Tenancy tribunal not awarding mainteance costs.

[Viking]

From my very experienced property manager today.
Issue is recovery of damage/maintenace costs.
You may recall recently a case where a couple had their rental damaged by fire. The insurance company paid out but then decided to hake the tenants to court to recover the loss.
the court ruled against the company.
Since then the Tenancy has taken the line wrongly that if tenants damage your house get your insurance to pay. The tenant isn't liable for the costs.

Here is what she has to say.
What we want is the rules of maintenance to be sorted with the tenancy tribunal. Adjudicators are basically not awarding any maintenance reimbursement if landlords have insurance . Had one for 212.00 yesterday but did not get awarded as adjudicator said claim on insurance but landlords insurance excess is greater than this . Adjudicator sympathised but due to that case in the headlines they have to rule that way until changes are made.
Frustrating!!!

This of course needs challenging big time.

[sidinz]

While not arguing with the gist of your post, in the short term your PM needs to get her hands on the TT adjudications that order the tenants to pay the excess.
There was a thread on here about it not long ago.

[Viking]

Adjudicator reckons needs lots of landlord to complain. Rents will be increased to cover costs and then if landlords do claim on their insurance then premiums will raise. A vicious circle


Any idea what the thread was?

[sidinz]

Probably the one about recent tribunal decisions.

[sidinz]

Found it. Here.

http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?38823-Some-interesting-TT-decisions/page4

[ATandGT]

It gets worse. It's not just that if the landlord had insurance; adjudicators are taking the stance that they ought to have insurance. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Anthonyacat]

It gets worse. It's not just that if the landlord had insurance; adjudicators are taking the stance that they ought to have insurance. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The tenants should have to get insurance! Just like third party car insurance, should be compulsory. Not uncommon overseas.

[Keys]

Reason 24. This will not stay on the site for ever so if you want it, get it now.

[Son of G]

Has anyone had any success quoting section 270 of the Property Law Act?
It states that the tenant is liable for the excess and increased premium.

See: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM969482.html


The Holler v Osaki case is about amounts covered by insurance.
Paragraph [56] of the judgement clearly states that the judges did not consider the effects of s 270.

[mrsaneperson]

Reason 24. This will not stay on the site for ever so if you want it, get it now.

Noted that the tenant tried to return what they had spent on professional cleaners of over $300 by alleging landlord had told them to use professional services which wasn't true.

[Rentex]

Son of G,
I'm not aware of anyone doing this, but should/when the situation arises, I intend to try, Will combine with the case Keys posted above (excess was deemed payable by the tenant).

[sidinz]

Since then a practice note has come out stating that the excess cannot be reclaimed from the tenant.

[Rentex]

Ah, sorry for my mistake, have this in my Tribunal folder. Time for coffee. Thanks