Rental property damage: Landlords liable - court rules

[Learning]

Tenant's unlawful dogs ruin carpet. LL pays

Stuff.co.nz/business/83991645/Landlords-concerned-about-Tenancy-Tribunal-precedent

[artemis]

Heh, $25k excess as each 'spot' is a separate event. How about crowdfunding an appeal, not necessarily in this specific case.

Notice the PM refers to insurance premiums rising because of Osaki. Not sure what that means exactly but isn't it rents that will rise, if the market will bear it?

Russ said Tekoa Trust's insurance company informed him each identifiable instance of damage caused by the dogs' waste would count as a separate claim, as would each room.

There was a $500 excess, and with at least 10 noticeable spots in each room, the total excess would have worked out to $25,000, making a claim pointless, he said.

"This whole thing is unworkable. Our insurance premiums are going to lift if we have to keep making [unrecoverable] claims on these kinds of damages."

[eri]

goes back to

the 7 pages of

'can i evict for pets?'

https://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?35094-Can-I-evict-for-pets

google it and you'll see tenants having pets on a no-pet lease

is a problem world-wide

but it seems nz is the only 1 to make any damage the LL's responsiblity

[Keys]

Having read the article I'm surprised. The discussion is on the intent of the tenant. IE accidential or deliberate. My argument would be that, the deliberate breach of the TA caused the damage.

[Davo36]

Yeah this pretty much means tenants can do anything they like and never have to pay for the consequences.

Have a party where holes get knocked in the wall? Sure.

Drive your car into the garage walls? Sure.

Have your kids draw all over the walls? Sure.

In each case no one could prove you INTENDED for damage to occur.

Surely this needs tightening up?

[Perry]

An appeal to the next one up seems apposite. The Supreme Court, isn't it?

[Keys]

An appeal to the next one up seems apposite. The Supreme Court, isn't it?

Rumor has it that it has already happened. I also hear that the appeal judgement has had a stay put on it. Still digging for proof of those items though.

[Bobsyouruncle]

Hard to believe this level of stupid is alive and well in NZ. Eventually we'll be expected to gift the house to the tenant :-).

[Matt W]

Only applies if landlord has insurance that covers the event, and the tenant may not know that until they get to Tribunal. So, the tenant is taking a risk if they assume the landlord has insurance that covers the event as then the RTA applies without this case law.

[Son of G]

In my view the new TT Pratice note does not match the law.

For the note see:

https://tenancy.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Tenancy/Tenancy-Tribunal-Practice-Note-20161-Tenant-Liability-for-Damages.pdf

In Holler v Osaki the judges did not consider the affect of section 270 of the PLA. See para [56]

Section 270 of the PLA states that the tenant is liable for the excess and increased insurance costs.

Therefore, in my view, points 8 and 9 of the TT Practice note are unlawful.

The application of section 270 of the PLA should be tested in an appeal.
The Foxton dog stained carpet case might be a good example to cover both the issues of "negligence" and liability.

Hopefully any such appeal would be supported by the NZPIF and thus by most investors via their membership fees.

[Perry]

Foxton Landlord Seeks Appeal In Soiled Carpet Case
17 September 2016

A Tenancy Tribunal decision that found a tenant did not have to pay for the damage caused by her dogs urinating throughout a house, is being appealed. Foxton landlord David Russ said he had filed a district court appeal against the decision that tenant Amanda Stewart was not liable for $3000 worth of damage caused by her pets, despite there being a 'no pets' policy on their tenancy agreement. "I don't want to be in this situation but ... there's consequences outside of my own case," Russ said. "It opens the door to all sorts of problems down the track."

Wonder if the NZPIF might chip in something towards the Appeal costs? Hell! Perhaps apply to be joined as a party to the Appeal? Might at least look like the NZPIF is serious about supporting and upholding LLs.

[motivated]

Foxton Landlord Seeks Appeal In Soiled Carpet Case
17 September 2016


Wonder if the NZPIF might chip in something towards the Appeal costs? Hell! Perhaps apply to be joined as a party to the Appeal? Might at least look like the NZPIF is serious about supporting and upholding LLs.

Great idea Perry
I cant get over how thick some of these Tribunal people must be.
The cause is not the result of accidental damage but the stupidity of the tennants who have no regard for the landlords property or the tennacy agreement (contract) which excluded dogs. It is not accidental damage, probably wasnt deliberate either but is certainly a consequential result of their actions
If firstly the contact was enforced and the tennant held to account for breach of contract, then on the second count failure to care for the property by keeping dogs inside which are either not toilet trained or were not provided with some acceptable means of toileting while locked inside, the issue would not have arisen. The Circumstances the tennant created meant that damage to the carpet was inevitable for which they need to be held to account.
These bastards and others like them that cause any damage in excess of normal REASONABLE fair wear and tear need to held to account

[Perry]

. . . but is certainly a consequential result of their actions.

That gets down to what I mentioned in the H&S thread, here on Property Talk, about everyone being spared the consequences of their foolish actions or stupidity:

As I see it - and notwithstanding any comparisons with other countries - this is just another stride down the slippery slope that began with no-fault ACC (insurance). The end of the slippery slope is nigh. A place where every adverse thing that befalls anyone will:
1) always not be their fault;
2) always be someone else's fault.

[Keys]

It is not accidental damage, probably wasnt deliberate either but ............

But nothing. The damage was as a result of a deliberate act of the tenants which breached the tenancy agreement.

[Keys]

Jesus. READ the ruling.

Is anyone else concerned that the award matched exactly the amount of the bond?

And, according to the practice note, the tenant must prove it was accidential, not intentional. How the hell could this happen without the tenant being at the hearing?

F * * K !!!