What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4663251 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4663251?

Asbestos Report: $241.50 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $192.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4663251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4663251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9680197-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4663251 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4663251?

Asbestos Report: $241.50 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $192.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4663251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4663251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9680197-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Shepherd Road, Kerikeri, Kerikeri 0230 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4663251 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4663251 — net $48.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 August 2023	$192.86		Rent arrears to 13 August 2023
Asbestos report		$241.50	Asbestos report
Total award	$192.86	$241.50
Net award		$48.64
Bond		$2,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$48.64

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $48.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 (6476375-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

This was a one-year fixed term tenancy that commenced on 17 December 2022.
In April 2023 there was a conversation between Mr Crichton and Mr Strang about asbestos in the ceiling in the lounge.
The parties disagree about some aspects of that conversation, but it is not disputed that Mr Strang agreed that Mr Crichton could look for another property if he was not comfortable staying at 11 Shepherd Road.
On 30 April 2023 Mr Crichton informed Mr Strang about some damage to the ceiling, above the fireplace. There was a small hole, and a small piece of the ‘popcorn’ style ceiling material had fallen down.
Mr Crichton submitted that the damage was caused by a rodent. Mr Strang does not accept this, and he holds the view that Mr Crichton intentionally caused the damage.
On 8 August 2023 Mr Crichton sent Mr Strang a message stating that he had found another property and that he would be moving out on 13 August.
Mr Strang’s application sought rent arrears to 13 August (2 days’ arrears), rent in lieu of notice for 28 days, and compensation for a damaged door.
Mr Crichton’s cross-application sought compensation for failure to repair the damaged ceiling.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 23 November 2023. Both parties attended the hearing.
On 8 November 2023 Mr Crichton paid Mr Strang $750.00 for the door, being the amount of Mr Strang’s insurance excess. Having heard from Mr Crichton I am satisfied that the damage to the door was accidental and not intentional. Mr Crichton’s liability is limited to the amount of Mr Strang’s insurance excess 1 . Therefore, this part of the landlord’s claim is finalised. Landlord application Rent arrears
There are proven rent arrears of $192.86 to 13 August 2023. Rent in lieu of notice
Mr Strang’s claim for rent in lieu of notice is based on an argument that Mr Crichton had an obligation to give four weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
He did not.
In a periodic tenancy, a tenant can terminate the tenancy by giving at least four weeks’ notice to the landlord 2 . Tenants do not have to provide a reason for 1 Section 49B(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 51(2B) RTA termination. The landlord can only terminate for certain specific reasons, and must give 90-days or 63-days’ notice to the tenant 3 .
In a fixed term tenancy, neither the tenant nor landlord may terminate the tenancy by notice 4 .
A fixed term tenancy continues to the end date, unless it is terminated by the Tenancy Tribunal or by agreement between the parties.
In this instance, Mr Strang agreed to release Mr Crichton from the fixed term tenancy but there was no new agreement that Mr Crichton had to give four weeks’ notice or any other period of notice to end the tenancy once he found a new place to live.
There is no reasonable basis to imply a requirement for four weeks’ notice. That requirement is only relevant to periodic tenancies.
There is no legal basis to hold Mr Crichton liable for rent in lieu of notice. Tenant application
Mr Crichton seeks compensation on the grounds that Mr Strang failed to repair the damage to the ceiling thereby putting himself and his family “at risk” for a period of several months.
Mr Strang submitted that: a. He had a conversation with Mr Crichton, and it was discussed and agreed that he would hold off on the repairs until Mr Crichton vacated. b. In any event, he thinks that Mr Crichton caused the damage and therefore this is not a maintenance issue.
I am not persuaded by Mr Strang’s argument that Mr Crichton intentionally caused the damage. It is clear that Mr Crichton was extremely concerned about the presence of asbestos in the property, and it seems unlikely that he would intentionally expose himself, his wife, and his two young children to what he considered to be a significant risk. It is also difficult to understand how this action would benefit Mr Crichton given that Mr Strang had already given his permission to release him from the fixed term tenancy. The relationship between Mr Strang and Mr Crichton was still good at that time.
Mr Crichton denies that he agreed to delay the repairs to the ceiling until he vacated.
However, Mr Strang was not obliged to release Mr Crichton from the fixed term tenancy. Mr Strang released Mr Crichton without requiring him to pay any costs 3 Section 51(1) and (2) RTA 4 Section 2 RTA or requiring him to find another tenant to replace him. It is reasonable to think that there was some kind trade off or reciprocity in such an agreement, and an understanding that Mr Strang could delay the repairs until Mr Crichton vacated would make sense in that context.
In my view it would be unjust for Mr Crichton to receive all the benefit of being unconditionally released from the fixed term agreement without accepting some of the burden, in this instance having to ‘put up with’ the unrepaired ceiling for the remainder of the tenancy.
The only compensation that Mr Crichton is entitled to is reimbursement of the amount that he paid to have the ceiling material tested. I agree with Mr Crichton’s argument that the landlord should bear this cost. Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. If a landlord needs to carry out work on building materials that contain asbestos, they are subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016. If the age of the premises and/or the type of building material raises the possibility that asbestos may be present, it is for the landlord to clarify this so that can meet their legal duties in dealing with asbestos materials.
Mr Crichton paid $241.50 to have the ceiling material tested. The test confirmed the presence of asbestos. Mr Crichton is entitled to reimbursement of that cost. Outcome, bond
Mr Strang is to pay Mr & Mrs Crichton $48.64.
The bond will be released to Mr & Mrs Crichton.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4663251 — net $48.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 August 2023	$192.86		Rent arrears to 13 August 2023
Asbestos report		$241.50	Asbestos report
Total award	$192.86	$241.50
Net award		$48.64
Bond		$2,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$48.64

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $48.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 (6476375-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

This was a one-year fixed term tenancy that commenced on 17 December 2022.
In April 2023 there was a conversation between Mr Crichton and Mr Strang about asbestos in the ceiling in the lounge.
The parties disagree about some aspects of that conversation, but it is not disputed that Mr Strang agreed that Mr Crichton could look for another property if he was not comfortable staying at 11 Shepherd Road.
On 30 April 2023 Mr Crichton informed Mr Strang about some damage to the ceiling, above the fireplace. There was a small hole, and a small piece of the ‘popcorn’ style ceiling material had fallen down.
Mr Crichton submitted that the damage was caused by a rodent. Mr Strang does not accept this, and he holds the view that Mr Crichton intentionally caused the damage.
On 8 August 2023 Mr Crichton sent Mr Strang a message stating that he had found another property and that he would be moving out on 13 August.
Mr Strang’s application sought rent arrears to 13 August (2 days’ arrears), rent in lieu of notice for 28 days, and compensation for a damaged door.
Mr Crichton’s cross-application sought compensation for failure to repair the damaged ceiling.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 23 November 2023. Both parties attended the hearing.
On 8 November 2023 Mr Crichton paid Mr Strang $750.00 for the door, being the amount of Mr Strang’s insurance excess. Having heard from Mr Crichton I am satisfied that the damage to the door was accidental and not intentional. Mr Crichton’s liability is limited to the amount of Mr Strang’s insurance excess 1 . Therefore, this part of the landlord’s claim is finalised. Landlord application Rent arrears
There are proven rent arrears of $192.86 to 13 August 2023. Rent in lieu of notice
Mr Strang’s claim for rent in lieu of notice is based on an argument that Mr Crichton had an obligation to give four weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
He did not.
In a periodic tenancy, a tenant can terminate the tenancy by giving at least four weeks’ notice to the landlord 2 . Tenants do not have to provide a reason for 1 Section 49B(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 51(2B) RTA termination. The landlord can only terminate for certain specific reasons, and must give 90-days or 63-days’ notice to the tenant 3 .
In a fixed term tenancy, neither the tenant nor landlord may terminate the tenancy by notice 4 .
A fixed term tenancy continues to the end date, unless it is terminated by the Tenancy Tribunal or by agreement between the parties.
In this instance, Mr Strang agreed to release Mr Crichton from the fixed term tenancy but there was no new agreement that Mr Crichton had to give four weeks’ notice or any other period of notice to end the tenancy once he found a new place to live.
There is no reasonable basis to imply a requirement for four weeks’ notice. That requirement is only relevant to periodic tenancies.
There is no legal basis to hold Mr Crichton liable for rent in lieu of notice. Tenant application
Mr Crichton seeks compensation on the grounds that Mr Strang failed to repair the damage to the ceiling thereby putting himself and his family “at risk” for a period of several months.
Mr Strang submitted that: a. He had a conversation with Mr Crichton, and it was discussed and agreed that he would hold off on the repairs until Mr Crichton vacated. b. In any event, he thinks that Mr Crichton caused the damage and therefore this is not a maintenance issue.
I am not persuaded by Mr Strang’s argument that Mr Crichton intentionally caused the damage. It is clear that Mr Crichton was extremely concerned about the presence of asbestos in the property, and it seems unlikely that he would intentionally expose himself, his wife, and his two young children to what he considered to be a significant risk. It is also difficult to understand how this action would benefit Mr Crichton given that Mr Strang had already given his permission to release him from the fixed term tenancy. The relationship between Mr Strang and Mr Crichton was still good at that time.
Mr Crichton denies that he agreed to delay the repairs to the ceiling until he vacated.
However, Mr Strang was not obliged to release Mr Crichton from the fixed term tenancy. Mr Strang released Mr Crichton without requiring him to pay any costs 3 Section 51(1) and (2) RTA 4 Section 2 RTA or requiring him to find another tenant to replace him. It is reasonable to think that there was some kind trade off or reciprocity in such an agreement, and an understanding that Mr Strang could delay the repairs until Mr Crichton vacated would make sense in that context.
In my view it would be unjust for Mr Crichton to receive all the benefit of being unconditionally released from the fixed term agreement without accepting some of the burden, in this instance having to ‘put up with’ the unrepaired ceiling for the remainder of the tenancy.
The only compensation that Mr Crichton is entitled to is reimbursement of the amount that he paid to have the ceiling material tested. I agree with Mr Crichton’s argument that the landlord should bear this cost. Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. If a landlord needs to carry out work on building materials that contain asbestos, they are subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016. If the age of the premises and/or the type of building material raises the possibility that asbestos may be present, it is for the landlord to clarify this so that can meet their legal duties in dealing with asbestos materials.
Mr Crichton paid $241.50 to have the ceiling material tested. The test confirmed the presence of asbestos. Mr Crichton is entitled to reimbursement of that cost. Outcome, bond
Mr Strang is to pay Mr & Mrs Crichton $48.64.
The bond will be released to Mr & Mrs Crichton.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4663251 — Rent arrears at 11 Shepherd Road, Kerikeri, Kerikeri 0230

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4663251 — Rent arrears at 11 Shepherd Road, Kerikeri, Kerikeri 0230

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