Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume Number 39, Issue 6. April 5 [1976]

[Introduction]

Two men dressed in court clothing

Tenants gained a significant victory in the battle for thier rights in the Magistrates Court on March 24. A private prosecution begun by the Wellington Tenants Union resulted in Patrick Rippin being convicted on two charged under the Rent Appeal Act.

The charges related to a bond taken for a tenancy by Rippin, a well known landlord and former president of the Landlords Association. Rippin was convicted for failing to give a receipt for payment of the bond specifying the date, amount, and nature of the payment, a breach of s. 23 of the Act.

He was further convicted under s 21 for failing to make it known in writing to the tenant that except to the extent that the landlord suffers loss or damage through the failure of the tenant to perform his obligations as tenant, the tenant will be entitled to have the bond returned to him in full when he vacates the premises.

On a third charge of taking a 'letting fee' while not being a licensed real estate agent, the magistrate said that there was no doubt that Rippin had breached s 22(i) of the Act, but the charge had been brought under another subsection, and had to be dismissed.

Rippin was fined $200 on each charge, plus a solicitors fee of $75, plus witnesses expenses. He has appealed against the convictions, and the lawyer for the informant has cross-appealed about the dismissed charge.

What does this mean for tenants? It means that the Rent Appeal Act, made law by Labour in 1973, has finally got some teeth. This Act set up the ineffectual Rent Appeal Boards and also limited bonds, illegal payments to agents, made proper receipts obligatory, and outlawed discrimination against tenants with children.

But as well as currying favour with tenants by bringing in this Act, Labour still tried to court the landlords by not enforcing its own legislation. It has never publicised the Act, so that few people yet know of their rights under it. And the department of Labour which 'administers' the Act has consistently failed to prosecute the hundreds of offences brought to its notice by tenants protection groups.

In this private prosecution the tenants first went to the department to get them to act, but met only bureaucratic indifference and obstruction. Fortunately the tenants persevered, with the result of these convictions, important precedents in the enforcement of the few legal rights that tenants do have, and a stinging setback not only for Rippin but for all other landlords presently getting away with similar offences.

by Helen Croft

It is very easy to take a cynical or sceptical view of the way in which justice is dispersed in our courts. Indeed it is the trendy thing to do. However if one listens carefully to the proceedings it is often quite hard to find anything to criticise. Justice was certainly seen to be done last Wednesday in the Magistrates court, when Mr Richardson was on the bench.