Some interesting TT decisions.

[Wayne]

Thanks for clarifying that BigWal. Just out of interest what was the ruling on charging for power without an individual check meter?
A couple of my properties i include the power in the rent and was informed by TT that was fine as long as i did not nominate a value for the power as it cannot be ascertained accurately so it has to be zero $, the same goes for water if no meter.
Seems a little off in some respects but i checked with TT a few times they informed me that if you did nominate a fixed value for the power the tenant could in theory argue that they were not using that amount which goes back to a circular argument to some degree.

How could you charge seperately for power if you can't prove how much?
Including it in the rent is the only option really.
If you felt they used lots then put the rent up.
Or get a check meter installed.
Do they need to be certified accurate?

[mrsaneperson]

I include power & water in the rent, this is where there are 2 tenancies in the 1 building - there's no other option. Check meters are not always able to be installed as some power outlets may be wired into the other accommodation part. But my point is that TT are against any kind of figure being stated ,example the power will be fixed at $50 per week .If both tenant and landlord are happy to agree to this - then why not?

Even if i did have a check meter i would prefer not too use it and instead bill power into the rent. Reasons are:

1. Don't want hassle to go to property every month ,to do readings and calculations
2. Disturbing tenants
3. More administration spent emailing the bill and then sometimes playing waiting games for payment just like with water

If power usage does get out of hand there is no option but to increase rent - tenants know this.

[Wayne]

You would think adding that power was fixed at $50/wk would make it clear why the rent was higher than some other similar place.
At the end of the day you just include it anyway and just not itemise.
Net result is the same but reasons for rent value less so.

[artemis]

This is a recent TT decision which includes some interesting background information on how Housing NZ deals with P contamination and subsequent tenancy termination. There is also a cross application from the tenant concerning harassment, discrimination (based on ex partner being a gang member), which failed on all counts but which also contains background information.

15/00905/PO

PS Wellington landlords with a vacancy may want to take note.

[Keys]

Gotta wonder why they removed the application for rent arrears being 21 days in arrears.

[Wayne]

No mention of going for clean-up costs from the tenant.

[artemis]

Housing NZ probably worked out it would cost more to chase and maybe get $5 a week, than to write it off.

[BigWal]

A few more. I included the light bulb one because if I remember correctly I've seen a decision somewhere else that the LL is responsible for light bulbs.
Edit:Just found a contrasting ruling. (2n'd row in table)
Edit 2: As I find time I'll just add to this list, rather than create a new posting each time.
Third one is just something new LLs should be aware of.
The fourth one though - that was surprising!

Summary	Tribunal #	Notes / Reasons
It is generally regarded as a tenant’s obligation to replace light bulbs that have failed.	4009774	Reason 38
It is the landlord's responsibility to replace them	4010488	4th to last paragraph
A landlord cannot necessarily expect premises to be left in a condition whereby they are immediately relettable	4011839	Reason 8
Tenant liable for interest on cost of repairs required earlier than would normally be expected	4012588	Reason 12
Tenant entitled to compensation for interference arising from open homes or viewings when selling a property, other than in cases of well managed, minimal interference	15/01308/WN	Reason 34
Landlord is responsible for cost of external window cleaning	4002395	Reason 4

[sidinz]

Tenant liable for interest on cost of repairs required earlier than would normally be expected

What does that mean?

[Wayne]

What does that mean?

Read the determination - it explains it all.

[BigWal]

What does that mean?

What the hell - I may as well try and explain it clearer.

• Tenant destroys 6 year old carpet
• Carpet life is estimated at 10 years (or whatever the guidelines are)
• LL gets awarded 40 % of the cost of new carpet
• They also get 4 years interest on that 40%, as they had to pay it 4 years earlier than they planned.

[sidinz]

Kinda seems like double dipping.

[Wayne]

Kinda seems like double dipping.

In what way?

[sidinz]

Because the landlord is being awarded money twice to compensate for the loss of four years' use of the carpet.

[BigWal]

Few more decisions

PMs (or anybody acting as agent for a property owner) might be interested in the second one.

Chch Landlords, esp. with 'upmarket' properties will be interested in the 3'rd decisio in its entirety. Read the TT ruling, and draw your own conclusions.

Positive consent must be obtained by the landlord before the property is entered to show prospective tenants. Positive consent does not arise by simply leaving a message on a telephone.	4001426	4'th last paragraph
Property Manager (or the property owner's agent) is responsible for any matter regarding health and safety, regardless if the property owner fails to properly carry out the work required.	15/00593/CH	Decisions 76 to 79. In short, the property owner chose to use uncertified people to fix the gas supply, but the property manager ended up being pinged with exemplary damages, as they were seen as having allowed this.
Landlord not responsible for supply of gas bottles for a property with gas hobs / gas fire.	15/02830/CH	Decision 44.
LL only entitled to 21 days of rent after they become aware a tenant has died.	4018233	Reason 3