"Address for Service" S(2) Interpretation

[xris]

Hello SOG,

I have not, nor do I want to, plough through the act you have kindly referred us to.

However, having had a 120 second glimpse of it I think you have missed the point by confusing the intention of the act and what it does.

My opinion is that all this act does is to say that in certain circumstances information transmitted by electronic means, eg by fax or email, may be deemed as having a legal status, or in our example, as having been served. It simply clarifies for us that email messages to and from a tenant or landlord can have a legal standing, just as the 1990's RTA amendments to s.136 clarified that fax transmitted information could be used if it related to the tenancy.

It does not say that an email address can be used as an address for service.

I hope my opinion is clearly stated and please forgive my dramatic colouring - I just like being a bit of a drama monarch for a change.

xris

[Keys]

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).

xris

I disagree xris. The word "address" is not defined. We have "postal address's" "residential address's" "e-mail adress's" and so on.

What is written into the Act is that an address for service must be provided so that documents may be served.

Nowhere does it say "physical address"

What is written into the Act is that a fax number is sufficient to deliver documents.

My position is: a fax number is an address for service.

I will be placing my fax number and P.O. Box on all documents in futute and defend it.

[Keys]

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?

This was what prompted me to start my line of questioning.

I rang the CPIA and it was an unsubstantiated position.

[xris]

I disagree xris. The word "address" is not defined. We have "postal address's" "residential address's" "e-mail adress's" and so on.

I would agree, which is why I believe this point may need to be clarified in the new RTA, which I understand from Glenn it may not be.

What is written into the Act is that an address for service must be provided so that documents may be served.

Nowhere does it say "physical address"

(It doesn't say that. It says an address for service must be provided where documents can be served, not so that documents can be served. A very important difference.)

That is true, but you need to look at exactly what is said:

'...an address at which notrices and other documents relating to the tenancy may be accepted by or on behalf of the landlord or tenant...'

Unless you are from Lilliput how to you envisage squeezing into your post box to accept a document?

Also, I would suspect that there is some sort of standard acceptance that an address for service is a physical address and so does not need to be further clarified. Please note that the definition of address for service on p4 was inserted later in 1996. Seeing as it was deemed necessary to clarify its meaning only 11 years ago, I find it odd that no mention of a physical address was made then. Presumably this is because in law it is accepted that an address for service is a physical address. If there was any doubt then 1996 and the clarification made would have been an obvious time to make that point clear.

Also, emails did not exist in 1986 when the act was passed. As far as I know, in these situations the meaning at the time is used, not any later change of meanong, which should put an end to this idea that an email address can be an address for service.

Also, when this act was drawn up

What is written into the Act is that a fax number is sufficient to deliver documents.

My position is: a fax number is an address for service.

True, but absolutely not.

I believe you are confusing the issues, which I thought I had earlier addressed.

Just because a document can be sent to a fax number and be deemed as having been received, does not make it an address for service.

An example...

A TT summons is served on a landlord. It can be sent to the fax number. But there must also be an address for service on the Tenancy agreement, whether of not it is used for the delivery of the summons.

And a fax number is not an address, it is a number. But then neither is an email address an address, it too is a number, despite the common use of the term address (hence my repeated comment that clarification may now be needed in 2007). I do not believe this needs further debate. because I think it is quite clear. An address for service and the manner in which documents can be delivered or two seperate issues.

I will be placing my fax number and P.O. Box on all documents in futute and defend it.

I also put my box number with my address for service, and it is usually used to send documents to. (But see my point immediately above).

I would be interested if anyone has had the address for service issue dealt with at the TT.

xris

[cube]

On the back of the Tenancy Agreement from DBH, there is an Outline of the Provisions of the RTA (1986), including

The address for service is an address in New Zealand where notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted by you, or on your behalf, even after the tenancy has ended. It is good if your address for service is different from your tenancy address. The address for service cannot be a post office box.

Although an Outline of Provisions is not statute, it does make the intention of the Act clear.

I'm with xris on this one.

cube

[xris]

I've thought about this more and am now beginning to doubt my own position - slightly. keys may have a point but I need to think it through a bit more, for my own satisfaction if nothing else.

Thanks for your comment cube. However, and although you indicated this anyway, I would not give any serious credence to what is on the back of the standard TA. It is put there by TS, and TS is, on the whole, stupid.

xris

[BlamBlam]

I did get your point, what I was saying is that in order for the tenant to serve you notice on a fax they would also have to get access to a fax machine.

I just would have thought it would be best to make it easier for a bad tenant to leave than put up barrirers. Are you doing it now or seeking permission from TS?

I find it interesting that you have tenants who you wouldn't want knowing where you live...why do you rent to them then?

I assure you my questions are intended as a means of understanding as opposed to being confrontational. I just find it fascinating that there is sometimes such an aprehensive approach to dealing with tenants. Is this common?

[Keys]

I find it interesting that you have tenants who you wouldn't want knowing where you live...why do you rent to them then?

Some of us own/manage rentals which cater to that type of tenant.

[xris]

I find it interesting that you have tenants who you wouldn't want knowing where you live...why do you rent to them then?

Because I have a business to run, that's why.

Unfortunate though it may be, sometimes it is necessary. Even if not necessary for safety's sake it is prudent not to mix business with private. Tenancies are business.

xris

[xris]

From another angle...

AFS must be provided. (s. 13a1)

Documents can be served by means of fax if fax number given. (s. 136)

AFS cannot be a post box…(s. 13a2)

…or other similar postal address (s.13a2)

I believe fax, email etc would fall under the definition of “…other similar postal address…”

Therefore a post box, a fax number and an email address will not suffice as an address for service.

xris

[BlamBlam]

Ahhh different markets present different issues I guess!

Has anyone ever been stung for not providing an address for service? There are alot of landlords out there that don't do written TA's so they can't be providing them...

[xris]

Has anyone ever been stung for not providing an address for service? There are alot of landlords out there that don't do written TA's so they can't be providing them...

Are there?

Your background might be of some interest here blamblam. Choose to elaborate?

xris

[Keys]

From another angle...

AFS must be provided. (s. 13a1)

Documents can be served by means of fax if fax number given. (s. 136)

AFS cannot be a post box…(s. 13a2)

…or other similar postal address (s.13a2)

I believe fax, email etc would fall under the definition of “…other similar postal address…”

Therefore a post box, a fax number and an email address will not suffice as an address for service.

xris

True, however.

If the LL's contact address is sufficiently different to warrant a seperate inclusion in the Act (S13a 1a) and the address for service is listed seperately (S13a 1f) Then I would suggest that the LL's contact address is not required to be the address for service.

Following that, the LL's contact address may just as well be the LL's place of work, church, sports club etc. as the word "address" is not defined in the Act.

I would postulate (new learned word, grin) that the phrase "or other similar postal address" is superseded by specific inclusion of the word facismile in (S136 1d) and (S136 8 ) and that your argument that a fax number is the same as a P.O. Box or e-mail address is incorrect.

Very helpful discussion though Xirs. Having this debated before I end up at the TT will aid me with my arguement I'm sure.

And I will end up there at one stage debating it, I'm also sure.

[xris]

Indecision is a terrible affliction, and afflicted I now am.

I think the phrase "or other similar postal address" means just that - that it must be an address whither posted mail can be delivered.

This includes po boxes, dx box, but not an email or fax number, because these are not postal addresses.

The definition of AFS on p4 does not refer to a postal address, just to an address at which documents will be accepted. Also it does not specify that this must be delivered or accepted in person. Therefore a fax number is adequate if one party indicated that that is how they will accept service of documents. This is further supported by s.136.

So, an address for service- yes.

AFS a po box - no

AFS a fax number or email address - yes.

Well, what do keys and the world think?

xris

[Keys]

Indecision is a terrible affliction, and afflicted I now am.

Buggar! That's a problem.

So, an address for service- yes.

AFS a po box - no

Agreed, however since there is an AFS which the tenant may not be able to use (as in your quote below) I'll put a P.O. Box in there for the tenants convienance.

AFS a fax number or email address - yes.

AFS fax number - yes (it's in the Act)
AFS e-mail - no (not in the Act and therefore not defendable)

Well, what do keys and the world think?
xris

I've appreciated this discussion. Your point of S13a was very good and one which I had not thought of. I'm sure when (yes when) I get taken to task I'll now have a good arguement.

Don't forget now xris, I'll post here when I get a reply from tenancy services.

Cheers