A LANDLORD'S COMPLAINT
BAD TENANTS AND SMALL PROFITS. An owner of house property in Wellington had something to say to a Dominion reporter yesterday on the subject of the never-failing controversy between landlords and tenants. He had noticed with approval the movement for the formation of a Property Owners' Association in Wellington,, and hoped that tho new body was going to state its case boldly. "For the lot of the Wellington landlord'is hard." he said, "and the public mind ought' to be disabused of the impression that every mail who lets a house is making enormous and extortionate profits." "Here is a case from my own books/' he 1 said. "I am letting a fivc-roomed house at 17s. 6d. per week. It is an ordinary wooden house, in a part of tlie town inhabited mostly by working people, but it has reasonablo conveniences, and the rent represents something under 6 per cent, on the capital value as set down in the books of tho Valuation Department. I find, on looking back over my accounts, that when I reckon tho cost of painting and repairs, and losses on rent that was not paid, I have not netted 2 per cent, on the money that the house represents. ' "I might quote another case. A landlord repapored a house, and let it. Within a few weeks his tenants developed scarlet fever. They left without paying all that they owed, and he had to pay the Health Department's bill for disinfecting the place, arid then paper it again, by order of tho authorities. Before the end of tlie year another infectious disease had appeared in the family of a tenant, and once again that house had to bo disinfected and repapered. The owner lost morns' on tlie house that year. , "It is all very well- to quote illustrations taken from favoured localities in order to show that the landlords aro making profits. But tjio fact is that tlie ordinary landlord lias houses in various parts of tho town, and ho lias to strike an average of profit if lie is to do any sooii a!: nil. I would be willing to reduce all my rents 20 per cent, if I wore guaranteed good tenants, and protected against charges outside crdinary wear and tear. But there is no protection of that sort to bo got." Another landlord mentioned that Wellington tenants had cause to regret the construction of so many wooden houses. Brick houses had represented a slightly larger initial cost, and there had been a prejudice against thorn in the past on account of the possibility of damage by earthquake, liut with modern methods of reinforcement tho brick house was as well ablo to endure any ordinary carthouake as a wooden house, and it gave much greater satisfaction to tenant and landlord aliko than a wooden houso could do. Tho perpetual charges for tho repair and painting of wooden houses, many ol them now fairly old, was ono of tho reasons why. Wellington rents were apparently high. At the present time, owing to tho l'noroascd prico of timber, tho brick houso costs very little more' to tuilvl than the wooden, house.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19160908.2.20
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2871, 8 September 1916, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
527A LANDLORD'S COMPLAINT Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2871, 8 September 1916, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.