Hi all, first time posting but what recommended by another user.
I'll try to keep this brief and to the point:
- Tenant requested UFB to be installed, permission to get tech to advise scope of works only given.
- Tenant gets install carried out, falsely signing that they have my permission for the scope of works provided by the tech (I have never seen these scope of works nor consenting to the install).
- Install is poorly positioned, threatens watertightness of cladding due to multiple penetrations and installed as a complete eyesore.
- After over a month of discussion and understanding the process to remedy, notice to remedy sent to the tenant with clear instructions on how to remedy.
- Some/little action has been taken by the tenant with notice now expired. This is representative of my whole dealing on this matter... the tenant shows little concern and I am the one doing all the leg work on understanding how this can/should be remedied, eg. through Chorus etc.
Would love to see this tenant gone as he is just a major pain in the arse for a number of previous reasons. Keen to take to TT and apply for termination order but expect order to remedy is more likely.
Two questions:
- How much inaction from a tenant to remedy something could warrant a termination order?
- And the curly one, the remedy I have put to the tenant is to have the cabling rerun as to how I would have agreed for it to run had the proper procedure been followed. And of course all damage from the removal of the existing run to be repaired. I fear that the remedies available to me under the RTA are only for removal and make good. However, this doesn't consider, as I have discovered, that each property in NZ is effectively entitled to the "subsidy" for installation by Chorus, paid by the Govt. If it is only uninstalled, and I want to, or a new tenant wants to install at a later date, there will be no subsidy available and this is likely to cost me at least $1,000.
If anyone could provide advise on this matter, that would be very much appreciated.
I'll try to keep this brief and to the point:
- Tenant requested UFB to be installed, permission to get tech to advise scope of works only given.
- Tenant gets install carried out, falsely signing that they have my permission for the scope of works provided by the tech (I have never seen these scope of works nor consenting to the install).
- Install is poorly positioned, threatens watertightness of cladding due to multiple penetrations and installed as a complete eyesore.
- After over a month of discussion and understanding the process to remedy, notice to remedy sent to the tenant with clear instructions on how to remedy.
- Some/little action has been taken by the tenant with notice now expired. This is representative of my whole dealing on this matter... the tenant shows little concern and I am the one doing all the leg work on understanding how this can/should be remedied, eg. through Chorus etc.
Would love to see this tenant gone as he is just a major pain in the arse for a number of previous reasons. Keen to take to TT and apply for termination order but expect order to remedy is more likely.
Two questions:
- How much inaction from a tenant to remedy something could warrant a termination order?
- And the curly one, the remedy I have put to the tenant is to have the cabling rerun as to how I would have agreed for it to run had the proper procedure been followed. And of course all damage from the removal of the existing run to be repaired. I fear that the remedies available to me under the RTA are only for removal and make good. However, this doesn't consider, as I have discovered, that each property in NZ is effectively entitled to the "subsidy" for installation by Chorus, paid by the Govt. If it is only uninstalled, and I want to, or a new tenant wants to install at a later date, there will be no subsidy available and this is likely to cost me at least $1,000.
If anyone could provide advise on this matter, that would be very much appreciated.
Comment