Rental property damage: Landlords liable - court rules

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Landlord shocked to be hit by costs for tenant's defecating dog

Landlords urgently need clarity on their rights over tenants, says the Foxton man appealing a Tenancy Tribunal ruling that a renter who let her dog urinate and defecate in the house does not have to pay $3000 damages - even though there was a no pets policy.
David Russ says it "beggars belief" he has to foot the bill for damage caused to his property by renter Amanda Stewart and her pet.
According to Russ, Stewart breached the terms of her lease by having animals in the house in the first place, which then urinated and defecated on the carpet, while the curtains stank to "high heaven" as the result of the dogs' waste.
He took her to the tribunal to recover $3000 in costs, however, the tribunal ruled in favour of Stewart who didn't have to pay a cent.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11711757

Tenancy Tribunal decision:

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/TT/abstract.html?id=4015340

Apparently, dog damage, opps I meant "Acts of Dog", is now defined as a "peril", alongside floods, fire and earthquake.

Who would have thought:

[Nick G]

This just makes life harder for tenants, particularly those who have a pet for some companionship in an otherwise harsh world. Nice work TT.

[Don't believe the Hype]

OK yeah, I'm seeing your point, the punishment wouldn't really fit the "crime".

As above, I'm seeing your point. This was a great outcome for the landlord at the end of the day, and it's why we buy insurance. I wasn't worried about it, just interested and decided to comment here.

Ugh, totally agree. This makes me sick. My cousin got a test done on a whim and narrowly avoided buying an ex meth lab as their first house. (That's a guess, it may well have just been home to some meth users, rather than being a lab).

I'm considering getting a baseline test done in both my rentals and testing as each tenant leaves. Just using self test kits at this stage. Hopefully the first one is clear! It's on my PMs agenda currently, so waiting to hear what they think too.

Did you buy your car new? If not you should meth test it too... Good chance someone smoked meth in their car if they were prepared to smoke it in their house... Oh... And you come not far more contact with the car (seats) than you do he walls or curtains of a house.

What about THC residue... Harmful? Can you test for it? I guess if you can't test for it there isn't a problem... Right? - much more weed being smoked in NZ than anything else...

[Don't believe the Hype]

Wow, not much wiggle room on that judgement.

I can see this being an excuse for some to shuffle the rents up.

absolutely... And why shouldn't we... The risk profile of owning rentals just increased with this ruling... As a result the reward (rent) for risk needs to go up too... - all my rents going up... Even where I was prepared to maintain I'm now putting up $5/wk... No one will move for a $5/wk increase

if there is a complaint I will tell tenants to send a thank you letter to the TT.

[Perry]

Renters, You’re Not Off The Hook Yet
18 Sep 2016

I never thought I'd write these words: I actually feel sorry for landlords. Under the new regime, a tenant can be as "careless" as they want with no fear of repercussions. An accidental fire is one thing - but we're talking about gross negligence. In a recent case, a tenant let her dog urinate all over the carpet. Despite having signed an agreement that she wasn't allowed pets, she was able to walk away without having to pay a cent.

The truth is, this is a pyrrhic victory for the renting class. The only winners are the slobs, the negligent, and the uninsured. The bulk of responsible renters lose out. Landlords are going to face premium hikes from their own insurers, and they'll inevitably pass it on through higher rents. They're also going to be much more selective about tenants, because they can't afford to take a chance on higher-risk candidates. I.e. This might be a landmark decision, but it's nothing to celebrate.

[Son of G]

It's not about not being liable for the landlords costs. It's about the insurer's costs.

It's about situations where the landlord insures a houses against fire. The tenant leaves a pan of oil on the stove and it burns the house down. It's an accident, but a negligent one...but fires often are. The landlord's insurer pays out.

Should the landlord's insurer then be able to sue the tenant for the full amount of the payout? Put another way, should the insurer collect all its premiums against the risk from the landlords, and then be able to recover its payouts?

Hi Ivan

I would be really interested on you view of the application of s270 on the PLA.

In Holler v Osaki the judges did not consider the affect of section 270 of the PLA. See para [56]

The latest Practice Note from the mandarins at the Tenancy Tribunal did not even mention the section and state in points 8 & 9 that excess liability rests with the landlord.

Thanks
Keith

[Don't believe the Hype]

Michael - you've officially lost the plot defending the indefensible - this tenant intentionally, carelessly or recklessly (you choose) destroyed the landlords property... They should pay... Period.

even your supporters... The regular landlord haters in the stuff comments community are not defending your position - or this idiot tenant. Review the comments section here showing the number of thumbs up to comments outraged by this tenants behaviour and the TT ruling... http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/8399...unal-precedent

Anyone with a shred of common decency would offer to pay for the damage their pets did to someone else's property... No matter the court ruling...

[Perry]

In Holler v Osaki the judges did not consider the affect of section 270 of the PLA. See para [56]

Para 56 of what? The Appeal Court judgement? If so, can that be posted here to give better context to this discussion, please.

Noting that s270 of the PLA refers to premiums, not any excess.

[PTWhatAGreatForum]

Michael - you've officially lost the plot defending the indefensible - this tenant intentionally, carelessly or recklessly (you choose) destroyed the landlords property... They should pay... Period.

even your supporters... The regular landlord haters in the stuff comments community are not defending your position - or this idiot tenant.

You are making it up Pinocchio.

Copy and pasting an article along with relevant tribunal decision is not "defending" the tenant.

Actually, my post is favorable to the landlord... if you read it before telling tales.

Or my sense of humor and that of the cartoon author is lost on you.

[flyernzl]

It's not about not being liable for the landlords costs. It's about the insurer's costs.

It's about situations where the landlord insures a houses against fire. The tenant leaves a pan of oil on the stove and it burns the house down. It's an accident, but a negligent one...but fires often are. The landlord's insurer pays out.

Should the landlord's insurer then be able to sue the tenant for the full amount of the payout? Put another way, should the insurer collect all its premiums against the risk from the landlords, and then be able to recover its payouts?

So, Ivan, I come to your office for legal advice, which I receive, and I pay your bill at that time.
Then as I am about to leave your premises I trip over a rug, send your receptionists desk flying, smash her (your) computer, send the printer through the window and upset ink over your carpet so that must be replaced, am I immune from paying for any of that damage beacuse you have insurance and I have had that cost to you factored into your bill that I have just paid?

[Bobsyouruncle]

I never pictured you as large enough to do all that if you tripped Flyer.....

[Nick G]

So, Ivan, I come to your office for legal advice, which I receive, and I pay your bill at that time.
Then as I am about to leave your premises I trip over a rug, send your receptionists desk flying, smash her (your) computer, send the printer through the window and upset ink over your carpet so that must be replaced, am I immune from paying for any of that damage beacuse you have insurance and I have had that cost to you factored into your bill that I have just paid?

Don't forget your dog tied up poo'd all over the foyer

[Don't believe the Hype]

Michael - I'm a touch slow... Can you bold and underline the part where your post is favorable to the landlord?

[Rentex]

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.

Where can we donate to legal costs for the appeal?
I haven't heard anything from NZPIF/APIA about this. Thanks Keys.

[Wayne]

You are making it up Pinocchio.

Copy and pasting an article along with relevant tribunal decision is not "defending" the tenant.

Actually, my post is favorable to the landlord... if you read it before telling tales.

Or my sense of humor and that of the cartoon author is lost on you.

That's the way I read it too - I didn't see any defense of the tenant in your post.