‘Tribunal officer defended tenant’

A LANDLORD has questioned the fairness of the Rental Housing Tribunal, saying one of its officials were biased in favour of a tenant whose lease he wanted to end.

But the tenant says he had a valid lease, and he was being intimidated by his landlord over his refusal to pay an outstanding water bill he says was not his responsibility.

Landlord Naresh Sukha says his lease agreement with Yasser Fourie was extended in November on condition that each one of them had to give the other two months’ notice to vacate the Grassy Park property.

Sukha says he gave Fourie two months’ notice which prompted a complaint to the Rental Housing Tribunal.

“I then received a call and email whereby a case officer at the rental tribunal defended a tenant’s position. A mediation was scheduled in under a week.

I proceeded to record the mediation, and recorded the tribunal member (case officer) not meditating, but defending the tenant’s position aggressively,” said Sukha.

Initially he was told that the tribunal hearing could only happen in October but says after he produced the recordings, made on his cellphone the hearing was moved to August 18, and was told that he could not use the recording to bolster his case.

Fourie, 24, said his landlord was trying to manipulate the process to have him evicted for his refusal to pay a water bill which preceded his occupation of the property.

“He’s trying to evict me unlawfully.

‘‘The mediator had explained to him the process of ending my lease agreement, if he wants us out, I don’t mind but I’m leaving at the end of November,” said Fourie.

Rental Housing Tribunal manager Roy Stewart, says there was no stipulated time by which a hearing should take place, and it all depended on the nature of the complaint, its complexity, the willingness of the parties to co-operate and their availability.

“Under normal circumstances the mediation would occur within the first or second month and the last month left for the scheduling of a formal hearing (adjudicative process), should the mediation fail.

“The outcome of a mediation is a settlement agreement and it is difficult to take on review as the parties agree to the outcome. Where the mediation has failed (parties cannot settle the matter amicably) then the final process is a formal hearing.

‘‘The outcome of a hearing is a ruling and if any party is not satisfied with the ruling they can take the matter up on review at the high court,” said Stewart.