This story does little to promote good landlords or tenants.
To use this example is completely wrong related to Residential Tenancy.
- The Landlord admits in the article that it (premise) was used for business purposes. Therefore it is not a residential tenancy, but a commercial tenancy and sits outside of the RTA 1986/2016
- Failure to monitor a business activity has its own set of compliance problems.
- The premise was clearly not fit for the purpose of operating a business.
- What contractual relationships did the Landlord have with the business tenant?
- Did both parties, as PCBU’s, have appropriate processes in place?
- Was the local council aware of the business use by both parties?
- Was IRD informed of the non-residential status?
- Was the insurance company advised of the change of activity?
- If a Property Manager managed it, what processes did they have in place for renting a business premise?
- What advice did the Landlord obtain before allowing the premise to be used as a business?
The reporter is this case did not do their homework, at its most basic level, to determine if the premise was in fact, a Lawful Residential Premise.
Of the more than 180 comments on the article only one raised the issue of the type of tenancy.
Instead, the comments came from across the sector on who was right or wrong as it related to a residential premise.
This type of inaccurate reporting does little to improve the relationship between Landlords and Tenants who, on the most part just want to get on with a positive relationship.
It also serves as a reminder for all Landlords and Tenants to do their due-diligence before entering into any contract.
-General Manager, Graham Roper