No code of compliance on rental home

[Perry]

Tenancy ruling questions full rent refunds in unconsented rentals
1 November 1 2017

The days of full rent refunds for tenants could be numbered after a Tenancy Tribunal ruling. Since 2013, multiple tenancies have been reportedly been deemed unlawful, and tenants have been refunded rents sometimes in the order of tens of thousands of dollars. However, in the latest case, one adjudicator has decided only to give the tenants back their bond. Adjudicator R Armstrong wrote in his order that on the face of it, he was bound by 2013's High Court decision.

But unlike other adjudicators, he questioned his power to return rent under section 137 of the act. "I would find it very difficult to accept that Parliament intended that the tribunal must order a landlord to repay to a tenant all rent paid by the tenant in every case where, for whatever reason, the premises could not be lawfully occupied by the tenant," Armstrong wrote in the Order.

He argued that Section 137 was referring to ancillary payments provided by the tenant "for the tenancy", not rent. "Rent is generally regarded as payment for the use and occupation of the premises rather than for the 'tenancy' as such. "Payment 'for the tenancy' is more apt to refer to payment for the granting of the tenancy rather than payment in the nature of rent."

Weirder and weirder it gets.

[Nick G]

That could see a lot of people suing the TT. Fun!

[flyernzl]

Breaking News . . .


I have just heard that the Dunedin landlord Vic Inglis (who was ordered to refund all rent paid by his tenant) has won his Court of Appeal case.
The District Court now said that the Tribunal decision was wrong and that they took too wide an interpretation of the original High Court ruling.


Andrew King is now going to contact the Principal Tenancy Adjudicator as soon as possible to see if she will issue a practice note to all adjudicators allowing them to use the full provisions of the RTA in unlawful properties claims from now on.

[John the builder]

and what about the LL poor bastards who were screwed by the TT in the meantime??

This is a bloody disgrace

The TT is part of Minister Jenny Salesa who minister in charge of RTA. Perhaps she needs to be inundated from concerned LLs with a please explain. This TTT is going to get more powers under this labour/ Green Govt They need to be reigned in now?

her email is Hon Jenny Salesa <[email protected]>

[artemis]

No costs awarded through (to either party) so Mr Inglis is out of pocket, and now has to try to recover from Ms Parry.

Maybe the TT should reimburse Mr Inglis' costs. (Tui.)

[Perry]

I have just heard that the Dunedin landlord Vic Inglis (who was ordered to refund all rent paid by his tenant) has won his Court of Appeal case.
The District Court now said that the Tribunal decision was wrong and that they took too wide an interpretation of the original High Court ruling.

Thanks for that update, Peter. But I confess to being confused about which court said what.

Gotta link?

[Courham]

Thanks for that update, Peter. But I confess to being confused about which court said what.

Gotta link?

District Court.

It's on Stuff this morning:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/99063318/rent-refund-ruling-overturned-by-court

Craig

[Perry]

Interesting commentary.

Judge Kevin Phillips said the questioned part of the property was completed to such a standard that the landlord was able to get the necessary certificate "in very short order". Phillips said photographs showed the work had been done to a very high standard. "There is no evidence that the tenant made complaints concerning the health of the tenants, dampness, mould, or any issues related to the sanitary operation of the area in question. There was no ingress of dampness or mould."

The tenant did not suffer any detriment of any kind as a result of what was a technical breach, Phillips said. "There did not appear to be any consideration given as to whether or not the tenant was unjustly enriched by the order that was made by the tribunal." [Tenant] Parry was ordered to repay Inglis $10,960.44. Costs were not awarded to either party.

Really, costs for stupidity should have been awarded against the TT!

[Wayne]

Really, costs for stupidity should have been awarded against the TT!

Probably not allowed for but I agree that they are the ones who should pay.

[John the builder]

write to the minister? [email protected]

minister of Building and construction and responsible for the RTA. She will be involved in the rejigging of the RTA and this was promising to entrench unlawful as unpoermited work. This is stated in the ccomentary to the amendment. people we must not sit back on this. make a late submission

"This bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to address issues related to liability for damage to rental premises caused by a tenant, methamphetamine contamination in rental premises, and tenancies over rental premises that are unlawful for residential use.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_74126/residential-tenancies-amendment-bill-no-2

[Perry]

When dealing with a Labour/Green gummint on this matter, heavy reliance would need to be placed on the Winston First Party, to avoid a repeat of what the recent court decision reversed.

As has already be posited, if the Labour/Green gummint keeps making it tougher and tougher for private PIs, then the gummint's state house building program figures will need to be increased substantially.

[mrsaneperson]

Breaking News . . .


I have just heard that the Dunedin landlord Vic Inglis (who was ordered to refund all rent paid by his tenant) has won his Court of Appeal case.
The District Court now said that the Tribunal decision was wrong and that they took too wide an interpretation of the original High Court ruling.


Andrew King is now going to contact the Principal Tenancy Adjudicator as soon as possible to see if she will issue a practice note to all adjudicators allowing them to use the full provisions of the RTA in unlawful properties claims from now on.

More breaking news reported in the Southland Times yesterday that Vic Inglis the Dunedin landlord received a text a day after the tenant left his property.

The text from former tenant Natalie Parry said: "Steve Parry is my father CEO of southland district council. What you have been doing is illegal."

Wow hope this Council guy Steve Parry gets whats coming to him by aiding his daughter in these wrongdoings and loses his job .

Inglis said he no longer owned the rental property.
"We are out of the game."


Full story here:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/99136747/council-chief-executive-denies-advising-daughter-over-10000-tenancy-dispute

[Lighthouse]

How is Judge Phillip's ruling in the Vic Inglis case is being applied?

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/131614035.pdf

"In summary, where a property cannot lawfully be used as residential premises, the starting position is that the Tribunal can only make orders under s137 for exemplary damages (where appropriate), and an award that all rent be paid back. In limited situations where the illegality arises only from a technicality and has not created detriment, it is open to the Tribunal to decline to make orders under. However, it would be for the landlord to prove that an award under s137 would be unjust for reasons other than the simple fact that the tenant has had the benefit of the accommodation."

[John the builder]

what is being forgotten in the debarcle is that a building can be "unapproved" "non compliant" and even in the councils view "not a habitable space" but this is not unlawful to rent out

there is no approval required to rent out a property

there are safe and sanitary provisions but these are based on actual condition and not the risk of something in the future

Is this being appealed???

[Perry]

Are You Sure?

So you say that, despite this section . . .

45 Landlord’s responsibilities
(1) The landlord shall—
(c) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.

(1A) Failure by the landlord to comply with paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is declared to be an unlawful act.