Top five reasons why tenants (and landlords) go to Tenancy Tribunal

Photograph: RNZ

Every year, thousands of people apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants.

A number of key themes emerged across the 7,000 applications submitted across the country in the September quarter. An application may concern many different disputes.

Some of the applications may have been resolved between the parties or through mediation without resulting in a court hearing.

rent arrears

Rent arrears were by far the leader in terms of increased court applications. There were 4484 applications containing this justification in the last quarter. This was 61.46 percent of all applications.

In one recent case, a tenant whose address was withheld was told he had to pay $10,790 in rent by mid-October or his tenancy would be terminated. In another, a tenant was told to pay $4,100 in back rent for a tenancy that had already ended. Another was told to pay the landlord $3095.05 immediately and the remaining rent balance would be covered by a $2800 bond.

Auckland Property Investors Association chief executive Sarina Gibbon said raising large sums of money under court direction could be difficult for both landlords and tenants.

“This is also a reflection of the general state of cash flow across the industry and the ineffectiveness of civil enforcement in this country. If the sum in dispute were reasonable, most of our members would be discouraged from pursuing their rights through the courts because the potential gain pales in comparison to the cost and time involved in participating in the court process.”

“My advice to landlords is to pay attention to arrears and work with the tenant on a suitable payment plan that will support their tenure and your cash flow.

“I recommend tenants work with their landlords to resolve their cash flow difficulties as soon as possible.

“Landlords are business people: they understand that times can be tough and that sometimes it’s literally a choice between paying rent and putting food on the table. If tenants act with transparency, good faith and personal accountability, they may find that landlords may well come to the party.” and help resolve things without involving the court.”

Return of collateral

Approximately 3,000 applications for bond refunds were made in the quarter. It was the most common reason for tenants to apply to court and the third most common reason for landlords.

When the tenancy ends, the tenant and landlord must inspect the property together. If everything is OK, they fill in a deposit refund form and have Tenancy Services refund the deposit. In case of problems, they may agree to refund some or all of the deposit to the landlord.

However, if the parties cannot agree, the court may be asked to decide.

In one case earlier this year, the landlord refused to pay back rent for non-payment of rent at another property where the tenant had signed a lease but had not moved.

The tribunal judge said claims regarding the new tenancy would be dealt with in another application and the deposit should be returned to the original tenancy.

Termination/possession

More than 2,500 applications were made for ending tenancies and/or possession of rental properties in the September quarter.

In a recent case, the landlord of a five-bedroom property in Kohimarama claimed possession following the expiration of a fixed-term tenancy.

The tenant had notified that he would move out at the end of the fixed period, but later changed his mind and tried to withdraw the notice. The landlord refused to accept this and appealed to the court for a possession order.

The judge said the tenant’s notice was valid and binding and was accepted by the landlord. “I appreciate that the tenant’s personal circumstances are such that they make moving difficult. While I empathize with the tenant’s situation, these personal factors cannot be taken into account by the court.”

In this case, the fixed period was due to expire on 10 May and the court hearing was held on 20 August; this was longer than the 90 days normally allowed for a possession order to be made after the end of a tenancy.

Compensation/damages

More than 2000 applications sought compensation or compensation.

In one case in September, a tenant disputed with his landlord over access to his room to check for ventilation. He was not given enough information about the inspection and he was sleeping because he was working nights. He had changed the pin number on his door’s lock, which his landlord said could only be done with the master code, which tenants should not have for security reasons.

The tenant told the landlord he was going to take him to court because this was not the first time he had not been notified.

The landlord gave 28 days notice to terminate the tenancy, which the tenant said was retaliatory.

The judge said that if there was a short period of time between a tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord giving notice, this could give rise to a “strong inference” that the landlord was “at least partly motivated” by the tenant’s performance of the covenant. rights.

After nine years, the tenant had to find a new place to live. He was awarded $2000 in exemplary damages.

those who left

Expenses were sought for more than 1,160 applications.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act, tenants are generally solely responsible for all expenses attributable to them.

In one case, the tenant was paying $110 a week. Landlord went to Tenancy Tribunal over expenses including Water Maintenance bill, Spark bill and Mercury electricity bill. It was all in the landlord’s name. The tenant said in the agreement that everything would be covered by the rent. The judge said it was not clear on the balance of probabilities whether the tenant had agreed to pay expenses in addition to rent payments.

Landlords are responsible for expenses incurred whether the building is occupied or not, or for common facilities.

Wider issues

Zac Thomas, president of Renters United, said going to court can be difficult when it’s something tenants may do once or twice in their lifetime, but they usually face property managers who are experienced in the process and pay to be there.

He said it can take a lot of time and resources for tenants to prepare their cases and then take time off from work to come to the hearing.

“There’s a lot to be desired on the accessibility side.”

He said that the decisions were not consistent because there was no court case where the decision would set a precedent.

“We have seen decisions elsewhere that could have been a completely different decision and disappointed both parties.”

He said sometimes landlords ignore a decision.

Real estate investor representatives said the biggest problem for them was the length of time it took for a dispute to be heard.

“The court doesn’t work for anyone,” said Matt Ball, director of advocacy for the New Zealand Property Investors Federation.

“Neither landlords nor tenants, neither party has access to quick resolution of their problems.”

An investor had contacted him about a property that a tenant had abandoned in March. He said the property had been “trashed”. Five months later, the court date still had not been set.

“This is the biggest disappointment for our members. The hearing takes too long, there are too many delays, and the results do not reflect the financial losses incurred.”

Gibbon said the system was “underfunded and riddled with inefficiency.”

“As a result, applicants and respondents are experiencing significant delays in resolving their disputes, which is truly ironic given that the whole idea of ​​a court is to expedite and increase access to justice.

“The more complex the tenancy laws, the more disputes we can expect, and continued resourcing of the Court’s capacity and processes should align with this trend.

“What concerns me more is that some of our members are simply giving up on legitimate claims because they’ve calculated the opportunity cost. When you factor in the time investment, uncertainty and long delays, many homeowners are telling us: Rather than pursuing what they are legally entitled to through the courts, they are seeking damages and They prefer to continue their work.

“This is a clear sign that the system is not working as intended – when people begin to lose their legal rights because the process of enforcing them is too burdensome, we face a serious access to justice problem.

“The court needs resources appropriate to both its remit and the modern reality of tenancy disputes. Without appropriate investment in technology, staff and processes, we risk having a system that exists in name only, technically available but practically inaccessible to many who need it.” We will face it.”

Other jurisdictions are opting for online options to make the process more accessible and clear backlogs, Thomas said.

If 90-day no-cause evictions return, he said, it will make tenants more reluctant to go to court. “As a result, they will be worried about being expelled.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, A daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.