We had an interesting tenancy tribunal case recently where we were seeking the reimbursement of our clients insurance excess after a tenant reversed their car into the entrance way pillar adjacent to the front door of their house. The adjudicator ruled that the tenant didn’t have to pay! How is this possible I hear you say ? According to the tenancy tribunal adjudicator, the issue of insurance as a protection for the residential property investor is now governed in an entirely different way and is now more aligned with the commercial sector.
A recent Tenancy Tribunal ruling in NZ regarding payment of insurance excess has formed a precedent for all future cases of this nature.
The only way now that the court will permit a claim to be awarded in the Property Investor (and by extension) RER Property Management company’s favour (or any property investor for that matter) is if the insurance company declines a claim in which case the tenant will then be liable. However, this is, in our opinion an absolute farce, as no investor in their right mind would have an investment uninsured. We are seeking more case study notes from court to more accurately detail how the courts are now ruling in this way. Watch this space.