Monday, 11 December 2023
KaitaiaWhangareiDargavilleAucklandThamesTaurangaHamiltonWhakataneRotoruaTokoroaTe KuitiTaumarunuiTaupoGisborneNew PlymouthNapierHastingsDannevirkeWhanganuiPalmerston NorthLevinParaparaumuMastertonWellingtonMotuekaNelsonBlenheimWestportReeftonKaikouraGreymouthHokitikaChristchurchAshburtonTimaruWanakaOamaruQueenstownDunedinGoreInvercargill
NZ HeraldThe Northern AdvocateThe Northland AgeThe AucklanderWaikato HeraldBay Of Plenty TimesRotorua Daily PostHawke's Bay TodayWhanganui ChronicleThe Stratford PressManawatu GuardianKapiti NewsHorowhenua ChronicleTe Awamutu CourierVivaEat WellOneRoofDRIVEN Car GuideThe CountryPhoto SalesiHeart RadioRestaurant Hub
Voyager 2023 media awards
Subscribe
Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.
Home / Business

Landlord ordered to pay $10k: 'It's been a nightmare'

Otago Daily Times
By Timothy Brown
31 Aug, 2017 11:34 PM3 mins to read
Saveshare

Share this article

facebookcopy linktwitterlinkedinredditemail
Tenancy Tribunal ordered landlord Vic Inglis to pay more than $10,000 to former tenant. Photo / Peter McIntosh

Tenancy Tribunal ordered landlord Vic Inglis to pay more than $10,000 to former tenant. Photo / Peter McIntosh

A Dunedin landlord says he feels robbed after being ordered to refund more than $10,000 rent to a former tenant because of a legal technicality.

Vic Inglis says he and his wife are feeling "pretty dark and twisted" after the Tenancy Tribunal found Natalie Parry's tenancy was unlawful - and therefore she was entitled to a refund of all rent paid - because unpermitted alterations had been made to the two-storey home's downstairs area.

The couple bought the Luke St house at auction as it now stands. Unbeknown to them alterations had deviated from the plans submitted to the Dunedin City Council during its build.

The couple lived in the home before renting it to Ms Parry between July 30 last year and February 21.

Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

Inglis conceded some fault lay with him as he had not sought a LIM report and the first time he saw plans for the home was when they were presented to him by Parry, as well as her intention to seek refund of all rent through the Tenancy Tribunal.

In April, the tribunal found Parry had entered into an unlawful tenancy due to the unpermitted work on the home's bottom floor.

Due to that, section 137 (4) of the Residential Tenancies Act came into effect meaning Parry was entitled to a full refund of rent of $10,960.44. It also meant Inglis' counterclaim for $3519 for compensation and exemplary damages could not proceed and was dismissed.

"It's been the darkest six months for a long time," he said.

Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

"It's been a nightmare.

"We have managed to sell the property so we can pay her back. But should we have to? No."

Upon learning of the issues with the house Mr Inglis sought a certificate of acceptance for the work which deviated from the original plans. That was issued on March 28 and stated the work was excellent.

However, that held no sway with the tribunal, and an application for a rehearing had also been dismissed.

Related articles

Business

TVNZ's profit tumble isn't cause for alarm: CEO

31 Aug 03:49 AM
Business

Rob Fyfe to mentor Michael Hill CEO

31 Aug 02:42 AM
New Zealand

Ports of Auckland: No more harbour reclamations

31 Aug 02:59 AM
New Zealand

Toby Manhire: Why weren't they more like Key?

31 Aug 05:00 PM

The couple had appealed the decision to the district court.

Inglis claims during the tenancy Parry, her partner and her son lived in the two bedrooms upstairs at the house and she sublet the downstairs area for her profit.

"It was leased to her and her son for cheap rent on the premise it was just for them," he said.

"We got word ... she was effectively using it like a boarding house. There were cars for Africa and people came and went."

He carried out a property inspection and found evidence of others living in the property, as well as damage.

After informing Parry she would have to leave the property, he was told about the home's original plans and her intention to take him to the tribunal.

Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

"I didn't give it much credence," Inglis said. "I didn't think she had much of a case.

"The tribunal agreed with her that because part of the property wasn't permitted it was untenantable."

He could not believe she would behave the way she had, especially considering the agreement to rent it at a lower rate.

When contacted by the Otago Daily Times for her side of the story, Parry declined to comment.

Saveshare

Share this article

facebookcopy linktwitterlinkedinredditemail
Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

Latest from Business

Business

How $16b Wise co-founder plans to win more money

10 Dec 07:30 PM
Business

Markets with Madison: Wise v Banks

BusinessUpdated

Microsoft's revenue soars in New Zealand

10 Dec 07:24 PM
Business

Cooking the Books: What happens when your identity is stolen

10 Dec 04:00 PM

More houses coming

sponsored
Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

Latest from Business

How $16b Wise co-founder plans to win more money

How $16b Wise co-founder plans to win more money

10 Dec 07:30 PM

The European CEO of the global money transfer app talks to Madison Reidy.

Markets with Madison: Wise v Banks

Markets with Madison: Wise v Banks

Microsoft's revenue soars in New Zealand

Microsoft's revenue soars in New Zealand

10 Dec 07:24 PM
Cooking the Books: What happens when your identity is stolen

Cooking the Books: What happens when your identity is stolen

10 Dec 04:00 PM
Kiwi’s business dream a global winner
sponsored

Kiwi’s business dream a global winner

About NZMEHelp & SupportContact UsSubscribe to NZ HeraldHouse Rules
Manage Your Print SubscriptionNZ Herald E-EditionAdvertise with NZMEBook Your AdPrivacy Policy
Terms of UseCompetition Terms & ConditionsSubscriptions Terms & Conditions
© Copyright 2023 NZME Publishing Limited
TOP