Got a view on the Tenancy Tribunal?

[Andrew]

I've been asked to make a presentation at the Tenancy Tribunal Adjudicators Conference on September 24. This is an excellent opportunity to present the opinions of rental property owners who have used the Tribunal but I want to present the collective views of as many rental property owners as possible.

To do this the NZPIF have constructed a simple and confidential survey, so that I can present the results directly to Adjudicators and their Managers.

I'm not just looking for problems, I want to hear about good experiences as well. I need as wide a variety of experiences as possible. All answers to the survey are quick and easy multi-choice, however there are spaces for you to share your thoughts and experiences in written form if you wish.

You can have your say by clicking on the following link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=wr300BhVq2qTx_2f0HXGB1Eg_3d_3d

link. Time is short, so if you have ever been to the Tenancy Tribunal please take a few minutes now to have your say.

Thanks very much.

Andrew King
NZPIF Vice President

[Keys]

You need to have been to the TT under 100 times to fill it out. Also, it ask questions as if you've been there only once.

Filled it out though.

[Andrew]

Thanks Keys, I've changed that so you can enter more than 100.

Thanks to all of you who have completed it so far.

Regards

Andrew

[sarahk]

Also, it ask questions as if you've been there only once.

I know what you mean At the top of that page though it does say

Thinking about your most recent application to the Tenancy Tribunal please answer the following questions.

[Perry]

Where Is Everyone?

Hell! I'm staggered that there aren't 3,271 replies to this
thread, by now? Why? Does everyone have TT fatigue?

My guess is that many PIs who frequent the PT Forums
may entertain the view that you're wasting your time,
Andrew.

An oft-observed trend with a succession of recent
governments is their consultation processes. They're
charades. They do it so they can say they've consulted
widely, but astute observers know that - post-consultation
- they end up doing what they were planning on doing in
the first place. But maybe I'm smacking the wrong knee,
there?

Here's something you could inquire about - an
underlying comment in many PT threads about
appallingly bad TT decisions:

By virtue of accepted practice or adjudicator training, is
there any intentional leaning to the view that LLs are in
business and tenants are not, so therefore a burden of
superior performance of obligations is upon LLs? By
that, I don't mean professional PMs. I mean the
proverbial Mum & Dad PIs with one or two rentals.

I suspect that Keys, Glenn and other experienced PMs on
the PT Forums can slug it out with the most jaundiced
adjudicators and have a good success rate.

After three or four appearances, three things stick in my
mind.

1) An Order made in favour of a tenant, when no request
for redress for the subject of the Order had been made.
The result was a Re-Hearing before another Adjudicator,
then a re-re-hearing before the original Adjudicator. At
that re-re-Hearing, the tenant waffled until I appealed to
the Adjudicator to confine matters to what was specified
in the directions of the Senior Adjudicator's Re-Hearing
Order. Overall, an expensive, time-consuming and
wasted exercise that was the result of a unilateral
decision by an Adjudicator upon which neither party was
invited to make submissions or present evidence and
which decision was patently wrong.

2) When responding to an item in the Notice of
Proceedings (whatever it's called) I said I could not
answer because the section did not seem to apply and that
part of the claim made no sense. "Oh, that's just a
mistake by TS," was the response. "So just what am I
supposed to be answering to?" Some 'wing it' comment
was the response. That's professional conduct? Would an
experienced PM get away with having some incorrect
reference in their Statement of Claim?

3) A 'fine' of $180 against the LL for not being able to
produce a cash receipt copy, when the payment was
recorded in the rental payments schedule and was not
disputed. Worse, the $180 was ordered to be paid to the
tenant! Huh? Can traffic officers receive the fine money
from issuing infringement notices?

Best of luck. You'll need it. I'm sure you'll have a polite
audience. However, I'm not sanguine that there will be
any changes for the better at TT Hearings, as a
consequence.

The Survey

7. Did the Adjudicator allow you to make any
unsubstantiated claims, such as repairs where you had no
receipt? Y/N
Did not apply for my experience. So that question needed
a Not Applicable option. Similar observation for Q8.

[essence]

Hey Perry

There are those of us who have answered the survey but not posted on here.

I too am of the opinion that it's just a whitewash consultation.

Until such time as the adjudicators are FAIR TO BOTH THE LANDLORD AND TENANT there is no point in having these surveys.

It is a matter of the adjudicators stop being pro-tenant and needing more training.

[Andrew]

Hi Perry and Essence

Just to confirm, this is not a consultation process or inquiry, it is there annual conference. To my knowledge this is the first time that a landlord group has been invited to speak.

They want me to speak on the rental and housing markets as well as providing feedback on the Tribunal system.

I'm really pleased to get the invitation. While there is no compulsion for them to do anything that may help our situation, this is an opportunity for dialogue and further relationship building. The fact that they have invited someone like myself and are open to hear feedback on how they are performing is actually quite something.

While it would be wonderful to go in guns blazing and get everything we want, it just doesn't work that way. There needs to be a build up of trust and respect and this doesn't happen over night.

The NZPIF has been building relationships with key stakeholders for a number of years and invitations like this are the results of these efforts. We often have input into policy development at an early stage because of the work done before consultations are even called for.

While not wanting to influence the results of the survey, Tribunals do not operate like a court and overall this is probably a good thing. Adjudicators are trained to look at imbalances between parties and help those that need it. This is an issue I will definitely be raising and that is probably apparent from some of the questions in the survey.

I really appreciate everyone who has contributed to the survey so far. Thanks very much.

If you have attended the Tenancy Tribunal and haven't completed the survey, please do so now. The more of us who have a say, both good and bad, the better.

[Tan]

Hell! I'm staggered that there aren't 3,271 replies to this
thread, by now? Why? Does everyone have TT fatigue?

Yep, we're there, following that link.

It is a bit inflexible, but I think the main points get made. Like anything that is not run entirely by computers, not everyone involved is perfect, and some are also gullible! I don't know how you fix that

[Perry]

No demur from me about building relationships.
It usually takes a while, too. Good luck with
that, as well.

Tribunals do not operate like a court and overall
this is probably a good thing. Adjudicators are
trained to look at imbalances between parties
and help those that need it.

Hhhmmm . . .

Sounds fraught. I suspect "imbalances" would
be a rather subjective assessment. Wonder how
they decide who needs help more than the other
party? Would a LL with a steep LVR not be under
more pressure from imbalance than a delinquent
tenant-in-arrears?

I don't think they should be like a Court, either.
But they are usually held (here in HB) in a Court
room with the usual paraphernalia around about.

Over the years, I've attended a few Disputes Tribunal
Hearings, in addition to the TT. One stands out in my
mind as a 'star performer.' The referee was an ex-
police prosecutor. He was everything I suspect the
ideal referee (and TT adjudicator) should be. Fair,
even-handed, attentive, engaging and no nonsense.
I recall he jumped on hearsay quickly, politely and
firmly, with a helpful explanation about why.

[Andrew]

Thanks for the well wishes Perry

Sounds fraught. I suspect "imbalances" would
be a rather subjective assessment. Wonder how they decide who needs help more than the other party? Would a LL with a steep LVR not be under more pressure from imbalance than a delinquent tenant-in-arrears?

Your right, it is fraught. Anything that you leave up to the foibles of an individuals decision making is going to be fraught sometimes. Hopefully the powers that be recruit the right people and they get it right most of the time.

I don't expect they would care about the LVR of a landlord, or the hardships of a tenant for that matter. I expect they would look at their knowledge of the RTA, their overall intellect, knowledge of English, age etc.

However one of the points I would like to make is that most landlords do not appear in front of the TT very often and it is likely to be a foreign world to them. They are unlikely to be experts on the RTA and Adjudicators shouldn't assume they are.

Some people will assume that their is a natural power imbalance between landlords and tenants, with landlords having the upper hand. In general this is probably true, but Adjudicators cannot generalise when they are hearing these cases.

What other points do formumites think should be made to Adjudicators? Keen to hear your views.

Regards

Andrew

[Dean@Massiveaction]

One problem is that the TT is so biased in tenants favour and makes such ridiculous rulings that many of us simply make sure we never have to go there anymore. They are unfair and frequently incompetent as I am sure you will see from the survey results.

[Perry]

Hopefully the powers that be recruit the right
people and they get it right most of the time.

That's quite a leap of faith. From my view, such
jobs tend to be handed out like political appoint-
ments, or jobs for the girls. I wonder if far too
many TT Adjudicators are there, just because
it's a gravy train and they have the necessary
certificate, as opposed to any reality test of
competency?

What internal benchmarks do they have for per-
formance evaluation, I wonder? Please pose that
question in your address, even if only rhetorically.
And let us know if you get a response!

Given Dean's comment, perhaps Q10 . . .
10. Did you settle the dispute before the Tenancy Tribunal hearing?
. . . could've been structured differently such that
it made it clear how much effort / many times a PI
'paid off' a tenant, rather than risk an even worse
outcome from asinine TT determinations?

Once, I reached an agreed settlement with a tenant,
during a TT adjournment. I had already 'won' the
important part and it was sensibly cost-effective
to give something (less than $100) in order to lay
the matter to rest, rather than risk an idiotic TT
determination.

In that way, I concur with Dean's expressed opinion.

[Perry]

While staring at the sky*, today, I had
a blinding flash of recall. One comment
I've seen made on PT more than once
or twice is a feeling of impotence by PIs
when the (departing) tenant says, some
weeks before the day:
I've cancelled the rent AP; you can keep
the bond.

* Trying to see what I was doing
while pruning apple trees, actually.

[Perry]

'Nother One, Andrew

23 Rent in advance
(1) A landlord shall not require the payment of any rent—
(a) more than 2 weeks in advance; or
(b) before the expiry of the period for which rent has been

Keys commented on this section, opining that if
a tenant elected to pay (say) monthly, in advance,
no breach occurred because the LL had not required
that to be done.

However, as a tenant cannot surrender any rights
conferred by the RTA, what then? Are you allowed
a question time, at the end of your presentation?
If so, ask 'em, eh?

11 Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions
(1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agree-
ment or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to
which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the
provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or
restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no
effect.
(3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power
conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.

[Andrew]

Thanks Perry

This was probably an issue for the RTA Amendment Bill rather than this conference. These guys are meant to interpret the Act not amend it. Did you bring this issue up with the HB PIA committee?

The Act does state that provisions in the Act are "generally" to apply despite contrary provisions. It is unlikely that a tenant will ever serve you notice for something that they actually wanted, so it is unlikely to ever come before the Tribunal.

However I think in this case you would want to protect yourself against the tenant/landlord relationship turning sour. If the tenant wants to pay monthly and you are OK with this then get it in writing from them. Detailed paperwork will not protect you completely but it does help and it gives the Adjudicator a basis for ruling in your favour.