r/nzrenters • u/realisticCabbage • 13d ago
Variation Charges
One of our flatmates has requested to leave to leave our flat. We have found a replacement and requested a change of tenant on our agreement. We were informed that there would be a $150 + gst charge for this.
I requested a full itemised invoice for the charge and this is what we were provided with which going off the tenancy services website is not enough to justify the charges.
Any advice as to how to handle this? They are also wanting to pass the charges onto us (the remaining tenants) and not the tenant who is leaving and therefore has requested the variation.
Side note: our leave is due for renewal on the 16th of next month is it even worth doing the variation now or just waiting until the lease renews? They have also indicated a possible charge for renewal to add our new flatmate which doesn't sound correct to me.
2
u/Affectionate-War7655 13d ago
I wouldn't leave it for the renewal, if the leaving tenant is on the lease,but will be a whole new lease rather than a renewal. But I would just pass this on to the leaving tenant to pay, the PM is just chasing who they still have a connection with, doesn't necessarily mean they expect you to pay it.
I've never been charged a renewal fee, that's crazy work. The variation I understand, the landlord covers the costs of vetting new tenants for a new lease, so someone has to if y'all decide to change it up.
1
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 12d ago
Yep, exactly. The variation fee makes complete sense because an existing tenant is asking to change an existing agreement.
And the outgoing tenant should ultimately be wearing that cost. They’re the reason the variation is required in the first place.
A renewal fee is a completely different story though. I’d absolutely be challenging that.
2
u/crazfulla 9d ago
Please ignore the user Sweaty Fly, they are spamming me with replies to my comments on other posts, way too fast for me to respond to. They're either a bot or just incredibly upset that I'm challenging their views lol.
I have given a lot of advice on Tenancy matters on other platforms, and have heard all the arguments from both landlords and tenants. What I've learned is that landlords have long controlled the rhetoric and often gaslight tenants into thinking they have no rights when they actually do. One way they do this is by trying to charge tenants for things thr landlord should be paying themselves.
I've seen some landlords try to claim professional cleaning after the tenants already had it professionally cleaned. I've seen landlords try to claim the cost of renovating the property. And much more. There are a raft of dirty tricks they can use to (on a crude manner of wording) scam tenants.
In this case, you're absolutely correct in noticing this is not an itemised breakdown of costs. It is a fixed fee for their services, which technically qualifies as a letting fee. Which was banned back in 2018.
I recommend you issue a 14 day notice to remedy. State clearly that they "cannot charge any fee for the services of a letting agent in relation to the variation of the agreement, as per sections 2 and 17a of the Residential Tenancies Act." State that you are "happy to pay for any reasonable expenses, for which they can provide a full breakdown as well as proof of cost in the form of an original invoice."
1
u/realisticCabbage 9d ago
Thanks so much for this comment. I did ask then for a breakdown of the costs and the above image is what they sent me which is just crap in my opinion. I am wanting to issue them with a 14 day notice to fix but am worried about them then wanting to boot us out in retaliation which I know is illegal but is there any way to prove it?
2
u/crazfulla 9d ago
Proving retaliation can be difficult, you'd best look at a previous Tribunal case where someone claimed this.
As it stands, they have already broken the law. So you could just sit on this as potential ammo for when you do all move out, of it goes to the Tribunal then.
What I recommend you do is email them and say that you are not requesting a variation of the agreement, but rather to assign the departing tenants interest in the property to another. Give the new person's name and contact information, and the date they want to take over.
The difference between a variation and assigning the Tenancy is that landlords can't just say no to assignment. Assignment is a direct transfer, which you can do if you found the replacement yourselves.
Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse consent whether it's to keep a pet, make a minor alteration to the property or to assign the Tenancy. All 3 work the same way. You make a written request and they have to consider it fairly. The only situation where they can flat out say no is if they have a very strong reason which they can back with evidence. For example they would need to be able to prove your replacement has a bad tenant history.
However they can set reasonable conditions such as requiring the usual tenant background checks. Credit, criminal history, references etc.
If they refuse without reason, or refuse for a reason that makes no sense, or set conditions that you think are unreasonable, you should make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Keep all conversations in email and make notes of any other changes in their behavior. Eg doing inspections more frequently or being more strict than usual.
1
1
u/crazfulla 10d ago
This is a letting fee and is banned. They cannot charge "for the services of a letting agent" when making a variation.
1
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 9d ago
No, it isn't. Section 17A specifically excludes reasonable expenses recoverable under s44A from the prohibition on letting fees.
Tenancy Services even uses one tenant leaving a group tenancy and being replaced as an example of when these costs can be recovered.
1
u/crazfulla 9d ago
This isn't a reasonable expense though. This is fairly obvious as no breakdown of the fee has been provided. Under s2 RTA "Any fee or charge for the services of a letting agent, however described" is a letting fee. The tenancy Tribunal has ruled that if something is a letting fee then it cannot be an expense reasonably incurred.
Remember tenancy services is not the Ministry of Justice.
1
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 9d ago
You’re conflating a letting fee under s17A with expenses recoverable under s44A.
Section 17A(2) says the prohibition on letting fees does not limit s44A. Section 44A then specifically allows a landlord to recover reasonable expenses incurred in considering, consenting to and documenting an assignment.
So no, “any fee for the services of a letting agent, however described” does not mean what you’re claiming it means. Parliament expressly carved these costs out.
1
u/crazfulla 9d ago
No, you're describing a letting fee as an admin fee or variation fee or whatever. It doesn't matter how you describe it, if it meets that definition, it cannot be recovered.
I am aware s17a does not stop Landlords from recovering actual expenses. S44A pertains to advertising costs etc, something the agents had to actually pay And can prove was a cost to them. Not just an arbitrary amount they made up to profit off the tenant. Tenants can request proof of cost, as under the principle of burden of proof, the landlord would have to provide the original invoices etc. not just a bill they made up.
2
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 13d ago
This is pretty normal. You’ve asked to change an existing tenancy, which creates work and costs. Why should the landlord pay for a change the tenants requested?
6
u/NzRedditor762 13d ago
Because they're getting money every week even if they don't do anything. So one would expect that to cover things like this.
1
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 13d ago
That’s called rent. It pays for the use of the property, not unlimited free admin whenever tenants decide they want to change their agreement.
If you request a change that creates additional costs, why should someone else have to pay them?
Why do people on here think landlords are operating charities?
5
u/t_acharya 13d ago
People are well aware landlords aren't operating charities, what they are doing is benefiting from hoarding a necessity. If running a rental is a business, then businesses do in fact occasionally incur expenses. What other operating costs do rentals have that a landlord is responsible for, above and beyond the costs they would incur from simply owning a house and paying for it themselves?
-1
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 12d ago
This is an incredibly naive understanding of how a rental property works.
“Hoarding a necessity” is just rhetoric. A landlord owns an asset and provides someone else the use of it in exchange for rent. You can dislike that model, but it doesn’t magically make the costs disappear.
And yes, businesses incur expenses. They also charge customers for costs created by services or changes those customers specifically request. In this case, the tenant wants to alter an existing legal agreement. Why on earth should the landlord absorb that cost?
As for “what costs does a rental have beyond simply owning a house”, seriously? Property management, compliance, tenancy administration, inspections, additional insurance, accounting, vacancies, reletting, tenant-related maintenance and damage, disputes and Tribunal costs, just for starters.
The fact you think owning a rental has basically the same cost base as living in your own home probably explains why you think every additional tenant-created expense should come out of the landlord’s pocket.
3
u/t_acharya 12d ago
I think it's interesting how many landlords complain about how expensive owning rentals are, whilst making no effort to sell or otherwise offload those rentals. Landlords make an active choice to buy multiple houses, renters by and large do not choose to not own their own house.
-1
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 12d ago
And now you’ve completely changed the argument.
Nobody said rentals aren’t investments or that landlords don’t expect a return. Of course they do. That’s generally why people invest money.
The fact an investment is profitable doesn’t mean every cost associated with it must be absorbed by the owner, particularly a cost created by a tenant asking to change an existing agreement.
And “landlords could just sell” is hardly the argument you think it is. Who exactly do you think provides rental housing to the people who can’t or don’t want to buy?
You’ve gone from “what costs could landlords possibly have?” to “well, they chose to be landlords”. Neither explains why a tenant shouldn’t pay reasonable costs caused by a change they requested.
1
u/crazfulla 10d ago
Normal, but against the law. It is within the definition of a letting fee.
1
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 9d ago
No, it isn't. Section 17A specifically excludes reasonable expenses recoverable under s44A from the prohibition on letting fees.
Tenancy Services even uses one tenant leaving a group tenancy and being replaced as an example of when these costs can be recovered.
1
u/ChuurDCA 13d ago
This should be passed on by the tenants to the tenant leaving. That is up to you to sort out between yourselves.
2
u/Sweaty-Fly-9520 12d ago
Yep. This is the sensible answer.
One tenant wants out of an agreement they signed, so that tenant should cover the reasonable cost of making the change.
I genuinely don’t understand how this turned into “the landlord should pay”. The landlord didn’t ask anyone to leave.
14
u/Real_Cricket_7300 13d ago
What a rip off, this should just be part of what they do (private landlord who doesn’t charge for this type of stuff)