Some interesting TT decisions.

[sidinz]

Landlord not responsible for supply of gas bottles for a property with gas hobs / gas fire.	15/02830/CH	Decision 44.

I am gobsmacked. What dipsh!t tenant thought that the LL was going to supply them with gas?

[Keys]

Not gas, the bottles.

[Wayne]

Seems a just determination.
I would have thought that the LL would have supplied the gas bottles but I see the point that they are a 'cost of supply' so the tenants responsibility.

[BigWal]

I don't know what it is about Wellington, but the proportion of interesting TT decisions is far higher than I've found in Auckland, Christchurch, and to some extent Dunedin and Hamilton.

99% of those seem to be variants of 'rent not paid' and / or 'cleaning and property damage, locks changed, yadda yadda yadda'.

The 5'th and 6'th items in the list below may be of interest to people who rent 'high individual tenant turnover' properties - e.g. large or student flats. Seems you need to have bullet proof processes around tenant turnover, and need to be very careful about letting every tenant know what they are in for.

And finally, in hindsight, items 2 and 4 pretty much say the same thing, but at least they're consistent.

------------

LL can only claim the proceeds of abandoned goods, not the goods themselves. (and even then, only after going through the TT)	4014882	Reason 15.
Tenants application regarding retaliatory notice does not explicitly have to be within 14 days.	4019780	Reason 14 - The Courts have held that the time limit is directory, not mandatory
Tenant stopping smoking is considered remedy of a breach of a TA. And if you want to use smoking as a reason to terminate the tenancy, you need to prove that it has caused 'damage to the premises'.	4021487	Reasons 9 and 11.
Strict interpretation of notification periods etc. by the RTA is not always required. The tribunal can make a ruling based on 'The substantial merits and justice of the case' instead.	4014738	Reason 6. Which refers to section 64 of the RTA, which basically says this. The ruling was in favour of the LL and seems pretty fair to me.
Where a tenant assigns his or her interest of the TA to other persons with the consent of the LL the tenant ceases to be liable for the rent and other obligations even if the original TA states they are jointly and severally liable.	4014648	Reason 16. Fair enough.
Tenants are only 'jointly and severally liable' (where there are multiple tenants and changes in tenants) while they are occupiers.	4014648	Reasons 17 and 18. Again, fair enough.
Even if tenant has been bankrupted, TT proceedings which have been started before the bankruptcy can go ahead.	4015041	Section 76 (2) of the RTA, apparently

[Wayne]

What do the reason numbers refer to?

[BigWal]

What do the reason numbers refer to?

TT rulings, such as this one, normally (but not always) have a numbered list of the reasons for their decisions.

[Wayne]

TT rulings, such as this one, normally (but not always) have a numbered list of the reasons for their decisions.

Got you - you're refering to which bit of the decision is interesting.

[BigWal]

Last two are a bit esoteric, but anyway ...

And I learned how to put grid lines around the table, which makes it a bit nicer to read. Yay. Don't seem to be able to adjust column widths though.

-------------------

Plumbing blockages (e.g. due to baby wipes) not fully claimable unless you can prove the condition and age of the drain itself.	4021838	Reason 5. Not great for any LL, but the reasoning seems as follows. You might have a developing tree root problem in your drains, which only becomes apparent when the baby wipes hit it. So LL and tenant share responsibility of the cost, unless LL can prove otherwise.
A fixed but not extravagant sum is not necessarily a penalty (my italics), if you can confirm it's reasonable.	15/00059/WN	Reason 14. So you can charge (for example) a break fee for an FTT as long as you can prove that the fee is reasonable. In this case the fee was apparently 'average of expenses over the years in situations of this nature'
Loss of rent by LL doesn't by itself equal hardship (of the LL)	13/00906/PO	Reason 21. This relates to the early end of an FTT. The LL has to prove that the loss of the rent will cause hardship. e.g. being unable to meet mortgage payments.
If the keys aren't returned, you can't claim rent in lieu. You have to change the locks and apply to the TT for compensation	4021425	Reason 4
Body corporate rules registered prior to 20 June 2011 (and not updated since) are invalid regarding some terms and conditions, so those T & Cs then default to those in the legislation.	16/00034/UT	Reason 4. So the default body corporate operational rules stated here apply. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...tml#DLM3695770
Body corporates can't charge compound interest.	16/00034/UT	Reason 2.

[Perry]

Reason 5. Not great for any LL, but the reasoning seems as follows.
You might have a developing tree root problem in your drains, which only becomes apparent when the baby wipes hit it. So LL and tenant share responsibility of the cost, unless LL can prove otherwise.

OMG! Might? Might? Maybe? Could be? Possibly?

I.e. speculation becomes fact.

Not wonder the TT Kangaroo Kourts have the same level of reputation as baby wipes down a blocked drain.

[BigWal]

Oh FFS!

I thought the 5'th ruling below was common sense, and was just going to call it a night.

Just one more, I thought. The very next ruling I found (6'th in the table) completely contradicted it!

And then, I kid you not, the very next ruling after that re-iterated the 6'th ruling!

To me it looked like the 5'th ruling was pretty clearly thought out, with solid reasoning, but who knows? The other two made bald statements without backing them up in any way.

NZ PIA or somebody similar might need to group fund an appeal to the District Court to get a definitive decision on this one. It's not going to be worth it for a single case of a $300 excess.

A landlord has an obligation to mitigate loss. As a result tentant arrears may be limited to 4 months. (my emphasis)	4009177	Reasons 18 and 19. In this case the period was adjudicated to be 6 months, due to the tenant also not meeting their obligations. And just for fun, it appears that somebody has a very dry sense of humour. "In the context of modern marriages perhaps not too much can be read into it but I also note that her husband was in New Zealand at times when the owner was claimed to be overseas."
Exemplary damages for "non-lodgement of the bond and failure to keep proper rent records" not regarded as being able to be offset against rent arrears. Only damages which can be offset are those which have an obvious link to the rent payable.	4009177	Reason 73.
Depending on the LL's insurance policy, "unhidden gradual damage" caused by the tenant may not be covered. (my emphasis)	4023311	Reason 11.
Landlords can't claim for time spent attending TT hearings. Or anything else considered 'normal costs associated with part of running a business renting out property'	4016990	This one's pretty standard, but it keeps on cropping up, so worth re-iterating.
Tenants still have to pay the excess for an insurance claim where accidental damage by a tenant is claimed against the LL's insurance.	4016552	Reasons 22, 23 and 24.
Tenants do not have to pay the excess...	4007366	Reason 4.
Tenants do not have to pay the excess...	4020937	Reason 3

[BigWal]

Here's a doozy. Might be useful when arguing blatantly unfair TT decisions

And it cites a court case for precedent.

Case law makes it clear that [TT] decisions must n [sic] be underpinned by general principles of law: the Tribunal cannot just decide based on merits and justice alone: Ziki Investments( Properties) Limited v. McDonald [2008] 3 NZLR 417 at [69]-[72].

TT number is 4037640

[BigWal]

Opposite of previous TT decision where tenant was not liable for dog damage.

There was a howl of protest when the original story broke concerning the following TT decision (#4015340)

While I accept that the tenant has intentionally breached the agreement by allowing a dogs onto the property the landlord has not established that the tenant intended to damage the carpet

However, I just found TT decision 15/01347/WN, which seems to completely contradict that decision's reasoning.

The key paragraph (5) of this decision seems to be as follows, but it's definitely worth reading the whole thing:

It would have been known to the tenants that this damage was occurring on an ongoing basisbut they continued to allow it to happen. They made a decision to overlook the damage thatwas being done to serve the purpose of keeping their animals inside.

Go figure.

[BigWal]

PM company with a carpet cleaning cause in your TA? Read this.

In the case of Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd Application 09/0418, Hamilton,the adjudicator went further and said a provision inserted into a tenancy agreement by aprofessional property management company, which induces a tenant into a belief that theyhave a legal obligation to pay for professional carpet cleaning when they do not, is misleadingand deceptive conduct in breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

TT Application # 4028168

[BigWal]

Boring selection so far today, but here's one that may be of interest - if you're a company applying to the TT it might pay to be absolutely sure that the name on your application is 100% correct. TT number = 4043959

The tenant objects to the ‘landlords’ right of entry on the basis that the notice was provided by“Iron Bridge Property Management Ltd”, where the tenancy agreement is with “Iron BridgeProperty Management (Auck) Ltd”.

I have reviewed the Companies Register, and agree with the tenant that these are twoseparately registered companies.

From a strictly technical perspective, the notice provided by the ‘landlord’ to the tenant isdeficient, in that the notice records the wrong landlord in that it refers to ‘Iron Bridge PropertyManagement Ltd’ not ‘Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Ltd’.

Finding as I do that the notice provided is deficient, I am not prepared to make an ordergranting entry to the property

.

On a different note, given the alternative names listed in this Pipl query I would probably have been a bit careful about thoroughly vetting the tenancy application. (No guarantee it's the same person, of course, but just saying)

It's a good idea to always search on the separate components of hyphenated names when researching prospective tenants!

[artemis]

TT number = 4043959. Wonder what the tenant's motivation was. My best guess - set up to defend termination as retaliatory. Hopefully the tenant will be ready now for the regular inspections, all done strictly by the book of course.