Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

$30k Ouch!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mrsaneperson
    replied
    Originally posted by John the builder View Post
    and also why they haven't responded to reach out? Their insurer will be controlling them.
    Their insurer would cover this?
    ​​​​​​To any PM out there - who would be liable for the fine, the owner or the agency?

    These types of situations would be common throughout NZ, and make fair game out of any landlord.

    I think the last case I recall with some parallels to this was the Dunedin Inglis case, thankfully the original decision to refund all the rent was overturned on appeal. Inglis sold up I understand shortly after that having had a gutsful of being a landlord. Labour govt will only make worse the housing crisis with these draconian dictates.

    However with this present case I'm left wondering why there doesn't seem to have been an appeal ?

    Leave a comment:


  • John the builder
    replied
    and also why they haven't responded to reach out? Their insurer will be controlling them.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsaneperson
    replied
    I would presume PFSL Rentals Ltd the property management agency involved would have a clause in their contract with the owner of the property making him or her responsible for fines associated .

    To any property managers out there - is their a standard clause in your agreement to cover things like this?

    Leave a comment:


  • John the builder
    replied
    The decision does rely on change of use but under the building act there wasn't one and liky the district plan allowed the building iuse as well.

    again I say this was a bullshit decision from a incompetent judge!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsaneperson
    replied
    I think they should be involved in this, as this type of situation where a sleepout is rented out as a self contained situation would be something extremely common throughout NZ.
    I don't like to use the word evil lightly in regard to this or any judgment but I think this ruling has shown utter disregard and contempt toward the landlord.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    If it was a really evil and bad, anti-LL precedent, perhaps then it could be a matter that should attract the attention of the NZPIF?

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsaneperson
    replied
    I have found the application order , issued by the Tenancy Tribunal . Just briefly reading it the main thrust appears to be the "change of use of a building".

    Comments and ideas?

    Here is the PDF:

    https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search...Number=4274718

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsaneperson
    replied
    Originally posted by John the builder View Post
    The tribunal member responsible for this decision is ex small claims tribunal Jack Tam and a disaster in that forum as well.

    he is supposed to be a trained lawyer but he has little appreciation for the rule of law?

    I suggested in #4 above that this needs appeal and i suggested in an email to PM to that effect but didnt hear back. The time for appeal is likely now gone by..

    the industry needs to get behind LL's and fight these decisions
    PFSL Rentals Ltd the agency pinged with the fine, i would think should be vehemently challenging this.

    It looks though they are a reasonable substantial company :

    https://www.facebook.com/Prorentals9934/?__xts__[0]=68.ARCLaKBiyyximO3nYsV6G-etPIhZCCMY81vL7_GHRbFdM-qEJRh9Lsizg0mhZfbPVItzgH5OjXXQma0hzYVsl5l7ih93Udyz AuCIw5CkCErpjPmVf4bkFs8rwQa85XY1mlPrUIqDOyNndjKxF-bdHJDqkyp-VjeNqy-i7ufvTP471rsEg12TQ0d6zoeVoaJfbrel9M5RQrOhLW-LxcR6bOt8ZIEJQ7DP47i3UWm7jEv34RqEPSOSPOuR88EdZNDfK zhKIKh69_bKaZuEg38VyBoT4O0N3iffZyzYY1ZnL7L4Y1OEHiG r
    Last edited by mrsaneperson; 16-02-2021, 04:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    I don't remember the process, but there's two options. One's an appln. for a re-Hearing and t'other is an appeal to the District Court. They differ in several ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • John the builder
    replied
    The tribunal member responsible for this decision is ex small claims tribunal Jack Tam and a disaster in that forum as well.

    he is supposed to be a trained lawyer but he has little appreciation for the rule of law?

    I suggested in #4 above that this needs appeal and i suggested in an email to PM to that effect but didnt hear back. The time for appeal is likely now gone by..

    the industry needs to get behind LL's and fight these decisions

    Leave a comment:


  • Perry
    replied
    Unfortunately, TT Kangaroo Kourts are:
    1) exempt from following the law;
    2) exempt from determination precedents set by TTKKs in other areas.
    (Section 85 RTA)

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsaneperson
    replied
    Has the full case pdf court file being released for this?

    I'd like to have a look over it as it seems on the surface quite an insane ruling to award the tenant 30k ?

    So the points are :

    The building is consented as a sleepout

    The family lived there for around 3 years paying a low rent of $200 pw

    The building itself was uninsulated

    Cooking appliances used were portable thereby negating fixed wiring for an oven install

    I can understand a fine based on the lacking of insulation but the insanity of a complete refund on the rent is a draconian absurdity .

    Literally there will be thousands of situations like this throughout NZ..
    I hope this gets appealed otherwise it may set a dangerous precedent.

    Leave a comment:


  • John the builder
    replied
    ummm..... you needed consent for the insulation to walls..

    and if you need consent for conversion to granny you need consent to conversion to office?

    answer;
    you dont need consent for either and if you say you replaced existing insulation then that is ok as well

    Leave a comment:


  • donna
    replied
    Yeah - we got consent for a bathroom in our garage - not that long ago, and we have set up an office with the ensuite and a 2 car garage. We went the extra mile on the rebuild of the 54 sqm building - new roof, framing, cladding, double glazed windows, doors etc - insulation in the walls and ceiling (it's on a concrete base) and sometime in the future it will make a lovely granny flat. Not sure what hoops we will need to jump through to have it on record as a granny flat. Right now it's servicing its purpose is our office. Most couriers think it's a house.

    cheers,

    Donna

    Leave a comment:


  • John the builder
    replied
    A good example importance of knowing the right answer. If you had said yes then they could have made trouble.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X