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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Some interesting TT decisions.
Collapse
X
-
-
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
This one was costly 4060586
In this determination, the tenant killed this possibility of claiming retaliatory notice by issuing their own 21 day notice
4085384
Last edited by Lighthouse; 16-08-2017, 11:02 PM.
Comment
-
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.
My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
This one was costly 4060586
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.Last edited by sidinz; 17-08-2017, 01:24 PM.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by sidinz View PostThat 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 should have just done a flatmate agreement.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sidinz View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Viking View PostThey do these dyas in the better houses. quite good curtains as well.My blog. From personal experience.
http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by offo View PostDoes 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by sidinz View PostThat 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.
Comment
Comment