenant’s money and basically it should be invested for the tenant’s benefit. It should not be held by the landlord,” he said.

Either the bond could be returned with the interest earned at the conclusion of the tenancy, or it could be used for “various rental purposes,” to fund tenancy tribunals and tenancy services, or to improve rental accommodation.

The present system caused “a lot of problems," with landlords refusing to refund the money when the tenancy was ended, he said.

The bonds are paid as security against loss or damage to the property caused by the tenant. If the flat is left in good order, the landlord is obliged to refund the money in full when the

tenant vacates.

However, whether or not the bond is returned, the tenant loses, because of inflation.

The president of the Christchurch Landlords' Association, Mr A. J. Roberts, said that although the Australian Rental Bond Board had worked quite well, the association was against the introduction of the scheme into New Zealand.

A survey among its members recently had indicated that 80 per cent were "strongly opposed” to the idea.

“They felt that it was just another bureaucratic interference and they are sick and tired of it,” Mr Roberts said.

The bonds paid in Australia (four weeks rent for an unfurnished flat' and six weeks for a furnished one) were considerably higher than those paid in New Zealand. “We would not look at a rental bond board here unless the bonds were raised to about the same level,”-Mr Roberts said.