Some interesting TT decisions.

[artemis]

Early in 2018 Mr Grant Robertson suggested tenants in his Wellington Central electorate send him details of their substandard rentals. This was reported at the time and there were photos on social media of his electorate office window covered in emails. The big issue was, it seems, rents being too high for the property and Mr Robertson recommended the tenants take a case to the Tenancy Tribunal to determine if the rent is significantly above market.

To the point of this thread - I've been keeping an eye on the TT database for the flood of decisions.

So far not a one, though possible I may have missed a few. But not hundreds or even dozens.

Quite a few of the actual emails have been posted on the interweb, though not by Mr Robertson. I can supply links if anyone is interested.

[Perry]

Not surprising, is it? Robertson creating false expectations.
Typical politician, really. His lips were moving.

[Perry]

Unlawful Act Condoned by an Award of Operational Costs of Unlawful Act

We all know how biased the TT Kangaroo Kourts are, but here's another ridiculous decision.

Only the profit!

Tenant to give landlord Airbnb profits after running secret Taupo guesthouse
11 Nov 2018

Hawthorne's tenancy agreement did not permit her to sublet the property. However, she has only been ordered to pay back the net profits of her Airbnb operation – rather than the full revenue she gained from Airbnb guests. At a Tenancy Tribunal hearing in May, Hawthorne did not deny she had sublet the Bird Area property.

However, she submitted $14,167 in rental costs and $3,000 in electricity and internet bills as the cost of running the Airbnb business.

Her lawyer asked that these costs be subtracted from the business's gross revenue [$27,445].
The hearing adjudicator, A Macpherson, said "tenants should not be a position whereby they retain profits derived from the commission of an unlawful act". However, Macpherson said she could only impose similar penalties to comparable cases in the District Court and the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, she requested Hawthorne pay only the net profit of $10,278, as an account of profits.

In total, Hawthorne has been ordered to pay $13,311, including $2000 for compensation for "injury to feelings" and $950 in exemplary damages. The tribunal order stated Hawthorne had acted "not in utter disregard" but more in "naive blindness".

Reflect a moment on this . . .

. . . said she [the Adjudicator] could only impose similar penalties to comparable cases in the District Court and the Court of Appeal.

Then ponder about what ever happened to:

85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised
(2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

[Perry]

$1m Auckland home must be demolished after tenants cooked meth inside
17 Nov 2018

A $1 million Auckland home must be demolished after tenants cooked methamphetamine inside it, a tribunal has heard. Levels of methamphetamine at the West Auckland property were hundreds of times above recently loosened guidelines. Extensive contamination at the house left the landlord with little option but to knock it down, the Tenancy Tribunal said in a decision released last week. Adjudicator Christina Ter Haar awarded $47,711 in damages to landlord Sunny Qu to demolish the 1930s house and move a relocatable house onto the section.

Shouldn't be ter haaard to collect that amount, wouldn't you say?

[Keys]

1930's house? Was there a preservation order on it? What would the cost be to subdivide and build multiple units there?

[BigWal_v2]

Garages not required to be completely dry

Reason 26 of decision here.

Relevant quote is as follows:

I agree with the landlord that there is no guarantee that a garage will be a dry space,such as the inside of the house should be. That is the nature of garages, where theyare not required to be insulated, they have large external doors for cars to enter, andcommonly cars are parked in the garage which will be wet.

[Keys]

Reason 26 of decision here.

Relevant quote is as follows:

Reason 11 concerns me

Relevant quote is as follows:

In relation to the property inspections, I cannot see that the landlord has committed any breach. In relation to the first inspection request, I agree with the tenant that it would be reasonable to present a time frame for the inspection, such as within a two hour window. That is entirely reasonable, and while not a legal concept, would be simply polite. However again there is a remedy open to the tenant, which is to refuse consent to undertake the inspection.

My emphasis. And, it is a shocking comment by the adjudicator stating that the tenant has a remedy.

[Perry]

Bad Look Case

An Interesting TT Case

A few quotes . . .

Symantha Lowe rented a four-bedroom home on Cumberland Place in the Palmerston North suburb of Kelvin Grove off Dianna Coyle and her company Actrac Ltd.

The next day Lowe received a termination letter stating Coyle would be moving back to the property, so Lowe had six weeks to move out.

The notice was also defective as the landlord could only give a 90-day notice. "There is also very significant public interest in landlords terminating any tenancies based on proper application of the law."

I wonder just what "proper application of the law" was, in that case?

51 Termination by notice
(1) Subject to sections 52, 53, 53A, 59, and 59A, the minimum period of notice required to be given by a landlord to terminate a tenancy shall be as follows:
(a) where the owner of the premises requires the premises as the principal place of residence for the owner or any member of that owner’s family, 42 days:

[Keys]

^^ who is the owner of the premises Perry?

If Actrac Ltd. then the TT was correct.

[Keys]

Item 9 Second sentence.

Item 12 full paragraph.

[Perry]

^^ who is the owner of the premises Perry?

If Actrac Ltd. then the TT was correct.

Yes. But the reported item included: "off Dianna Coyle and her company Actrac Ltd."

Were both listed on the TA as LLs?

If so, what are the implications for s51(a)?

There's also the possibility that Dianna and Actrac were owner-lessor/LL or vice versa.

[Lighthouse]

I have heard by word of mouth that the Ministry of Business, Innovation is getting tough with professional landlords.
This ruling seems to confirm this trend.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/TT/abstract.html?id=149635553&applicationNumber=41604 41

[Keys]

OOOO. 28 days to lodge the bond now! Oh I say.

Oooo again, since actually lodging the bonds it is so close to the time the bonds were supposed to be lodged then it is unwarranted to pursue the claim. Maybe that means they now accept up to (say) 5 days late!

[Don't believe the Hype]

I have heard by word of mouth that the Ministry of Business, Innovation is getting tough with professional landlords.
This ruling seems to confirm this trend.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/TT/abstract.html?id=149635553&applicationNumber=41604 41

when you say 'professional landlords' you mean Property Management companies?

Who is deemed responsible to pay this fine is the the PM company or the individual property owner?

[Keys]

Who is deemed responsible to pay this fine is the the PM company or the individual property owner?

Interesting, in this case. Who gets the money from the fine?