smallwoods wrote:

Pickle/gerki-
n
Gurkin is a kin to a burka!

Pretty sure the Gurkha was hiding under a burka and stopped the pickle from chopping the gherkin?

mcnic - 2021-05-04 20:45:00

raewyn2 wrote:

The insurance policies that require regular inspections are the ones with specific cover for things that tenants do/may do. Your other option is just to have normal house insurance. Tell the insurance company that the house is tenanted of course but you won't be covered for damage by the occupants and there are no rules about inspections. Gives you the freedom to let tenants get on with their lives, and an incentive to make sure you have good tenants at the start. And also means you pay for anything they do do while they're there.

Going through Initio's website, appears rules will default to as you describe - Can opt to forgo regular inspections, but anything that the tenant does to the place won't be covered (if I've read it correctly)
https://initio.co.nz/property-inspections-3-things-landlords
-need-to-know/

(Note: Policy wording doesn't hint to the above, and nor does it mention anything about the 4 month inspection period for NZPIF members)

So if the tenants (as excellent as they have been so far) at some point develop an unfortunate Meth habit between them and then do a runner -- Looks like I'm going to be steam rolled to the tune of tens of thousands out of my own pocket to reinstate the place....

cognition - 2021-05-05 18:02:00

(If I end up choosing to forgo regular inspections that is.)

cognition - 2021-05-05 18:22:00

Couldn't they have thought some years ago that the more kids we pop out the harder life will become for us?

trogedon - 2021-05-05 20:11:00

lakeview3 wrote:

whatever ????

Well you really told him. Good for you.

seaqueen - 2021-05-08 17:56:00

seaqueen wrote:

Well you really told him. Good for you.

Poor sparky obviously had no comeback to that vicious riposte. I hope he's OK.

apollo11 - 2021-05-08 18:05:00

trogedon wrote:

Couldn't they have thought some years ago that the more kids we pop out the harder life will become for us?

Doesn't apply in NZ (or most of the western world for that matter). Our fertility rate is so low, we aren't even replacing ourselves. That's pretty much been the case since 1982, apart from a couple of minor exceptions.

Our population has only increased thanks to immigration, that's why about 27% of our population wasn't even born here.

justinian1 - 2021-05-08 18:06:00

justinian1 wrote:

Doesn't apply in NZ (or most of the western world for that matter). Our fertility rate is so low, we aren't even replacing ourselves. That's pretty much been the case since 1982, apart from a couple of minor exceptions.

Our population has only increased thanks to immigration, that's why about 27% of our population wasn't even born here.

Much of the financial pressure on couples will be the ability to find/afford housing, and the uncertainty this creates must make many people think twice before popping out kids.

apollo11 - 2021-05-08 18:20:00

apollo11 wrote:

Much of the financial pressure on couples will be the ability to find/afford housing, and the uncertainty this creates must make many people think twice before popping out kids.

I imagine it would have some impact, but it wouldn't stop the majority. Our fertility rate started dropping the 1960s well before the property price insanity started. It held reasonably steady at just under replacement from around 1982, but it has dropped slightly more since 2015.

justinian1 - 2021-05-08 19:17:00

justinian1 wrote:

I imagine it would have some impact, but it wouldn't stop the majority. Our fertility rate started dropping the 1960s well before the property price insanity started. It held reasonably steady at just under replacement from around 1982, but it has dropped slightly more since 2015.

That might be relevant at a macro level. But it is households who increase family size before sorting stable housing that are more likely to have problems finding / keeping a private rental these days.

artemis - 2021-05-08 19:22:00

justinian1 wrote:

I imagine it would have some impact, but it wouldn't stop the majority. Our fertility rate started dropping the 1960s well before the property price insanity started. It held reasonably steady at just under replacement from around 1982, but it has dropped slightly more since 2015.

Cheers. Speaking for ourselves and our circle of friends, it was a consideration. Prepare the nest first. I wonder if women's participation in the workforce has some bearing? Most couples need both working these days to afford to pay a mortgage.

apollo11 - 2021-05-08 19:23:00

apollo11 wrote:

Cheers. Speaking for ourselves and our circle of friends, it was a consideration. Prepare the nest first. I wonder if women's participation in the workforce has some bearing? Most couples need both working these days to afford to pay a mortgage.

Plus professionals who have attended tertiary ed may have student loans to pay off as well before they can start saving for a deposit. So they are getting into property later, and can only afford to take off enough time for one child. Plus increasing infertility into the 30s. A number of people I know have settled, bought their own houses, but have decided to have just one child.

sparkychap - 2021-05-08 19:33:00

I think something that has to be looked at is why there are so many on state
/trust waiting lists as they have to meet certain criteria one being income
why are so many meeting the income threshhold, mayb%e we should be looking at income levels rather than just demand average wages in this country are very low, are some people too scared to earn more in case they
n=o longer meet the income threshold.way too many in this country are on
low wages propped =uop with assistance

catbrat - 2021-05-09 09:37:00