Landlords to exclude the public at meetings

Press, 1 March 1984, Page 8

Landlords to exclude the public at meetings

Members of the public, including the news media, have been banned from all further meetings of the Canterbury Property Investors Association (formerly the Christchurch Landlords’ Association), unless they are invited guests. The annual meeting of the Christchurch Landlords’ Asssociation last evening made this decision last evening and also approved the change of name. About 70 landlords attended the meeting, which voted by a narrow majority to restrict its meetings to members and invited guests. Members of the news media invited to hear an address by the association’s solicitor; Mr John Cullen, were asked to leave the meeting after be gave it A landlord at the meeting said that at the last public meeting of the association representatives of the Tenants’ Protection Association were invited, and some “irrational - statements” were made by landlords in the beat of debate. The

news media had “sensationalised” the remarks giving the public a wrong

impression. Before the ban on nonmembers, and Mr Cullen’s speech, the association’s president, Mr Alan Roberts, S resented his annual report !e said that the Government’s rent freeze was “very unjust,” and that the accommodation situation was now “desperate.” “A lot- of our members have lost a lot of money, and a lot have quit renting.” He' said that some rents would have to rise 200 per cent if it was an open market. If Government restrictions continued realistic increases would need to be

bigger. Mr Roberts said that it was difficult for landlords to evict bad tenants because they had nowhere else to go. It was necessary for landlords to have tenants signed up on a good lease agreement, he said. • He thought that tenants had too much in their favour at the moment

Mr Roberts said that in spite of the problems those landlords who continued renting could still make a profit Mr Cullen spoke and answered questions on the Government’s latest rent regulations. He said that the maximum increase allowable where the rent had been raised since April 1, 1981, would be 3 per cent. That increase would only be made if the landlord and tenant had agreed in writing, or on application to the Rent Appeal Board. If the rent had not been increased since April 1, 1981, it could be increased 10 per cent for each year since the increase, or by the inflation rate, whichever was the smaller. He said that the 3 per cent increase applied to residential properties only. Mr Cullen said that the formula for calculation of the increase included a limited hardship clause, and a “rehash” of the previous regulations. He said that a landlord would have to be

“near bankruptcy” before a hardship increase would be allowed. The circumstances of the landlord’s spouse also would be considered in deciding the application. If the property was being let for the first time, it would not be controlled by the regulations. “Therefore, you get the situation where there are two identical houses sitting side by side, and one has not been let before, then the rent of one will be controlled by market forces and the other regulated.” Mr Cullen said that once increased, rents could not be increased again for a year. The rent freeze had

extended for a month beyond the price freeze, and so increases could not take effect before April, 1984. A landlord could increase rents if the tenant agreed he had made improvements to the dwelling. However, the improvements had to increase services significantly to the tenant, such as structural alterations or extensions.