What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4659770 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4659770?

Compensation: back door and patio lo…: $307.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $475.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $186.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Replace Kitchen Tap: $129.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Replace three power po…: $118.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Replace toilet cistern…: $128.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,595.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659770?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9556133-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4659770 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4659770?

Compensation: back door and patio lo…: $307.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $475.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $186.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Replace Kitchen Tap: $129.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Replace three power po…: $118.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Replace toilet cistern…: $128.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $5,595.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659770?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9556133-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Holmes Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4659770 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4659770 — net $1,656.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/10/2023	$5,595.00		Rent arrears to 22/10/2023
Compensation: Replace kitchen tap		$129.00	Replace kitchen tap
Compensation: Electrical repairs - kitchen leak		$475.00	Electrical repairs - kitchen leak
Compensation: Oven repair		$186.00	Oven repair
Compensation: Replace toilet cistern and seat		$128.00	Replace toilet cistern and seat
Compensation: Replace three power points		$118.50	Replace three power points
Compensation: Window replacement		$345.00	Window replacement
Compensation: back door and patio lock and security		$307.00	back door and patio lock and security
latches replacement		$250.00	latches replacement
Total award	$5,595.00	$1,938.50
Net award	$1,656.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,656.50

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8 Holmes Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Thursday 2 November 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The rent increase is set aside as the rent payable substantially exceeds market rent. The rent from 18 September 2023 until the end of the tenancy is calculated at $550 per week which is the median rent for a 3 bedroom house in Nawton.
immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s cross application requesting that the recent rent increase be set aside on the basis that the increased rent of $650 effective from 19 September 2023 substantially exceeds market rent succeeds.
The evidence and photographs provided show an older dated home in a less desirable part of Nawton. The tenant’s submission that the rent should fall in the lower to median band of average rents in that superb for a three bedroom home succeeds.
The tenant said that two local property managers had appraised the property as worth between $500 and $520, the landlord said Hatch rentals had appraised the property at $650 to $660 however that company is based in the Bay of Plenty (Mt Maunganui and Papamoa).
Ultimately, I give most weight to the Tenancy Services Market rent information which is based on 860 bonds lodged and updated as of 31 August 2023. It suggests market rent is $530 for lower quartile, $550 for the median and $580 for upper quartile 3 bedroom properties.
Applying the median figure then the recent rent increase from $500 to $650 can fairly be said to increase the rent both by a large percentage amount and more importantly to a level that substantially exceeds market rent.
I have therefore reduced the rent to $550 from 18 September 2023 and the rent arrears ordered reflects this reduction for the last part of the tenancy. The rent summary includes a reduction for agreed work at another of the landlord’s rental properties.
The arrears at the date of application were calculated on the rent of $500 outlined in the tenancy agreement. I do not accept the tenant’s submission that there was a “gentleman’s agreement” shortly after the tenancy began to reduce the rent to $2,000 per month. The landlords’ dispute that agreement ever existed, and the tenancy agreement clearly states $500 per week was agreed and was not varied.
The RTA requires any amendments to important elements of a tenancy, such as a change in rent, to be in writing, if they are not, oral agreements, which are disputed cannot be enforced unless there is compelling evidence upon which to base a finding that it would be fair to do so. That evidence does not exist.
The rent arrears at the date of application (17/8/2023) were $4,631.00. That figure considerably exceeds the 21 days rent in arrears that is the level at which the Tribunal MUST terminate a tenancy when that is requested by a landlord.
I am not required to make findings about the balance of the landlord’s claim for termination because the tenant allegedly has a dog and has smoked at the property in breach of the tenancy agreement. I decline to make those findings as the tenancy is to end based on the rent arrears. The landlords claim that the tenant has done unauthorised work and request that fixtures he has provided at the property be removed, is dealt with in the tenant application for compensation, below.
The tenant disputed the two-week period to vacate the property.
The Act is silent about the required timeframe for a termination, once the required rent arrears of 21 days is met. The general principle being that the higher the arrears the more likely it is that the termination will occur quickly.
In this case the two weeks provided is longer than the landlord requested as ideal but concidered reasonable as regards the tenants’ circumstances. Tenants’ application
[The tenant/s] claimed, at the hearing that the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim centred on a photograph the landlord provided for the hearing, of pet bowels that he says was taken during an inspection on 4 July. The tenant says he was not home, and the landlord says the tenant was as he did not do an inspection or enter the house, at any time unless the tenant was home. I am unable to make determinative findings based on simply the photograph and without confirmation that the entry was without notice or permission.
The tenants claim regarding the rent increase and reduced rent is dealt with above.
The tenant also claims compensation for work that he has done at the property, which he says was urgent and which he says the landlord authorised.
The landlord denies that authorisation was provided and requests that fixtures and alterations the tenant has made be removed. That is required by law and the tenant will now attend to removing the additions/alterations he has made, except for those listed above.
For the most part the tenant can remove the alterations/additions and the work was not in the “serious and urgent” category stipulated in s45 (1) e) before the Tribunal can direct the landlord to compensate the tenant for the work done.
I have however determined that the landlord should compensate the tenant for some of the work done which is stipulated above. Invoices have been provided where possible.
The tenant is a builder and experienced in property maintenance work.
The parties clearly agreed he would be compensated for some work at another property, as that is deducted from the rent on the rent summary provided. I accept that the itemised work was both urgent and serious.
The Tribunal is required to make orders that are just and fair in the circumstances. The reimbursements authorised are also practical in the sense that it would be absurd and costly for the landlord for the replacement items, such as parts for the toilet, a window pane and oven and electrical fittings to be removed.
I have also ordered reimbursement for the back door lock and security latches and patio latches. All of these items are to be left at the property.
Other items such as ceiling fans, drapes, security screen door, mirrors, shower dome, shelving and gates and fencing can be removed, and the property restored to the condition in which it was provided.
I have also awarded compensation for the failure to either fix or replace the dishwasher. The tenancy agreement included a dishwasher, and it was incumbent on the landlord to replace it when it stopped working and could not be fixed. The amount ordered is considered reasonable compensation and includes the amount the tenant requested for having the dishwasher assessed by an electrician. It also takes account of the fact that no 14 day notice or request to replace it was formally made and the landlord disputes that the tenant ever asked for it to be fixed. That said, it is a landlord responsibility to ensure that chattels provided, and the dishwasher is included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement, are working during a tenancy. The rent included the use of a dishwasher which the tenant did not have.
Both parties have succeeded in part, both paid filing fees so the order does not direct one pay the other.
Both parties requested name suppression, and both have succeeded in part
Both landlord and tenants’ names are therefore supressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4659770 — net $1,656.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22/10/2023	$5,595.00		Rent arrears to 22/10/2023
Compensation: Replace kitchen tap		$129.00	Replace kitchen tap
Compensation: Electrical repairs - kitchen leak		$475.00	Electrical repairs - kitchen leak
Compensation: Oven repair		$186.00	Oven repair
Compensation: Replace toilet cistern and seat		$128.00	Replace toilet cistern and seat
Compensation: Replace three power points		$118.50	Replace three power points
Compensation: Window replacement		$345.00	Window replacement
Compensation: back door and patio lock and security		$307.00	back door and patio lock and security
latches replacement		$250.00	latches replacement
Total award	$5,595.00	$1,938.50
Net award	$1,656.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,656.50

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8 Holmes Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Thursday 2 November 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The rent increase is set aside as the rent payable substantially exceeds market rent. The rent from 18 September 2023 until the end of the tenancy is calculated at $550 per week which is the median rent for a 3 bedroom house in Nawton.
immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s cross application requesting that the recent rent increase be set aside on the basis that the increased rent of $650 effective from 19 September 2023 substantially exceeds market rent succeeds.
The evidence and photographs provided show an older dated home in a less desirable part of Nawton. The tenant’s submission that the rent should fall in the lower to median band of average rents in that superb for a three bedroom home succeeds.
The tenant said that two local property managers had appraised the property as worth between $500 and $520, the landlord said Hatch rentals had appraised the property at $650 to $660 however that company is based in the Bay of Plenty (Mt Maunganui and Papamoa).
Ultimately, I give most weight to the Tenancy Services Market rent information which is based on 860 bonds lodged and updated as of 31 August 2023. It suggests market rent is $530 for lower quartile, $550 for the median and $580 for upper quartile 3 bedroom properties.
Applying the median figure then the recent rent increase from $500 to $650 can fairly be said to increase the rent both by a large percentage amount and more importantly to a level that substantially exceeds market rent.
I have therefore reduced the rent to $550 from 18 September 2023 and the rent arrears ordered reflects this reduction for the last part of the tenancy. The rent summary includes a reduction for agreed work at another of the landlord’s rental properties.
The arrears at the date of application were calculated on the rent of $500 outlined in the tenancy agreement. I do not accept the tenant’s submission that there was a “gentleman’s agreement” shortly after the tenancy began to reduce the rent to $2,000 per month. The landlords’ dispute that agreement ever existed, and the tenancy agreement clearly states $500 per week was agreed and was not varied.
The RTA requires any amendments to important elements of a tenancy, such as a change in rent, to be in writing, if they are not, oral agreements, which are disputed cannot be enforced unless there is compelling evidence upon which to base a finding that it would be fair to do so. That evidence does not exist.
The rent arrears at the date of application (17/8/2023) were $4,631.00. That figure considerably exceeds the 21 days rent in arrears that is the level at which the Tribunal MUST terminate a tenancy when that is requested by a landlord.
I am not required to make findings about the balance of the landlord’s claim for termination because the tenant allegedly has a dog and has smoked at the property in breach of the tenancy agreement. I decline to make those findings as the tenancy is to end based on the rent arrears. The landlords claim that the tenant has done unauthorised work and request that fixtures he has provided at the property be removed, is dealt with in the tenant application for compensation, below.
The tenant disputed the two-week period to vacate the property.
The Act is silent about the required timeframe for a termination, once the required rent arrears of 21 days is met. The general principle being that the higher the arrears the more likely it is that the termination will occur quickly.
In this case the two weeks provided is longer than the landlord requested as ideal but concidered reasonable as regards the tenants’ circumstances. Tenants’ application
[The tenant/s] claimed, at the hearing that the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim centred on a photograph the landlord provided for the hearing, of pet bowels that he says was taken during an inspection on 4 July. The tenant says he was not home, and the landlord says the tenant was as he did not do an inspection or enter the house, at any time unless the tenant was home. I am unable to make determinative findings based on simply the photograph and without confirmation that the entry was without notice or permission.
The tenants claim regarding the rent increase and reduced rent is dealt with above.
The tenant also claims compensation for work that he has done at the property, which he says was urgent and which he says the landlord authorised.
The landlord denies that authorisation was provided and requests that fixtures and alterations the tenant has made be removed. That is required by law and the tenant will now attend to removing the additions/alterations he has made, except for those listed above.
For the most part the tenant can remove the alterations/additions and the work was not in the “serious and urgent” category stipulated in s45 (1) e) before the Tribunal can direct the landlord to compensate the tenant for the work done.
I have however determined that the landlord should compensate the tenant for some of the work done which is stipulated above. Invoices have been provided where possible.
The tenant is a builder and experienced in property maintenance work.
The parties clearly agreed he would be compensated for some work at another property, as that is deducted from the rent on the rent summary provided. I accept that the itemised work was both urgent and serious.
The Tribunal is required to make orders that are just and fair in the circumstances. The reimbursements authorised are also practical in the sense that it would be absurd and costly for the landlord for the replacement items, such as parts for the toilet, a window pane and oven and electrical fittings to be removed.
I have also ordered reimbursement for the back door lock and security latches and patio latches. All of these items are to be left at the property.
Other items such as ceiling fans, drapes, security screen door, mirrors, shower dome, shelving and gates and fencing can be removed, and the property restored to the condition in which it was provided.
I have also awarded compensation for the failure to either fix or replace the dishwasher. The tenancy agreement included a dishwasher, and it was incumbent on the landlord to replace it when it stopped working and could not be fixed. The amount ordered is considered reasonable compensation and includes the amount the tenant requested for having the dishwasher assessed by an electrician. It also takes account of the fact that no 14 day notice or request to replace it was formally made and the landlord disputes that the tenant ever asked for it to be fixed. That said, it is a landlord responsibility to ensure that chattels provided, and the dishwasher is included as a chattel on the tenancy agreement, are working during a tenancy. The rent included the use of a dishwasher which the tenant did not have.
Both parties have succeeded in part, both paid filing fees so the order does not direct one pay the other.
Both parties requested name suppression, and both have succeeded in part
Both landlord and tenants’ names are therefore supressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659770 — Rent arrears at 8 Holmes Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659770 — Rent arrears at 8 Holmes Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

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