• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 183
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    147

    Default 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

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    147

    Default 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.
    Last edited by BigWal; 06-10-2016 at 08:35 PM. Reason: Correcting grammar / completing sentence.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    147

    Default 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

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    147

    Default

    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!

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    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.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    14,879

    Default

    I wonder if the same punctilious strictness would be applied to any tenant's application? Probably not. Tenants would be favoured with some sort of workaround like: the intention is clear, even if the form is slightly deficient.
    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    10,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    I wonder if the same punctilious strictness would be applied to any tenant's application? Probably not. Tenants would be favoured with some sort of workaround like: the intention is clear, even if the form is slightly deficient.
    To be fair the LL was supposed to be professional (they set up a company for it) and using the wrong name is sloppy at best and inexcusable really.
    All they needed to do was give another notice with the right name - no need for a TT application. I really don't understand why they didn't just do that - people playing silly games.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    To be fair the LL was supposed to be professional (they set up a company for it) and using the wrong name is sloppy at best and inexcusable really.
    All they needed to do was give another notice with the right name - no need for a TT application. I really don't understand why they didn't just do that - people playing silly games.
    Too true. I mistakenly assumed it was the tenant who applied, not so.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    147

    Default Picture Hooks

    An old issue, and the consensus in the past is that it's just not worth claiming for picture hook damage unless it's particularly bad.

    Anyway - this ruling has a slightly different stance than I've seen before.

    A rental property may be used in the same way as any reasonable owner uses the property.

    This includes making holes in walls for picture hooks or stick on hooks provided there is not anexcessive number of hooks. That is fair wear and tear.
    TT No. is 4037585.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    14,879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigWal View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by TT Decision
    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 two separately registered companies.

    From a strictly technical perspective, the notice provided by the ‘landlord’ to the tenant is deficient, in that the notice records the wrong landlord in that it refers to ‘Iron Bridge Property Management 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 order granting entry to the property.
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    I wonder if the same punctilious strictness would be applied to any tenant's application? Probably not. Tenants would be favoured with some sort of workaround like: the intention is clear, even if the form is slightly deficient.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    To be fair the LL was supposed to be professional (they set up a company for it) and using the wrong name is sloppy at best and inexcusable really.
    Quote Originally Posted by artemis View Post
    Too true.
    Not surprisingly, I disagree - emphatically. Carelessness aside, there is something more important at stake. If ever we needed ever more proof that the TT Kangaroo Kourts favour tenants, we have yet another example. Note the bits I have emphasised, in red.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA
    85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.

    (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
    Compare the two items, side-by-side.

    The KK Klutz said: "From a strictly technical perspective,"

    The RTA says: "shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal technicalities."

    That decision was the usual egregious TT Kangaroo Kourt bias in favour of tenants.
    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. TT decisions removed from database?
    By BigWal in forum Property Management
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-12-2016, 09:24 AM
  2. Unfair Tenancy Tribunal Decisions?
    By Allen Realty Ltd Prop in forum Tenant Stuff (NZ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 16-09-2016, 12:14 PM
  3. First Home Buyer new build decisions
    By LeeM87 in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21-07-2016, 12:50 AM
  4. LTC decisions
    By CraigD in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-02-2015, 03:28 PM
  5. Enforcing tribunal decisions under the new act.
    By Glenn in forum Property Management
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29-10-2013, 07:48 AM
  6. Interesting Ad
    By Davo36 in forum Commercial Property (NZ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 19-08-2008, 02:28 AM
  7. Tax – How Much Does It Influence Your Decisions?
    By Perry in forum Finance, legal and tax (NZ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-03-2007, 12:31 AM
  8. Decisions?
    By Patti in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 23-07-2006, 12:25 PM
  9. How To Make Great Decisions (2)
    By muppet in forum General (NZ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28-03-2005, 07:46 PM
  10. Prof Bob Hargreaves Expo Speech
    By muppet in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2004, 06:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •