Speaker: The problem of “horror tenants” is dwarfed by that of horror houses
120 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
I think you can PM me on here
not a feature of the site (yet)
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I think you can PM me on here
not a feature of the site (yet)
That little envelope thing to the right of your by line, you don't seem to have one but many do, is an eMail link so I reckon that is as good as PM if not the same.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Tenants' Protection Association from Christchurch is the go-to. The website www.tpa.org.nz has huge amounts of information.
TPA has been advocating for the rental WOF for many years.
-
b.douglas, in reply to
Hi Hebe, Thanks for that, yes TPA are awesome thanks!
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
TPA are awesome
They need a hand desperately!
This is something CERA should stump up for if it is genuine about really wanting to look out for the people of Chchch's best interests.
Meanwhile for concerned citizens,here is a link to the TPA donation page:
http://www.tpa.org.nz/page/donate -
Horror house, and the landlord gets 6 months home detention.
-
Been fortunate to have good landlords. This person, not so much.
-
Sacha, in reply to
snap
-
Sacha, in reply to
how did you spot that quicker from literally half a world away? #onya
-
Moz, in reply to
Horror house, and the landlord gets 6 months home detention.
... and the tenant died.
First, a language issue: why do we have "horror houses" where the landlord is some background figure not worth mentioning, but "horror tenants" who are actual people?
Second, I wonder how many "horror tenants" actually go as far as this landlord and kill the other party? Is that even a thing?
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
Actual cases of death, not that I can find in a quick google. There's another case of landlord violence against a tenant (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6836602/Landlord-threatened-to-kill-tenant-claims), and a few couple of cases of tenants attacking landlords (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10566650 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3049176, but fortunately neither of them died.
-
Let's just remember the landlord didn't set out to hurt his tenant, though as the article observes as a registered drain-layer he ought to have known better. Tenants who tear up the property in which they're living aren't just being negligent.
Six months of home D is pretty weak, assuming I've found the section of law under which he was charged, which carries a maximum of two years' jail. It's hard to think how much more actively culpable one could be. I'm actually surprised it wasn't a manslaughter charge, TBQH.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
First, a language issue
Well, my instinct was to write "horror landlord", but the title of the original post had "horror houses" on the landlord side of the ledger, and what Matthew said, it's not like he actually set out to hurt anyone. There are different kinds of negligence, and although this example had a particularly horrific outcome, we have no evidence to suggest it was wilful or deliberate.
-
Moz, in reply to
the landlord didn't set out to hurt his tenant
Well no, he just decided to save money by putting his tenant's life at risk. It's a fine line, like the people who get tickets for bald tyres don't actually intend to kill anyone, but they're given tickets because death is much more likely when they drive with bald tyres. If they actually kill someone the penalty goes up.
... but not as much as you'd think. In that sense 6 months home detention is pretty harsh when 47% of motorists convicted of killing escape with only a fine.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Tenants who tear up the property in which they’re living aren’t just being negligent
And neither are the landlords who pocket bond money, withhold repairs, etc. etc. But in none of these situations does someone ACTUALLY DIE.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Actual cases of death, not that I can find in a quick google. There’s another case of landlord violence against a tenant (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6836602/Landlord-threatened-to-kill-tenant-claims), and a few couple of cases of tenants attacking landlords (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10566650 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3049176, but fortunately neither of them died.
These are violent attacks, rather than injury arising from provision of an unsafe rental house.
We don't need tenancy law to tell us "neither landlord nor tenant may hit, bind, gag, or shoot each other", do we?
-
Moz, in reply to
These are violent attacks, rather than injury arising from provision of an unsafe rental house. We don't need tenancy law to tell us "neither landlord nor tenant may hit, bind, gag, or shoot each other", do we?
Well spotted! I imagine tenants could kill their landlord if they sufficiently damaged the house that it became unsafe, and the landlord discovered that the hard way.
Tenants who just scrimp on rent and do the bare minimum to maintain the house and grounds are not harming the health of the landlord anywhere near as much as the converse cases.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
We don’t need tenancy law to tell us “neither landlord nor tenant may hit, bind, gag, or shoot each other”, do we?
Well, you might not think so, but...
RTA s55 (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that—...
(c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault [landlords, owners, family of either, neighbours].The tenant's equivalent provision is a lot less specific. They get:
s38 (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
(3) Contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.Which the tenant could combine with s56 to get the Tribunal to end the tenancy (and seek up to $2000 in exemplary damages):
s56 (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— ...
(a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and ...
(c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.Obviously tenants have a better deal here, as landlords harassed by tenants still have to give the usual 90 days notice, whereas tenants harassed by landlords can apply to give less than the usual 21 days notice. On the other hand, I find it interesting that the possibility of tenants assaulting landlords is explicitly recognised in the RTA, but the possibility of landlords assaulting tenants is not.
As far as the "tenant action risking the health of the landlords" front goes, the most likely example I can think of would be where the tenants have run a meth lab.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
We don’t need tenancy law to tell us “neither landlord nor tenant may hit, bind, gag, or shoot each other”, do we?
Well, you might not think so, but…
Assault, kidnapping, threatening to kill, etc. are already crimes, though. I wouldn’t have thought anyone needed the Tenancy Tribunal to deal with those – it’s a Police matter.
Likewise, running a drug lab is a serious crime.
The difference with a landlord providing an unsafe house is that it’s an indirect harm, or risk of harm, to the tenant. We need tenancy law to protect tenants against this.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
The difference with a landlord providing an unsafe house is that it’s an indirect harm, or risk of harm, to the tenant. We need tenancy law to protect tenants against this.
I entirely agree. In this particular case, though, Peter McLeod’s actions were a breach of tenancy law as well, as the RTA requires landlords to “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.” The law requiring the stove to have been installed by a licensed gasfitter is pretty clear, and if Lesley had known the LL had installed the stove himself, she could (in theory, bar all the caveats about actual ability to take advantage of legal protections) have taken him to the Tenancy Tribunal, got the fitting rectified and exemplary damages of up to $3000.
So the gap in the law is in all the other areas of building maintenance that end up with tenant health being compromised because the properties available for them to rent are all rundown and cold (or at least, in easily accessible legal protections – see paperwalls.org for a description of the legal protections theoretically available, but which I think you’d have to have huge reserves of energy to actually access).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.