What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617269 about?

The tribunal order states: Deepak Attri must pay [the tenants] $7,920.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4617269?

Compensation: Bond Not Lodged: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity Charges: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No Living Room Heating: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No Tenancy Agreement: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Termination without gr…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Unlawful Premises Refund Of Rent: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10013574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617269 about?

The tribunal order states: Deepak Attri must pay [the tenants] $7,920.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4617269?

Compensation: Bond Not Lodged: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Electricity Charges: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No Living Room Heating: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No Tenancy Agreement: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Termination without gr…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Unlawful Premises Refund Of Rent: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10013574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Manley Grove, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617269 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617269 — net $7,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: No tenancy agreement	$250.00	No tenancy agreement
Compensation: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Compensation: No living room heating	$800.00	No living room heating
Compensation: Electricity charges	$250.00	Electricity charges
Compensation: Termination without grounds	$500.00	Termination without grounds
Unlawful premises refund of rent	$5,500.00	Unlawful premises refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,920.44

Order

Deepak Attri must pay [the tenants] $7,920.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have filed an application for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 13 April 2021 and ended on 6 April 2022. The application was filed on 28 June 2023. As the application was filed more than 12 months after the end of the tenancy, all the claims for exemplary damages are barred by s 109(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The flat rented by the tenants was located on the ground floor of a two-storey house. It consisted of 3 rooms used as bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a living area. A laundry was shared with the upstairs tenants. Rent was $575.00 per week.
The tenants allege numerous breaches of the RTA. No tenancy agreement
The landlord did not provide the tenants with a written tenancy agreement. The tenants say they requested a tenancy agreement several times during the tenancy. The landlord acknowledges at least one request.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed, and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing (s 13 RTA). The RTA provides for several unlawful acts in relation to failure to supply a tenancy agreement and the information required in a tenancy agreement. Although exemplary damages are statute-barred in this case, the provision of unlawful acts recognises the importance of providing a written agreement.
The tenants say they needed a copy of their agreement to support a residency application, so the lack of an agreement had a practical effect on them. The failure to provide an agreement also meant that they did not have important information about insurance, insulation, and healthy homes compliance. Taking these factors into account I have awarded compensation of $250.00. This is less than the amount that would have been awarded if exemplary damages were available. Cleanliness of premises
Section 45(1)(a) RTA provides that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The tenants provided photographs taken on 14 April 2021 which show that the premises were not reasonably clean. Several photographs show mould around windows and blinds. There were also marks and general detritus on several surfaces.
The landlord says the tenants moved in on 9 April but were not required to pay rent until 13 April, and that this was to compensate for the condition of the property. The tenants disagree, as they did not send the photographs until after their obligation to pay rent started on 13 April. On balance I accept the tenants’ recollection, as it is more consistent with the timing and sequence of events.
The tenants say they spent about 4 to 5 hours’ cleaning, which is consistent with the photographs. I have therefore awarded compensation of $100.00. Failure to lodge bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (s 19(1) RTA).
The tenants paid a bond of 4 weeks’ rent on 3 April 2021. The landlord did not lodge the bond. The landlord returned three-quarters of the bond on 3 May 2022, almost 4 weeks after the end of the tenancy. The balance was withheld as the landlord said he wanted to calculate a final water payment: it was not returned until over a year later on 28 June 2023, after the application was filed.
As the two dwellings at the house shared a single water meter, and there was no check meter, the landlord was not entitled to charge the tenants for water usage (s 39(3) and (4)(c) RTA). Therefore, there was no lawful basis for the landlord to withhold any of the bond. Given the delay in returning the bond to the tenants, which was their money, I have awarded compensation of $500.00. Again, this is less than I would have awarded had exemplary damages been available. Heating
As the tenancy started before 1 July 2021, the landlord was not required to comply with healthy homes standards. However, it was a term of the agreement that the landlord would install a heat pump before, or shortly after, the start of the tenancy. In addition, a landlord is required to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety (s 45(1)(c) RTA). Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires every living room to be fitted with a “fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”.
The landlord initially arranged for his electrician to fit a second-hand heat pump in late April. The electrician declined to do so as the heat pump was not suitable, and the landlord says he asked his electrician to install a new one. The landlord followed up with the electrician several times in May and June, but he was unavailable for health reasons. The landlord arranged for another electrician to install the heat pump. This was done on 26 July, over three months after the start of the tenancy.
The tenants say the flat was cold and damp, and that the conditions adversely affected their new-born child. Although they used a heater of their own, it was insufficient to heat adequately. Out of frustration, the tenants reduced their rent by $100.00/week for three weeks in June. The landlord says he did not complain about the deductions, although he did query them.
There is a period of 15 weeks between the start of the tenancy and the date the heat pump was installed. I have allowed a period of 4 weeks from the start of the tenancy as a reasonable time for the landlord to have installed the heat pump. That leaves a period of 11 weeks during the end of autumn and the start of winter when the tenants were without the agreed form of heating. They have deducted $100.00 from their rent for 3 of those weeks, and I find that this was a reasonable level of compensation for the landlord’s breach. Therefore, they will be compensated for a further eight weeks at $100.00pw ($800.00). Electricity outgoings
The landlord installed a check meter at the tenants’ request shortly after the start of the tenancy. The electricity account was in the upstairs tenant’s name, and the tenants worked out how much each owed based on the upstairs tenant’s account and the readings on the check meter. The tenants provided bank records showing total payments of $3,208.21 (although the records for one of the months is missing).
The tenants say they are unsure whether the division of power is correct, as the electrician told them he was unable to separate out all of the circuits. They say the hot water supply is one example, as there was only one cylinder for both dwellings. They also shared laundry facilities.
The landlord says he was not advised that the circuits could not be separated, although he accepts that both dwellings are serviced by one solar water heater (supplemented by electrical heating).
As with water, tenants are only required to pay for electrical outgoings “exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises” (s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, the tenants were liable for any usage recorded on the check meter if it solely recorded their usage. They would not be liable for fixed line charges or any shared hot water or laundry usage.
The difficulty in assessing compensation is that the tenants have not provided any records of how their payments were calculated, and for the Tribunal to calculate a compensation figure involves a large degree of guesswork. As the tenants have the burden of proving all elements of their claim on the balance of probabilities, and giving the limited supporting evidence, I have made a modest award of $250.00 based on the likelihood they have paid for some shared usage that the landlord was liable for. Termination notice
Under s 60AA RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord gave the tenants 90 days’ notice for the tenancy to end on 31 April 2022. The grounds given for the notice were that “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and that it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to live there while the work is being done. The work must begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date (as above).” (s 51(2)(f) RTA).
The term “material step” means “applying for regulatory consent, seeking engineering or other professional advice, or taking any other significant step” (s 51(2A) RTA).
The tenants moved out on 6 April, without having to give the usual 28 days’ notice. On 4 May, the tenants went to the premises to collect some mail, and discovered that new tenants had moved in. The new tenants were related to the upstairs tenants.
The landlord says he discussed redevelopment options with a consultant that potentially involved demolishing part of the tenants’ flat. However, he decided not to go ahead because of likely cost increases. The only supporting evidence provided is a contract with a consultant dated 25 March 2021.
I am not satisfied that, at the time the notice was given, the landlord intended to take material steps towards the redevelopment project within 90 days of the tenancy ending. The consultancy agreement signed 10 months earlier is simply too tenuous to satisfy the requirements of s 51(2). I therefore find that the landlord gave notice without being entitled to do so.
Although finding alternative accommodation would have been stressful for the tenants, a mitigating factor is that the landlord allowed the tenants to leave early without the need for a counter-notice. Therefore, they did not face the prospect of paying double rent. Nevertheless, giving an unlawful termination notice is a serious breach. Taking account of the mitigating factor outlined, I have awarded compensation of $500.00. Unlawful premises
Section 78A RTA deals with unlawful residential premises. Residential premises are unlawful where they cannot be lawfully used for residential purposes and where the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawfulness by a failure to comply with a legal requirement relating to occupation, or a legal obligation relating to buildings, health, or safety. Where premises are found to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order a refund of all rent paid, although it can make a deduction from the refund where there are special circumstances.
The landlord bought the house in its present configuration. He did not obtain a LIM report but relied on information from the vendor. He claims there was a building consent for the modifications to the downstairs area occupied by the tenants, but that there was no code of compliance issued. He says he is taking steps to obtain a certificate of acceptance. He provided a copy of the original consent plan from 1995 and a letter from the Council referring to an inspection report (but not the report itself).
Further evidence was provided during the hearing. To summarise, a building consent was granted by the Council to add a garage, kitchen, lounge, bedroom, bathroom, and laundry to the premises. The consented additions to the downstairs were to consist of a garage, a laundry, a bathroom, and a bedroom. Instead, the proposed garage has been converted to a bedroom, the laundry has become a kitchen, and the existing garage converted to a bedroom and living room. The building inspector’s report notes that a certificate of acceptance will be required for the changes to the building consent. It also says that an expert assessment will be required to determine whether the building complies with the building code.
Aside from the fact that the alterations to the tenant’s unit do not conform to the building consent originally issued, there is the more fundamental issue that there is no consent for the building to be occupied as two separate dwellings. The tenants have provided an email from the Council which states: I can advise that after looking at consent we hold on file, there has bee not [sic] consent for this dwelling to be used for anything other than 1 household unit and the owners are rated as such.
The unlawfulness in this case is therefore twofold: the additions to the unit are largely unconsented, and the house cannot be occupied as two separate dwellings. The breaches are serious and more than just technical.
The starting point is a refund of all rent, in the absence of special circumstances. Rent payable for the tenancy is $29,489.29. The tenants have paid $28,324.00. In addition, the landlord gave them a credit of $701.00 at the start of the tenancy and has not challenged the deduction of $300.00 for the lack of heating. That results in total rent and credits of $29,325.00. Based on these figures, the tenants have short-paid two days’ rent of $164.29.
The landlord says that the tenants have had boarders at the unit for the whole of the tenancy and that this should be taken into account. The tenants accept that they rented one of the rooms for 44 weeks at $160.00/week, and the other room for 17 weeks at $200/week and a further 21 weeks at $195.00/week. Based on those figures, they have received rent payments from their boarders totalling $14,535.00 (approximately half the rent payable for the tenancy).
The fact that the tenants have received income from the premises is a special circumstance that can be taken into account in assessing any deduction from the rent refund. Although the tenants were not aware at the time that the premises were unlawful, they nevertheless earned income from renting rooms that the say were cold and damp. They have also received some personal benefit from renting the premises which, although unlawful, were not uninhabitable.
Weighing all the competing factors, I find that a refund equivalent to 20% of all rent payable is reasonable ($5,664.80). After deducting the short-payment, I have rounded the compensation figure to $5,500.00. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenants have been largely successful with their claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and ordered name suppression. J P Smith 27 February 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617269 — net $7,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: No tenancy agreement	$250.00	No tenancy agreement
Compensation: Bond not lodged	$500.00	Bond not lodged
Compensation: Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Compensation: No living room heating	$800.00	No living room heating
Compensation: Electricity charges	$250.00	Electricity charges
Compensation: Termination without grounds	$500.00	Termination without grounds
Unlawful premises refund of rent	$5,500.00	Unlawful premises refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,920.44

Order

Deepak Attri must pay [the tenants] $7,920.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have filed an application for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 13 April 2021 and ended on 6 April 2022. The application was filed on 28 June 2023. As the application was filed more than 12 months after the end of the tenancy, all the claims for exemplary damages are barred by s 109(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The flat rented by the tenants was located on the ground floor of a two-storey house. It consisted of 3 rooms used as bedrooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a living area. A laundry was shared with the upstairs tenants. Rent was $575.00 per week.
The tenants allege numerous breaches of the RTA. No tenancy agreement
The landlord did not provide the tenants with a written tenancy agreement. The tenants say they requested a tenancy agreement several times during the tenancy. The landlord acknowledges at least one request.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed, and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing (s 13 RTA). The RTA provides for several unlawful acts in relation to failure to supply a tenancy agreement and the information required in a tenancy agreement. Although exemplary damages are statute-barred in this case, the provision of unlawful acts recognises the importance of providing a written agreement.
The tenants say they needed a copy of their agreement to support a residency application, so the lack of an agreement had a practical effect on them. The failure to provide an agreement also meant that they did not have important information about insurance, insulation, and healthy homes compliance. Taking these factors into account I have awarded compensation of $250.00. This is less than the amount that would have been awarded if exemplary damages were available. Cleanliness of premises
Section 45(1)(a) RTA provides that the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The tenants provided photographs taken on 14 April 2021 which show that the premises were not reasonably clean. Several photographs show mould around windows and blinds. There were also marks and general detritus on several surfaces.
The landlord says the tenants moved in on 9 April but were not required to pay rent until 13 April, and that this was to compensate for the condition of the property. The tenants disagree, as they did not send the photographs until after their obligation to pay rent started on 13 April. On balance I accept the tenants’ recollection, as it is more consistent with the timing and sequence of events.
The tenants say they spent about 4 to 5 hours’ cleaning, which is consistent with the photographs. I have therefore awarded compensation of $100.00. Failure to lodge bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (s 19(1) RTA).
The tenants paid a bond of 4 weeks’ rent on 3 April 2021. The landlord did not lodge the bond. The landlord returned three-quarters of the bond on 3 May 2022, almost 4 weeks after the end of the tenancy. The balance was withheld as the landlord said he wanted to calculate a final water payment: it was not returned until over a year later on 28 June 2023, after the application was filed.
As the two dwellings at the house shared a single water meter, and there was no check meter, the landlord was not entitled to charge the tenants for water usage (s 39(3) and (4)(c) RTA). Therefore, there was no lawful basis for the landlord to withhold any of the bond. Given the delay in returning the bond to the tenants, which was their money, I have awarded compensation of $500.00. Again, this is less than I would have awarded had exemplary damages been available. Heating
As the tenancy started before 1 July 2021, the landlord was not required to comply with healthy homes standards. However, it was a term of the agreement that the landlord would install a heat pump before, or shortly after, the start of the tenancy. In addition, a landlord is required to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety (s 45(1)(c) RTA). Regulation 6 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires every living room to be fitted with a “fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”.
The landlord initially arranged for his electrician to fit a second-hand heat pump in late April. The electrician declined to do so as the heat pump was not suitable, and the landlord says he asked his electrician to install a new one. The landlord followed up with the electrician several times in May and June, but he was unavailable for health reasons. The landlord arranged for another electrician to install the heat pump. This was done on 26 July, over three months after the start of the tenancy.
The tenants say the flat was cold and damp, and that the conditions adversely affected their new-born child. Although they used a heater of their own, it was insufficient to heat adequately. Out of frustration, the tenants reduced their rent by $100.00/week for three weeks in June. The landlord says he did not complain about the deductions, although he did query them.
There is a period of 15 weeks between the start of the tenancy and the date the heat pump was installed. I have allowed a period of 4 weeks from the start of the tenancy as a reasonable time for the landlord to have installed the heat pump. That leaves a period of 11 weeks during the end of autumn and the start of winter when the tenants were without the agreed form of heating. They have deducted $100.00 from their rent for 3 of those weeks, and I find that this was a reasonable level of compensation for the landlord’s breach. Therefore, they will be compensated for a further eight weeks at $100.00pw ($800.00). Electricity outgoings
The landlord installed a check meter at the tenants’ request shortly after the start of the tenancy. The electricity account was in the upstairs tenant’s name, and the tenants worked out how much each owed based on the upstairs tenant’s account and the readings on the check meter. The tenants provided bank records showing total payments of $3,208.21 (although the records for one of the months is missing).
The tenants say they are unsure whether the division of power is correct, as the electrician told them he was unable to separate out all of the circuits. They say the hot water supply is one example, as there was only one cylinder for both dwellings. They also shared laundry facilities.
The landlord says he was not advised that the circuits could not be separated, although he accepts that both dwellings are serviced by one solar water heater (supplemented by electrical heating).
As with water, tenants are only required to pay for electrical outgoings “exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises” (s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, the tenants were liable for any usage recorded on the check meter if it solely recorded their usage. They would not be liable for fixed line charges or any shared hot water or laundry usage.
The difficulty in assessing compensation is that the tenants have not provided any records of how their payments were calculated, and for the Tribunal to calculate a compensation figure involves a large degree of guesswork. As the tenants have the burden of proving all elements of their claim on the balance of probabilities, and giving the limited supporting evidence, I have made a modest award of $250.00 based on the likelihood they have paid for some shared usage that the landlord was liable for. Termination notice
Under s 60AA RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord gave the tenants 90 days’ notice for the tenancy to end on 31 April 2022. The grounds given for the notice were that “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and that it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to live there while the work is being done. The work must begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date (as above).” (s 51(2)(f) RTA).
The term “material step” means “applying for regulatory consent, seeking engineering or other professional advice, or taking any other significant step” (s 51(2A) RTA).
The tenants moved out on 6 April, without having to give the usual 28 days’ notice. On 4 May, the tenants went to the premises to collect some mail, and discovered that new tenants had moved in. The new tenants were related to the upstairs tenants.
The landlord says he discussed redevelopment options with a consultant that potentially involved demolishing part of the tenants’ flat. However, he decided not to go ahead because of likely cost increases. The only supporting evidence provided is a contract with a consultant dated 25 March 2021.
I am not satisfied that, at the time the notice was given, the landlord intended to take material steps towards the redevelopment project within 90 days of the tenancy ending. The consultancy agreement signed 10 months earlier is simply too tenuous to satisfy the requirements of s 51(2). I therefore find that the landlord gave notice without being entitled to do so.
Although finding alternative accommodation would have been stressful for the tenants, a mitigating factor is that the landlord allowed the tenants to leave early without the need for a counter-notice. Therefore, they did not face the prospect of paying double rent. Nevertheless, giving an unlawful termination notice is a serious breach. Taking account of the mitigating factor outlined, I have awarded compensation of $500.00. Unlawful premises
Section 78A RTA deals with unlawful residential premises. Residential premises are unlawful where they cannot be lawfully used for residential purposes and where the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawfulness by a failure to comply with a legal requirement relating to occupation, or a legal obligation relating to buildings, health, or safety. Where premises are found to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order a refund of all rent paid, although it can make a deduction from the refund where there are special circumstances.
The landlord bought the house in its present configuration. He did not obtain a LIM report but relied on information from the vendor. He claims there was a building consent for the modifications to the downstairs area occupied by the tenants, but that there was no code of compliance issued. He says he is taking steps to obtain a certificate of acceptance. He provided a copy of the original consent plan from 1995 and a letter from the Council referring to an inspection report (but not the report itself).
Further evidence was provided during the hearing. To summarise, a building consent was granted by the Council to add a garage, kitchen, lounge, bedroom, bathroom, and laundry to the premises. The consented additions to the downstairs were to consist of a garage, a laundry, a bathroom, and a bedroom. Instead, the proposed garage has been converted to a bedroom, the laundry has become a kitchen, and the existing garage converted to a bedroom and living room. The building inspector’s report notes that a certificate of acceptance will be required for the changes to the building consent. It also says that an expert assessment will be required to determine whether the building complies with the building code.
Aside from the fact that the alterations to the tenant’s unit do not conform to the building consent originally issued, there is the more fundamental issue that there is no consent for the building to be occupied as two separate dwellings. The tenants have provided an email from the Council which states: I can advise that after looking at consent we hold on file, there has bee not [sic] consent for this dwelling to be used for anything other than 1 household unit and the owners are rated as such.
The unlawfulness in this case is therefore twofold: the additions to the unit are largely unconsented, and the house cannot be occupied as two separate dwellings. The breaches are serious and more than just technical.
The starting point is a refund of all rent, in the absence of special circumstances. Rent payable for the tenancy is $29,489.29. The tenants have paid $28,324.00. In addition, the landlord gave them a credit of $701.00 at the start of the tenancy and has not challenged the deduction of $300.00 for the lack of heating. That results in total rent and credits of $29,325.00. Based on these figures, the tenants have short-paid two days’ rent of $164.29.
The landlord says that the tenants have had boarders at the unit for the whole of the tenancy and that this should be taken into account. The tenants accept that they rented one of the rooms for 44 weeks at $160.00/week, and the other room for 17 weeks at $200/week and a further 21 weeks at $195.00/week. Based on those figures, they have received rent payments from their boarders totalling $14,535.00 (approximately half the rent payable for the tenancy).
The fact that the tenants have received income from the premises is a special circumstance that can be taken into account in assessing any deduction from the rent refund. Although the tenants were not aware at the time that the premises were unlawful, they nevertheless earned income from renting rooms that the say were cold and damp. They have also received some personal benefit from renting the premises which, although unlawful, were not uninhabitable.
Weighing all the competing factors, I find that a refund equivalent to 20% of all rent payable is reasonable ($5,664.80). After deducting the short-payment, I have rounded the compensation figure to $5,500.00. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenants have been largely successful with their claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee and ordered name suppression. J P Smith 27 February 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617269 — Cleanliness at 3 Manley Grove, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617269 — Cleanliness at 3 Manley Grove, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions