• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter MobilizeMail follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on RSS

Latest Threads/Videos


News and Views

Most Active - Last 30 Days


Deals and What's On banner
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    10,152

    Default No Way is the RTA Biased in Tenants Favour! Yeah, Right!

    Yet another example of the bias and lopsided favouritism of tenants
    by/in the RTA. Section 54:

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA
    Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect
    (1) Within 14 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the
    tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section
    51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the
    tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the
    notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the
    landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed
    exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy
    conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any
    other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating
    to the tenancy.

    (2) If, on any such application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the
    landlord was so motivated in giving the notice, it shall declare the
    notice to be of no effect unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the
    purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority,
    or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or
    would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord
    was justified in giving the notice.
    Case Study
    Application was made to the TT for an Order granting improved access
    for REAs and to allow a carpet cleaner in.

    Eventually, DBH advised a Hearing date of 7 May. Seems fair to presume
    the tenants received a similar notification.

    Within 12 hours of that Hearing Notice being received by the LL (not me)
    the tenants advise the LL that they will be ending their tenancy on the
    6 May. Coincidence? Or an attempt to avoid a TT Hearing?

    It seems fair to speculate that the tenants were motivated to end their
    tenancy the day before the Hearing, so as to avoid the Hearing. I.e. it
    was a retaliatory notice motivated by the tenant to avoid the LL making
    just use of the provisions of the RTA.

    But s54 of our pro-tenant RTA is wholly in favour of tenants exercising
    their 'rights' and wholly inimical to LLs exercising theirs.

    The RTA Biased in Tenants Favour? No Way! Yeah, right!

    I feel another letter to Dill Bleatley coming on . . .

  2. #2

    Default

    In a nutshell this is enshrined in the RTA :

    2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving

    voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on

    landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or

    more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on
    landlords by this Act.
    (3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power
    conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.


    So landlords can give away their rights but tenants can't. So long as this is written into the RTA , the legislation is biased against landlords.Totally unfair.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    10,152

    Default

    Yes, that's very true. But, in this case, there is no giving up of
    anything by anyone, voluntarily or otherwise. The actual section
    is biased, ipso facto.

    Follow me a little . . .

    Section heading:
    Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect

    An example from section content:
    the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the
    [retaliatory] notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the
    notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise
    or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority,
    or remedy conferred on the tenant by . . . this or any other Act
    or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to
    the tenancy.


    The section heading refers to the declaring of a [deemed] retaliatory
    notice, yet the section provides that only the tenant can apply to
    have a notice declared as retaliatory. That's similar to s7 relating to
    short fixed term tenancies. I.e. both parties (LL & tenant) are not
    allowed to enter into trial tenancies.

    But, once again, only the tenant has the right of appeal. Viz:
    (2B) The Tribunal may, on the application of a tenant or former tenant
    who is or who was a party to a fixed-term tenancy of not more than
    90 days, order the extension or renewal of that tenancy on any terms
    that the Tribunal thinks just
    . . .

    If "the parties" are not allowed to do whatever, why aren't "the parties"
    given equal rights of appeal?

    Because Dill Bleatley and co are morons is among the many reasons.
    Last edited by Perry; 06-04-2012 at 10:49 PM. Reason: fixed typo

  4. #4

    Default

    Amazing how governments bend over backwards to favor tenant issues. We see some of this in Seattle Washington USA, where triple damages can be awarded if it is decided that a landlord evicted based on an action they deem retaliatory.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    4,451

    Default

    Right of renewal.

    Here's a curly one for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA
    A tenant who wishes to exercise a right under the tenancy agreement to require the landlord to grant the tenant a renewal or an extension of the tenancy must exercise that right by giving the landlord written notice, in accordance with this section, of the tenantís intention to exercise the right
    Quote Originally Posted by RTA
    The tenant must give notice of the tenantís intention not later than the 21st day before the date on which the tenancy would otherwise expire.
    Well. That seems clear doesn't it? Must exercise that right. And here: Must give notice.
    Excellent!. One would imagine that, should notice not be given, and the right not be taken up that the tenancy ends and you can go on to place a new tenant?

    Yes?

    NO!

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA
    On an application, made before or after the expiry of the tenancy, by a tenant who has failed to comply with subsection (1) or (2) but who wishes to renew or extend the tenancy, the Tribunal may order the renewal or extension of the tenancy.
    OK, there are some hurdles for the tenant to jump through but.....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,747

    Default

    As I recollect it, when the RTA was in the process of passing through The House, the bias in favour of tenants was noted.

    This was admitted, and explained by the governing party of the day as necessary to redress the natural balance of power that existed between the well-funded and heavily resourced landlord and the poverty-stricken and powerless tenant.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •