Some interesting TT decisions.

[Perry]

Thanks. I didn't search for the decision. I was curious about the works vs building thing.

[Keys]

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?

We have a specific email address for tenants to write to. Any other could find an email lost. If the sender's computer has the wrong date on it it will show up as being way down the list.

[Perry]

How does SMS (Texting) rate in the TTKKs?

[BigWal]

If the sender's computer has the wrong date on it it will show up as being way down the list.

Hah - I never knew that, and I work in IT! I always assumed the timestamp was from the receiving server, since emails from overseas still show the time they were sent in NZ terms. In hindsight, the sender's timestamp is just converted to the local timezone you're in.

Article here explains it.

[sidinz]

Slightly off-topic....when I came back to NZ, I left the timestamp on my laptop as where I'd come from, so I knew what the time was for my friends for online chatting etc when I was online.

Bit me in the bum when I booked ferry tickets. Their system assumed that timestamps that differed from NZ's meant that the booking was coming from overseas, i.e. traveller not in the country yet. So I was only shown the expensive, refundable fares.

Not a happy bunny when I realised I'd paid waaaaaaaaay too much for my ticket because of it.

[Keys]

Hah - I never knew that, and I work in IT!

Have a look at the X rated spam. Some of them have the dates set two or three days ahead. That way they stay on the top of the pile for a few days.

[Wayne]

Have a look at the X rated spam. Some of them have the dates set two or three days ahead. That way they stay on the top of the pile for a few days.

Often spam filters will see that as spam and biff it.

[BigWal]

Compensation for stress, inconvenience, humiliation and loss of dignity. Yeah, nah.

The tenant also sought compensation for stress, inconvenience, humiliation and loss ofdignity. A sum of $5,000 was suggested by the tenant as reasonable compensation. TheCourt of Appeal has held that general damages for non-pecuniary loss, such as mentaldistress, cannot be recovered for breach of contract, except when mental satisfaction is anobject of the contract (Bloxham v Robinson (1996) 7 TCLR 11; [1996] 2 NZLR 664 (CA)). Aresidential tenancy agreement is a contract for accommodation and mental satisfaction is notan object of such contracts. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the tenant is not entitled togeneral damages for stress, inconvenience, humiliation and loss of dignity.

TT ruling #4026889

[Perry]

At least that precedent worked in the LL's favour.

[BigWal]

It's far too late, and I'm going to bed now, but every now and again you strike gold!

It is clear that the carpet and underlay throughout thehouse were extensively damaged by dog urine. A large portion of the damaged carpet was produced at the hearing and the staining was obvious

TT#15/00516/MK. My emphasis in bold.

Oh to have been a fly on the wall!

[eri]

probably flies on the carpet

[BigWal]

A landlord's hand may not be stayed indefinitely.

In short, just 'cos the TT has turned down a 90 day notice you've issued you can still at some time in the future issue another one to the tenant.

The decision stated:

In the short term at least it would defeat the point of the retaliatory notice provisions for thelandlord to be able to immediately issue a further notice. For this reason the landlord is ordered not toissue a further 90 day notice for at least 30 days

(my emphasis in bold)

Personally, I wouldn't rely on 30 days being an absolute - it sounds a bit arbitrary (or at least subject to the adjudicators assessment of what's reasonable given the circumstances)

Regardless, the underlying reasoning seems fair.

Reason 7 here.

[BigWal]

Landlords not liable for damage to tenant's property by contractors

Ruling 4024616, reason 9.

[BigWal]

'Suitable for' on Trademe does not mean 'Maximum number' of tenants.

Ruling 4072568, reason #4.

[BigWal]

Oof! Tenants can't be held liable for damage to shared facilities under the RTA.

I think I've summarised this correctly, but would welcome any opinions.

-----------

Long decision, but in short, intentional or careless damage to facilities provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant in a shared tenancy property cannot be considered a breach of the tenant's responsibilities under the RTA.

Ruling 4070734

According to the RTA, facilities include

(a)

any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles:

(b)

laundry facilities:

(c)

cooking facilities:

(d)

lifts and stairways:

(e)

rubbish storage and rubbish disposal facilities:

(f)

toilet and washing facilities:

(g)

appliances for heating or cooling premises:

(h)

communication facilities:

(i)

recreational areas:

(j)

lawns, gardens, and outhouses