Move to bring boarding house operators under net opposed

National, ACT and New Zealand First have opposed moves to bring boarding house operators under tenancy laws.

Parliament's social services select committee has scrutinised the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which brings boarding houses under the umbrella of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The committee has recommended the bill be passed. However, National, ACT and NZ First have issued a minority report opposing the legislation.

The committee said in its report tabled in Parliament today that the bill introduced statutory provision to govern long-term boarding house tenancies.

It stipulated the rights and obligations of boarding house landlords and tenants, and enabled them to take disputes to the Tenancy Tribunal.

The committee said while some rights were the same for general tenancies, boarding house landlords had greater rights in relation to terminating tenancies.

There was no requirement to lodge bonds for one week's rent or less, and provisions for how boarding house landlords could deal with tenants' abandoned possessions were treated differently to general tenancy landlords.

"Due to the communal nature of living in boarding houses, landlords will also be able to introduce house rules," the committee said.

Tenants in boarding houses had few rights compared with those in general residential tenancies. This was because tenants in boarding houses shared common facilities.

"The only protection afforded boarding house tenants currently comes from common law and some generic provisions of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993."

The committee said increasing numbers of young women were moving into boarding houses, often after leaving violent relationships or as recovering mental health patients.

"There is a view that some boarding house residents are unable to or incapable of negotiating fair agreements and ensuring that they have been granted their basic legal rights when no specific legislation stipulating their minimum tenancy rights and obligations exists."

The committee received more than 200 submissions on the bill.

Concerns raised included that the bill placed unnecessary restrictions for casual, short-term, room-by-room tenancies, and that it placed unnecessary compliance costs on landlords.

Others asked for clarification of landlords' rights to enter rooms, and commented on poor conditions found in some boarding houses.

Fifty-seven submissions came from boarding house owners, landlords and property investors expressing general opposition to the bill.

National, ACT and NZ First said in their minority report that the committee was warned that extending the Act would "severely compromise the ability of boarding house operators to run their businesses".

Some operators had said they would convert their boarding houses into flats.

"If this occurs, the Government may well find that it has orchestrated a shortage of housing for many disadvantaged people who frequent boarding houses."

Operators had warned the bill would put greater scrutiny on potential tenants, severely disadvantaging those with the greatest difficulties, problems and needs.

There were also concerns the "loose definition" of boarding houses could potentially capture the entire backpacking industry, a consequence clearly not intended.

ACT, National and NZ First said that as a result of these matters, they opposed the bill.

- NZPA