Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

$60,000 damage, $10,000 fine at $10 a week, yeah right...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Perry
    replied
    Keys touched on this in another thread. Something
    about keeping the 'case open.' He'll recall: I don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • NIK
    replied
    Can you not apply for new Order for Examination if you believe the debtor's ability to pay /situation has changed? They may have been students back then and are now earning good wages one would think their repayments could be raised....
    anyone knows if this can be done?
    When we had our property trashed and struggled with chasing the tenant the court staff asked why we didn't get police involved - apparently any time you suspect intentional damage, you should do that as you will be able to chase it as criminal debt - but they only told me afterwards.....
    Last edited by NIK; 31-01-2012, 03:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne
    replied
    Originally posted by Maccachic View Post
    Surely the insurance company would have gone after them to recoup costs? Did it not go to court as recless damage / damaging with intent? there is a confession on the net now surely the cops could act?
    you would think they would - they know how to get blood out of stone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maccachic
    replied
    Surely the insurance company would have gone after them to recoup costs? Did it not go to court as recless damage / damaging with intent? there is a confession on the net now surely the cops could act?

    Leave a comment:


  • Seymour
    replied
    hey boys and girls this is just up teh alley of bruce and Matt - the tenant support crowd. NO RESPONSIBLE ADULT WOULD CONDONE THIS STUFF - RIGHT. them bully bloody landlords have had it all there own way for too long right. the dark knrights of tenants rights can tort over the hill like the the cavlry eh.

    Leave a comment:


  • motivated
    replied
    The system is pathetic--they have had a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. In parallel with the tt, there needs to be a complaint to the police for vandallism--followed by a trip to the real courthouse to obtain a criminal conviction.

    Leave a comment:


  • eri
    replied
    insurance

    a way to spread the cost to everyone with an insurance policy

    who could possibly object to subsiding these lovable young rascals sense of play

    remember they could have demolished the house entirely if they had really tried

    and their mum's say they're lovely boys

    it's nice to know steps have been taken to prevent similar things happening in the future

    wait a minute....

    Leave a comment:


  • One
    replied
    It prob did cover the damages, after insurance payout. if the poor landlord had got the cash at once, of course.

    What shocks me is that it sounds like they pay $10 a week forever, no matter how much their incomes increase. Broke students paying $10 a week, well maybe that's all you can get out of them. But the moment they get an $800/week job, that should be upped to $500 a week.

    Leave a comment:


  • Son of G
    replied
    Is it possible to go for a second order at the TT if it can be shown that the first case did not cover the extent of the damages? These guys need a public hiding.

    Leave a comment:


  • eri
    replied
    yeah, that's a more recent tribunal case by 1 of the same tenants of 5 years ago

    there were 2 other cases for the trash address but none before 2008...

    cases before that don't show?

    Leave a comment:


  • cube
    replied
    Originally posted by eri View Post
    a tribunal case for the tenants but apparently the trashing case...

    https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/TT/abstract.html?id=10/03037/HN

    That isn't the same address, and it sounds like the damage occurred 5 years ago, but the video was only posted recently
    Nash, 23, said they lived in filth at 106 Firth St in Hamilton about five years ago but had since grown up. "I'm not like this any more and neither are the other guys," Nash said.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLiberalLeft
    replied
    They seem as though they'd be fun at parties. Right "lampshade, meet head" types.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLiberalLeft
    replied
    "and agree"? Who, you, or have the TT come out and agreed that they lack balls and teeth.

    Leave a comment:


  • eri
    replied
    a tribunal case for the tenants but apparently the trashing case...

    https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/TT/abstract.html?id=10/03037/HN


    the tenants and friends

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1428313702

    http://www.facebook.com/SimonJew

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001049612680

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=746857081

    http://www.facebook.com/dalearmit
    Last edited by eri; 29-01-2012, 02:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shanecarruthers
    replied
    Makes you feel sick really ... and the guys that did it are complete tossers, but karma has a way of sorting these characters out.

    The Tenancy Tribunal have dropped the ball on this one and agree it sets a pretty poor precedence now for other criminals who pose as "tenants". They should actually be put in jail for a couple of months as it was obvious it was deliberate and intentional. These guys are obliviously not wired up properly and seem to think its abit of a laugh.
    Last edited by shanecarruthers; 29-01-2012, 01:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X