If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Heh, $25k excess as each 'spot' is a separate event. How about crowdfunding an appeal, not necessarily in this specific case.
Notice the PM refers to insurance premiums rising because of Osaki. Not sure what that means exactly but isn't it rents that will rise, if the market will bear it?
Russ said Tekoa Trust's insurance company informed him each identifiable instance of damage caused by the dogs' waste would count as a separate claim, as would each room.
There was a $500 excess, and with at least 10 noticeable spots in each room, the total excess would have worked out to $25,000, making a claim pointless, he said.
"This whole thing is unworkable. Our insurance premiums are going to lift if we have to keep making [unrecoverable] claims on these kinds of damages."
Having read the article I'm surprised. The discussion is on the intent of the tenant. IE accidential or deliberate. My argument would be that, the deliberate breach of the TA caused the damage.
An appeal to the next one up seems apposite. The Supreme Court, isn't it?
Rumor has it that it has already happened. I also hear that the appeal judgement has had a stay put on it. Still digging for proof of those items though.
Only applies if landlord has insurance that covers the event, and the tenant may not know that until they get to Tribunal. So, the tenant is taking a risk if they assume the landlord has insurance that covers the event as then the RTA applies without this case law.
A Tenancy Tribunal decision that found a tenant did not have to pay for the damage caused by her dogs urinating throughout a house, is being appealed. Foxton landlord David Russ said he had filed a district court appeal against the decision that tenant Amanda Stewart was not liable for $3000 worth of damage caused by her pets, despite there being a 'no pets' policy on their tenancy agreement. "I don't want to be in this situation but ... there's consequences outside of my own case," Russ said. "It opens the door to all sorts of problems down the track."
Wonder if the NZPIF might chip in something towards the Appeal costs? Hell! Perhaps apply to be joined as a party to the Appeal? Might at least look like the NZPIF is serious about supporting and upholding LLs.
Wonder if the NZPIF might chip in something towards the Appeal costs? Hell! Perhaps apply to be joined as a party to the Appeal? Might at least look like the NZPIF is serious about supporting and upholding LLs.
Great idea Perry
I cant get over how thick some of these Tribunal people must be.
The cause is not the result of accidental damage but the stupidity of the tennants who have no regard for the landlords property or the tennacy agreement (contract) which excluded dogs. It is not accidental damage, probably wasnt deliberate either but is certainly a consequential result of their actions
If firstly the contact was enforced and the tennant held to account for breach of contract, then on the second count failure to care for the property by keeping dogs inside which are either not toilet trained or were not provided with some acceptable means of toileting while locked inside, the issue would not have arisen. The Circumstances the tennant created meant that damage to the carpet was inevitable for which they need to be held to account.
These bastards and others like them that cause any damage in excess of normal REASONABLE fair wear and tear need to held to account
. . . but is certainly a consequential result of their actions.
That gets down to what I mentioned in the H&S thread, here on Property Talk, about everyone being spared the consequences of their foolish actions or stupidity:
As I see it - and notwithstanding any comparisons with other countries - this is just another stride down the slippery slope that began with no-fault ACC (insurance). The end of the slippery slope is nigh. A place where every adverse thing that befalls anyone will:
1) always not be their fault;
2) always be someone else's fault.
Is anyone else concerned that the award matched exactly the amount of the bond?
And, according to the practice note, the tenant must prove it was accidential, not intentional. How the hell could this happen without the tenant being at the hearing?
Comment