Got a view on the Tenancy Tribunal?

[Perry]

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.

My experience suggests that when a disgruntled
tenant goes to the local TS office, the staffer
just trawls through what the tenant provides
and adds any and everything to the list of woes
on the sheet.

So if a relationship goes sour (as you put it)
there's every likelihood that TS will put rent in
advance on the grievance list, even if the tenant
asked for monthly payments.

So, even with your suggested piece of paper,
would a Tenancy Unobunal Adjudicator give any
weight to it, or 'interpret' it as an irrelevancy,
adhere to the letter of the law and slap the PI
with damages?

I wouldn't want to risk it because general indications
are that Adjudicators will interpret liberally to the
advantage of a tenant and stick to the letter of the
RTA to the disadvantage of the LL.

A Distraction
Do you have any figures indicating the number of
LL or PMs whose rentals would escape the DBH
statistics for numbers of residential rentals in NZ?

[Andrew]

A Distraction
Do you have any figures indicating the number of
LL or PMs whose rentals would escape the DBH
statistics for numbers of residential rentals in NZ?

Do you mean the number of rentals in the monthly rental property statistics?

[Perry]

It matters not whether monthly or otherwise.
How many residential rentals never make it
into the DBH statistics because the LL does
not require a bond?

Well hell, who can know the answer to that?

Perhaps it's better to say, of the media-
reported, 'statistically-quoted' number of
residential rentals in NZ, what proportion
do the DBH stats represent?

[Perry]

Time for your Conference address
report, methinks, Andrew.
.

[Perry]

Now a year later and no report.
Why so reticent, Andrew? Was
it really that bad?

[Perry]

Hello, Andrew, do you
copy? Come in, Andrew.
Over.

[NIK]

Perry, you scared him ....

[Hec]

Tenancy tribunal do an excellent Job. They are fair and square 100% to the law.

then the court system takes over (for getting your arrears back) ..... and thats when you wonder why you bothered.....

[Perry]

Tenancy tribunal do an excellent Job.
They are fair and square 100% to the law.

You've been exceptionally lucky if you can say that
after having experienced any of the Kangaroo Kourt
justice meted out at these pathetic farces.

[WGN ex-property manager]

Agreed the tenancy Tribunal is quite flawed, but you have to ask yourself why it's flawed, and what a better solution would be.

The problems I see stem from 2 underlying features:

1. TT was designed to be "Justice Light". The cost needs to be kept very very low (by court case standards). If the cost of entry was $1000 plus lawyers fees of $500 - $5000 depending on the case the the TT would have priced itself into obscurity. Few landlords and almost no tenants would use the service. In order to be lightweight it has to simple enough that parties are almost always capable of representing themselves, and the "burden of proof" has to be very very low (ie the adjudicator often just takes peoples word for the things they claim, even if there is no other evidence and the other party disagrees). Despite the lies that get told in TT every week, I have never heard of anyone actually bringing a perjury case to court as a result. So, the system feels very leaky, with lots of unfair and erroneous results.

2. The system is set up on the assumption that landlords are in general financially secure, literate, possible quite sophisticated laypeople in terms of understanding of the law, due process and how to present a case. The system also assumes that many tenants will not have the same level of sophistication as their landlord, and a re thus "vulnerable" to being victimised by a malicious opponent who plays the system. As a result, the typical Adjudicator will almost always side with the tenant in a "he said - she said" argument with no other evidence than the opinion of the two opposing parties. Net result : Lying tenants most often get away with it and manipulate the system to a result unfairly biased towards themselves, but lying landlords rarely get away with it.

Does it suck? Yes

Can I think of a better way that's affordable in the real world?.... only if every landlord could be trusted to act ethically and fairly every single time they took a tenant to TT. In other words.... No, I can't think of a better way, but I'm open to suggestions.

The only surefire way to never loose at TT is to never go to TT. Good tenant selection is way more important for a landlord than chasing scumbags after the event.

[Perry]

Yes, It's a Scam

The bias goes a little further, in my experience. Get as far
as the DC and the judge often takes a very stern approach
to any appellate LL. My guess is there are two possible
reasons:

Cluttering up an already painfully slow DC system
..(which the DT was perhaps designed to prevent)

Questioning the finding of a "brother/sister 'judge.' "

I accept your proposition one, without demur. But your
second postulate is what rankles with most every LL
who's had the misfortune to get dragged into a TT
Kangaroo Kourt Unobunal.

I.e. the pro-tenant bias is not only despicable, but
the vagaries of variable RTA interpretations which
are not binding on other Unobunals is galling.

[WGN ex-property manager]

Yes it rankles... yes it sucks.. yes I have personally lost out due to it.

But.... what changes to the system can you think of that will work in the real world without making it too easy for unethical landlords to victimise their tenants ?

[Perry]

Nothing Real About the TT World

But.... what changes to the system can you think of that will work in the real world
without making it too easy for unethical landlords to victimise their tenants ?

How about any changes that will work in the real world that will
stop it being so easy for unethical tenants to victimise their LLs?
..................(if you'll pardon the paraphrase)

It does not need to be in the 'real world.' It needs to be in the
damned Kangaroo Kourt called a TT. Consistency in interpretation,
equality in standards or evidence; anything else that might get
rid of the poor tenant / scumbag LL stereotype.

None of that needs to be over-awing. I.e. Just keep it simple, but
totally even-handed between tenant and LL. Whatever it takes to
dispose of the 'ethos' or a: system [that] is very leaky, with lots
of unfair and erroneous results, because I'll wager most of those
results are against the LL.

[TheLiberalLeft]

I'd also like to know the stats when the LL has the property managed professionally. How many of those get judgements unfairing against the LL? And if they are, does the LL have the right to sue the PM? Why not? The "court" has deemed the PM's screwed up.

[WGN ex-property manager]

OK, so in a situation where the LL said "the tenant did this" and the Tenant says "No I didn't", what is the Adjudicator supposed to do?

A) Believe the LL
B) Believe the Tenant
C) something expensive and complex involving other witnesses, forensic evidence, expert witnesses, gathering of character / prior behaviour evidence etc etc

As a corollary , try this scenario:

A policeman, a motorist and a judge are in a lightwieght justice tribunal designed to quickly process speeding convictions.

Policeman: "The motorist was Speeding"
Motorist: " No I wasn't"
Judge: "Mr Policeman, do you have any other witnesses (such as your partner?)
Policeman "Umm.... No"
J :"Do you have any video or speed camera evidence?"
P: "No"
J: "What Makes you think he was speeding?"
P: He was going way faster than me, and I was doing 90"
J: Is your speedo regularly calibrated?"
P: "No its not a dedicated traffic patrol car"
J:" Does it log your speed so we could review the data after the event?"
P: "No"
J: (to Motorist): What sort of car where you driving?"
M: "a V8 HSV"
J: "How fast can it go"?
M: "Dunno... 250ks maybe?"
J:" and how fast where you going?"
M: "95 sir"
outburst from Policeman "Oh please your honour, that is complete bollocks"
J:"Sorry , case dismissed"