Rental property damage: Landlords liable - court rules

[Monsterbishi]

The tenant made decisions about the use of the room where her actions would clearly lead to damage to the carpet and curtains. This damage was willful in the sense that The Tenant adopted a way of life that led to inevitable damage to the premises. I am satisfied that it is reasonable to view her actions as intentional and therefore find her liable for the damage.

This is a remarkable outcome, by defining intent/willful in this way they've filled in the missing piece of the Osaki puzzle, this is important in the respect that rather than make a determination that is right or wrong by societal standards they've judged it on cause & effect.

[essence]

Tenant Liability, Intervention Sought from Politicians

An interesting development in the continuining saga of tenants responsibilities and Court decisions.

http://www.landlords.co.nz/article/5885/tenant-liability-intervention-sought?utm_source=GR&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MPs+urged+to+heed+calls+of+landlords+

[sidinz]

May be some hope yet.

[BigDreamer]

Well done. Looks like it is about the wording (along with evidence, of course) to present your case that will be vital. I will seventh the request for the tenancy tribunal number. Thanks

[Nice]

Tenancy case number is 4043000, but not yet up on their web site.

[BigWal]

Not sure how to cross-post to a specific entry on a thread, but I just posted this on the "Interesting TT decisions" thread:

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

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.

[flyernzl]

No one wants tenants to be financially ruined through an accidental mistake

Why not?
If they drive their uninsured rusty Datsun into the side of my Rolls Royce they can be financially ruined.
Why not if they trash my house?

[sidinz]

They wouldn't be financially ruined - their contents insurance will come with liability cover.

[flyernzl]

Tenant looks confused: "What's contents insurance?"

[Keys]

^^ A new breakfast cerial?

[sidinz]

There's no excuse. I got contents insurance at 18, when I went flatting as a student. My few sticks of second-hand furniture were probably worth very little, but I managed to pay for the premium and for that on my car.

[Don't believe the Hype]

There's no excuse. I got contents insurance at 18, when I went flatting as a student. My few sticks of second-hand furniture were probably worth very little, but I managed to pay for the premium and for that on my car.

that self responsibility you demonstrated at 18 is the one difference between owners (especially those who buy young) and long term renters...

Accountability for ones actions is very rare these days

[sidinz]

It's upbringing. The parental expectation was that I'd get insurance.

[FJW]

Tenant had cats locked in room, breach of lease. Got eviction on overdue rent, bailiff called in all the usual drama.

Second case to TT to mop up the damages, I was somewhat apprehensive given the Foxton pet damages case that has had so much publicity. Not nearly as big and expensive as the Foxton case, damage restricted to only one room, but all the same principles involved.

Tenant was a no show; no surprise there. I started with the cleaning and rubbish removal costs being deliberate, and rather than being damages they were the result of the tenant not leaving the room in 'reasonably clean condition.' I continued by presenting the communication with the tenant regarding the cats as being a breach, and that this was a deliberate action when the tenant took no action.

Adjudicator agreed with me totally and gave me full costs, no mention of any insurance claim being necessary. The wording in the Order is . . . " . . . the tenant made decisions about the use of the room where her actions would clearly lead to damage to the carpet and curtains. This damage was wilful in the sense that The Tenant adopted a way of life that led to inevitable damage to the premises. I am satisfied that it is reasonable to view her actions as intentional and therefore find her liable for the damage."

So, despite the bad news in the media, do not lose hope. Properly presented case and some logic from the TT adjudicator, and I got the result I was looking for !!

Hi Nice

About jolly time, every time I read cases getting thrown out that is morally wrong on every single count due to the Osaki / Holler case it just winds me up.

Have you signed the petition against the Osaki case that TPS are doing? If not PM me

F

[FJW]

Hi Essence

What do you think is going to eventually happen with this? The masses are all calling for the government to intervene to change legislation but you can never hold your breath on that......

Fraser