Wow the tenants have been awarded $38626 compensation. Has any landlord been successful in recovering damages etc awarded against a tenant,I The landlords are in Australia and there will be a sold sign on the property by now so best of luck tenants don't spend the money till it is in the bank.

hammer23 - 2021-10-31 00:07:00

The member deleted this message.

gunna-1 - 2021-10-31 05:32:00

The member deleted this message.

gunna-1 - 2021-10-31 05:45:00

princess52 wrote:

.....- it’s the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the house meets the Healthy Homes standards....

Since the tenants in this case had been there for several years the HH Standards had not become mandatory.

artemis - 2021-10-31 06:45:00

This message was deleted.

gunna-1 - 2021-10-31 06:50:00

sw20 wrote:

Indeed. You don’t know what you don’t know.

Slumlords need to be in prison not just fined.

True, and slum tenants likewise.

mulch_king - 2021-10-31 08:42:00

gunna-1 wrote:

A grandfathered tenancy, yes, that would make sense, how can you prosecute that?.

Because there have always been requirements for maintaining properties with regards to health and safety. They just weren't formally codified with specific requirements until more recently.

sparkychap - 2021-10-31 08:56:00

hammer23 wrote:

Wow the tenants have been awarded $38626 compensation. Has any landlord been successful in recovering damages etc awarded against a tenant,I The landlords are in Australia and there will be a sold sign on the property by now so best of luck tenants don't spend the money till it is in the bank.

Its not compensation, but a mix of exemplary damages and I suspect a couple of years of rent repaid as the property was not fit for habitation.

But I agree with the repayment pay - really hope they cough up, but based on their obvious distain for their customers, you're concerns are likely just.

Edited by sparkychap at 8:59 am, Sun 31 Oct

sparkychap - 2021-10-31 08:58:00

tegretol wrote:

Nothing to do with race and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make it so.

Licensing should be some system whereby potential parents should prove to the state (ie the rest of us) that they have the means to support, nurture and raise their children. This would minimise the endless replication of state-dependant families who contribute nothing in their entire lives yet expect those of us that do work to fund them. If the problem was stopped before it started then many of these 'homeless', 'deprived' and otherwise 'disadvantaged' children would not be the taxpayers or landlords responsibility.

How do you know they are contributing nothing? You don't have to be a beneficiary to be struggling in this country. Also since when has the welfare of children been landlords responsibility? Its still the responsibility of landlords to be providing habitable properties, which is where the failure has been in this case, healthy homes is where the buck stops. Should the landlord have to prove via a licencing authority that they are in fact financially capable of maintaining a property to acceptable standard? You are treading on dangerous ground with that one, you could imagine the huge howls of indignance from landlords that a govt authority would be probing their affairs in that way. Supplying accommodation supplements to greedy exploitative landlords all because we have a huge gulf between what housing costs and what people actually get paid that they are more than willling to take advantage of shouldn't be the taxpayers responsibility either. You could collapse the market in an instant by abolishing that.

franc123 - 2021-10-31 16:44:00

franc123 wrote:

How do you know they are contributing nothing? You don't have to be a beneficiary to be struggling in this country. Also since when has the welfare of children been landlords responsibility? Its still the responsibility of landlords to be providing habitable properties, which is where the failure has been in this case, healthy homes is where the buck stops. Should the landlord have to prove via a licencing authority that they are in fact financially capable of maintaining a property to acceptable standard? You are treading on dangerous ground with that one, you could imagine the huge howls of indignance from landlords that a govt authority would be probing their affairs in that way. Supplying accommodation supplements to greedy exploitative landlords all because we have a huge gulf between what housing costs and what people actually get paid that they are more than willling to take advantage of shouldn't be the taxpayers responsibility either. You could collapse the market in an instant by abolishing that.

Please re-read my post. You appear to have read the meaning that you chose to as opposed to the actual meaning of it!

tegretol - 2021-10-31 19:01:00

tegretol wrote:

Nothing to do with race and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make it so.

Licensing should be some system whereby potential parents should prove to the state (ie the rest of us) that they have the means to support, nurture and raise their children. This would minimise the endless replication of state-dependant families who contribute nothing in their entire lives yet expect those of us that do work to fund them. If the problem was stopped before it started then many of these 'homeless', 'deprived' and otherwise 'disadvantaged' children would not be the taxpayers or landlords responsibility.

You're assuming static circumstances. Life happens: divorce, illness, education, inheritance. There are families who are quite able to care for them selves until shit happens and then they need help. Using your proposal does that then mean their licence gets revoked and the kids taken away? There are also plenty of people who use their kids as their motivation to pull themselves "up" and improve the family circumstance. It's not a one way trip.

hers.nz - 2021-10-31 19:12:00

franc123 wrote:

Yep no problem, there is of course loads of vacant rental properties available for immediate occupation owned by friendly people ready to rent them to you at reasonable prices. Moving house amazingly enough costs money that they may not have had plus pay advanced rent on a new place and they couldn't exactly just reclaim their bond as the LL never lodged it.

I don't think you develop rhumatic fever overnight. It's a bad rental for sure, but to blame people who were living in another country for the conditions where the childs mother was clearly having first hand experience is pathetic. I think the decision was correct the landlord failed in many ways and should pay reparation. but the child getting a chronic condition is the parents fault.
You couldn't argue sanitarium are to blame for a sick child with a peanut allergy, if the parents keep feeding it peanut butter.

bitsnpieces2020 - 2021-10-31 22:24:00

The member deleted this message.

gunna-1 - 2021-11-01 05:41:00

The member deleted this message.

gunna-1 - 2021-11-01 05:58:00

gunna-1 wrote:

Ok i read dampness mould and rheumatic fever, .....

Um apart from the aforementioned failure to maintain a property, there was the little matter of:
* failure to appoint an agent whilst living overseas
* failure to lodge bond
* failure to comply with smoke alarms requirements
* failure to comply with insulation requirements

Given the case has gone to tribunal and been adjudicated, there is nothing to indicate this was a tenant 'failing to ventilate', as you seem to imply.

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 13:22:00

I've been investigating, and based on what I have seen, this property was a bad leaky building, riddled with mold. This case has been going for a while and the property itself was demolished and the land just sold. It scored 9 out of 10 in the "uninhabitable" scale used by the council.

We haven't seen the full adjudication, the articles are based on an MBIE press release but there are some interesting phrases there around the family being "vulnerable" and "unable to move out" as well as the landlords taking advantage of this and knowingly renting an unhealthy unit.

A $ 200 dehumidifier and bottle of bleach wouldn't have solved this one.

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 13:34:00

That's so awful Sparky.

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 13:43:00

Despite being served notice by the PM we just had a hassle trying to get onto a property to some garden mainteneance work, its no wonder that is some cases LL's just give up and sell.

kenw1 - 2021-11-01 13:59:00

kenw1 wrote:

Despite being served notice by the PM we just had a hassle trying to get onto a property to some garden mainteneance work, its no wonder that is some cases LL's just give up and sell.

Would it help if you didn't have to give any notice at all? You know, just turn up?

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 14:23:00

kenw1 wrote:

Despite being served notice by the PM we just had a hassle trying to get onto a property to some garden mainteneance work, its no wonder that is some cases LL's just give up and sell.

lol you don’t need notice for that.

sw20 - 2021-11-01 14:43:00

sw20 wrote:

lol you don’t need notice for that.

You certainly do as the tenants have more privacy rights than most. A LL that just rocked up would be in dire straights for harassing the tenant. I agree, sell up and let some other sucker deal with the crap. The days of making [capital] cash from rentals are all over.

tegretol - 2021-11-01 17:09:00

tegretol wrote:

You certainly do as the tenants have more privacy rights than most. A LL that just rocked up would be in dire straights for harassing the tenant. I agree, sell up and let some other sucker deal with the crap. The days of making [capital] cash from rentals are all over.

Nope, he's right. You don't need any notice to go onto the premises.

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 17:12:00

tegretol wrote:

You certainly do as the tenants have more privacy rights than most. A LL that just rocked up would be in dire straights for harassing the tenant. I agree, sell up and let some other sucker deal with the crap. The days of making [capital] cash from rentals are all over.

Nope, no notice required for yard maintenance.

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 17:18:00

tegretol wrote:

You certainly do as the tenants have more privacy rights than most. A LL that just rocked up would be in dire straights for harassing the tenant. I agree, sell up and let some other sucker deal with the crap. The days of making [capital] cash from rentals are all over.

lol

I love some Dunning Kruger.

sw20 - 2021-11-01 18:34:00

sw20 wrote:

lol

I love some Dunning Kruger.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-

lovelurking - 2021-11-01 18:40:00

sw20 wrote:

lol

I love some Dunning Kruger.

.

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 19:37:00

sw20 wrote:

lol you don’t need notice for that.

I know, the LL cannot win either way.

My personal hero was Peter Rachman, he had it all sorted.

kenw1 - 2021-11-01 19:54:00

desi1969 wrote:

Nope, no notice required for yard maintenance.

Read the Tenancy Act before trying to make me out to be a fool.

Dunning effing Kruger - you all go read the RTA (1986) 48 (2) (a) as at the 2021 Amendment and come back and continue to argue that I'm wrong.

tegretol - 2021-11-01 20:55:00

tegretol wrote:

Read the Tenancy Act before trying to make me out to be a fool.

Dunning effing Kruger - you all go read the RTA (1986) 48 (2) (a) as at the 2021 Amendment and come back and continue to argue that I'm wrong.

48 (2) The landlord may enter the premises—
(a) in any case of emergency; or

Huh?

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 21:00:00

tegretol wrote:

Read the Tenancy Act before trying to make me out to be a fool.

Dunning effing Kruger - you all go read the RTA (1986) 48 (2) (a) as at the 2021 Amendment and come back and continue to argue that I'm wrong.

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/acce
ss
Landlords can enter the grounds without giving notice
Landlords don’t need to give notice to come onto the property (the land). This usually happens when the landlord has agreed to do things (like mow the lawns for the tenants). The landlord is also usually responsible for maintaining the outside of the house and property (like pruning trees and cleaning the guttering), so they will need to come on to the grounds for those reasons. But the landlord does have to avoid interfering with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy.

kenw1 - 2021-11-01 21:18:00

There is a difference between premises and property.

kenw1 - 2021-11-01 21:21:00

kenw1 wrote:

There is a difference between premises and property.

But only in this section. Anyone reading the RTA would know that...

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 21:24:00

tegretol wrote:

Read the Tenancy Act before trying to make me out to be a fool.

Dunning effing Kruger - .....

I don't need to make you out to be a fool - you're doing a fabulous job all by yourself.

Keep reading all the way down to ...
(7) In this section premises does not include land or facilities.

Edited by desi1969 at 9:41 pm, Mon 1 Nov

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 21:35:00

desi1969 wrote:

I don't need to make you out to be a fool - you're doing a fabulous job all by yourself.

Keep reading all the way down to ...
(7) In this section premises does not include land or facilities.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-
????????

lovelurking - 2021-11-01 22:01:00

Shush!

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 22:03:00

desi1969 wrote:

I don't need to make you out to be a fool - you're doing a fabulous job all by yourself.

Keep reading all the way down to ...
(7) In this section premises does not include land or facilities.

So go read the courts interpretation.....

tegretol - 2021-11-01 22:11:00

tegretol wrote:

So go read the courts interpretation.....

which I’m sure you will post here for our edification....

sparkychap - 2021-11-01 22:18:00

tegretol wrote:

So go read the courts interpretation.....

Oh give it up, you've gone from looking like a fool to a complete idiot. At least be graceful and go 'opps, my bad'.

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/acce
ss/

"Landlords can enter the grounds without giving notice
Landlords don’t need to give notice to come onto the property (the land). This usually happens when the landlord has agreed to do things (like mow the lawns for the tenants). The landlord is also usually responsible for maintaining the outside of the house and property (like pruning trees and cleaning the guttering), so they will need to come on to the grounds for those reasons. But the landlord does have to avoid interfering with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy."

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 22:22:00

And one more, just for fun before I log off for the night.

https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-24-
tenancy-and-housing/living-in-your-house-or-flat-rights-and-
obligations/when-your-landlord-can-come-inside-your-place/

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 22:31:00

sparkychap wrote:

Shush!

Hahahahaha - sorry I ruined you game of cat ???? and mouse. ????

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 22:34:00

desi1969 wrote:

Oh give it up, you've gone from looking like a fool to a complete idiot. At least be graceful and go 'opps, my bad'.

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/acce
ss/

"Landlords can enter the grounds without giving notice
Landlords don’t need to give notice to come onto the property (the land). This usually happens when the landlord has agreed to do things (like mow the lawns for the tenants). The landlord is also usually responsible for maintaining the outside of the house and property (like pruning trees and cleaning the guttering), so they will need to come on to the grounds for those reasons. But the landlord does have to avoid interfering with the tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy."

You're an out of date idiot. Read the updated legislation and court records. The tenant has every right to demand that the LL gives 48hrs notice and this is confirmed in the precedence set where the Court determined that a LL arriving unannounced where the tenant 'feels or thinks' that that action is infringing upon their rights to peace, comfort and privacy is illegal.

The world of tenancy has changed and no matter how much bleating you do, the LL has a diminshing level of power. I am one and wish it were not the case.

Edited by tegretol at 10:38 pm, Mon 1 Nov

tegretol - 2021-11-01 22:36:00

*Sniff* *sniff*, what is that I can smell .... is it BS??? ;)

tegretol wrote:

.....
The world of tenancy has changed and no matter how much bleating you do, the LL has a diminshing level of power. I am one and wish it were not the case.

tygertung wrote:

tegretol, you are an egg.

I certainly hope you are not a landlord as your attitude is very unprofessional.

tygertung (683 683 positive feedback) 12:31 pm, Thu 28 Oct #59

tegretol wrote:

Not now. I was a LL ...

tegretol (125 125 positive feedback) 1:59 pm, Thu 28 Oct #60

Now I am off to bed, night night :D

Edited by desi1969 at 10:52 pm, Mon 1 Nov

desi1969 - 2021-11-01 22:52:00

The member deleted this message.

gunna-1 - 2021-11-02 04:08:00

tegretol wrote:

You're an out of date idiot. Read the updated legislation and court records.

Come on then. Shouldn't be too hard for you to point to the specific amended clauses in this "updated legislation" and provide a few examples of "court records".

Come on...prove us all wrong.

sparkychap - 2021-11-02 06:50:00

tegretol wrote:

You're an out of date idiot. Read the updated legislation and court records. The tenant has every right to demand that the LL gives 48hrs notice and this is confirmed in the precedence set where the Court determined that a LL arriving unannounced where the tenant 'feels or thinks' that that action is infringing upon their rights to peace, comfort and privacy is illegal.

The world of tenancy has changed and no matter how much bleating you do, the LL has a diminshing level of power. I am one and wish it were not the case.

Lots of bluff and bluster and still no substance or evidence.

sw20 - 2021-11-02 08:07:00

ian1990 wrote:

Stuff.co.nz?

Anyone with half a clue wouldn't click any link to that Wokester outfit.

Same goes for NZ Herald over the last six months with hit articles now published.

Sad really, New Zealand is becoming a divided nation.

Wokester !! lol

upfront1 - 2021-11-02 08:27:00

☹️ ???? ???? ???? ???? I’m going to miss this board, you guys have been fun as well as informative. ???? ???? ???? ????
I’d love to see y’all somewhere else...
????

lovelurking - 2021-11-02 09:56:00

lovelurking wrote:

☹️ ???? ???? ???? ???? I’m going to miss this board, you guys have been fun as well as informative. ???? ???? ???? ????
I’d love to see y’all somewhere else...
????

https://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.as
px?id=1849647&topic=21

desi1969 - 2021-11-02 10:18:00

kenw1 wrote:

There is a difference between premises and property.

I felt this was worth repeating.

thumbs647 - 2021-11-02 16:59:00

thumbs647 wrote:

I felt this was worth repeating.

Would a good translation be: dwelling and section?

thumbs647 - 2021-11-02 17:00:00