Some interesting TT decisions.

[Nice]

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?

Regulating PM's won't change anything; regulating all Landlords might. But is anyone prepared to take this step ?

[flyernzl]

I suspect that someone, somewhere, is watching the Welsh property management maneuvers (anyone who manages a rental property there - either PMs or self-managing landlords - must have undertaken and passed an online course and then become registered) to see how that pans out.

So, its likely.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

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.

I have previously considered getting in a flatmate and giving them their own semi self-contained space. I will now rethink that.

Anyone else noticed a big increase in people who are desperate to find a place to rent - and facing homelessness - asking in Facebook B&S groups? And there is no rentals (I have confirmed this is indeed the case in this area).

Note this in s.41:
"She maintains that Ms Byrt took on the tenancy with the intention of using the tenancy to make money from her."

After reading her laundry list of complaints it sure looks that way to me too.

[sidinz]

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.

What would you consider a flatmate situation?
I have a 'granny flat' under my house. We share a driveway, rubbish bins, address, HWC, electricity connection, Internet connection etc. The granny flat doesn't have a laundry nor a proper kitchen (just a kitchenette). I certainly don't consider it a separate household, and nor would the council, who would be very quick to tell me that I couldn't rent it separately. The situation in the determination seems even less separated.
Just where is the line?

[John the builder]

sidinz;

Just where is the line?

this nonsense around separate is the key to this debacle.

the only thing certain is that the TT are the least informed about the law and they should be the best.

Under the building act separate should have been understood as subdivided and different ownership. Instead the test has become can be independent .
Under the planning rules a residential property needed separate facilities including cooking but this has been interpreted to mean every kitchen is another residence.

TT have been led by the same confusion and owner landlords misinformed have been rorted by ill informed decisions. It is a disgrace and appalling but reflects on the capability of TT adjudicators who are untrained and working outside their expertise.

[artemis]

This decision relates to fixed term tenancies and is of interest because the adjudicator included a policy statement recommending some sort of change to protect tenants from their own actions wrt fixed term tenancies. It is relevant at the moment as the RTA is up for review soon. It has already been signalled that tenant rights and security of tenure will be very much in scope of the review. Submissions from the Tenancy Tribunal, or its adjudicators, will no doubt be taken seriously.

And yes the adjudicator did say 'mind-field'.

As a matter of public concern fixed term tenancies are a mind-field and should not be entered into lightly by tenants or without adequate advice and a full understanding of the long- term nature of their financial obligations.
The prevalence of the number of cases coming before the tribunal and the financial burden being placed on the
tenants for failure to comply with the terms of the fixed term contract is becoming a blight on the rental market.
Whilst the actions of the landlords in enforcing these contracts is lawful I recommend that legislative consideration
be given to addressing the issue due to the uneven nature of the playing field in a under supplied market.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/135700301.pdf

[Perry]

Whilst the actions of the landlords in enforcing these contracts is lawful I recommend that legislative consideration be given to addressing the issue due to the uneven nature of the playing field in a under supplied market.

So what do we have, here?

A TT Adjudicator implication that tenants need even more babying from the Tenant Services section of the Ministry of Bungling & Inappropriate Expenditure?

"Uneven nature of the playing field?"

What the hell is that a euphemism for?

LLs don't have enough projection against unscrupulous tenants entering in to a FTT with no intention of staying for the fixed term?

Faint hope.

[artemis]

Landlord awarded tenant's Airbnb profits after property illegally subleased

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12055833

Tenancy Tribunal decision here -

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/TT/abstract.html?id=135906932&applicationNumber=4115779

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Landlord awarded tenant's Airbnb profits after property illegally subleased

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12055833

I side with the tenant on the subletting issue. Landlords have benefiited greatly by increased rents, at considerable cost to the working classes and the taxpayer.

Obviously the tenant needed a bit extra to pay the rent and the landlord kicks them for it.

It's scenarios like this which demonstrate many landlords are greedy, selfish and deserving of tough regulation.

This could only be construed as a breach of contract if the contract was fair, and for this to be so, property would have to operate in a competitive market and it does not.

In respect of the lock and walking out, this is an understandable reaction to the situation. If the landlord was operating with integrity, this would greatly decrease their chances of attracting problems to themselves. So it's their karma and all... It's no different to certain posters here who seem to have far too much experience in the Tenancy Tribunal.

The tenant was also an idiot for not turning up to the hearings and appearing to play silly-buggars with the Tenancy Tribunal.

The media, as usual, does not report the 'facts' very well. The amount awarded to the landlord in respect of AirBNB was $2,650. The remainder (Total $11,513.29) was in respect of standard, run of the mill matters.

If the tenant had turned up to the hearing they would likely have improved the outcome. At minimum, it would not be any worse.

[Wayne]

I side with the tenant on the subletting issue. Landlords have benefiited greatly by increased rents, at considerable cost to the working classes and the taxpayer.

Obviously the tenant needed a bit extra to pay the rent and the landlord kicks them for it.

It's scenarios like this which demonstrate many landlords are greedy, selfish and deserving of tough regulation.

This could only be construed as a breach of contract if the contract was fair, and for this to be so, property would have to operate in a competitive market and it does not.

In respect of the lock and walking out, this is an understandable reaction to the situation. If the landlord was operating with integrity, this would greatly decrease their chances of attracting problems to themselves. So it's their karma and all... It's no different to certain posters here who seem to have far too much experience in the Tenancy Tribunal.

The tenant was also an idiot for not turning up to the hearings and appearing to play silly-buggars with the Tenancy Tribunal.

The media, as usual, does not report the 'facts' very well. The amount awarded to the landlord in respect of AirBNB was $2,650. The remainder (Total $11,513.29) was in respect of standard, run of the mill matters.

If the tenant had turned up to the hearing they would likely have improved the outcome. At minimum, it would not be any worse.

Obviously the tenant needed a bit extra?
I took it, from reading the article and TT rulings, that the tenant wasn't there when the apartment was let.
Again - you have a reasonable contract (no subletting including AirBnB) and you condone ignoring that through some socialist redistribution of wealth.
From the LLs perspective they vet a person as being suitable to entrust their property with and only want them there (not someone they have no idea about) but you think it reasonable that anyone should get the keys.

The media didn't say how much the LL got in the determination - you made an assumption. The facts were reported.

Planet Michael would be an interesting place to live I think.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Again - you have a reasonable contract (no subletting including AirBnB) and you condone ignoring that through some socialist redistribution of wealth.

Socialism is BS. But it is the inevitable outcome in situations where mass inequality exists.

$650 per week for a rinky-dink apartment is outrageous. As stupid as the landlord's claim of $10k for their hurty feelings, which the TT correctly dismissed as nonsense.

This is the situation which landlords want and even skite about on here. But they very quickly have amnesia (about what they wished for) when the flipping-obvious outcome happens.

[Wayne]

Socialism is BS. But it is the inevitable outcome in situations where mass inequality exists.

$650 per week for a rinky-dink apartment is outrageous.

This is the situation which landlords want and even skite about on here. But they very quickly have amnesia (about what they wished for) when the flipping-obvious outcome happens.

I haven't seen the apartment so have no idea if it is 'rinky-dink' or not.
$650/week isn't some poor street person being ripped off - the tenant, I'd say, knew exactly what they were doing (and they lost).

High rents aren't pushing up property prices - it is the high prices pushing up rents.
The reasons for the high prices are many - demand is one, supply is a second and the ability of a LL to get cheap money is yet another.
Ignoring contracts like this person did isn't going to change that.
If they sub-let to a poor homeless person you might have an argument but they didn't - they did it purely for their own gain.
How you could see that as helping the solve the accommodation issue we have in this country is beyond me.
I suspect you just want to applaud 'sticking it to the man'.

You are another person who can see the problem and wants others to solve it.
Get out there and help.
Buy a property, do it up to an acceptable standard and rent it for a 'fair' price - see how you go.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

High rents aren't pushing up property prices - it is the high prices pushing up rents.
The reasons for the high prices are many - demand is one, supply is a second and the ability of a LL to get cheap money is yet another.

Yes, I know that and have consistently blamed high property prices and easy money.

Additionally, council regs and the cost of building materials are major factors as well.

Landlords think this is great. Rents which increase faster then the CPI and a marketplace which lacks competition (to keep a lid on prices).

[Wayne]

Yes, I know that and have consistently blamed high property prices and easy money.

Additionally, council regs and the cost of building materials are major factors as well.

Landlords think this is great. Rents which increase faster then the CPI and a marketplace which lacks competition (to keep a lid on prices).

So because house prices have increased outside of the LL control it is OK to break a contract?
This is a good thing - get at the LL because of something they didn't do?

[Keys]

Buy a property, do it up to an acceptable standard and rent it for a 'fair' price - see how you go.

Let us also see how he goes at $25/hour running a Property Management business.