What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617902 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4617902?

Property Damage: $155.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $510.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $565.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617902?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9543288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4617902 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4617902?

Property Damage: $155.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $510.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $565.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617902?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617902?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9543288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617902 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617902 — net $493.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 August 2023	$565.71		Rent arrears to 12 August 2023
Rubbish removal charges	$110.00		Rubbish removal charges
Wall repairs and smoke alarm refit	$172.50		Wall repairs and smoke alarm refit
Lock/key replacement	$155.00		Lock/key replacement
Compensation for mould damage		$510.00	Compensation for mould damage
Total award	$1,003.21	$510.00
Net award	$493.21
Bond	$1,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$493.21

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $493.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $493.21 [The tenant/s]: $1,266.79

Reasons

The Claims

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by teleconference.
The tenant brought an application before the end of the tenancy, seeking compensation for mould damage to some of her belongings. She also seeks compensation for what she says was the landlord’s wrongful refusal to allow her 13 year old son to be added as a permitted resident at the premises.
The tenant gave notice that the tenancy would end on 12 August 2023 and vacated a few days before that date.
The landlord then brought an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Claims for Mould Damage
The tenancy started on 8 July 2022. The tenant’s evidence is that she did not initially notice any damp or mould issues but when doing a spring clean in November 2022 noticed mould on a number of her belongings. The problem was made worse when there was major water ingress during cyclone Gabrielle. She formally notified the landlord about the problems and the landlord instructed contractors to try and fix them.
There is some dispute about the effectiveness of the steps taken by/ for the landlord. However, the landlord does not dispute that compensation is due to the tenant for the damage to her belongings and the compensation sought by the tenant is accepted.
The claim includes compensation for the cost to the tenant of having to run a dehumidifier. Additional Occupant
The agreement states that “Maximum number of residents and tenants (combined) to reside at the premises must not exceed 1 (one).”
The tenant’s 13 year old son had been living in very difficult circumstances and wanted to come and live with her. Of course, she wanted to be able to provide a safe home for him. He moved in with her on 26 April 2023.
The tenant’s evidence, which I accept, is that she simply overlooked the need to get the landlord’s permission for him to stay.
On 15 May 2022 the landlord received a complaint from a neighbouring tenant about noise disturbance from the tenant yelling at her son. On 31 May 2023 the landlord issued the tenant a 14 day notice to remedy, regarding that disturbance and for exceeding the maximum number of permitted residents at the premises.
On 22 May 2023 there was a further, similar complaint made to the landlord, but no further Notice was issued.
On 24 May 2023 the tenant made a formal request to the landlord to have the agreement amended to allow her son as a permitted resident.
The owner was consulted, further noise complaints were received and ultimately the tenant’s request for that amendment to the agreement was declined.
The tenant says that was unfair, unreasonable and inhumane given the landlord’s knowledge of her son’s difficult circumstances.
Section 78(1)(f) provides that the Tribunal can make: “Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties, or any term of any such agreement, is harsh or unconscionable, or that any power conferred by an agreement between them has been exercised in a harsh or unconscionable manner, an order varying the agreement, or setting it aside (either wholly or in part)”
The tenant was entitled to bring an application to the Tribunal on the grounds that enforcing the agreement to prevent her son living with her was harsh and unconscionable. I cannot speculate about the likely outcome of such an application. Certainly, it is entirely understandable that the tenant would want to be able to have her son living with her.
No such application has been made though.
The terms of the agreement were clear. I find no breach by the landlord of any legal obligation owed to the tenant by not agreeing to the requested variation, particularly when it was not a decision made arbitrarily but made in the context of complaints already having been received from another tenant about disturbance resulting from the tenant’s son staying there. How much is owed for rent
As noted, the tenancy ended on 12 August 2023.
The tenant is surprised at the amount of Arrears claimed by the landlord as she thought she had paid 1 week’s rent in advance, which would have paid the rent up to the end of the rent week ending 10 August 2023. The rent records provided by the landlord show that the rent was paid to the end of the prior week, ending 3 August 2023. In the absence of other evidence, I accept that rent record as accurate and the claim for rent arrears proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepts having left a few items at the premises which she told the landlord about but says not all the items the landlord had removed were left by her. The landlord has provided photographs showing the items that were disposed of.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they were found at the premises on final inspection. Some of the disputed items were in a shed at the premises which was for the sole use of the tenant. The tenant says that they cannot be hers because she never used the shed. She does acknowledge however that in the pressure of moving she did not check it.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to make sure the premises are left vacant. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was unaware of those other items but am persuaded from the landlord’s photographic evidence that those items were left there. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the removal cost which is provide by the invoice provided.
The tenant accidentally took the keys with her. She contacted the landlord and said she would send them back. When the keys had not been received by 24 August 2023 the landlord arranged for the premises to be re-secured. The keys were delivered but not until some time later.
The landlord was justified in resecuring the premises given the length of time before the keys were returned and is entitled to compensation for the cost of doing so. The sum claimed is proved by the invoice provided
The tenant accepts the landlord’s claim for compensation for the cost of repairing wall damage. The sum claimed is proved by the invoice provided.
Because [The applicant/s] the filing fee. .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617902 — net $493.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 August 2023	$565.71		Rent arrears to 12 August 2023
Rubbish removal charges	$110.00		Rubbish removal charges
Wall repairs and smoke alarm refit	$172.50		Wall repairs and smoke alarm refit
Lock/key replacement	$155.00		Lock/key replacement
Compensation for mould damage		$510.00	Compensation for mould damage
Total award	$1,003.21	$510.00
Net award	$493.21
Bond	$1,760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$493.21

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $493.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $493.21 [The tenant/s]: $1,266.79

Reasons

The Claims

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by teleconference.
The tenant brought an application before the end of the tenancy, seeking compensation for mould damage to some of her belongings. She also seeks compensation for what she says was the landlord’s wrongful refusal to allow her 13 year old son to be added as a permitted resident at the premises.
The tenant gave notice that the tenancy would end on 12 August 2023 and vacated a few days before that date.
The landlord then brought an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Claims for Mould Damage
The tenancy started on 8 July 2022. The tenant’s evidence is that she did not initially notice any damp or mould issues but when doing a spring clean in November 2022 noticed mould on a number of her belongings. The problem was made worse when there was major water ingress during cyclone Gabrielle. She formally notified the landlord about the problems and the landlord instructed contractors to try and fix them.
There is some dispute about the effectiveness of the steps taken by/ for the landlord. However, the landlord does not dispute that compensation is due to the tenant for the damage to her belongings and the compensation sought by the tenant is accepted.
The claim includes compensation for the cost to the tenant of having to run a dehumidifier. Additional Occupant
The agreement states that “Maximum number of residents and tenants (combined) to reside at the premises must not exceed 1 (one).”
The tenant’s 13 year old son had been living in very difficult circumstances and wanted to come and live with her. Of course, she wanted to be able to provide a safe home for him. He moved in with her on 26 April 2023.
The tenant’s evidence, which I accept, is that she simply overlooked the need to get the landlord’s permission for him to stay.
On 15 May 2022 the landlord received a complaint from a neighbouring tenant about noise disturbance from the tenant yelling at her son. On 31 May 2023 the landlord issued the tenant a 14 day notice to remedy, regarding that disturbance and for exceeding the maximum number of permitted residents at the premises.
On 22 May 2023 there was a further, similar complaint made to the landlord, but no further Notice was issued.
On 24 May 2023 the tenant made a formal request to the landlord to have the agreement amended to allow her son as a permitted resident.
The owner was consulted, further noise complaints were received and ultimately the tenant’s request for that amendment to the agreement was declined.
The tenant says that was unfair, unreasonable and inhumane given the landlord’s knowledge of her son’s difficult circumstances.
Section 78(1)(f) provides that the Tribunal can make: “Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties, or any term of any such agreement, is harsh or unconscionable, or that any power conferred by an agreement between them has been exercised in a harsh or unconscionable manner, an order varying the agreement, or setting it aside (either wholly or in part)”
The tenant was entitled to bring an application to the Tribunal on the grounds that enforcing the agreement to prevent her son living with her was harsh and unconscionable. I cannot speculate about the likely outcome of such an application. Certainly, it is entirely understandable that the tenant would want to be able to have her son living with her.
No such application has been made though.
The terms of the agreement were clear. I find no breach by the landlord of any legal obligation owed to the tenant by not agreeing to the requested variation, particularly when it was not a decision made arbitrarily but made in the context of complaints already having been received from another tenant about disturbance resulting from the tenant’s son staying there. How much is owed for rent
As noted, the tenancy ended on 12 August 2023.
The tenant is surprised at the amount of Arrears claimed by the landlord as she thought she had paid 1 week’s rent in advance, which would have paid the rent up to the end of the rent week ending 10 August 2023. The rent records provided by the landlord show that the rent was paid to the end of the prior week, ending 3 August 2023. In the absence of other evidence, I accept that rent record as accurate and the claim for rent arrears proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepts having left a few items at the premises which she told the landlord about but says not all the items the landlord had removed were left by her. The landlord has provided photographs showing the items that were disposed of.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they were found at the premises on final inspection. Some of the disputed items were in a shed at the premises which was for the sole use of the tenant. The tenant says that they cannot be hers because she never used the shed. She does acknowledge however that in the pressure of moving she did not check it.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to make sure the premises are left vacant. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was unaware of those other items but am persuaded from the landlord’s photographic evidence that those items were left there. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the removal cost which is provide by the invoice provided.
The tenant accidentally took the keys with her. She contacted the landlord and said she would send them back. When the keys had not been received by 24 August 2023 the landlord arranged for the premises to be re-secured. The keys were delivered but not until some time later.
The landlord was justified in resecuring the premises given the length of time before the keys were returned and is entitled to compensation for the cost of doing so. The sum claimed is proved by the invoice provided
The tenant accepts the landlord’s claim for compensation for the cost of repairing wall damage. The sum claimed is proved by the invoice provided.
Because [The applicant/s] the filing fee. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617902 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617902 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions