The Haze Blog
CASE STUDY: FINCH v QUINOVIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD [2021] NZHC 2009
6 December 2021 - Adrian Dermer
This case relates to a decision by the High Court to dismiss an application by Mr. Finch on the basis of the application being an "abuse of process.
In essence what occurred was, the plaintiff (Mr. Finch) sought to challenge a previous decision made in the District Court, where a settlement agreement was reached between Mr. Finch and the landlord.
The background to this application was that Mr. Finch was a tenant of a property being managed by Quinovic Property Management on behalf of the owner and he applied to the Tenancy Tribunal. Quinovic submitted a cross-application. The Tenancy Tribunal ruled against Mr. Finch and in favor of Quinovic's claim; the Tribunal ordered the termination of Mr. Finch's tenancy and that he pay $339.87 to Quinovic.
Mr. Finch appealed this decision to the District Court, he chose to represent himself and failed to adequately prepare his appeal (having provided the Court with a USB hard-drive containing 1,700 JPEG documents). The Judge's ruling was provided orally and highlighted the large amount of material for consideration and the appeal's disorganisation. The Christchurch City Council provided information to the Court and both parties were given adequate consideration to the information provided.
The Judge gave the parties 3 options: (a) he quash the Tribunal decision and order a rehearing; or (b) Quash the Tribunal decision today but continue the appeal on another day with directions made as to filing; or (c) The parties were free to settle the matter (based on the information from the CCC).
Mr. Finch and Quinovic opted for option (c) and settlement was made by consent. The landlord was ordered to pay $6,639.75.
Mr. Finch then sought to hold another Tribunal hearing directly against the owner of the property; however, the Tribunal ruled that Quinovic acted as "agent" for the property owner and therefore the settlement was between Mr. Finch and the "landlord" of the property which included the property owner as well as the property management company. The Tribunal noted that they suspected Mr. Finch regretted agreeing to the settlement.
During the latest proceedings Mr. Finch notes that "If I had known all the extended terms the [J]udge added, I would never have agreed to settle in the first place."
Mr. Finch's application was dismissed by the High Court due to it being an "abuse of process". Mr. Finch was deemed to have no legitimate claim nor prospects of success on the grounds of judicial review.
Learnings from these proceedings
-
The Property Management company is recognised as the "agent" on behalf of the property owner, and therefore any agreement made with the company also includes any liability or perceived liability against the property owner. A Tenant cannot settle, or be successful against the property management company, and then seek further compensation or damages from the property owner. This is effectively "double dipping".
-
While Tenants and Landlords represent themselves at the Tenancy Tribunal, complex matters such as this, where a party wishes to challenge the validity of a contract (settlement agreement being a contract) is the responsibility of a legal professional. It is not enough to simply regret agreeing to, and / or signing a legally enforceable contract and once signed with money having changed hands, intervention by the courts is unlikely.
The Privacy Commissioner focuses on landlords
22 November 2021 - Adrian Dermer
With the introduction of the Privacy Act 2020, it's no surprise that the Privacy Commissioner has released guidance to landlords around what is and what is not acceptable information to collect from tenants. Let's not forget that prior to the Privacy Act 2020, the Privacy Commissioner was already releasing guidelines and information to landlords about what should and should not be collected.
As of 9 November 2021, the Privacy Commissioner has deemed that collecting:
-
name and contact information;
-
proof of identity;
-
whether the applicant is 18 years or older;
-
number of people living at the property;
-
names only of occupants who will not be on the tenancy agreement (e.g flatmates, boarders):
-
contact details for landlord and non-landlord referees;
-
consent to contact referees;
-
consent for a credit report and criminal record check (to be obtained only if you are in negotiation with a tenant about an offer of tenancy)
-
pet ownership;
-
whether any occupants are smokers; and, or
-
whether the tenant has the legal right to remain in New Zealand for the duration of the tenancy (only applies to fixed-term tenancies).
is acceptable. However, as a guidance, landlords should look to collect the bare minimum of what is necessary to conduct application checks with the goal of shortlisting a suitable candidate or a small selection of suitable candidates. From that point onward, landlords may collect additional information such as ID documents required to conduct a credit report or criminal history check.
Further to this, the Privacy Commissioner has outlined a few deal-breaker questions that landlords should avoid at all costs to ensure they are not breaching a tenant or prospective tenants' privacy - these are:
-
sex (including pregnancy or childbirth);
-
relationship or family status;
-
political opinion or religious or ethical beliefs;
-
colour, race, or ethnicity (including nationality or citizenship);
-
physical or mental disability or illness;
-
age (other than whether the tenant is over the age of 18);
-
employment status (being unemployed, on a benefit or ACC);
-
sexual orientation or gender identity;
-
whether the tenants have experienced or are experiencing family violence;
-
tenants' spending habits (e.g bank statements);
-
employment history; and, or
-
social media URLs.
These guidelines are largely consistent with that of previous guidance released by the Privacy Commissioner, and are in-line with practices already established by our company. Looking to the future our aim will be to refine our application and vetting process to ensure we can remain compliant with our obligations under the Privacy Act, but also meet the duty we have to our clients in finding a suitable tenant for their property.
If you'd like to read more about some of the Privacy Act principles and how they apply to you as landlord, Click Here!
Our Property Management Goals in 2021
16 December 2020 - Adrian Dermer
We've had a frightening 2020. The threat of a global economy crash, the social and health impacts of COVID-19 and shifting political climates in different countries across the world. It's hard to forecast what the year ahead will look like considering the year gone was nothing like it's predecessor.
It's in times like these that every business and every business owner analyses their current business model and practice and asks the question: "will it survive?". I can assure you that we've asked that same question every day over the past 9 months since the Level 4 lockdown. Ironically, our countries economy has faired relatively well. The on-going assistance from the New Zealand Government as well as fast acting prevention to ensure our health system isn't overwhelmed and New Zealanders freedom of movement can remain due to the absence of a raging and out of control virus, I believe, has directly contributed to the relative stability of our countries economic climate.
Looking at the current state of the economy and the property management industry, do I think much will change? do I foresee doom and gloom for property management companies in New Zealand? No, not at all. The model is relatively robust, and given that the property market remains extremely strong in New Zealand at the moment, despite the disastrous year we've had, the on-going need for property management services across the country remains high.
Furthermore, with the recent change in rental legislation in New Zealand, it is likely that property management companies will see an increase in customers as traditional "do-it-yourself" landlords exit the market and are replaced with landlords more inclined to see the benefits in the property being independently managed by a property management company.
There is however, a dark cloud hanging over the property management industry at present, and that cloud is the fact that this industry is unregulated. Interestingly there is talk that we will see legislation change by the Labour Government where regulation of this industry will occur, I'm hopeful that the talk becomes action, and the industry is further strengthened and protected by the introduction of on-going training obligations and a base minimum requirement for entry into property management as a career.
Regardless of what happens in 2021, after having survived the almost apocalyptic 2020, i'm sure you will see the Haze Real Estate brand around in the local communities providing that on-going excellent service!
Our Goals for 2021
-
upskill the current property management team through the New Zealand Certificate in Residential Property Management (NZRPM), ideally getting ahead of the regulation talk and ensuring we're compliant well before required;
-
grow the current rent roll by a net 20%;
-
focus on customer satisfaction and dedicate resources to ensuring we're collecting data from our clientele to assess satisfaction;
-
focus on providing an exemplary inspection service to customers in the areas that we service, and aim to be market-leading in our area;
-
grow turnover by at least 3% per quarter over the next 4 quarters; and
-
provide customers, whether current or prospective, with free tips and information through online marketing videos posted regularly to our social media accounts.
19 June 2020
It’s that word that we all despise again. The last one almost crippled our country; however, that was a global recession. BNZ Economists are talking of a domestic recession due to the impact of the CoronaVirus and widespread droughts throughout New Zealand.
The forestry sector is suffering with an inability to export wood to China (our largest wood importer) amid the CoronaVirus epidemic as well as the Chinese New Year. Forestry has cooled significantly and what should concern everybody is that it accounts for 7% of New Zealand’s total GDP.
While 7% may seem small, it’s double what our dairy industry contributes (being only 3.5% of GDP). Economists cite that previously GDP has dropped 0.5% to 1.0% during widespread droughts, the result of such dramatic economic turmoil is the increasingly likely domestic recession.
What does the recession word mean for property investment and buyers though? Well, the Reserve Bank will likely attempt to keep the status quo and prop up our economy. However, should the CoronaVirus outbreak continue, China will remain at 50% strength. In 2018 our exports to China were worth $16.6billion dollars – if the outbreak continues at it’s current pace or worsens then New Zealand could be looking at a loss in exports in the billions of dollars. The knock-on effect of such a dramatic drop will be significant and could see banks tighten up on lending restrictions.
Property in general would likely see a cooling of sorts, but especially in the investor market where it’s already rumoured to be more difficult now than two years ago in terms of lending criteria and bank restrictions. This is despite the Reserve Bank continuing to try and prop up the economy through low OCR rates.
Only time will tell what the result is going to be… will it be a significant impact leading to domestic recession? or will it be a small-scale impact as forecast by the RBNZ?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/325078/dairy-sector-contributes-3-point-5-percent-to-gdp-report
