What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4558069 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4558069?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558069?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9307829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4558069 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4558069?

Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558069?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9307829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Anchorage Grove, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4558069 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4558069 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Harper Properties Hamilton Limited, Mariia Wilkens and Philipp Wilkens must pay [the tenants] $770.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation, claiming that a misrepresentation by the property manager caused conflict with the neighbouring tenants, which in turn caused them to move out of their tenancy. Their claim is based on reimbursement of moving costs. Background
The tenancy was for an initial fixed term from 21 January 2022 to 20 January 2023. The landlords offered the tenants a renewal of the fixed term but, as no agreement was reached, the tenancy converted to periodic at the end of the fixed term.
At the start of the tenancy the landlords lived in the main house, and the tenants lived downstairs in a ‘granny flat’. The owners managed the tenancy until about October 2022, when they moved out and transferred the management to Harper.
The main house was rented out in early December 2022. There was conflict between the two sets of tenants from the outset. Law
Tenants are entitled to the full benefit of the rights given under a tenancy agreement. They cannot be altered without the agreement of both parties.
Where a tenancy converts from a fixed term to a periodic, the other terms of the agreement remain unchanged. Therefore, if the rent includes power and the internet, this cannot be changed unilaterally (s 60A RTA).
Because tenants are only liable for utilities exclusively attributable to them, where two or more sets of tenants share utilities without separate metering, the landlord is liable for the cost (s 39(3) RTA).
Landlords must take all reasonable steps to ensure that their tenants do not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of their other tenants (s 45(1)(e) RTA). The tenants’ concerns
The tenants’ concerns are: a. Parking: although there was no specific allocated parking, there was a parking space on the property the tenants could use for their car. Usually, they parked their car on the street, and their motorcycle on the property. After the new tenants moved in, they used all the off-street parking as well as the nearest parks on the street. b. Pool: the tenants say that, when the landlords lived at the property, they had free use of the pool and, in return, helped to maintain it. Harper says that, relying on advice from the landlords, it told the new tenants that they had exclusive use of the pool. This led to friction. Harper tried to negotiate a compromise where the tenants could use the pool with the new tenants’ consent, but the new tenants indicated that consent was unlikely to be given. c. Internet: the tenants’ rent included use of the internet connection. After the new tenants moved in they changed internet provider and intermittently interfered with the tenants’ internet access for the remainder of the fixed term.
The main parking incident occurred when the new tenants were moving in, when there were a large number of cars present which obstructed the tenants’ motorcycle. The problems with the street parking did not involve any breach of the landlords’ obligations under the RTA.
Although the tenancy agreement does not make specific mention of the tenants having use of the pool, as this happened while the landlords lived in the main house, it is reasonable to treat this as an implied term. Once the new tenants moved in, this facility was no longer available, reducing to some degree the utility of the tenancy agreement to the tenants.
The most significant issue raised by the tenants was interference with their use of the internet. The new tenants were not entitled to restrict their access to the internet. Internet access was a term of the fixed-term tenancy agreement, and it remained so after it converted to periodic. The landlord should have ensured continuity and they breached the RTA by failing to do so.

Is the amount claimed proved?

The claim is based on the tenants’ moving costs. However, I am not satisfied this is the correct measure of compensation. The breaches described to me are at the lower end of the scale. There were obviously other points of conflict between the parties. However, Harper says both complained about the other, and I have not been provided with sufficient evidence to prove that the landlords’ failure to meet their obligations was so serious that vacating was a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
Based on the evidence presented, I find that compensation of $750.00 (approximately 2 weeks’ rent) is reasonable for the proven breaches.
I have made the order against both the landlords and the agent (under the extended definition of ‘landlord’ in s 2(1) RTA). However, while Harper may have contributed to the conflict through incorrect advice to the new tenants, the primary responsibility rests with the landlords. They had the financial benefit of renting two dwellings on one property, and they had an obligation to ensure that the two tenancies were set up in a way that would minimise any potential for conflict. This did not happen here. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenants have been partially successful with their claim, I have reimbursed their filing fee.
Although the tenants did not apply for name suppression, it is appropriate to order it under s 95A(4) RTA.
Although the amount ordered is less than a third of the amount claimed, their claim has been successful in principle. I have ordered name suppression because publication can have an impact on subsequent tenancy applications, even where the tenant is successful. J P Smith 17 August 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4558069 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$750.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Harper Properties Hamilton Limited, Mariia Wilkens and Philipp Wilkens must pay [the tenants] $770.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation, claiming that a misrepresentation by the property manager caused conflict with the neighbouring tenants, which in turn caused them to move out of their tenancy. Their claim is based on reimbursement of moving costs. Background
The tenancy was for an initial fixed term from 21 January 2022 to 20 January 2023. The landlords offered the tenants a renewal of the fixed term but, as no agreement was reached, the tenancy converted to periodic at the end of the fixed term.
At the start of the tenancy the landlords lived in the main house, and the tenants lived downstairs in a ‘granny flat’. The owners managed the tenancy until about October 2022, when they moved out and transferred the management to Harper.
The main house was rented out in early December 2022. There was conflict between the two sets of tenants from the outset. Law
Tenants are entitled to the full benefit of the rights given under a tenancy agreement. They cannot be altered without the agreement of both parties.
Where a tenancy converts from a fixed term to a periodic, the other terms of the agreement remain unchanged. Therefore, if the rent includes power and the internet, this cannot be changed unilaterally (s 60A RTA).
Because tenants are only liable for utilities exclusively attributable to them, where two or more sets of tenants share utilities without separate metering, the landlord is liable for the cost (s 39(3) RTA).
Landlords must take all reasonable steps to ensure that their tenants do not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of their other tenants (s 45(1)(e) RTA). The tenants’ concerns
The tenants’ concerns are: a. Parking: although there was no specific allocated parking, there was a parking space on the property the tenants could use for their car. Usually, they parked their car on the street, and their motorcycle on the property. After the new tenants moved in, they used all the off-street parking as well as the nearest parks on the street. b. Pool: the tenants say that, when the landlords lived at the property, they had free use of the pool and, in return, helped to maintain it. Harper says that, relying on advice from the landlords, it told the new tenants that they had exclusive use of the pool. This led to friction. Harper tried to negotiate a compromise where the tenants could use the pool with the new tenants’ consent, but the new tenants indicated that consent was unlikely to be given. c. Internet: the tenants’ rent included use of the internet connection. After the new tenants moved in they changed internet provider and intermittently interfered with the tenants’ internet access for the remainder of the fixed term.
The main parking incident occurred when the new tenants were moving in, when there were a large number of cars present which obstructed the tenants’ motorcycle. The problems with the street parking did not involve any breach of the landlords’ obligations under the RTA.
Although the tenancy agreement does not make specific mention of the tenants having use of the pool, as this happened while the landlords lived in the main house, it is reasonable to treat this as an implied term. Once the new tenants moved in, this facility was no longer available, reducing to some degree the utility of the tenancy agreement to the tenants.
The most significant issue raised by the tenants was interference with their use of the internet. The new tenants were not entitled to restrict their access to the internet. Internet access was a term of the fixed-term tenancy agreement, and it remained so after it converted to periodic. The landlord should have ensured continuity and they breached the RTA by failing to do so.

Is the amount claimed proved?

The claim is based on the tenants’ moving costs. However, I am not satisfied this is the correct measure of compensation. The breaches described to me are at the lower end of the scale. There were obviously other points of conflict between the parties. However, Harper says both complained about the other, and I have not been provided with sufficient evidence to prove that the landlords’ failure to meet their obligations was so serious that vacating was a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
Based on the evidence presented, I find that compensation of $750.00 (approximately 2 weeks’ rent) is reasonable for the proven breaches.
I have made the order against both the landlords and the agent (under the extended definition of ‘landlord’ in s 2(1) RTA). However, while Harper may have contributed to the conflict through incorrect advice to the new tenants, the primary responsibility rests with the landlords. They had the financial benefit of renting two dwellings on one property, and they had an obligation to ensure that the two tenancies were set up in a way that would minimise any potential for conflict. This did not happen here. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenants have been partially successful with their claim, I have reimbursed their filing fee.
Although the tenants did not apply for name suppression, it is appropriate to order it under s 95A(4) RTA.
Although the amount ordered is less than a third of the amount claimed, their claim has been successful in principle. I have ordered name suppression because publication can have an impact on subsequent tenancy applications, even where the tenant is successful. J P Smith 17 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558069 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Anchorage Grove, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558069 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Anchorage Grove, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the amount claimed proved?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the amount claimed proved?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions