Some interesting TT decisions.

[Perry]

I wonder if the same punctilious strictness would be applied to any tenant's application? Probably not. Tenants would be favoured with some sort of workaround like: the intention is clear, even if the form is slightly deficient.

[Wayne]

I wonder if the same punctilious strictness would be applied to any tenant's application? Probably not. Tenants would be favoured with some sort of workaround like: the intention is clear, even if the form is slightly deficient.

To be fair the LL was supposed to be professional (they set up a company for it) and using the wrong name is sloppy at best and inexcusable really.
All they needed to do was give another notice with the right name - no need for a TT application. I really don't understand why they didn't just do that - people playing silly games.

[artemis]

To be fair the LL was supposed to be professional (they set up a company for it) and using the wrong name is sloppy at best and inexcusable really.
All they needed to do was give another notice with the right name - no need for a TT application. I really don't understand why they didn't just do that - people playing silly games.

Too true. I mistakenly assumed it was the tenant who applied, not so.

[BigWal]

Picture Hooks

An old issue, and the consensus in the past is that it's just not worth claiming for picture hook damage unless it's particularly bad.

Anyway - this ruling has a slightly different stance than I've seen before.

A rental property may be used in the same way as any reasonable owner uses the property.

This includes making holes in walls for picture hooks or stick on hooks provided there is not anexcessive number of hooks. That is fair wear and tear.

TT No. is 4037585.

[Perry]

If you're a company applying to the TT it might pay to be absolutely sure that the name on your application is 100% correct. TT number = 4043959

The tenant objects to the ‘landlords’ right of entry on the basis that the notice was provided by“Iron Bridge Property Management Ltd”, where the tenancy agreement is with “Iron BridgeProperty Management (Auck) Ltd”.

I have reviewed the Companies Register, and agree with the tenant that these are two separately registered companies.

From a strictly technical perspective, the notice provided by the ‘landlord’ to the tenant is deficient, in that the notice records the wrong landlord in that it refers to ‘Iron Bridge Property Management Ltd’ not ‘Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Ltd’.

Finding as I do that the notice provided is deficient, I am not prepared to make an order granting entry to the property.

I wonder if the same punctilious strictness would be applied to any tenant's application? Probably not. Tenants would be favoured with some sort of workaround like: the intention is clear, even if the form is slightly deficient.

To be fair the LL was supposed to be professional (they set up a company for it) and using the wrong name is sloppy at best and inexcusable really.

Too true.

Not surprisingly, I disagree - emphatically. Carelessness aside, there is something more important at stake. If ever we needed ever more proof that the TT Kangaroo Kourts favour tenants, we have yet another example. Note the bits I have emphasised, in red.

85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.

(2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

Compare the two items, side-by-side.

The KK Klutz said: "From a strictly technical perspective,"

The RTA says: "shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal technicalities."

That decision was the usual egregious TT Kangaroo Kourt bias in favour of tenants.

[BigWal]

Not sure I'd rely on this, as it seems a bit of an outlier, but ...

It turns out, at least according to the following decision, that you can serve a document by email, even if an email address has not been provided as an address for service. There's a fair bit to read about it, but that was the TT's decision.

Also, interestingly, the ruling seems to directly contradict Section 136 (9) of the RTA, that specifically states that an email sent after 5pm

... is to be treated, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have been given or served on the next working day after the date on which it was transmitted.

In this case the email was sent at 5:14pm, but still was ruled as having been served that day. But I guess they just got that part wrong.

[Edit - in hindsight I got that wrong. The agent stated that they got the email about 5:15pm, so I guess that counts as "evidence to the contrary"]

Ruling # was 13/04417/AK

[Keys]

It turns out, at least according to the following decision, that you can serve a document by email, even if an email address has not been provided as an address for service.

The Electronic Transactions Act 2002 allows: "consent may be inferred from a person's conduct" for receipt of correspondence electronically.

Ergo, correspond with a tenant by email and you allow your email to be an address for service.

[sidinz]

The Electronic Transactions Act 2002 allows: "consent may be inferred from a person's conduct" for receipt of correspondence electronically.

Ergo, correspond with a tenant by email and you allow your email to be an address for service.

i wonder if you can opt out of this? I certainly have major issues with email being used as my address for service. If you put a clause in the agreement, would it stick?

[Perry]

Yes. Keys has just such a clause. I recall that the thread is called "Shafted by the Electronic Transactions Act."

[Keys]

i wonder if you can opt out of this? I certainly have major issues with email being used as my address for service. If you put a clause in the agreement, would it stick?

Hi Sidinz. My full footer, which appears on every email I send, follows:

Regards


Keys


www.triplekay.co.nz


************************************************** **********************************************


The Electronic Transactions Act 2002 allows: "consent may be inferred from
a person's conduct" for receipt of correspondence electronically. We hereby
deny any consent to accepting any correspondence which the Residential
Tenancies Act 1986 requires to be sent via writing if that correspondence is
sent electronically. We hereby instruct the initiator of any such correspondence
to put it in writing, sign it and post it, drop it off in the letter box or hand deliver
it to our address for service as is written on the initiators Tenancy Agreement.


CAUTION - This message is intended for the addressee named above.
It may contain privileged or confidential information.


If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must:
- Not use, copy, distribute or disclose it to anyone other than the addressee;
- Notify the sender via return email; and
- Delete the message (and any related attachments) from your computer immediately.


Internet emails are not necessarily secure. Triple Kay Property Management,
and its related entities, do not accept responsibility for changes made to this
message after it was sent.


Triple Kay Property Management.


************************************************** **********************************************

Edited to add link to respective section in the Act.

[BigWal]

Sorry Keys - I've seen your footer before, and it's very clear and explicit. However - I never got round to asking - why don't you want to use email as an address for service?

[BigWal]

Ooof! On a different note - I decided to do a search for TT rulings containing the word "inferred", and this one was one of the first I found.

In short, if a LL doesn't have a code of compliance for a building the are renting out, they may be held liable to repay all the rent a tenant has paid them while renting the property, in particular when the property can't be safely used as a dwelling.

[Wayne]

Ooof! On a different note - I decided to do a search for TT rulings containing the word "inferred", and this one was one of the first I found.

In short, if a LL doesn't have a code of compliance for a building the are renting out, they may be held liable to repay all the rent a tenant has paid them while renting the property, in particular when the property can't be safely used as a dwelling.

May is the operative word here.
The decision clearly sets out the reasoning which appears sound.
If you don't have a CoC but the building could get a CoC and the reason it doesn't have one is technical (forgot to ask etc) then it is rentable.

Interesting in this case that the lack of CoC for all habitation was olny obvious by looking at the file rather than just the LIM
The only evidence that the code of compliancedid not relate to the terms of the original consent was in a handwritten memorandum held onthe Council file for the property.

Ouch!
Note, though, that the bathroom and kitchen was added by the new owner.

[Perry]

Do I detect a subtle difference between a CoC for a building and a CoC for certain works in that building?

[Wayne]

Do I detect a subtle difference between a CoC for a building and a CoC for certain works in that building?

It had a CoC for the building as a garage/office but not one for the kitchen/bathroom and to 'live' in it.
Being an office it wouldn't matter so much if it was damp - you wouldn't be 'living' in it