"Address for Service" S(2) Interpretation

[Keys]

Quote: "means the address given by the landlord or tenant under this Act as the address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by or on behalf of the landlord or tenant, as the case may be:" Unquote

Service of documents" S 136(1) (d)

Quote "It is transmitted to a facismile number specified in the tenancy agreement, or otherwise stated in writing by the landlord or tenant, as a facismile number by which the landlord or the tenant will accept service of documents relating to the tenancy." Unquote

"Address" is not defined.

Therefore, I put it to you as a defensible position:

An "Address for Service" may be (and only be) a facsimile number.

Keys


P.S.

Just popped a request under the OIA for clarification. It'll be interesting to see the fudging answer.

Keys

[Glenn]

I have heard this use of the fax number suggested by other people.
Regardless of what the RTA says there are are other laws and agencies than Tenancy Services.
Just try using anything apart from a physical address at the Collections unit of the district court or only supplying a fax number to the bond centre,
I do manage to get away with a PO Box with the bond centre. For all other documents I use an industrial factory address.

[xris]

I can see keys' point but I too felt that other laws/precedents relating to addresses for service would dictate what constituted an address for service - it has to be a physical address.

Glenn, wil this be one of the changes to the new altered RTA?

xris

[Glenn]

Glenn, wil this be one of the changes to the new altered RTA?

xris

I did make a number of recommendations in my submissions but they were ignored or disallowed.
I can not remember what if anything was said at the consultation meeting about address for service. However subsequent news releases indicate that the consultation process was a sham and that Depart of housing and the minister has a hidden agenda. I fail to see why they would go through the effort and expense of paying for a bunch of people to attend these meetings and then release completely different details to the media.
I do wonder if a different set of data was released to the three different groups they consulted. Then on second thoughts perhaps they listened more to one of the groups. They consulted with tenants, Real estate agents, and landlords. I did notice they cunningly avoided talking about the one major issue facing real estate agents this being the letting fee.
As I mischieviously alledge they have a hidden agenda.

Actually one thing that has not hit the forum thinkers is the affect that Philip Field will have on the RTA review.
The Pacific Island representative on housing issues states that Islander families are larger than other nationalities. The RTA review states that tenants who over populate houses will now be fined.
I can not see Field being happy about that. It is likely he will vote against it and this might make the bill in its current form unpassable.

Hows that for a wild thought.
Any comments you secret viewers from DBH.
One

[xris]

In light of Mr Field's comments, why can't landlords put in a clause....

"No more than five people to reside at the property, unless they are all Pacific Islanders in which case ten people will be allowed."

Surely that would help everybody?

xris

[cube]

That is discriminating on the grounds of race, and that would never do.

[Perry]

I can see Keys' point but I too felt that other laws/precedents relating to addresses for service would dictate what constituted an address for service - it has to be a physical address.

Xris, I agree and disagree. Each Statute is supposed to 'stand
alone,' except insofar as it references other statutes. Each
statute has it's own interpretation section, in which words
and phrases are defined for the purposes of that Act.

That such definitions are (or may be) contrary to the
definitions of the very same words and phrases in other
statutes is immaterial. Tax law is one where this sort of
shenanigans is the most blatant. I.e. where something is
defined one way in one Act and another way in another Act,
because the focus is on revenue generation, rather than
consistency.

So while I agree that there is a mountain of precedents for an
address for service being a physical address, that does not
stop the RTA or an RTA-appointed adjudicator placing
some other definition upon it, provided that their
empowering enactment allows such interpretation
to occur.

[xris]

Yes Perry, a good point. What we could all do with is somebody having a test case, or going for a judicial review. Any volunteers?

[BlamBlam]

How could only providing a fax number as an address for service be of use if the tenant does not have access to a fax machine?

[Keys]

How could only providing a fax number as an address for service be of use if the tenant does not have access to a fax machine?

I don't believe my point is being made. I would not accept a tenant's fax number as an address for service. On the other hand, there are some tenants who I don't want knowing where I live. Therefore I would supply the tenant with my fax number as the "Address for Service" and a P.O. Box number if they chose to post anything to me.

When I get a reply from Tenancy Services to my OIA request I'll put it on here.

[xris]

Hello blamblam,

I also do not believe that a tenant's lack of access to a fax machine alters keys reasoning, but I also agree with your implication that a fax number should not, or could not, be an address for service.

Hello keys,

I will attempt to give an answer to your point.

At the beginning of the Act we can see that an address for service is defined as an address where documents can be delivered. (Top of p4)

s 136 does indeed allow documents relating to a tenancy to be delivered by fax.

However, that does not make a fax number an address for service, for the simple reason that a fax number is not an address.

And so, because you need to give an address for service you need to give an address (and a fax number is not an address).

You can therefore give a fax number where/by which documents can be served on you or delivered to you but you must also supply an address for service, which must be a physical address, not a box number of fax number.

I accept that since the Act camein, and since its amendments in the 1990's, email has come into play, and this needs to be more clearly defined, as will hopefully happen in the new RTA.

But this is why I believe we cannot use a fax number as an address for service.

Documents can be served to a fax number, but that is not an address for service. The Act requires that you provide an address for service, and an address is an address, so that is what we have to do.

xris

[hawkeye]

The latest Canterbury Property Investors blurb mentioned that an E-Mail address could now be used as an Address for Service.

It was a one liner and no background was given.

Anyone no more information?

[xris]

The latest Canterbury Property Investors blurb mentioned that an E-Mail address could now be used as an Address for Service.

It was a one liner and no background was given.

Anyone no more information?

I think it's wrong.

xris

[Son of G]

There is an act that states that if both parties agree then electronic communication can be used instead of hardcopy. That means that an emaill adress can be used to serve documents if you agree and the sender agrees.

I can not rember the name of the act for my quick reply.

[Son of G]

Now that I've had some time to do some research, see the tail end of this thread:

http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7070&page=2

And for the Act, is the Electronic Transactions Act 2002 and can be found here:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes&jump=a2002-035