No code of compliance on rental home

[John the builder]

some hope?

This Regulatory Impact Statement has been prepared by the Ministry of Business Innovation and

Employment (MBIE). It provides an analysis of options for addressing a tenancy sector issue which

has recently emerged in respect of tenancies over rental premises which are not lawful for

residential use.

The analysis has been constrained by the limited time available, specifically it has not been possibleto undertake a comprehensive analysis of the possible costs, risks and unintended consequences of the proposals.

It is not possible to quantify or even estimate how many tenancies relate to premises which may be unlawful for residential purposes. This is because the lawfulness or otherwise of rental premises only arises when the relevant local council is involved and a case comes before the Tenancy Tribunal.

However,the frequency with which the issue is arising in the Tribunal (almost weekly) suggests that there are likely to be a high number of rental properties across the

country which could be said to be unlawful for residential purposes

.
so some knee jerk legislation has not even been evaluated properly and this is hope?

more likely be afraid?

also the explanatory notes to this bill (on page 3 penultimate paragraph) state that occupation might not be permitted in general (e.g because the premises are an unlawfully converted garage or a commercial building) shows appalling understanding of the law…..

[mrsaneperson]

some hope?
.
so some knee jerk legislation has not even been evaluated properly and this is hope?

more likely be afraid?

also the explanatory notes to this bill (on page 3 penultimate paragraph) state that occupation might not be permitted in general (e.g because the premises are an unlawfully converted garage or a commercial building) shows appalling understanding of the law…..

There is at least one sensible and very experienced adjudicator B Stephenson who has provided very detailed , very rational commentary - in his view, section 137 used to return all rent monies paid in these types of tenancy is wrongly being applied , his judgment was made 7th Nov 2016, it is well thought out, interesting and can be read in full here : https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search.../109130352.pdf
If only there were more people of his caliber it would serve tenants and landlords best interests.

His final comment and summation on the matter in the TT order :

Application Number: 4024444

Dated at Manukau on Monday 07-Nov-2016

B Stephenson, Tenancy Adjudicator quote:

For the above reasons, I conclude that Anderson v FM Custodians Ltd should not be followed

in landlord and tenant cases under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal has

jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims. The hearing is to be resumed

[John the builder]

yes but now the politician bureaucrats are going to enshrine the misinterpretation into law thanks to that Bill

Dear Stephenson will be forced yto follow the others

[Philipnz]

I do not support any landlords with unSafe/ unsanitary dwellings
is this a workaround?
I create a limited liability co to manage each tenancy
this company does not own the property only manages it and passes all rents on to the property owner within 24 hours ie has no assets but trades solvently
new tenacys are signed up using the property management company as landlord
if an unfair tenancy tribunal decision requires refund of a years or 2 rent for a minor technical illegal property I liguidate the company tenant gets nothing
thoughts.?

[Perry]

Could the Directors be held accountable, even though trading solvently?

[John the builder]

I liquidate the company tenant gets nothing
thoughts.?

you would have to liquidate before the claim started?

If after the tenant could seek judgement and stop the sale of the house. They could also unwind a sale if isale was to avoid the debt?

[sidinz]

you would have to liquidate before the claim started?

If after the tenant could seek judgement and stop the sale of the house. They could also unwind a sale if isale was to avoid the debt?

But the entity that the judgement is against doesn't own the house. In fact, it has no assets and no income.

[Rentex]

This was a good read. Thanks for sharing. There is hope.

[mrsaneperson]

This was a good read. Thanks for sharing. There is hope.

Agreed and the link you provided is the TT ruling to the only shred of hope left remaining . I have a lot of respect for that adjudicator B Stephenson who has provided extremely detailed summary and thoughts why section 137 should NOT apply. Its a travesty other adjudicators are failing to apply the same level of reasoning and intelligence .Instead they have applied section 137 refunding the entire rent monies back to the tenant ,creating by far the worst injustices against landlords I'm aware of since reading these forums .

This heavily tarnishes the reputation of the Tenancy Tribunal .

[John the builder]

Has ingles seen this decision?

[Perry]

This heavily tarnishes the reputation of the Tenancy Tribunal .

Oh?

There did not seem to be much of a reputation perception on these forums other than one of anti-LL, pro-tenant bias.

One erudite and reasonably-balanced adjudicator does not necessarily infect the others, unfortunately.

[John the builder]

One erudite and reasonably-balanced adjudicator does not necessarily infect the others, unfortunately.

no but he has also flagged the appeals that must succeed so is someone doing this for the industry What is happening to Vic Inglis.

He must have support and more importantly he must know that he is doing this for the industry and he needs that support and there are people wanting to offer good advice.(including Adj Stephenson it seems)

Is the property council or investors assoc. or someone supporting him?

This is bloody important folks!!!!!!!!

[crashy]

What if you advertised a property as a commercial lease? You have gst issues but if you are not, and not required to be gst registered does it matter?

What if in the Ingles case only the upstairs level was the "residence"? And the unconsented downstairs was not part of the tenancy?

[Rentex]

Has ingles seen this decision?

Have forwarded to Ingles. Hope it helps!

[mrsaneperson]

no but he has also flagged the appeals that must succeed so is someone doing this for the industry What is happening to Vic Inglis.

He must have support and more importantly he must know that he is doing this for the industry and he needs that support and there are people wanting to offer good advice.(including Adj Stephenson it seems)

Is the property council or investors assoc. or someone supporting him?

This is bloody important folks!!!!!!!!

Ollie Newland started a facebook page about this case which has made many aware of this situation . As far as I'm aware Vic Inglis the Dunendin Landlord who is the victim of the TT order did try and appeal but was not granted. In this case he may have to appeal to the high court. Here is the facebook link :

https://www.facebook.com/Newlandburling/posts/2027335344169626