Insurance loophole a 'nightmare' for ChCh red zone

24 Aug 2011 03:39p.m.

lyn johnston wrote:

Hi Iam in sefton and due to a marriage split up our farm of 23acres is on the market but I didn't realise that my X husband cancelled our insurance till after the earthquake.I'm lucky there is no damage but will struggle to sell till I find an insurer wouldn't you think the govt would help perfect place for a family to start again.
Lyn

01 Jul 2011 01:04a.m.

Colin wrote:

This Government are taking a lead on this and showing the insurance companies what it is to have a social responsibility wider than what they could claim they have. Its a shame that commercial organisations who build a relationship with there clients based on this, for money, don't have such an attitude. The Banks and others in Queensland certainly showed more social responsibility in last years floods when they wrote off mortgages for devastated families. There is another issue that is going on as well and that is where the trades-persons doing repairs are being asked to do them in such a way that they would not meet the applicable safety legislation with underlying suggestion made that if they do not do the repairs the way they want them done then it is unlikely they will receive further calls for there assistance. (I've been trying to help colleagues via CREA to sort this out but no luck. If the repairs are carried out in the way they are being directed it will result in fires and loss of life. But do they care, the bosses don't live here we are just a figure on a spreadsheet. This is a situation where they are like modern Government Departments in that they have the look and feel of something substantial but they will not act as they indicate as they are not actually prepared take any risk. They want the money but not the risk. How can we trust these companies in a so called commercial environment that is supposed to deliver the best for the clients of the company when in reality they are only interested in themselves. We would be better off investing the money we pay to them into an insurance version of Kiwi Saver and if something like this happens pull what we have out and take care of ourselves. At least the Government would have the use of this money for the countries benefit rather than these so called corporately responsible companies.

29 Jun 2011 03:17p.m.

nick a wrote:

insurance comps have always been like this, but it is usually only a few people who get done over by them so nobody cared then...but now theres a few thousand being effected so now "its just not right". Many people would be shocked to learn that your fully insured car is probly not covered for deliberate acts such as vandalism...eg some punk tags your car, you not covered. People need to read the fine print!

29 Jun 2011 03:10p.m.

LAJ wrote:

You can move "tenant", just give 3 weeks notice. If you have a fixed term tenancy then I'm afraid that is the risk you entered into when you signed up for it. You can move out any time before then, the property manager can't force you to stay, but you will have to keep paying the rent unless you can find a suitable replacement tenant for your landlord. I do live here actually and have young kids going through all the quakes etc. The difference is I own my house so can't just up and leave my financial responsibilities.

29 Jun 2011 02:00p.m.

dorothy wrote:

how could john key come out with the announced outcome and now we learn the gov't never had the brains to reach a deal with all insurance companies so the rules would be black and white,this is a very bad gov't oversight and one that belies belief. they have caused more problems instead of fixing them.perhaps if they were not so engrossed in the CBD
they might have put more into solving the homeowners problems. gov't need to be held accountable for this appalling outcome. no agreement with insurance is gross negligence, no wonder nz is struggling.

29 Jun 2011 11:25a.m.

THIS ISSUE NEEDS ATTENTION & PUBLICITY wrote:

"...LAJ 29 Jun 2011 10:05a.m. And someone please investigate the plight of the poor landlord if tenants are allowed to break their leases WHEN THE - ( HOUSE ) - IS OK..." LAJ misses the point completely. I do have sympathy for Landlords, but, that's the risk they take in this line of business. Plus I am still looking to RENT from someone - anyway. If the "...HOUSE..." was damaged and RED STICKERED it's not the landlords or my fault - we are all victims of unforseen circumstances. But I do have issue with Property Managers deliberately holding people back from renting OTHER properties when they can get another rental in a safer area - if RED ZONING qualifies under Section 59 making the "...LAND..." un-inhabitable. That's what I want made clear. There were meter wide cravasses, not just cracks, only fifteen feet from my front doorstep after Febuary and huge cracks running through our section and the next door neighbors and accross the street from September and the 7000+ earthquakes and aftershocks since. What next? What if theres another BIG ONE or TWO or THREE? How unsafe does it have to get before we are allowed to move - somewhere safe? And our house is damaged and sinking on one side - besides all that. Liquifaction do have I to mention that? Daily - Nightly shakes terrifiying my kids! It is obvious you don't live here buddy! All we want is to move somewhere SAFE! And not have to wait 9+ month's - when there are no rentals left or even worse only sub-standard-over-priced ones left in Christchurch. We are very good tenants and paying customers and expect and a certain level customer service and respect from our Landlords. And that is all. If we are entitled to move on legitiamately because of damage to the "...LAND..." because of RED ZONING & Section 59 - then we can get on with the rest of our lives.

29 Jun 2011 10:14a.m.

Carlos wrote:

Stop moaning, and take the deal !

29 Jun 2011 10:05a.m.

LAJ wrote:

And someone please investigate the plight of the poor landlord if tenants are allowed to break their leases when the house is ok. They still have to pay mortgages, rates insurance etc. Landlords are in possibly the worst position of anyone. They have lost their incomes, their investments, and possibly their own homes. No wonder there is a shortage of rentals in Christchurch- you would be a mug to want to be a landlord down there. Why are tenants any more special than any other people forced to stay in their damaged houses in red, orange and white zones. Landlords are people too and tenants might like to consider their landlord's position a bit more compassionately before they walk off.

29 Jun 2011 08:34a.m.

THIS ISSUE NEEDS ATTENTION & PUBLICITY wrote:

House ( OWNERS ) in the RED ZONE have clear guidelines on what to do and where they stand. ( TENANTS ) WHO ( RENT ) DON'T! If the "...HOUSE..." in which someone who RENTS lives was RED STICKERED by EQC or a qualified builder they can give two days notice and get out. That was clear. But what is the situation with the "...LAND..." and the "RED ZONE"? Is RED ZONING the same as RED STICKERING for tenants who are renting a property? The Property Managers who we rent off say NO! They say as long as the "...HOUSE..." is habitable then we have to stay as long as they say. But the Department of Building and Housing, when I spoke to them on the 24th June after the big announcement said the ( Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ) - Section 59 entitled "Destruction of Premises" clause applies to the "...LAND..." as long as it has been RED ZONED. But they were not absolutely CLEAR or CERTAIN at that stage. I have a copy of Section 59 and it actually says: "...the PREMISES are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be un-inhabitable..." It mentions the word "...HOUSE..." no where! The web page for my particular house at LADCHECK.ORG.NZ says in it's opening line: "...Sorry but this PROPERTY has been zoned red. That means THE LAND has been SO BADLY DAMAGED by the earthquakes it is unlikely it can be rebuilt on for a prolonged period..." Can someone at TV3 bring attention to this issue publicly please? I hope someone reads this and gives it serious attention because there are many many tenants in the 5,100 houses in the RED ZONE who want to know! We are anxious and worried and just want to move on before the homes we live in get bulldozed. There IS at this very moment a mad dash for RENTAL PROPERTIES in Christchurch and we don't want to be held back by greedy and manipulative Property Managers before it's to late. We need black & white crystal clear guidelines. Not if's, but's or maybe's! I want to remain anomynous.

28 Jun 2011 11:06p.m.

Donnelly wrote:

NZ is un-insurable now and therefor property values will plummet to an unbelieveable low.