What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4630891 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4630891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630891?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9386485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4630891 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4630891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630891?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9386485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 902, 79 Airedale Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630891 — Boarding House

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The bond is to remain at the bond centre until the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal does not find that the landlord’s notice to terminate was retaliatory.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application. The tenants filed an application with Tenancy Services on 17 July 2023. They are claiming: -That the rent was increased after one year -The apartment was furnished and the couch and bed broke -The landlord insisted that the tenants replace the broken bed and couch -The tenant replaced the bed at a cost of $1500.00 -Retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy because the tenants seek the landlord to replace the broken furniture -Landlord failing to carry out repairs to furniture The background:
The tenancy commenced 25 March 2022 and was fixed for 12 months. The rent was $465.00 at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants renewed the tenancy after one year and the rent was increased to $500.00.
The tenants query whether the landlord can increase the rent after one year. The Tribunal advised the tenants that a landlord does have the right to increase the rent once every 12 months.
At an inspection of the property around the time of the tenancy renewal the property manager noticed that there was a broken slate on one of the beds. The landlord insisted that it was the tenants responsible to replace the bed. Subsequently the tenant did purchase a new bed at the cost of $1500.00.
The tenants claims that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability: section 49A (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Fair wear and tear have been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The tenant disputed causing damage to the bed and couch and claimed it was substandard furniture because all they did was sit on the couch and sleep on the bed. Also, the tenant provided photos of the slate base of the bed to show that it had been poorly put together with misaligned slates.
There is no suggestion that use has been other than reasonable.
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but I am not satisfied that it is met, and find that the tenants have not damaged the bed or couch.
The new bed purchased by the tenant is the property of the tenant and not the landlord.
The tenants say that the landlord has failed to carry out repairs on the furniture. I do not consider that the tenants are claiming a breach of the landlords’ obligations to maintain and repair the property as set out in s45 of the RTA.
The landlord has not filed a counter claim. I do not find the landlord has breached s45 of the RTA. Retaliatory notice
Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect: section 54 RTA S54 (1) Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. S54(2)If, on any such application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord was so motivated in giving the notice, it shall declare the notice to be of no effect unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. S54(3) The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (2) to be of no
Shortly after the discussions about the replacement bed and couch the tenants received an email dated 26 June 2023 from the property manager. The email advised the tenants that the landlord was looking to sell the property due to their financial stress.
The tenants were given 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy with the option to leave earlier with 28 days’ notice.
The tenants were upset and now claim that this was retaliatory because they insisted on the couch and bed be fixed.
The landlord went back to the owner, and they confirmed that they had to sell the apartment as they could not maintain their income. The emails between the landlord, owner and tenants were provided to the Tribunal.
The purpose behind the Tribunal having the power to declare a termination notice retaliatory and of no effect is to prevent landlords from discriminating against those who assert their rights as tenants or make complaints by ending their tenancy.
S54 of the RTA is designed to protect tenants but not from the legitimate decision any landlord may make to sell their property.
I do not find that the landlord was motivated to sell the property for any other reason than the financial stress and inability to continue to pay the mortgage on the property.
I find that the termination notice was not retaliatory.
As the tenants have not been successful, I cannot reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants have not sought suppression of their details.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The bond is to remain at the bond centre until the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal does not find that the landlord’s notice to terminate was retaliatory.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application. The tenants filed an application with Tenancy Services on 17 July 2023. They are claiming: -That the rent was increased after one year -The apartment was furnished and the couch and bed broke -The landlord insisted that the tenants replace the broken bed and couch -The tenant replaced the bed at a cost of $1500.00 -Retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy because the tenants seek the landlord to replace the broken furniture -Landlord failing to carry out repairs to furniture The background:
The tenancy commenced 25 March 2022 and was fixed for 12 months. The rent was $465.00 at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants renewed the tenancy after one year and the rent was increased to $500.00.
The tenants query whether the landlord can increase the rent after one year. The Tribunal advised the tenants that a landlord does have the right to increase the rent once every 12 months.
At an inspection of the property around the time of the tenancy renewal the property manager noticed that there was a broken slate on one of the beds. The landlord insisted that it was the tenants responsible to replace the bed. Subsequently the tenant did purchase a new bed at the cost of $1500.00.
The tenants claims that the damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability: section 49A (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Fair wear and tear have been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The tenant disputed causing damage to the bed and couch and claimed it was substandard furniture because all they did was sit on the couch and sleep on the bed. Also, the tenant provided photos of the slate base of the bed to show that it had been poorly put together with misaligned slates.
There is no suggestion that use has been other than reasonable.
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but I am not satisfied that it is met, and find that the tenants have not damaged the bed or couch.
The new bed purchased by the tenant is the property of the tenant and not the landlord.
The tenants say that the landlord has failed to carry out repairs on the furniture. I do not consider that the tenants are claiming a breach of the landlords’ obligations to maintain and repair the property as set out in s45 of the RTA.
The landlord has not filed a counter claim. I do not find the landlord has breached s45 of the RTA. Retaliatory notice
Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect: section 54 RTA S54 (1) Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. S54(2)If, on any such application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord was so motivated in giving the notice, it shall declare the notice to be of no effect unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. S54(3) The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (2) to be of no
Shortly after the discussions about the replacement bed and couch the tenants received an email dated 26 June 2023 from the property manager. The email advised the tenants that the landlord was looking to sell the property due to their financial stress.
The tenants were given 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy with the option to leave earlier with 28 days’ notice.
The tenants were upset and now claim that this was retaliatory because they insisted on the couch and bed be fixed.
The landlord went back to the owner, and they confirmed that they had to sell the apartment as they could not maintain their income. The emails between the landlord, owner and tenants were provided to the Tribunal.
The purpose behind the Tribunal having the power to declare a termination notice retaliatory and of no effect is to prevent landlords from discriminating against those who assert their rights as tenants or make complaints by ending their tenancy.
S54 of the RTA is designed to protect tenants but not from the legitimate decision any landlord may make to sell their property.
I do not find that the landlord was motivated to sell the property for any other reason than the financial stress and inability to continue to pay the mortgage on the property.
I find that the termination notice was not retaliatory.
As the tenants have not been successful, I cannot reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants have not sought suppression of their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630891 — Boarding House at Unit/Flat 902, 79 Airedale Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630891 — Boarding House at Unit/Flat 902, 79 Airedale Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions