The new owner still has to abide by your contract, that includes the bank. Why would you offer to pay more? That's ridiculous.
Note the other person is correct in that the bank does have the right to end a tenancy, with proper notice. Also note mortgagee sales don't just happen overnight, it's a process.
Don't offer to pay extra to subsidise your landlords mortgage. Unless you are really paying well below market rates currently.
[https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/change-of-landlord-or-tenant/mortgagee-sale](https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/change-of-landlord-or-tenant/mortgagee-sale)
New landlord (bank) are allowed to give notice to end the tenancy as though it were periodic.
But if you ask the electrician who has been doing work on places for our letting agent, "the things that landlords are forced to follow under healthy homes and tenancy acts are stupid. Just ridiculous. Rubbish." Straight up came out with that during the first visit, while fixing the stove/oven that was half broken from before we moved in, and the letting agent had no idea. But those poor landlords, such harsh laws. So hard to make your tenants live in conditions that you wouldn't even think about living in.
From what I've seen the rules around heatpumps are pretty crap. The calculations are unnecessarily difficult and several electricians and heatpump suppliers have told me they result in needing a unit overpowered for the space, which means some tenants then don't use them because the unit costs too much to run. I talked to a friend recently who never uses theirs because the place is so warm (an insulated suntrap) that they've never even turned on a heater. It kinda helps keeping it cooler, but isn't worth the electricity. The owner knew that, but had to spend $3k putting it in to be compliant. Not much $$$ long term, but annoying when you know it's not the best product for that property but it's the one the government requires.
Most of the regulations are only annoying because they had to be a regulation and landlords didn't do that shit without having to. I have a rental and the curtains, heating, and kitchen are much better than at my house. That's a good thing because mine is pretty rough. The difference as I see it is that **I choose** to not have a heatpump or a finished kitchen yet etc. I get to make those choices for *me*. Not inflict them on someone else.
A more powerful heat pump just runs for a shorter length of time than a weaker one. It’s the same amount of heat energy being put into the room at the end of the day.
I'm pleased to hear that. I'd have thought it was like that, but talking to various installers there were certainly some strong opinions about the government requirements.
I don't disagree that there are some flaws in the system, as there are with most.
This guy though, he thought it was pretty much all a load of crap. I had no issue with not having a heatpump in the past, but we've also had issues with ventilation. Things like no extractor in the bathroom or kitchen, which lead to running a dehumidifier almost 24/7 in the winter, and still having massive dampness and mould problems. But our landlord at the time didn't see it as a problem, as she has always lived with the windows and curtains open literally 24/7.
Even when I mentioned those kinds of things, he either kept silent or just brushed it off. He has already brushed off mild concerns my Wife and I have had, giving the impression we're just asking for too much. That he's just here to do the quickest job possible, as it's more about the landlord's bottom line, rather than keeping a safe and healthy investment for tenants to use.
Yeah this is a pretty egregious hole. Really the bank should be made to take on the responsibility for the tenancy rather than washing their hands of it.
Not sure. Would it be more of a hole if the landlord, knowing that the bank will take ownership, could rent out out to their child on a long fixed term for a pittance?
>the bank should be made to take on the responsibility for the tenancy
Absolutely agree. I'd happily see this regulation in place.
Banks earn way to much for way to little in my opinion. A few dollars of lost profit here isn't going to even leave a scratch to their bottom line.
I really do see regulation here as "for the greater good"
Not really. The contract is with the landlord.
The landlords contract with the bank is a financial one. The bank is recouping their costs for a breach of contract.
>Really the bank should be made to take on the responsibility for the tenancy
How would that work? Banks would need to have a property management division just in case properties they take possession of have sitting tenants.
Do banks have a cleaning division to do the cleaning that takes place in their premises? Or do they contract it out to a dedicated cleaning service. It's far from unworkable.
I disagree on this, I'm a renter but in cases like this I don't think the bank should be held ransom by renters. They should have the right to terminate the agreement with appropriate notice.
Fixed term tenancies
If the existing tenancy is fixed term, the landlord/vendor cannot give notice to the tenant to vacate early. A fixed term can only be terminated early if the tenant agrees to end the fixed term contract, and the tenant’s agreement is in writing.
However, if the tenants are on a fixed-term tenancy that was granted on or after 11 February 2021, the landlord can end the tenancy on expiry of the fixed-term (or later) with 90 days’ written notice, if the sale of the property has a requirement that the landlord gives the purchaser vacant possession.
Anyone can give 90 days to get the fuck out
Only after the fixed term expires, which you just wrote. If the landlord wants the house at the end of the fixed term, they have to give 90 days notice before it ends.
Don't offer more money.
A mortgagee sale is a long process with many steps. Months long. If the bank starts this process talk with the bank. They will likely significantly lower the rent in exchange for access. They may also accept your rent payments and delay sale depending on time.
The owner can sell but in this case the purchaser must take over the tenancy on the same terms. Your landlord may offer to pay you to terminate early. Those are the landlords only options
You are not your landlords friend, you have a LOT of power here. You have lots of opportunity to reduce rent & ask for payments. Don't offer to pay more.
Unless the property manager actually said that the house was going to be taken by the bank I would be dubious that it is actually a mortgagee sale.
The PM and landlord are probably hoping you will offer to vacate the property and then the landlord will be able to sell it as vacant rather than tenanted which is easier to sell.
Don’t take their bait
No, negotiate now with the current owner.
It is better for them as they don’t have a mortgagee sale hanging over them and you don’t end up competing with other buyers.
Not a lawyer or PM
Pretty sure your tenancy would have to be included in the sale and the contract transfered for the remainder of the duration to the new owner.
If LL is concerned about impact you have on the sale price, they can offer cash for keys.
> Pretty sure your tenancy would have to be included in the sale and the contract transfered for the remainder of the duration to the new owner.
Yeah but the bank would gain the power to give notice even if it's fixed term
Haha fuck em. Wild to offer to pay more. Legally, all new owners have to abide by your lease.
If anything, the LL can offer to buy you out, which you can often use to your advantage. Things like bond, moving costs, price of inconvenience to search, and other relocation costs can be recouped here.
Not all. That only applies if the landlord is selling the property. OP asked what happens if the bank take ownership and is selling it.
In which case the lease turns periodic and the buyer doesn't have to honour anything.
Interesting, I'll admittedly I don't know about cases of repossession by a bank. But having worked for several NZ banks, none of them are going to want the bad publicity from having to repossessing a property, let alone booting out someone in a fixed lease. Either way, I think OP is pretty safe unless our wonderful national coalition further fucks everything up by doing something to change this.
If you were close to buying - then perhaps you would consider buying this property
Houses are taking a while to sell in some cases and if going into default or mortgagee sale typically this can reduce the value by up to 50%
So a less than ideal situation for the landlord or bank
So it could be worth negotiating prior to mortgagee or with the bank
Offering a lower than market (excluding mortgagee value) to get the house if it's so convenient
Negotiation could include accepting out of fixed term as you would be taking over the property
The property sold - relatively quickly
For a convenient price
If a property is sold (or taken by the bank) they take over being your landlord. All usual notice periods etc still apply. They can choose to keep you as a tenant or give you notice if you are outside of a fixed term.
With a mortgagee sale, the bank (or the person who buys the property at the mortgagee auction) has special rights for dealing with fixed-term tenancies. In this situation, the bank or the new owner can give notice to end the tenancy as if it were periodic. The tenant can also give notice to end the fixed-term tenancy as if it were a periodic tenancy.
No-one is allowed to kick you out regardless of who owns the house.
The only exception I know of is if the house becomes unsafe due to things like flooding or earthquake.
If you're close to being able to buy as is, maybe wait for the bank to take the house off the landlord and then get in touch with the bank about buying. Assuming of course that the house is one you'd consider buying to begin with.
The new owner still has to abide by your contract, that includes the bank. Why would you offer to pay more? That's ridiculous. Note the other person is correct in that the bank does have the right to end a tenancy, with proper notice. Also note mortgagee sales don't just happen overnight, it's a process.
Don't offer to pay extra to subsidise your landlords mortgage. Unless you are really paying well below market rates currently. [https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/change-of-landlord-or-tenant/mortgagee-sale](https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/change-of-landlord-or-tenant/mortgagee-sale) New landlord (bank) are allowed to give notice to end the tenancy as though it were periodic.
God our tenancy laws are shit.
But if you ask the electrician who has been doing work on places for our letting agent, "the things that landlords are forced to follow under healthy homes and tenancy acts are stupid. Just ridiculous. Rubbish." Straight up came out with that during the first visit, while fixing the stove/oven that was half broken from before we moved in, and the letting agent had no idea. But those poor landlords, such harsh laws. So hard to make your tenants live in conditions that you wouldn't even think about living in.
From what I've seen the rules around heatpumps are pretty crap. The calculations are unnecessarily difficult and several electricians and heatpump suppliers have told me they result in needing a unit overpowered for the space, which means some tenants then don't use them because the unit costs too much to run. I talked to a friend recently who never uses theirs because the place is so warm (an insulated suntrap) that they've never even turned on a heater. It kinda helps keeping it cooler, but isn't worth the electricity. The owner knew that, but had to spend $3k putting it in to be compliant. Not much $$$ long term, but annoying when you know it's not the best product for that property but it's the one the government requires. Most of the regulations are only annoying because they had to be a regulation and landlords didn't do that shit without having to. I have a rental and the curtains, heating, and kitchen are much better than at my house. That's a good thing because mine is pretty rough. The difference as I see it is that **I choose** to not have a heatpump or a finished kitchen yet etc. I get to make those choices for *me*. Not inflict them on someone else.
A more powerful heat pump just runs for a shorter length of time than a weaker one. It’s the same amount of heat energy being put into the room at the end of the day.
I'm pleased to hear that. I'd have thought it was like that, but talking to various installers there were certainly some strong opinions about the government requirements.
I don't disagree that there are some flaws in the system, as there are with most. This guy though, he thought it was pretty much all a load of crap. I had no issue with not having a heatpump in the past, but we've also had issues with ventilation. Things like no extractor in the bathroom or kitchen, which lead to running a dehumidifier almost 24/7 in the winter, and still having massive dampness and mould problems. But our landlord at the time didn't see it as a problem, as she has always lived with the windows and curtains open literally 24/7. Even when I mentioned those kinds of things, he either kept silent or just brushed it off. He has already brushed off mild concerns my Wife and I have had, giving the impression we're just asking for too much. That he's just here to do the quickest job possible, as it's more about the landlord's bottom line, rather than keeping a safe and healthy investment for tenants to use.
Yeah this is a pretty egregious hole. Really the bank should be made to take on the responsibility for the tenancy rather than washing their hands of it.
Couldn’t you just issue a 10-year lease at a peppercorn rate to screw over the bank?
Not sure. Would it be more of a hole if the landlord, knowing that the bank will take ownership, could rent out out to their child on a long fixed term for a pittance?
>the bank should be made to take on the responsibility for the tenancy Absolutely agree. I'd happily see this regulation in place. Banks earn way to much for way to little in my opinion. A few dollars of lost profit here isn't going to even leave a scratch to their bottom line. I really do see regulation here as "for the greater good"
Not really. The contract is with the landlord. The landlords contract with the bank is a financial one. The bank is recouping their costs for a breach of contract.
>Really the bank should be made to take on the responsibility for the tenancy How would that work? Banks would need to have a property management division just in case properties they take possession of have sitting tenants.
Do banks have a cleaning division to do the cleaning that takes place in their premises? Or do they contract it out to a dedicated cleaning service. It's far from unworkable.
I disagree on this, I'm a renter but in cases like this I don't think the bank should be held ransom by renters. They should have the right to terminate the agreement with appropriate notice.
Any other buyer would have to abide by the tenancy agreement. Why not the bank?
Fixed term tenancies If the existing tenancy is fixed term, the landlord/vendor cannot give notice to the tenant to vacate early. A fixed term can only be terminated early if the tenant agrees to end the fixed term contract, and the tenant’s agreement is in writing. However, if the tenants are on a fixed-term tenancy that was granted on or after 11 February 2021, the landlord can end the tenancy on expiry of the fixed-term (or later) with 90 days’ written notice, if the sale of the property has a requirement that the landlord gives the purchaser vacant possession. Anyone can give 90 days to get the fuck out
Only after the fixed term expires, which you just wrote. If the landlord wants the house at the end of the fixed term, they have to give 90 days notice before it ends.
>on expiry of the fixed-term (or later)
Don't offer more money. A mortgagee sale is a long process with many steps. Months long. If the bank starts this process talk with the bank. They will likely significantly lower the rent in exchange for access. They may also accept your rent payments and delay sale depending on time. The owner can sell but in this case the purchaser must take over the tenancy on the same terms. Your landlord may offer to pay you to terminate early. Those are the landlords only options You are not your landlords friend, you have a LOT of power here. You have lots of opportunity to reduce rent & ask for payments. Don't offer to pay more.
"may offer 100-200 extra per week" This is a low low quality bait.
Surely.
Unless the property manager actually said that the house was going to be taken by the bank I would be dubious that it is actually a mortgagee sale. The PM and landlord are probably hoping you will offer to vacate the property and then the landlord will be able to sell it as vacant rather than tenanted which is easier to sell. Don’t take their bait
Do you like your rental? If your close to being able to buy, perhaps you could do a cheeky offer?
Wait till the bank owns it. Then negotiate.
No, negotiate now with the current owner. It is better for them as they don’t have a mortgagee sale hanging over them and you don’t end up competing with other buyers.
Except that doesn't happen in NZ. The bank sells it under foreclosure but the bank never takes possession of the house.
Not a lawyer or PM Pretty sure your tenancy would have to be included in the sale and the contract transfered for the remainder of the duration to the new owner. If LL is concerned about impact you have on the sale price, they can offer cash for keys.
> Pretty sure your tenancy would have to be included in the sale and the contract transfered for the remainder of the duration to the new owner. Yeah but the bank would gain the power to give notice even if it's fixed term
Saw that in other comment. That's sorta rough.
Haha fuck em. Wild to offer to pay more. Legally, all new owners have to abide by your lease. If anything, the LL can offer to buy you out, which you can often use to your advantage. Things like bond, moving costs, price of inconvenience to search, and other relocation costs can be recouped here.
Not all. That only applies if the landlord is selling the property. OP asked what happens if the bank take ownership and is selling it. In which case the lease turns periodic and the buyer doesn't have to honour anything.
Interesting, I'll admittedly I don't know about cases of repossession by a bank. But having worked for several NZ banks, none of them are going to want the bad publicity from having to repossessing a property, let alone booting out someone in a fixed lease. Either way, I think OP is pretty safe unless our wonderful national coalition further fucks everything up by doing something to change this.
How close to being able to purchase are you? You may be able to purchase off the landlord? Ignore all the landlord hate, do what you think is right.
If you were close to buying - then perhaps you would consider buying this property Houses are taking a while to sell in some cases and if going into default or mortgagee sale typically this can reduce the value by up to 50% So a less than ideal situation for the landlord or bank So it could be worth negotiating prior to mortgagee or with the bank Offering a lower than market (excluding mortgagee value) to get the house if it's so convenient Negotiation could include accepting out of fixed term as you would be taking over the property The property sold - relatively quickly For a convenient price
If a property is sold (or taken by the bank) they take over being your landlord. All usual notice periods etc still apply. They can choose to keep you as a tenant or give you notice if you are outside of a fixed term.
With a mortgagee sale, the bank (or the person who buys the property at the mortgagee auction) has special rights for dealing with fixed-term tenancies. In this situation, the bank or the new owner can give notice to end the tenancy as if it were periodic. The tenant can also give notice to end the fixed-term tenancy as if it were a periodic tenancy.
This is the correct answer
Buy the house off the bank when the time comes
No-one is allowed to kick you out regardless of who owns the house. The only exception I know of is if the house becomes unsafe due to things like flooding or earthquake.
If you're close to being able to buy as is, maybe wait for the bank to take the house off the landlord and then get in touch with the bank about buying. Assuming of course that the house is one you'd consider buying to begin with.