Landlord found in breach of act

Press, 3 April 1987, Page 3

Landlord found in breach of act

PA Timaru A Christchurch landlord was found in a test case before the Tenancy Tribunal at Timaru to be in breach of the new Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant, Mr Luma Samaeli, claimed that the tenancy agreement was a prohibited transaction. The adjudicator, Mr J. N. Grant, ruled that the agreement was a prohibited transaction and said it was “an attempt to evade the provisions of the act.”

He also rejected applications by the landlord, Splendide Structures, Ltd, for orders of possession and rental arrears against Mr Samaeli.

The governing director of Splendide Structures, Mr David Young, contended that the flat, one of six units, was let as holiday accommodation. The tenant signed two tenancy agreements. The first covered the week from February 16, the rental for which week was $4OO. The second was for a two-week period from February 23, the rental to be $l6O. a fortnight. Mr Samaeli, who lived in Christchurch until moving into the flat, told the tribunal the flat was found for him by a Timaru friend. It was not made clear that the unit was for holiday accommodation. He thought he was getting a flat.

Mr Grant said he could not understand why the tenant was asked to open a bank account if the flat was for holiday tenancy only.

“How long would you expoect a holiday tenancy to go on? Fifty weeks?” he asked Mr Young. (Holiday home rentals are not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act.) Mr Samaeli said he paid the $4OO on February 16 and opened a bank account with a $2OO deposit to cover the next rental payment. He drew the money out later in the week to buy a refrigerator.

He believed the first payment was for two weeks rental in advance, and was surprised when the landlord’s Timaru agent arrived the next week for the next payment.

Mr Samaeli said he paid no further rental to Mr Young or his Timaru agent, Mr Tony Anderson. He left the property on March 23 five weeks after his tenancy began. He said he was not worried about the high initial payment of $4OO because he believed that if the flat was left in good condition part of that money would be returned.

As no money was returned, he thought that $4OO would cover the five weeks “quite nicely.”

In his decision, Mr Grant agreed that the $4OO should be seen as five weeks rent.