|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Tui posted:Are questions that aren't about politics okay here? You're gonna at least have to provide some vague description of what has happened.
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Ah yeah, sorry. It was a silly question so I thought it'd be better to check first. Ex-housemate is taking my mother to the tribunal because he's angry that we asked him to leave. The official reasons he's given are a few falsehoods, some things that I did that he's mad about, and some minor things my mum did wrong (Eg, he's complaining that she came over to visit me without giving him notice and claiming it was an inspection) He threatened a few times to take us to the tribunal if we pissed him off, so this is just him going through with it. I don't think his case is strong so that's not what I'm worried about, I'm just curious how the tribunal acts towards cases that are petty, or to people lying at the hearing? I've looked up other cases with similar complaints but they've all been much more serious so not really comparable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Tui posted:Ah yeah, sorry. It was a silly question so I thought it'd be better to check first. Do you have any way of proving that he is lying? As long as he was given the correct number of days notice he probably doesn't have much recourse, but the tenancy tribunal will treat his claims as being made in good faith. It's generally a good idea to always give some form of notice (texts or fb messages are good because then you have a record) about your parent visiting, if they are the landlord, even if it seems like a bit of a joke.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Broadly speaking, a landlord must either give notice or seek tenant permission to enter the property without notice. It's complicated by the fact that you're presumably giving permission for your mother, but this may or may not still infringe on the other guys right to quiet enjoyment of his rental. If you didn't outline it prior to the tenancy beginning, explicitly seek his permission for her to enter or if he actively complained about it at anytime in the past (and can prove it) your mother might be on the hook. Standard of evidence is only based on balance of probabilities though, so if you've done everything else right and can demonstrate malice or an outright lie on his side you might be OK.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
I think we can prove that he is lying, but I doubt we can prove malice. He will probably just claim that it is a misunderstanding. (Or double down and claim that we're lying, I don't know.) I assumed that my permission was enough, but I guess I didn't think about it at all because it never crossed my mind that he would object to my family coming over. We never outlined anything beforehand because he moved in as a friend of mine. He came to me asking for a place to stay because needed somewhere urgently and knew I had an empty room, so we thought we were doing him a favour by letting him stay with me for cheap rent. We did make a few mistakes at first, because I thought he was my friend and it wouldn't be an issue. But after he started acting nasty and threatening us with the tribunal my mum did her best to be nice and do everything right. I didn't, but since I'm not the landlord I don't think he can do anything about that? Yeah, I hosed up by trusting him. I didn't think I had any reason not to. But my original question was that I was curious if the tribunal has a deterrent in place to stop people from bringing hearings against people for personal reasons? It seems like it would be too easy to take advantage of. I guess they consider it deterrent enough that excessively unreasonable cases would just be dismissed?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Was his name on the lease? Or did you just rent him a room? If the later he might count as a boarder and the laws are different.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
I recommend chatting with the citizens advice bureau, they're good people.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
NZAmoeba posted:I recommend chatting with the citizens advice bureau, they're good people. I'll look into that! We did go and get advice at the local community law centre, but I didn't find them very helpful. I went specifically to ask them if section 5(n) of the residential tenancies act (which says that the tenancies act is excluded in cases where the landlord or the landlord's immediate family live on the premises) applied to our case, but they weren't able to answer because the book they had didn't mention it. I might ask the citizens advice bureau the same question if I can, they might have a better idea?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
I don't see why it wouldn't apply, assuming the complaint he's filing comes under the tenancies act. Your mother is the landlord, she is your immediate family, and you live on the premises. Seems pretty cut and dried from where I'm sitting.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I don't see why it wouldn't apply, assuming the complaint he's filing comes under the tenancies act. Your mother is the landlord, she is your immediate family, and you live on the premises. Seems pretty cut and dried from where I'm sitting. If the tenant is a boarder, technically the 24 hour notice of the landlord visiting or inspecting the property only applies if the landlord wants access to the boarder's room, not the house in general, so there is a slight difference. But I think in this case the guy probably doesn't count as a boarder so it's irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I don't see why it wouldn't apply, assuming the complaint he's filing comes under the tenancies act. Your mother is the landlord, she is your immediate family, and you live on the premises. Seems pretty cut and dried from where I'm sitting. That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure before I acted on it. The people at the community law centre said that it probably just referred to my tenancy and not his. I didn't agree with that but wasn't confident enough to act on it, so we followed the tenancies act as best as we could after that to avoid trouble. But since he came after us for personal reasons anyway that didn't really matter. El Pollo Blanco posted:If the tenant is a boarder, technically the 24 hour notice of the landlord visiting or inspecting the property only applies if the landlord wants access to the boarder's room, not the house in general, so there is a slight difference. But I think in this case the guy probably doesn't count as a boarder so it's irrelevant. Yeah, since this guy moved in as a friend we didn't really think through all the official stuff. We kind of assumed he would count as a boarder but never properly discussed it or anything, I think it is too late to argue that now as he'd deny it. I do feel like an idiot, and I'm definitely not going to repeat this mistake in the future.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Check with http://www.lawspot.org.nz/ about it? A very straight forward reading of that clause would indicate that the tenancies act would not apply in that case, which may mean it's not under the jurisdiction of the tenancy tribunal and he'll just be out his $20 filing fee. Have you actually got any documentation from them, or just him saying he's going to do it? You could also check with the tribunal themselves, to see if it's something that they would actually be able to hear. If not, it might just be a civil matter he'd have to pursue through the courts.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
As to your actual question though, part of the point of tribunals is that they sort out the petty poo poo/people blatantly lying/taking action out of revenge etc, without wasting the courts' time. So they kind of ARE the mechanism that prevents people going to court out of revenge or whatever. They're relatively low key, don't take a huge amount of time or require lawyers, and don't have any direct power to enforce rulings, though they can direct the courts to issue summons which is an escalation very few people want. The tribunal can also dismiss cases outright, which they'd probably do (or you could request as a named party) if someone was repeatedly lodging claims out of revenge.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Are you and your flatmates going to write "Actually we all asked him to move out and he's being a jerk, we like our friends mum" letters?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
"We said it was fine if he wanted to ask his mum around, she's a nice lady, but he got all weird about it."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
bike tory posted:As to your actual question though, part of the point of tribunals is that they sort out the petty poo poo/people blatantly lying/taking action out of revenge etc, without wasting the courts' time. So they kind of ARE the mechanism that prevents people going to court out of revenge or whatever. They're relatively low key, don't take a huge amount of time or require lawyers, and don't have any direct power to enforce rulings, though they can direct the courts to issue summons which is an escalation very few people want. The tribunal can also dismiss cases outright, which they'd probably do (or you could request as a named party) if someone was repeatedly lodging claims out of revenge. That makes sense, I guess it just seems so serious to me because I've never had to go to actual court, and because money's involved. There is a hearing scheduled, I'm surprised they didn't make it go to mediation first because it sounds like that's what that's for, but I don't really know how it all works. 504 posted:Are you and your flatmates going to write "Actually we all asked him to move out and he's being a jerk, we like our friends mum" letters? That's the thing, it's not actually a flat. I've been living alone in a house my mum inherited. I think he assumed that once he moved in it became a flat, while I assumed he was just renting a room in my home. So it's just my word against his. That also explains why my mum got some things wrong at the start, it was her first time being a landlord and she wasn't really prepared for it. Sorry for taking over this thread with my silly problem. There just aren't enough good political scandals right now. Tui fucked around with this message at 12:40 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
There is a difference between a tenancy and simply renting a room/sharing the house. The tenancy act only covers the relationship between the official tenants and the landlord. For example, when I moved into my current place, my flatmate didn't want to deal with the official stuff so I signed as the head tenant* and he and I signed a separate agreement that stated contact details and the bill split. He pays the bills through me and doesn't have a statutory right to a notice period, although we have an agreed 14 day notice for terminating the house share. So it sounds like your friend had the impression that he was a tenant under the act when he really wasn't. I've never dealt with the tenancy tribunal but I presume that if the tribunal decides that he wasn't reasonable in believing himself a tenant then they'd throw his case out. Difference between tenants and flatmates Also if you haven't read the Renting And You booklet, do so. Sorry if this is all stuff you already know, and if you decide to act on any of this, please check it with someone more authoritive than some guy on the internet. * The other way of doing it is that everyone signs the tenancy agreement and becomes covered under the act. I can't remember if it's mandatory to nominate a head tenant or not. But this is also where having something in writing makes things way, way easier in the event of a bust up.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Yeah this doesn't help the OPs issue, but for anyone else reading: The very first flatmate I got, I didn't get anything in writing, and it went south. Since then I've had dozens of flatmates, we've signed a simple template agreement available on the Building and Housing website, and I've never had a single issue since. Doesn't matter if they're the nicest person on earth, get that poo poo in writing. It's not awkward to make people sign something, if anything it makes them more comfortable because it ensures there's no misconceptions.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Do you know how sometimes you see a fight and you want both parties to lose, badly? http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/92323356/colin-craig-sues-whaleoil-blogger-cameron-slater
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Do you know how sometimes you see a fight and you want both parties to lose, badly? I hope the courthouse has been strengthened to withstand the self-awareness vacuum  NZAmoeba posted:Yeah this doesn't help the OPs issue, but for anyone else reading: In general, I saw/heard about so many friendships getting hosed up from living together that I ended up using the flatmates wanted section of Trademe with considerable success for quite a few years.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:In general, I saw/heard about so many friendships getting hosed up from living together that I ended up using the flatmates wanted section of Trademe with considerable success for quite a few years. On the other hand, I've flatted with friends a lot of times and never had a problem. It's pretty much always been a more positive experience for me than flatting with randoms. Most of said randoms have been fine, but it's just more fun living with people that share my interests.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Alien vs Blogger: whoever loses we win.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:On the other hand, I've flatted with friends a lot of times and never had a problem. It's pretty much always been a more positive experience for me than flatting with randoms. Most of said randoms have been fine, but it's just more fun living with people that share my interests. I have flatted with goons. Ask me anything.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Varkk posted:I have flatted with goons. Ask me anything.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Do you know how sometimes you see a fight and you want both parties to lose, badly? 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:What's that smell?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
I'm a good goon to flat with - Free choc chip biscuits every Friday.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Varkk posted:I have flatted with goons. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
who among us has not lived with at least one goon vv I couldn't live with you either tbh The Schwa fucked around with this message at 10:58 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Me. I can barely even live with myself as it is, let alone one of you cunts.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
I have lived with a Goon. He is a good people
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
I want to be in government so I can run over pesky protestors whenever they get in my way 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
 gently caress newshub
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Emma Hurley will be stoked though, got an article published
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
That article is really good in how it takes National propaganda at face value to claim they were visionary about issues and therefore Labour adopting the same racist and myopic view that (spoilers) got us where we are now rather than fixed the problem - despite the fact that Labour was also campaigning in 1975 on housing, had already passed immigration reform the previous year, and on top of it all National never followed through in reducing immigration below it's levels before the 1971-4 peak let alone to 5,000 a year. Net migration took a dump but that was because the economy went in the shitter and everyone hosed off to Aus, which is a really sustainable fix.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Labour finally talking about some things that will actually help with housing affordability other than "it's the Chinese!!!!!". TL;DR they'll ring-fence losses on properties and extend capital gains tax to properties resold within five years (from two currently), to go alongside their already announced policy of preventing foreign buyers. quote:Buy-to-rent property investors will face a crackdown under Labour, which is planning to scrap their ability to use losses on one property to offset tax on other income in a move that could cost them about $120 million a year in extra tax. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92551093/Labour-to-shut-down-negative-gearing-tax-break-in-crackdown-on-property-investors
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubtersquote:Don't expect any apologies or contrition from the National Party on housing - a new, muscularly aggressive defence of its most vulnerable policy area has emerged at its Auckland conference. lol 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
exmarx posted:https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/05/13/27104/national-unleashes-housing-man-against-the-doubters Holy poo poo lol Also yes can we please start publishing more stories from people living in state houses and why they're refusing other properties? I'm sure they'll look really good for National
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Alfred Ngaro is the guy who allegedly punched a teacher at his kid's school for not praying a couple of years ago
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Why are people challenging us on not caring about housing? Ask anyone - we're doing all we can for the two-thirds of people who are worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:05
|
|