page 6

Rent Appeals Board: Will it work?

by David Rutherford

Cats, dogs and children top the landlord s list of undesirables, according to a landlord testifying at the first hearing of the Rent Appeals Board last week. The board is the Labour Government's great white hope for sorting out the crisis in landlord/tenant relations, and hopes to check the inflation rampant in rental housing.

The first case was a tenant versus Kaymor Holdings whose principal, W.L. Cathie, and lawyer Grace were present. The tenant claimed that the $36 rent was excessive because of the flat's condition. He alleged that before the hearing Cathie had tried to dissuade him from going ahead with the appeal. The tenant felt this was a breach of the Rent Appeal Act. Cathie also told him he might have to pay some of his costs, if the board ruled against his claim. Cathie threatened the tenant with eviction after the statutory six months. When questioned by Appeal Board Chairman Fox, Cathie said it was "a fact not a threat". Fox reprimanded him and said the board would take action if it happened again.

The second case to be heard was that of a landlord I. Clark versing two of his Kilbirnie tenants. Clark was represented by Mr McGechan and had two witnesses. The tenants were unrepresented.

The landlord had increased the rent of the first tenant by $6. McGechan, the landlords lawyer, compared tenants to housewives who always complain that prices are too high. Tenants who have no real idea how rents are fixed, he said.

The house's rent had nearly doubled between 1971 and 1973. The landlord's theory was that "rent will seem high because previous rent was low". Clark also thought that his rent hike was justified because he had raised the rent of another tenant and there had been no complaint.

Mr Falloon, the landlord's valuer, said there were signs of water damage in a room in one of the houses despite the landlord's claim that he had fixed the leaks. He also stated that the houses were neglected and rundown and needed renovation. Renting the houses could be justified, said the valuer "it depends on the person who wants to live there".

One tenant said that the landlord had done nothing to keep the house in reasonable condition. Her husband had done a lot of repair work on the house. The landlord admitted this.

The other tenant's windows were all nailed up. A visiting council inspector had said that it was illegal and he would return. He didn't.

Talking about rents they fixed and the reason for increases landlords used two terms extensively; "outgoings" and "depreciation". Mr Fox, the chairman, asked "How does a property depreciate when its value increases 100% in five years" to which nobody had an answer. The other term "outgoing" seemed to mean a method by which the landlords extract money from tenants to pay off their loans. Another part of the rent is to pay for collection, 5% was the figure quoted. One tenant said that the landlord never collected the rent, in fact she had often taken it to him. The landlord said he would do it in future.

3% of the rent a tenant pays is supposed to be used in the upkeep of the house. Clark, when questioned on how much he spent on the house, answered that he did not know. Fox remarked "You expect the tenant to pay but you don't use it",Landlord Clark said it was a continuing thing.

The tenant asked the landlord how he could spend so much time buying houses and no time on his tenants. He said he would try and see to the tenants in future. This will be unlikely as he cannot cope with the number of tenants he has now so he will not be able to cope with any extras.

Decisions in all cases were reserved for a few days, so it is difficult to say at this stage how the board will work. One sign, however, is its composition - all middle class. Chairman Fox is a former Cabinet Minister. The other two members of the board are a valuer and Mr Ralph Love.

Perhaps the surest summary of what the board will be like came from the mouth of a tenant who was making an appeal last week.

"We came here for justice," she said "but they shut us up. They were all lined up against us, landlords, land agents, valuers, lawyers.

"I lost a mornings wages, coming here instead of going to work. I just can't afford that, whereas my landlord can.

"The trouble is. I'm not educated, I'm working class, so I haven't a chance."