Some interesting TT decisions.

[sidinz]

Surely it would depend on the Trust Deed and reason for establishing? For example, if a Trust exists solely for the purpose of holding a house for the principal beneficiary to live in (and let's say that person goes overseas for a while and the house is rented out in their absence), there surely must be provision for 42 days' notice when that beneficiary wants to move back in? The Trust, after all, acquired the house for that person to live in.

[sidinz]

Ruling here - reason 5. I believe a discussion around this sort of issue has cropped up on the forums in the last week or so, but can't remember which where it is.

And yet, in a by-the-room rental, you can have multiple TAs.

[Lighthouse]

A trust or company is not classified as a "natural person" from a legal standpoint hence they can't give a 42-day notice.

Once you start reading tribunal determinations on a regular basis it becomes clear that the incorrect use of a 42-day notice is one of the most common landlord/agent errors.

[Lighthouse]

Often 42 day notices are involved in situations that may be classed as retaliatory. Perhaps, the tenant has complained and the landlord just wants to get rid of the tenant or even sell the property.

This one 4019107 is typical.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/104112511.pdf

This one was costly 4060586

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/125555330.pdf

In this determination, the tenant killed this possibility of claiming retaliatory notice by issuing their own 21 day notice
4085384

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/124956366.pdf

[sidinz]

I find this one interesting:

Cost of new curtains
Ms Lewer says at the beginning of the tenancy she spent two days cleaning the premises and



at the time Mr. Cooper authorised her to remove the curtains and throw them out in the skip.
She now seeks the costs of replacement curtains.
Mr Cooper acknowledges that the bedroom curtains were deficient and needed to be replaced
but maintains the lounge curtains could have been washed. He also says that he provided
alternative curtains for two of the rooms from the top house.
Ms Lewer readily acknowledges that she did not intend to seek reimbursement from the



landlord for the costs of the curtains as she felt she would be there for a long time and able to

effectively recoup her investment. On the other hand the landlord’s own evidence means that
he did not provide her with curtains for every window in every room. Consistent with the
Tribunal’s decision in Tomlinson v Mittal, Auckland, 08/5574/AK, 4 February 2009, it must be

an implied term of every tenancy agreement that curtains are provided for windows, particularly
in bedrooms for privacy and comfort for sleeping.
I find that the tenant is entitled to be compensated for these reasonable expenses due to the
lack of sufficient and as the landlord had been given notice of this state of affairs

curtaining (section 45)1)(d) RTA). There is insufficient evidence to make an unequivocal assessment of

the landlord’s failure in this regard. Based on the limited evidence provided, however, I think it
reasonable to award the tenant the costs of one set of bedroom curtains as per the invoice
provided in the sum of $76.96.

While I believe it's in the landlord's best interests to provide curtains, I noticed a few years ago that in most of their houses, HNZ does not. Apart from the case law quoted above, is there any legal requirement to provide curtains? After all, they are in no way fixed to the walls/floor as most chattels are.

[sidinz]

This one was costly 4060586

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/125555330.pdf

That one was a travesty. It should never have been heard in the TT because it was clearly not a true tenancy under the RTA as she was renting out part of her own home. She and the 'tenant' shared the house's main entrance, laundry and hot water supply. It was ore accurately a flatmate situation where the flatmate had their exclusive space. The TT really overreached themselves on that one by even hearing it.
The 'landlord' should file an appeal on that basis.

She also has a case in that after the 42-day notice, the tenant gave her own 21-day notice, which according to the other finding, invalidates any claim of 'retaliatory.' Once more, the TT is inconsistent in its judgements.

[Wayne]

That one was a travesty. It should never have been heard in the TT because it was clearly not a true tenancy under the RTA as she was renting out part of her own home. She and the 'tenant' shared the house's main entrance, laundry and hot water supply. It was ore accurately a flatmate situation where the flatmate had their exclusive space. The TT really overreached themselves on that one by even hearing it.
The 'landlord' should file an appeal on that basis.

They agreed to it being covered by the TT because they created a Tenancy Agreement I would have thought.
They should have just done a flatmate agreement.

[Viking]

I find this one interesting:

While I believe it's in the landlord's best interests to provide curtains, I noticed a few years ago that in most of their houses, HNZ does not. Apart from the case law quoted above, is there any legal requirement to provide curtains? After all, they are in no way fixed to the walls/floor as most chattels are.

They do these dyas in the better houses. quite good curtains as well.

[sidinz]

They do these dyas in the better houses. quite good curtains as well.

Yes, the new terraced houses had curtains and/or Roman blinds, but in the bulk of their properties, they didn't. Similar story with carpets. We had to ask the tenants, if we saw carpet on the floors, if it belonged to them or HNZ. After a while, you get to recognise HNZ standard issue and be able to tell when the curtains/carpets were the tenants' property.

[artemis]

A day in the life of the Tenancy Tribunal -

http://thespinoff.co.nz/society/01-03-2018/how-many-property-managers-does-it-take-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb/

[fuzzlevalve]

http://thespinoff.co.nz/society/01-03-2018/how-many-property-managers-does-it-take-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb/

[Perry]

In Your Dreams

I had a good laugh at this comment from the Staff Writer, Madeleine Chapman:

The system will track down the tenants and get their [the LLs] money back.

Little does she know.

[offo]

Does anyone think that they will at some point regulate PM's. Everything else is regulated to the point where people are asking for less regulation process a good example: councils so why are PM not regulated? does anyone know?

[artemis]

Does anyone think that they will at some point regulate PM's. Everything else is regulated to the point where people are asking for less regulation process a good example: councils so why are PM not regulated? does anyone know?

There is another group not regulated at the mo, and that is Body Corporate managers. There was a consultation process by MBIE last year and quite a bit of support for regulation for larger complexes. Of course some of those in favour were BC management companies. Over 100 submissions which are posted on the MBIE website. I'm not sure where this is at under the new government.

[mrsaneperson]

That one was a travesty. It should never have been heard in the TT because it was clearly not a true tenancy under the RTA as she was renting out part of her own home. She and the 'tenant' shared the house's main entrance, laundry and hot water supply. It was ore accurately a flatmate situation where the flatmate had their exclusive space. The TT really overreached themselves on that one by even hearing it.
The 'landlord' should file an appeal on that basis.

She also has a case in that after the 42-day notice, the tenant gave her own 21-day notice, which according to the other finding, invalidates any claim of 'retaliatory.' Once more, the TT is inconsistent in its judgements.

It was a self contained area complete with kitchen and bathroom the only thing that was shared was the front entrance and laundry, so it does not qualify for a flatmate type situation. Reading through the TT the tenant was a cunning devil ,the only good thing to come out of it perhaps is the official assignee receiving the funds.