Sunday, May 17, 2015

Legislative Update: Low Landlord Turnout hurts Eviction Law

Howdee everyone,
 
Important Updates:
HB315, 7 Days Eviction Notice In Certain Circumstances
Important action item below.
The public Senate hearing was this week.  The tenant advocates came out fairly strong against this bill especially against the provision relating to unauthorized pets.  The landlord turn out was very poor.
 
Were you thinking, “oh some one else will handle it?”
That kind of thinking defeats the entire Legislative Initiative.  We need every one showing up and contacting legislators.
 
It is very likely we lost some ground on this important bill because of the lack of landlord involvement.  Please get involved.  See action items below.
 
 
HB309, Removal of Tenant's Property
Again, not much landlord turn out at the hearing on this bill.  Fortunately, it does not have a strong push back so we may still prevail on this one.
 
Please get involved.  See action items below.
 
 
SB135, 2015 Lead Law Changes
The House has passed SB135 as amended which includes our requests.
 
You can see the version that passed the House at
 
Next will be to have a “committee of conference” with both Senate and House represented to resolve differences in the bill.  We will likely need to stay involved all the way through the process.  Stay tuned.
 
 
Action items this week:
1. HB315, 7 Days Eviction Notice In Certain Circumstances
NHLA wants to remove 7 day eviction notice for unauthorized animals from the bill.
 
Review talking points for this bill much further below, (use control-F for find).
 
Contact the committee, and stress why having these new 7 day eviction notices are important especially stories about problems with unauthorized animals and why we need to get the animals out quicker.  The longer an animal is in the apartment the more damage it will cause.
 
Email committee at
 
2. HB309, Removal of Tenant's Property
Contact the committee, and ask them to support passing HB309.
 
Email committee at
 
 
Hearings this week:
None scheduled so far.
 
 
Hearings next week:
None scheduled so far.
 
 
Further below is:
Bills Updated Status summary:
Full details on all bills above
(Which includes property owner position, contact info, talking points, and more)
 
Love & Light,
Nick Norman
Director of Legislative Affairs
==============================================
We only list the committee reports on the most important bills affecting the real estate business.  If you want to get the committee report on one of the other bills contact me & I will show you how to get them on line.  It’s not terribly hard to get but not straight ahead either.
 
SB235     
Title: relative to the condominium act and the land sales full disclosure act.
Property Owner Position: LimitedImpact; You Decide
House Status: 
Senate Status: PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
 
HB309     
Title: permitting landlords to remove tenants' property in certain circumstances.
Property Owner Position: For
House Status: PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE
 
HB315     
Title: relative to termination of tenancy.
Property Owner Position: For
House Status: PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE
==============================================
Full details on all bills above:
SB235, Condominium Sale Recording & Financial Disclosure Requirements
04/21/2015 at 10:00 AM    LOB 301
Title: Title: relative to the condominium act and the land sales full disclosure act.
 
Summary:
 
Property Owner Position: LimitedImpact; You Decide
 
 
Email to Committee: 
Subject: SB235 
 
Analysis Stated in Bill: 
 
Talking Points:
The bill does not seem to have any direct effect on the residential rental market.
=====================
HB309, Removal of Tenant's Property
05/12/2015 at 09:50 AM    SH 100
Title: Title: permitting landlords to remove tenants' property in certain circumstances.
 
Summary: The landlord shall be able to remove property (without penalty) that creates a hazard or blocks access to common areas. No notice is required.
 
The Landlord shall be able to remove property with notice for property such as unregistered vehicles, or anything else prohibited in the lease, provided that two notices are given at least 24 hours apart.
 
Property Owner Position: For
 
 
Email to Committee: 
Subject: HB309 
 
Analysis Stated in Bill: 
 
Talking Points:
We need everyone to show up at the hearing in favor of this bill & call and write to legislators to support this important bill.  Stay tuned for changes.  We have met with NHLA who has proposed changes most of which we agree with,
 
Currently, RSA 540-A:3 III specifically prohibits a landlord directly or indirectly denying a tenant access to the tenant’s personal property other than by proper judicial process.  This would include having a tenant’s vehicle or other property towed or removed from the landlord’s property.  Without this bill, if the landlord towed a tenant’s vehicle to comply with local ordinances or to provide access for emergency vehicles or to stop tenant’s car from blocking the driveway or another tenants parking spot, etc, etc, the present statute would subject a landlord to a $1,000 fine, plus a $1,000 a day fine for each day the tenant does not have his or her car after a court issues an order.  If the car was towed, the landlord, to stop the $1000/day fines, would have to pay all towing and storage fees.  The landlord would also be subject to paying the defendant’s attorney fees and costs.
 
HB 309 would eliminate this risk for landlords in certain limited circumstances. If the bill is enacted, and a tenant’s property is in a travel lane, common driveway, fire lane, the entrance or exit to any of these, or is in the entrance to a parking area or blocks a dumpster , then a landlord could legally remove a tenant’s property without notice to the tenant, and at the tenant’s expense.
 
For less egregious scenarios the bill would also allow a landlord to remove tenant’s property, after two notices to the tenant, with the second notice not to be delivered to the tenant until 24 hours after the first notice.  These scenarios include if the tenant’s property is located in a posted no parking area, is an unregistered or uninspected motor vehicle, is leaking fluids that are damaging the parking surface or are an environmental hazard, or is parked or stored in a manner that is in violation of the lease.
 
We need everyone’s full support for this bill. If passed, it will aid us in maintaining our properties, and in removing junk from our parking lots & handling tenants who just flatly refuse to follow their lease requirements regarding parking.   The bill is necessary in order to keep our properties clean and safe & to legally comply with local ordinance and zoning laws which require removal of certain offensive property.
 
The bill also offers protection for tenants who don't realize they are breaking a lease requirement. Once notified they would have the ability to correct the problem or the landlord will have the authority to correct it.
=====================
HB315, 7 Days Eviction Notice In Certain Circumstances
05/12/2015 at 10:05 AM    SH 100
Title: Title: relative to termination of tenancy.
 
Summary: This bill reduces the eviction notice from 30 days to 7 days in the following instances:
Someone staying in the unit who is not on the lease for more than 14 days consecutive or 30 days in a calendar year.
Pets or animals that are not in the lease.
Failure of tenant to put utilities in their name when required to do so.
 
Property Owner Position: For
 
 
Email to Committee: 
Subject: HB315 
 
Analysis Stated in Bill: 
 
Talking Points:
We need everyone to show up at the hearing in favor of this bill & call and write to legislators to support this important bill.  Stay tuned for changes.  We have met with NHLA who has proposed changes.  Some we agree with, some need further work.
 
New Hampshire law allows a landlord in most residential tenancies to evict tenants by serving the tenants either a 7 days Eviction Notice or a 30 days eviction notice. Presently the 7 days eviction notice can only be used in certain limited circumstances.  Those circumstances are: (a) non-payment of rent  (b) substantial damages caused by the tenant, members of his family or guests (c) behavior by the tenant, members of  his family or guest that adversely affects the health, safety of the landlord or other tenants or failure to accept temporary alternative housing during lead paint abatement.  All other evictions require a 30 days Eviction Notice.
 
HB 315, if enacted, would add three additional circumstances where a landlord could use a 7 days Eviction Notice.  These three are:
(1) a person staying in the leased premises who is not a party to the lease, and does not have the consent of the landlord, for more than 14 consecutive days or more than 30 days in a calendar year 
(2) having a pet or animal in the premises in violation of a lease or rental agreement
(3) failure to establish utilities in the tenant’s or terminating utility service when the tenant is required to pay such under the terms of the lease. Please note, that each of the above categories has to be a breach of the lease. For those landlords who do not use leases, or do not prohibit these categories in their leases, they would not be able to use the provisions of this bill, if it became law.
 
This bill has major advantages for landlords in dealing with the tenants who are purposely breaking the terms of a lease in the three circumstances outlined above, or do not have the financial means to abide by the terms of the lease.
 
Extra people who move into our apartments, especially if the landlord pays for heat and hot water, use these utilities solely at the expense of the landlord.  The additional people not only increase utility usage but also wear and tear of the apartment, again at the landlord’s expense. These people also are not parties to lease, many times do not know or care about the terms of the lease or the rules and regulations of the landlord, and have nothing to lose if they violate the terms of the lease. Since they are invited into the apartment by the tenant, the police are reluctant to issue a no trespass order. Basically, these extra people are living for free at the landlord’s expense. Some may even consider these people stealing our services.  And what about those cases where an invitee of a tenant takes over the apartment saying they are the tenant but have never signed or agreed to any terms of the lease.  People who are “crashing” at someone's apartment, can be a danger to the landlord and other tenants unless properly screened and approved.
 
Many of us charge more rent for people with pets in order to offset the damage some pets do to our buildings, and since the rent is higher, charge a higher security deposit equal to one month’s rent.  The tenant who sneaks a pet in without our consent is depriving us of the ability to charge the higher rent and obtain more security deposit from that tenant to offset the extra wear and tear and damage from the pet. It also makes it much more difficult to collect the additional rent from other tenants who have pets once they hear about what the “sneak” did at no additional cost.
 
Unauthorized dogs could bite someone, triggering a lawsuit. The landlord could have his insurance policy cancelled just by the dog being there, especially in the case of “aggressive” breeds.  This has forced the property to go on surplus insurance at a much greater cost with less coverage.
 
Pets can be destructive.  The longer the pet is in an apartment, the more destruction it can do.  For instance, a cat clawing on the wood work or using the carpets as a litter box, will cause more damage the longer it is in the apartment. Also if the animal has flees, and sooner that animal is out of the building, the less likely the fleas will spread to other units. (There seems to be a direct correlation between the people who sneak a pet in, and the people who do not take proper care of their pet).  Reducing the time it takes to evict the tenant, by 23 days, substantially reduces the time the pets can damage the rented unit.
 
If a tenant does not put utilities into his or her name, or terminates utilities or has utilities shut off on them, one of two things could happen.  The first is creating a risk of the building freezing during the winter. The longer the utilities are off, the greater the risk of damage to the building. The second is that the utilities are often transferred into the landlord’s name, and the landlord has to pay for services that the tenant agreed to pay for when the tenant signed the lease. Since a landlord may not terminate utilities on a tenant the landlord then remains stuck paying for a tenant’s utilities which the tenant should be paying per the lease agreement. Reducing the time that tenant had to use someone else’s services, would reduce the loss to the landlord. This is no different than a non-payment of rent, especially since rents are reduced when utilities, principally heat, is not included.
 
Landlords often get complaints from other tenants at the property about these issues.  This bill would help landlords to more quickly address the concerns of other tenants in the building & enforce the terms of the lease more efficiently.
=====================


==========
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)