How do I get bad tenants out fast

[essence]

Christchurch landlady

The christchurch case was interesting. The tenant who had her belongings evicted, had fraudulently obtained the tenancy by getting her friend to pose as her last landlord (verbal reference). The tenant is known as trouble in the christchurch area.

Where the LL's case fell down, was that she did not give the tenant notice (legal requirement) and took the problem into her own hands.

The end case - the tenant remained evicted (and eventually got a council flat) but was "compensated" $1,000 because of the LL's stupidity in not following procedure.

In Grumpy's case. Go to Tenancy Services and request an immediate termination because rent is 21 days overdue. You should know this.

Don't fall into the emotional trap of visiting everyday. Remove yourself from the emotional turmoil and deal with it logically. Follow procedure, insist with Tenancy Services that they help you, the LL.

Stop the bull scatter and move on.

[kalovatt]

Well I have read this whole very sorry saga with interest over the last few days and there is probably not a hell of a lot to add. I might have missed something somewhere, but was just wondering where abouts these properties are-or this particular one? As a (now ex !!!) landlord of nearly 20yrs of bottom-end South Auckland rental property, I have never encountered anything like this, and the main reason is NOT to get emotionally involved. Admittedly its hard, but you have to follow the process - regardless of what crap excuses you are offered.

I don't know how many excuses I have had for not paying the rent or how many times someone's mum has died etc etc but I just acknowledge politely then hand over the 10 day letter-regardless. And that is what you have to do Grumpy from now on to cut it in this business.

I, like others here, suggest IMMEDIATE filing in the TT for termination based on 21 Days arrears, get them out as quickly and LEGALLY as you can, then move on.

The only other thing I can offer here is that these properties sound like the sort of stuff I rent out, so it is essential that you have a Landlords protection plan of some sort, either Rentsure, LandlordProPlus or similar. This allows you to calmly and professionally follow the process and not be out of pocket.

I hope it all works out, and I also hope you rise above it and heed the very professional advise given by various contributers here. None of us want to hear about landlords striking difficulties like this, but you definately need to be on to it. Whats done now is done, but hopefully you have learnt big time for the future.

Good Luck

Kelvin

[cube]

7 days have passed since the first posting - what did the Tenancy Tribunal say when you asked for immediate termination?

[Perry]

The christchurch case was interesting. The tenant who had her belongings evicted, had fraudulently obtained the tenancy by getting her friend to pose as her last landlord (verbal reference). The tenant is known as trouble in the christchurch area.

Where the LL's case fell down, was that she did not give the tenant notice (legal requirement) and took the problem into her own hands.

The end case - the tenant remained evicted (and eventually got a council flat) but was "compensated" $1,000 because of the LL's stupidity in not following procedure.

The worst part about that description is that it endorses
the RTA legislation as the social engineering that it is.
(Which will only add to Grumpy's ire!)

From your description, the tenant used false pretences
to obtain the tenancy (as I understood it, too). In normal
business, false pretences is an offence against the law.
And ordinarily a serious breach of contract. In "bad faith"
as the socialists have it in the Employment Contracts Act.
But the RTA protects such people from the consequences
that would ordinarily follow in the real commercial world.
Namely, the voiding of the offer & supply of a 'normal'
contractual arrangement because of a breach of a term
in the contract.

Bah. Humbug.

[grumpy11]

Cube,
Was not very lucky there, they told me we had to give the tenant the chance of complying with the 10 day letter which requires 10-Workingdays to expire. Only after the 10 workingdays ( with other words two weeks) had expired could we take the matter further. Also they told me they would insist on the mediation process first and eviction only if that failed as well. Eviction would take another 21 days after our next application if mediation had actually failed to reach agreement.

[essence]

Eviction

Unsure about this as I haven't reached the "eviction" stage, so maybe some more seasoned LL's can help.

I thought the TS could not make you go to mediation, it is only a recommendation. You are within your rights to insist on going to Tenancy Tribunal.

I think somewhere on PT, I read that if the tenant threatened the landlord in front of an impartial witness, the LL can ask for IMMEDIATE termination.

Can anyone confirm this?

[xris]

Hello Perry,

What social engineering? Grunpy’s ire? Grumpy simply is unable to understand the principles involved here, so we could all carry on telling him what he should or should not be doing, but it is pointless because he will not change. That is a simple fact of life.

Let’s all take a deep breadth here and look at this matter of the Christchurch lady.

The tenant provided a false reference. Who lied? The person who wrote the reference, not the tenant.

If, as you say, the reference was verbal, it has no legal consequence.

“In normal commercial contracts…” and so on.

A tenancy agreement is not a normal commercial contract. The parties involved are often very different in every respect, with the tenant, in particular, for various obvious reasons, being at a disadvantage. The law quite rightly attempts to offer the tenant a certain level of protection against abusive behaviour by the landlord.

“…the tenant used false pretences to obtain the tenancy…”

That is true to a certain extent. The tenant told lies. If all tenants who told a lie were liable to have their tenancy terminated, there would be few tenancies left. The ultimate responsibility to decide if the tenancy is offered a tenancy lies with the landlord, not the tenant. If the landlord, as the Tribunal found, was unable to run her business correctly and failed to check references properly, that is the landlord’s fault, not the tenants.

“But the RTA protects such people from the consequences that would ordinarily follow in the real commercial world.”

And once again, this is not the real commercial world.

“Namely, the voiding of the offer & supply of a 'normal' contractual arrangement because of a breach of a term in the contract.”

It is highly unlikely that the supply and truthfulness of a genuine reference from a previous landlord was a condition or term of the contract signed between the landlord and the tenant. Your comment is therefore pointless and irrelevant.

It concerns me that there are so many people out there who dismiss laws (based on 1,000 years of experience) as social engineering, humbug or simple nonsense. Fortunately these people usually have no real power but merely serve to provide us with a little late night entertainment.

Your good friend,

xris

[xris]

Hello essence,

I understood grumpy’s comments as referring to the Adjudicator at the TT, not the person at TS. The Tribunal can refer the matter back to mediation if it feels that the matter could have been resolved at that point. (This does not unfortunately say much for grumpy’s managerial skills, if this is in fact what did happen.)

However, if you are correct and the words quoted are those of TS then you are quite right and TS is once again overstepping the mark and going beyond its remit.

xris

[drelly]

Hi Grumpy,

First of all, whoever you spoke to at Tenancy doesn't know the RTA. You have every right to file for a tribunal hearing without mediation and for termination of tenancy if the rent is more than 21 days in arrears. Talk to someone else and point this out to them. If you are as tenacious with TS as you are with the tenants, then you'll have no problem.

Secondly, by visiting the tenants every day, you're also risking a claim of harassment from them. It sounds like they may know their rights quite well and could end up owing you a lot less through a counter-claim.

Thirdly, I know this isn't fair. The law is one-sided but so what? Get over it. This is business and has nothing to do with "fair". There are 11 different ways a landlord can be fined or imprisoned under the RTA but only 1 for a tenant. That's just the way it is right now. The RTA is under review and should be amended by the end of next year. Right now, you have to deal with it as it is.

It still sounds like you're taking action with inadequate information or support. If you contact the local PIA, I'm sure someone would be willing to help you out. I've asked you what area you're in so someone can contact you to offer help but you haven't replied.

cheers,
Dave.

[cube]

Cube,
Was not very lucky there, they told me we had to give the tenant the chance of complying with the 10 day letter which requires 10-Workingdays to expire. Only after the 10 workingdays ( with other words two weeks) had expired could we take the matter further. Also they told me they would insist on the mediation process first and eviction only if that failed as well. Eviction would take another 21 days after our next application if mediation had actually failed to reach agreement.

I'd say get a new Tenancy Services Officer, but I guess you don't have that choice. You can definitely file for a TT hearing at the same time as handing in the 10 day letter.

Mediation is (legally) only an option persued if both parties agree, but TT can take a dim view if its not followed - you have a strong case for not going down that path but, again, it seems you are at the behest of the officer you deal with.

Check some of Glenn's earlier advice on this forum about getting a mediation decision sealed - I'm not sure what this means, but believe that it speeds the process if (!) the tenant doesn't comply.

cube

P.S. Sorry for my earlier criticism - it was late!

[Perry]

The matter of the Christchurch lady may not be simple. But
there appears to be no doubt that the tenant knowingly
procured another person to lie for the tenant's benefit and
the landlady's detriment.

Most contracts require truthfulness of the information that is
contained therein. Product description, delivery, price,
payment and so on. The RTA is a statute or law that is a
form of social engineering in that it prevents two parties
from freely entering into a contractual agreement for the
acceptance and supply of a service/product upon such terms
and conditions as they choose.

I.e. it is a government (or succession of governments) who
have made a determination that it knows better and it must
protect people from their own folly. Thus is prevents people
from learning - by their mistakes, if appropriate.

A tenancy agreement is not a normal commercial contract.

Exactly. It should be. Just as a commercial lease is.

The parties involved are often very different in every respect,

Nothing unusual in that. E.g. a person hiring a rental car.

. . . with the tenant, in particular, for various obvious reasons,
being at a disadvantage.

Why is the tenant at a disadvantage?

The law quite rightly attempts to offer the tenant a certain
level of protection against abusive behaviour by the landlord.

"quite rightly?" Really? Why does the law (RTA) not
equally (equitably) offer the landlord a certain level of (the
same) protection against abusive behaviour by the tenant?
Whose asset is at risk?

[Hound]

Cube, I think you're meaning a conditional termination order, which Glenn has obtained at mediation in the past. You need to get the order sealed by the court so it has the potential to become a full court order if the conditions aren't met(ie pay the arrears in full by next Thursday). Then get a baliff to evict them. But not all mediators will wear this suggestion (conditional termination) on the day, so you must get your ducks lined up well & truly before the mediation starts.

Glenn can pull this sort of thing off using his management, experience & people skills, which are essential to Landlording.

Although, I suspect expect Grumpy wouldn't want to appear in front of a mediator right now. Very frequently tenants don't front as a way to buy extra time anyhow.

One of Glenn's methods to deal with the likelyhood of a no-show is to go around to visit the tenant with a mobile phone. Get them to make another promise about the money going through tonight, then immediately call the mediator. Get the tenant to make the same promise to them over the mobile phone. Using a conditional termination clause in conjunction with this can make for a very efficient eviction.

This is a good example of using left-field tactics & still remaining within the law.

[cube]

And once again, this is not the real commercial world.

Why not? If the same tenant enters into an agreement to by a new Plasma TV on Hire Purchase, is that not the real commercial world - the seller will seek to protect their asset by inisting on insurance, checking references etc., and if the buyer provides false information and is found out after defaulting on their payments, the seller will be re-possessing pretty quickly, I imagine.

Why should renting a property be any different?

cube

[grumpy11]

Can now change name from grumpy to happy and may have a merry X-mas after all!
Got rather smashed here over the last few days and did not want to risk getting hanged by TT for trying to collect the contractually agreed rent owed to me. Therefore to show tenants how serious I was, I got a lawyer to visit the house with me at 6-30 tonight. This also in preparation for what was likely to follow and to keep my risk of further wrongdoings to an absolute minimum.
Reached the house, - doors and various windows open, place totally vacated and astonishingly not a lot of damage. No rent, no keys, but who cares, I took repossession immediately and had the locks changed within the hour. Future tenants will need to sign a legal paper as part of TA, which includes something like …..the tenants agree to vacate the premises immediately, without argument, if they get behind in rent payments by more than 21 days….. the wording has yet to be finalized.
I've learned a lot in the last few days, thank you for constructive or supporting advise.
I definitely will not leave it all to the PM only in future, will try and show an interest as well, but I will also try to close these gaps in the system with help of the legal eagles.

[xris]

“Reached the house, - doors and various windows open, place totally vacated and astonishingly not a lot of damage. No rent, no keys, but who cares, I took repossession immediately and had the locks changed within the hour.”

No grumpy/happy, no more please, my nerves can’t take it.

“Future tenants will need to sign a legal paper as part of TA, which includes something like …..the tenants agree to vacate the premises immediately, without argument, if they get behind in rent payments by more than 21 days...”

“I got a lawyer to visit the house with me…to keep my risk of further wrongdoings to an absolute minimum.”

As well as your property managers will you be sacking your lawyer too?