What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4667878 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat A, 64B Pleasant Road, Glen Eden,

How much money was awarded in case 4667878?

Compensation: Rent Reduction: $1,360.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667878?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9835433-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4667878 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat A, 64B Pleasant Road, Glen Eden,

How much money was awarded in case 4667878?

Compensation: Rent Reduction: $1,360.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667878?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667878?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9835433-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 64B Pleasant Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4667878 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667878 — net $1,360.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent reduction	$1,360.00	Rent reduction
Net award	$1,360.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,360.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat A, 64B Pleasant Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ram, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 28 January 2024.
Ram must pay [The tenant/s] $1,360.00 immediately, being a rent reduction of $40.00 per week for thirty-four weeks between 3 February 2023 and 8 October 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises following a 90-day notice that was served on the tenant on 11 July 2023.
The tenant refused to move out as she believed the 90-day notice was retaliation for the tenant’s daughter leaving another of the landlord’s premises in an unsatisfactory state at the end of her tenancy. The tenant’s daughter’s premises were in the same house, above this tenant’s premises.
The landlord refuted this assertion saying that following damage caused by the Auckland floods on 27 January 2023 and in June 2023, he decided to renovate and sell the property. Despite the tenant not moving out, the landlord engaged a Real Estate Agent, signed a three-month contract for the Real Estate Agent to sell the property, and took substantive steps to sell the property.
The tenant was unable to offer anything other than the temporal proximity between the tenant’s daughter’s tenancy ending and the notice given to the tenant, to support her claim of the notice being retaliatory.
It is for the tenant to persuade me on the balance of the probabilities that the notice was retaliatory. The tenant has failed to do this. The tenant’s application
The premises is a modest one-bedroom flat, with a living area approximately 5 metres by 3 metres, a small kitchen and a modest bathroom.
The tenant lived at her flat with her husband. The tenancy had begun on 7 October 2020 and both parties spoke well of the other until relations broke down mid-2023.
In the hearing, the tenant applied for compensation for loss of amenity following the abovementioned Auckland floods, and reimbursement for the cost of storing belongings after a shed was dismantled.
The Auckland flood on 27 January 2023 caused a significant amount of water to enter the tenant’s flat. The landlord was prompt in responding to the flooding, engaging a drainlayer the very next day and addressing the tenant’s needs.
The landlord says the tenant’s husband offered to do the repair work that was needed on the flat. The tenant says the landlord asked her husband to do the work, and she cites the fact that her husband was ill and undergoing treatment at the time in support of her version of events.
In either case, the tenant’s husband had worked for the landlord before, and he was engaged again at an agreed rate. There is no dispute regarding payment.
The work included replacing gib-board and insulation in the living room, repairing some crumbling concrete wall, repainting, and laying new carpet in the lounge and bedroom.
The new carpet was about to be laid in June when the second flood occurred, which delayed the laying of the carpet until mid-July.
The landlord gave notice to terminate to the tenant in July, and it appears the imminent end of the tenancy is the reason that efforts to repair the bathroom ceased.
I do not accept that the loss of amenity of a reasonable quality bathroom can be excused on the basis that the tenant was given notice to move out of the premises on the 8 October 2023.
The renovation of the flat minus the bathroom, took approximately four and a half months.
Despite the fact that it was the tenant’s husband who undertook the renovation, it was the landlord who was responsible for the renovation and the premises. I consider four and a half months which included time into winter, to be a long time period for the renovation of a small flat. It was a significant and unreasonable amount of time for the tenants to be without the full amenity of their flat.
The renovation undoubtedly took longer and cost significantly less than it would have had the landlord engaged a professional team comprising many tradespeople. The landlord was the beneficiary in more ways than one of the tenant’s husband’s work.
Because my view is that the termination was lawful, I am not prepared to extend the time of reduced amenity beyond the termination date of the tenancy; on 8 October 2023 the tenants were lawfully required to have vacated the premises.
The landlord stated that at the time of the January flood, he offered the tenant the opportunity to vacate the premises on two days-notice, which the tenant declined. The landlord then offered one week’s rent rebate due to the condition of the property. The landlord considers the tenant not taking the opportunity to vacate the premises means she should not be able to avail herself of a subsequent rent reduction for the lost amenity of the property.
I do not share the landlord’s view.
Quite apart from the fact Auckland was in a state of emergency and rental properties in a rentable state were in short supply, the tenant had a sick husband to care for and a pet dog. As the tenant herself stated: “Why would I make myself homeless?”
The tenant stated that she would like $30.00 to $40.00 rent reduction whilst the property was being renovated. This amounts to a reduction which is less than 10% of the rent. I consider this to be very reasonable and I have no hesitation in awarding it for the period from the date of the flood, less the one week rent rebate that was granted by the landlord, until the date that the tenancy should have ended if the tenant had complied with the lawful notice of termination. Although the lounge renovation was completed by mid-July, the bathroom was not completed at all.
The tenant also sought compensation for storing belongings that she and her husband had kept in a derelict but somewhat serviceable tin shed that was part of the tenancy.
When the landlord gave notice of termination to the tenant, he asked the tenant to remove her shed. The landlord claims, and I accept his evidence on this, that he was referring to a polytunnel that the tenant had erected to grow seedlings in, next to the tin shed. As a result of the miscommunication or misunderstanding, the tenant removed her belongings from the tin shed and demolished it. She put her belongings in a carport that belonged to another tenant, and when the landlord required her to remove her belongings from there, she hired a storage unit from August 2023 at a cost of $160.00 per calendar month.
This cost until 8 October 2023 is the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding which I am not persuaded the landlord should be required to compensate for. After the 8 October 2023, the tenant was required to have vacated the property in any case.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667878 — net $1,360.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent reduction	$1,360.00	Rent reduction
Net award	$1,360.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,360.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat A, 64B Pleasant Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ram, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 28 January 2024.
Ram must pay [The tenant/s] $1,360.00 immediately, being a rent reduction of $40.00 per week for thirty-four weeks between 3 February 2023 and 8 October 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises following a 90-day notice that was served on the tenant on 11 July 2023.
The tenant refused to move out as she believed the 90-day notice was retaliation for the tenant’s daughter leaving another of the landlord’s premises in an unsatisfactory state at the end of her tenancy. The tenant’s daughter’s premises were in the same house, above this tenant’s premises.
The landlord refuted this assertion saying that following damage caused by the Auckland floods on 27 January 2023 and in June 2023, he decided to renovate and sell the property. Despite the tenant not moving out, the landlord engaged a Real Estate Agent, signed a three-month contract for the Real Estate Agent to sell the property, and took substantive steps to sell the property.
The tenant was unable to offer anything other than the temporal proximity between the tenant’s daughter’s tenancy ending and the notice given to the tenant, to support her claim of the notice being retaliatory.
It is for the tenant to persuade me on the balance of the probabilities that the notice was retaliatory. The tenant has failed to do this. The tenant’s application
The premises is a modest one-bedroom flat, with a living area approximately 5 metres by 3 metres, a small kitchen and a modest bathroom.
The tenant lived at her flat with her husband. The tenancy had begun on 7 October 2020 and both parties spoke well of the other until relations broke down mid-2023.
In the hearing, the tenant applied for compensation for loss of amenity following the abovementioned Auckland floods, and reimbursement for the cost of storing belongings after a shed was dismantled.
The Auckland flood on 27 January 2023 caused a significant amount of water to enter the tenant’s flat. The landlord was prompt in responding to the flooding, engaging a drainlayer the very next day and addressing the tenant’s needs.
The landlord says the tenant’s husband offered to do the repair work that was needed on the flat. The tenant says the landlord asked her husband to do the work, and she cites the fact that her husband was ill and undergoing treatment at the time in support of her version of events.
In either case, the tenant’s husband had worked for the landlord before, and he was engaged again at an agreed rate. There is no dispute regarding payment.
The work included replacing gib-board and insulation in the living room, repairing some crumbling concrete wall, repainting, and laying new carpet in the lounge and bedroom.
The new carpet was about to be laid in June when the second flood occurred, which delayed the laying of the carpet until mid-July.
The landlord gave notice to terminate to the tenant in July, and it appears the imminent end of the tenancy is the reason that efforts to repair the bathroom ceased.
I do not accept that the loss of amenity of a reasonable quality bathroom can be excused on the basis that the tenant was given notice to move out of the premises on the 8 October 2023.
The renovation of the flat minus the bathroom, took approximately four and a half months.
Despite the fact that it was the tenant’s husband who undertook the renovation, it was the landlord who was responsible for the renovation and the premises. I consider four and a half months which included time into winter, to be a long time period for the renovation of a small flat. It was a significant and unreasonable amount of time for the tenants to be without the full amenity of their flat.
The renovation undoubtedly took longer and cost significantly less than it would have had the landlord engaged a professional team comprising many tradespeople. The landlord was the beneficiary in more ways than one of the tenant’s husband’s work.
Because my view is that the termination was lawful, I am not prepared to extend the time of reduced amenity beyond the termination date of the tenancy; on 8 October 2023 the tenants were lawfully required to have vacated the premises.
The landlord stated that at the time of the January flood, he offered the tenant the opportunity to vacate the premises on two days-notice, which the tenant declined. The landlord then offered one week’s rent rebate due to the condition of the property. The landlord considers the tenant not taking the opportunity to vacate the premises means she should not be able to avail herself of a subsequent rent reduction for the lost amenity of the property.
I do not share the landlord’s view.
Quite apart from the fact Auckland was in a state of emergency and rental properties in a rentable state were in short supply, the tenant had a sick husband to care for and a pet dog. As the tenant herself stated: “Why would I make myself homeless?”
The tenant stated that she would like $30.00 to $40.00 rent reduction whilst the property was being renovated. This amounts to a reduction which is less than 10% of the rent. I consider this to be very reasonable and I have no hesitation in awarding it for the period from the date of the flood, less the one week rent rebate that was granted by the landlord, until the date that the tenancy should have ended if the tenant had complied with the lawful notice of termination. Although the lounge renovation was completed by mid-July, the bathroom was not completed at all.
The tenant also sought compensation for storing belongings that she and her husband had kept in a derelict but somewhat serviceable tin shed that was part of the tenancy.
When the landlord gave notice of termination to the tenant, he asked the tenant to remove her shed. The landlord claims, and I accept his evidence on this, that he was referring to a polytunnel that the tenant had erected to grow seedlings in, next to the tin shed. As a result of the miscommunication or misunderstanding, the tenant removed her belongings from the tin shed and demolished it. She put her belongings in a carport that belonged to another tenant, and when the landlord required her to remove her belongings from there, she hired a storage unit from August 2023 at a cost of $160.00 per calendar month.
This cost until 8 October 2023 is the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding which I am not persuaded the landlord should be required to compensate for. After the 8 October 2023, the tenant was required to have vacated the property in any case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667878 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat A, 64B Pleasant Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667878 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat A, 64B Pleasant Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions