What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4665273 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is the landlord in this claim. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 4665273?

Cleaning: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665273?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10396049-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4665273 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is the landlord in this claim. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 4665273?

Cleaning: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665273?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10396049-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 4 Cambourne Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4665273 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665273 — net $1,188.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$74.75		Carpet Cleaning
Rent and bond credit – rent paid to 31 July 2023		$1,242.86	Rent and bond credit – rent paid to 31 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$74.75	$1,263.30
Net award		$1,188.55
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,188.55

Order

[The party] is the landlord in this claim. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim against her.
[The party] is the tenant’s co-tenant or flatmate in this claim. Ms Dang removed as a party. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claim against her.
[The party] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,188.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The applicant and the respondents attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of overpaid rent and bond from Ms Ly and for the cost of furniture and other matters from Ms Dang.
The issue of jurisdiction for each respondent is in issue. Jurisdiction Background
Ms Ly signed a tenancy agreement with Anne Duncan Real Estate as tenant, although she never intended to live in the premises. She says she signed the tenancy agreement as the tenant to help Ms Nguyen and Ms Dang gain occupation of the premises. Neither Ms Nguyen or Ms Dang were a party to the tenancy agreement although their names were mentioned in Ms Ly’s application for the tenancy as co-applicants and non-tenant occupants.
Ms Nguyen’s mother paid Ms Ly (not Anne Duncan Real Estate) $7,450.00 for rent and bond for Ms Nguyen to live in the premises from 14 February 2023 to 31 July 2023.
It appears Ms Ly charged Ms Nguyen and Ms Dang about $45.00 weekly rent more than Anne Duncan Real Estate charged Ms Ly. Legal principles
The long title of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states, among other things, it is a establish a Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants of residential properties: An Act to reform and restate the law relating to residential tenancies, to define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties, to establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, to establish a fund in which bonds payable by such tenants are to be held, and to repeal the Tenancy Act 1955 and the Rent Appeal Act 1973 and their amendments.
The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-85. Section 77(1) is the foundational subsection: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time. (Emphasis added)
It follows, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to determine a dispute under s 77(1), there must be: a. a dispute must be between a landlord and a tenant (s 77(1)(a)); and b. the RTA must apply to the tenancy (s 77(1)(b)).
In s 2 of RTA “unless the context otherwise requires” the RTA applies the following meanings to tenant and tenancy: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement... tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under agreement... tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent ... (Emphasis added) Section 77(1)(a): is this a dispute between a landlord and a tenant?
Ms Ly was a sublandlord apropos Anne Duncan Real Estate and landlord apropos Ms Nguyen because she was the grantor of the tenancy. Anne Duncan Real Estate was not the grantor of the tenancy; Anne Duncan had granted a tenancy to Ms Ly.
It follows, this application raises a dispute between a landlord and tenant as those terms are used in s 77(1)(a). Section 77(1)(b): does the RTA apply to the tenancy?
“Tenancy” in s 77(1)(b) means the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent.
In this case, the tenancy agreement between Ms Ly as landlord and Ms Nguyen as tenant arises from the communications between Ms Ly and Ms Nguyen and her mother. The agreement provided for a right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent.
Therefore, the RTA applies in respect to the agreement between Ms Nguyen and Ms Ly. Conclusion
The Tribunal has jurisdiction for Ms Nguyen’s claim against Ms Ly in respect to the tenancy.
However, Ms Dang was just a co-tenant or a flatmate.
Ms Dang is removed as a party.
The Tribunal now considers Ms Nguyen’s claims against Ms Ly in respect to the tenancy. Rent overpayment and reimbursement of the bond
Ms Nguyen’s mother paid Ms Ly $7,450.00 for about six months’ rent and about four weeks bond in advance.
Ms Nguyen lived in the premises from 14 February 2023 until 24 May 2023. Her mother gave notice that the tenancy would end on 31 July 2023. However, Ms Ly agreed with Anne Duncan to the early termination of her lease on 20 July 2023. Ms Nguyen’s tenancy therefore ended on 21 July 2023.
Anne Duncan charged Ms Ly $149.50 for carpet cleaning. It is appropriate to order the tenant to pay 50 per cent of that.
Rent due was $6,207.14. Fifty per cent of the carpet cleaning fee is $74.75.
Ms Ly must refund Ms Nguyen $1,242.86 for overpaid rent and for the return of the bond. Filing fee
The Tribunal orders Ms Ly to reimburse Ms Nguyen for the filing fee because Ms Nguyen has substantially succeeded in her claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4665273 — net $1,188.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$74.75		Carpet Cleaning
Rent and bond credit – rent paid to 31 July 2023		$1,242.86	Rent and bond credit – rent paid to 31 July 2023
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$74.75	$1,263.30
Net award		$1,188.55
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,188.55

Order

[The party] is the landlord in this claim. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim against her.
[The party] is the tenant’s co-tenant or flatmate in this claim. Ms Dang removed as a party. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claim against her.
[The party] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,188.55 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The applicant and the respondents attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of overpaid rent and bond from Ms Ly and for the cost of furniture and other matters from Ms Dang.
The issue of jurisdiction for each respondent is in issue. Jurisdiction Background
Ms Ly signed a tenancy agreement with Anne Duncan Real Estate as tenant, although she never intended to live in the premises. She says she signed the tenancy agreement as the tenant to help Ms Nguyen and Ms Dang gain occupation of the premises. Neither Ms Nguyen or Ms Dang were a party to the tenancy agreement although their names were mentioned in Ms Ly’s application for the tenancy as co-applicants and non-tenant occupants.
Ms Nguyen’s mother paid Ms Ly (not Anne Duncan Real Estate) $7,450.00 for rent and bond for Ms Nguyen to live in the premises from 14 February 2023 to 31 July 2023.
It appears Ms Ly charged Ms Nguyen and Ms Dang about $45.00 weekly rent more than Anne Duncan Real Estate charged Ms Ly. Legal principles
The long title of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states, among other things, it is a establish a Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants of residential properties: An Act to reform and restate the law relating to residential tenancies, to define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties, to establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, to establish a fund in which bonds payable by such tenants are to be held, and to repeal the Tenancy Act 1955 and the Rent Appeal Act 1973 and their amendments.
The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-85. Section 77(1) is the foundational subsection: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time. (Emphasis added)
It follows, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to determine a dispute under s 77(1), there must be: a. a dispute must be between a landlord and a tenant (s 77(1)(a)); and b. the RTA must apply to the tenancy (s 77(1)(b)).
In s 2 of RTA “unless the context otherwise requires” the RTA applies the following meanings to tenant and tenancy: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement... tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under agreement... tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent ... (Emphasis added) Section 77(1)(a): is this a dispute between a landlord and a tenant?
Ms Ly was a sublandlord apropos Anne Duncan Real Estate and landlord apropos Ms Nguyen because she was the grantor of the tenancy. Anne Duncan Real Estate was not the grantor of the tenancy; Anne Duncan had granted a tenancy to Ms Ly.
It follows, this application raises a dispute between a landlord and tenant as those terms are used in s 77(1)(a). Section 77(1)(b): does the RTA apply to the tenancy?
“Tenancy” in s 77(1)(b) means the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent.
In this case, the tenancy agreement between Ms Ly as landlord and Ms Nguyen as tenant arises from the communications between Ms Ly and Ms Nguyen and her mother. The agreement provided for a right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent.
Therefore, the RTA applies in respect to the agreement between Ms Nguyen and Ms Ly. Conclusion
The Tribunal has jurisdiction for Ms Nguyen’s claim against Ms Ly in respect to the tenancy.
However, Ms Dang was just a co-tenant or a flatmate.
Ms Dang is removed as a party.
The Tribunal now considers Ms Nguyen’s claims against Ms Ly in respect to the tenancy. Rent overpayment and reimbursement of the bond
Ms Nguyen’s mother paid Ms Ly $7,450.00 for about six months’ rent and about four weeks bond in advance.
Ms Nguyen lived in the premises from 14 February 2023 until 24 May 2023. Her mother gave notice that the tenancy would end on 31 July 2023. However, Ms Ly agreed with Anne Duncan to the early termination of her lease on 20 July 2023. Ms Nguyen’s tenancy therefore ended on 21 July 2023.
Anne Duncan charged Ms Ly $149.50 for carpet cleaning. It is appropriate to order the tenant to pay 50 per cent of that.
Rent due was $6,207.14. Fifty per cent of the carpet cleaning fee is $74.75.
Ms Ly must refund Ms Nguyen $1,242.86 for overpaid rent and for the return of the bond. Filing fee
The Tribunal orders Ms Ly to reimburse Ms Nguyen for the filing fee because Ms Nguyen has substantially succeeded in her claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665273 — Cleanliness at Flat 2, 4 Cambourne Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4665273 — Cleanliness at Flat 2, 4 Cambourne Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

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