Got a view on the Tenancy Tribunal?

[Perry]

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

Who said bringing additional evidence (pix, witnesses, affadavits, etc.,)
has to be complex, expensive or forensic?

I.e. I suspect that there should be at least some training for the Kangaroo
Kourt adjudicators. Unless they are indeed 'failed lawyers' - a pet suspicion
of mine - they should know something about things like:

• weight of evidence
• hearsay
• balance of probabilities
• credibility of the adducer
• and so on . . . . .

If they don't, well . . . . In general, the burden of proof is upon the asserter.

[WGN ex-property manager]

If they don't, well . . . . In general, the burden of proof is upon the asserter.

And there we have it.

Most cases I have come across or read here on PT involving a poorly treated landlord involve the landlord chasing rent or damages, stating the facts to the TT, then the tenats lies and says "no I didn't"... end of case, LL loses.

[NIK]

Evidence is still not enough just look at our case!
So the tenant did a runner, damaged property, police attended (re reported smashed window by neighbours), had to inform my insurance company,
advice given by:
tenancy line - secure the property, give access to the 'gem' tenant by finding her and supplying her with new keys (easier said than done given she wasn't replying to letters/e-mails, calls, texts etc)
insurance company - don't allow access due to damage caused already, if I grant access my claim will be turned down and my policy /insurance revoked
tenancy advise line manager - given what happened don't give access to new key but advise that property was secured and I have to mitigate my losses so will not supply new keys
at that time tenant was already living at different address, in rental arrears more than 21 days, the 'mediation' was in some 40 hrs time...
so we went with the insurance company advise and the tenancy advise line manager
what did the tenant do?
called me (that afternoon at 2pm)and demanded key, I advised she could come and collect her rubbish (that's what was left there) at 9am the following day (as I was busy with my children attending a party and she had power disconnected so we wouldn't be able to see after 5pm) and that we would love to meet her along with the insurance assessor to eplain some of the damage - what did she do? called a locksmith at the time she knew I was unable to attend - luckily I was informed and went there right away, she called police on me for tresspassing, police attended agreed with me (I gave them insurance company's assessor's report, photos of the property before she moved in, print out of e-mail advise by the tenancy etc and told them to have a look through the property if they thought she really needed to be there in dark then ok, but if they agreed with me that I was reasonable enough to offer coming the following day at 9am please make her hand over the key to keep the property secure)...Police did just that. What happened in TT:
Evidence I supplied:
--- police report (that the tenant called them, they attended and didn't act against me as I was not a tresspasser) and that I agreed to come in daylight hours, that there was just pile of damp clothes and rotten food leftovers and rubbish left there
--- CD from DBH containing transcripts of their advise
--- evidence that the tenant has disconnected the power some weeks earlier
--- copies of my texts & calls and letters to the tenant regarding the access to rubbish
--- copies of my phone bills
--- photographic evidence
at the TT - the tenant claimed she had her most important stuff still in the property and that she came there at 4.45 pm on that day (winter, dark) to clean and fix up the property (in dark, with no power, no hot water and kids half naked in her car???)
adjudicator decided:
I had no right to call the police on the tenant (huh?) and treat her as a tresspasser (?) wouldn't accept the cd from the DBH accompanined by the letter from them (as it could cause his pc to crash ????) and decided that as the tenant wanted to clean the property but we didn't allow her we can't claim the cleaning costs (again the mouldy food sat there for more than 3 weeks, photographs were provided)....
I would have appealed just because I was cheesed off that the police report was missrread and why oh why can the adjudicator exclude evidence by DBH (if they don't provide transcripts as their letter clearly said but cd with audio files) and take tenants word that she intended to clean in dark with cold water (there were excrements everywhere, walls , curtains etc) with her 2y and 5y half naked in the car....yes Robin the system works really really well
I didn't appeal as I am disgusted how this system is working and for the sake of few hundred dollars (we cleaned it ourselves) it just wasn't worth it, but I really feel for others facing going to TT as if evidence is set aside and tenants word is taken as gospel justice can not be served....
ooh and we did go back the following day - it was raining - she turned up at 9.30am --- and I filmed her 'taking' her rubbish, putting it in the garage and saying she would return later --- of course she never did! but I buggered my camera using it in heavy rain, filming (evidence) that we deny access to her precious rubbish! she also never returned to attend the gardens, despite promising to do so.....(clearly showing her intent to clean and tidy)....
stating the facts and supporting them by the evidence will still get you nowhere in TT if the general feeling is that you are the 'filthy rich LL doing wrong to the poor tenant' ---

[WGN ex-property manager]

Ok NIK, this case clearly went against you and some elements of it are unfair, but there are also some lessons for you here.

1. Anything the DBH call centre advise you should be treated with the same level of confidence as anonymous advise off the internet. They MIGHT know what they're talking about, but often do not. Just because one call center operator in one Crown agency (DBH) offers an opinion it doesn't automatically follow that it will stand up in a "court" operated by another crown agency (MoJ).

2. Until you either have a signed letter from the tenant voluntarily surrendering their tenancy, or a sealed order from the TT terminating the tenancy, then the tenant is still the tenant. They can be 3 years behind on the rent, actually living in Khazakstan 11 months a year, and dancing naked over the still glowing embers of your property after a especially epic party, but they are still the tenant until you hold paperwork that says otherwise.

3. If the "tenant" was at the property (for whatever reason) that they still have the right to occupy, and you, the landlord are gaining entry to the property without the required notice period they you really are in the wrong. It's a game and a dance, and you need to know then steps or you lose.

4. Disposing of tenants abandoned posessions is a pain in the ass, as your "mouldy furniture" is their family heirloom, but there is a process laid down in the Act, and if you follow it carefully you can get to where to need to be.

So, would the bond have covered the costs you where seeking here? Or where you chasing a WINZ beneficiary for more than the bond? How much $$$ where you actually claiming here?

Yes the TT is biased, but you need to either:

A) Operate in more mid-upmarket suburbs where the bad behavior is much rarer
B) Just accept it as a cost of doing business
C) Get really good at tight paperwork and process to minimise the loophole you offer to the adjuducator to let the tents escape

[NIK]

Robin,
the damage was more than $ 10 000 in total, the insurance company put a pressure on us too, advising us that they viewed some of the damage as intentional/malicious and would not accept our claim if we let that tenant back into the property. Insurance company helped partially, rest was fixed by us/trader friends so we managed to bring it to $ 6, 500 (not what you want to spend on property 3 months after complete refurb!)
The tenant's possessions were leftover party cake (over month old) milk bottles, cigarette butts (non smoker and no smoking allowed), excrements, and raw mouldy meat, couple of old rags and used nappies....I can understand the rags, and old nappies, but show me one person that would apply the ACT on disposal of used nappies and excrements left all over the property.....I should have done what Glenn advised and bagged them and offered them for a sniff to the tenant and adjudicator at the hearing
The tenant broke the window - she admitted it in TT - days earlier and simply left it - neighbours advised us of broken window, police attended, and so had we, hence: we advised the DHB that this hapened, they viewed this as abandonmnent and property as vacant so we had legal possesion, the application was changed to say vacant - not occupied. She never took any steps to reglaze it or notify us....
The insurance company was advised as we had to advise them or else face the possibility of making our policy invalid (anyone watched watchdog this week?) the insurance assessor came and spent 2 hours listing all the damages....
- but if tenant is allowed to make up stories and the adjudicator chooses to believe it - there is nothing anyone can do....
How would you feel if the tenant you faced in TT would say: I wanted to clean, I wanted to pay rent, I wanted to change the carpet/flooring/repaint the property all in less than 12 hours --- and the adjudicator then said , that's ok then case dismissed no damages as tenant intended to do it? the point is she didn't even when she was given chance !
Should I accept this is part of the business? no and no other LL should either!
This case doesn't worry me anymore just the fact that this is described as 'justice' in NZ...

[Viking]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/5575895/Lengthy-delays-to-get-rid-of-tenants

Lengthy delays to get rid of tenants

FIONA ROTHERHAM Last updated 05:00 07/09/2011



Property investors claim they're losing money from delinquent tenants because of delays in getting hearings before the Tenancy Tribunal. Landlords faced with tenants who are behind in paying their rent have to apply to the tribunal for an order to remove them.
They have to wait three weeks before they can make an application and, in the past, it would typically take about three to four weeks to get a tenant out, Property Investors Federation president Andrew King said.
Delays in getting hearings before the tribunal vary from about four weeks in Auckland to up to three months in regional areas such as Nelson, Blenheim and Timaru, he said.
King thinks a shortage of court time is causing the backlog and he's meeting later this week with the Department of Building & Housing to discuss the problem.
But the department has refuted King's figures saying their records show on average the longest delays are 28 days on the North Shore of Auckland and in Timaru. The average in Auckland was around 23 days.
The average waiting time for a hearing in Nelson and Blenheim was only 19 days, the department said.


Manager of client services Megan Martin said the department aimed to have 80 per cent of tenancy tribunal hearings held within 20 days of application but in recent months tougher economic conditions appeared to have caused an increase in tenants failing to pay their rent.

The department arranged two months ago with the Ministry of Justice to get an extra 10 per cent of court days nationwide - some 332 days - which could be used in any areas facing the longest delays in tribunal hearings.

The issue comes as an annual survey by the ANZ and the investors federation show tenants nationwide can expect higher rents this year with some 80 per cent of the 1800 landlords surveyed intending to increase rents this year by up to five per cent. Almost all intend increasing rents by an average 6 per cent to ten per cent within the next five years.
Nationally, rents rose 3 per cent last year, following Budget changes that removed the depreciation on investment property and some 26 per cent of those surveyed said they had lifted rents as a result of the Budget moves by between 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent.
But King said rental prices had not kept pace with inflation or the price of properties and rental rises were now overdue in many cases.
He also estimated the depreciation changes had cost investors about $45 a week and he expected about $15 per week of that would be recoverable through increased rents. He said Auckland was leading the charge for both increased rents and property prices but in other places such as Wellington there was resistance to paying more. There was also a trend towards more people living together to share the rent on one property.



More investors think their property values will rise this year than last year with 71 per cent expecting prices to increase by up to 2.4 per cent and by six to ten per cent within the next five years.
The survey showed investors were continuing to hold most of their investment properties in the same region that they live, there had been no significant change in the number of properties investor hold and fewer expect to buy any further properties in the next two years.
Small investors - those with one to three properties - are still most common (62 per cent), particularly in Auckland, while only 15 per cent are full-time investors with seven or more properties.



Hey Glenn - 19 days in Nelson right?
My impression is that it has become worse than it ever was for most people. What is going to Tribunal is more complicated.

[essence]

Property investors claim they're losing money from delinquent tenants because of delays in getting hearings before the Tenancy Tribunal. Landlords faced with tenants who are behind in paying their rent have to apply to the tribunal for an order to remove them.
They have to wait three weeks before they can make an application and, in the past, it would typically take about three to four weeks to get a tenant out, Property Investors Federation president Andrew King said.
Delays in getting hearings before the tribunal vary from about four weeks in Auckland to up to three months in regional areas such as Nelson, Blenheim and Timaru, he said.
King thinks a shortage of court time is causing the backlog and he's meeting later this week with the Department of Building & Housing to discuss the problem.
But the department has refuted King's figures saying their records show on average the longest delays are 28 days on the North Shore of Auckland and in Timaru. The average in Auckland was around 23 days.
The average waiting time for a hearing in Nelson and Blenheim was only 19 days, the department said.

I have been reliably informed that the delay time from application to hearing in Porirua, is six weeks. They are pushing EXTREMELY hard for applications to go to Mediation first.

If you are NOT happy with the level of service you are receiving from the DBH, make a complaint IN WRITING. Go [email protected]

You can also address your email to the local area boss, in Wellington's case it's [email protected]. You'll get an OUT OF OFFICE notice atm, but his email is being received by his off-siders (minions??)

Squeaky wheel gets the oil!!!