What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684583 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4684583?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684583?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10552740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684583 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4684583?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684583?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10552740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44 Awaruku Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4684583 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 th July 2024.
The tenant had made an application to the Tribunal for $10,000.00 as compensation because the tenant claimed that the premises rented by the tenant was unlawful.
The tenant had rented from 6 th June 2022 to 9 th September 2023 paying $250.00 per week.
The rented premises was a double garage that had been converted into a living space by one of the previous owners.
The parties had signed a flatmate house sharing agreement instead of tenancy agreement as the landlord had been living in the main house.
This matter was adjourned after having been heard by Adjudicator Smallbone via teleconference on 19 th February 2024.
At the teleconference, it was determined that the this was a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and not a flatmate or a house sharing situation.
As such, the hearing was adjourned for the landlord to provide Council records to show: a. that the Council had consented for the double garage to be converted to a residential premise; and b. that the Council consented that the converted garage is a separate household unit under the Building Act 2004.
Ahead of this hearing, the landlord provided a report dated 22 nd April 2024 from J&J Building Consultancy Ltd who inspected the property, reviewed the history and scope of works and summarised the findings.
It concluded that the building work can be considered safe and sanitary in terms of sections 121 and 123 of the Building Act 2004 and that the building met the requirements of the building codes G4 and G7 to be classed as a habitable space for its intended use from the 1990 Building permit.
The report noted that the building work appeared to have been constructed in a manner that does not cause any evident structural failure and that there were no visible signs of weakness or problems that would have an adverse impact on the structural integrity of the property.
The report also noted that changes were made in 1990 but not recorded by the Auckland Council at the time or due to poor record-keeping. All the changes had been permitted as per the Auckland City Stamp.
A plumbing report had been done and that it proved that the plumbing performed and met the requirements of the current building code.
The photos shown in the report seem to show that the premises was built well and suitable to be used for residential purposes.
Further to this, J & J building Consultancy Ltd has since notified the Council of the unauthorised building work constructed prior to 1 st July 1992 along with the safe and sanitary report and plans. It is anticipated that any omission in Council records will be rectified as a result.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises under section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
I do not find that the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under sections 36 or 45(1)(c) has caused the occupation by the tenant to be unlawful or has contributed to the unlawful occupation of the tenant.
Even if I am wrong and there was a technical unlawfulness to the dwelling, having regard to the special circumstances of the case including the nature of the premises, I do not find there is any case for reimbursement of the rent.
The tenant had also raised issues with not lodging the bond and deducting $250.00 from the bond.
I do not find that there was any intentional failure of the landlord to not lodge the bond to the Bond Centre. The landlord had previously believed that the arrangement was one of a flatmate or house sharing which is not subjected to the same bond lodgement requirements as under the RTA.
The landlord had been told by me that any bond held for the current tenant must be lodged to the Bond Centre. If this is not done, that would be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded.
In relation to the cleaning amount deducted from the bond, I do not find that $250.00 was unreasonable given that there were two large dogs and for a period an additional three puppies present. I find that the landlord had proven with photos that the premises was not left reasonably clean by the tenant.
Further to that, I also note that the tenant had agreed to the deduction of the bond previously with the landlord.
The tenant also raised issues with windows leaking air, the premises being mouldy, a big gap at the bottom of the front door and only a portable heater being provided.
The tenant accepted that the tenant never raised any of these issues with the landlord during the tenancy and that the tenant declined the landlord’s offer for another heater during the tenancy.
Under the rules of mitigation, the tenant must raise these issues to the landlord before being able to claim compensation for them.
The tenant also claimed that there were no smoke alarms. This was disputed by the landlord.
The tenant did not provide any photos to prove that there were no smoke alarms despite having taken many photos of the premises.
Therefore, I do not find this claim proven.
Having seen the photos submitted by the tenant himself, I do not find that there was a failure to maintain the premises by the landlord in any case.
The tenant also raised issues with being told not to shower after 10 pm and being called a “scumbag” during an argument. At reality, the tenant was not denied the use of the showers after 10 pm even once and the name calling was a one-off and does not form a pattern of behaviour. I find no reason for any compensation.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
I grant name suppression for the parties but apply no suppression to the address to ensure that the landlord lodges the bond to the Bond Centre for the current and future tenants and to ensure that the jurisdiction issue regarding this address does not get revisited.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 th July 2024.
The tenant had made an application to the Tribunal for $10,000.00 as compensation because the tenant claimed that the premises rented by the tenant was unlawful.
The tenant had rented from 6 th June 2022 to 9 th September 2023 paying $250.00 per week.
The rented premises was a double garage that had been converted into a living space by one of the previous owners.
The parties had signed a flatmate house sharing agreement instead of tenancy agreement as the landlord had been living in the main house.
This matter was adjourned after having been heard by Adjudicator Smallbone via teleconference on 19 th February 2024.
At the teleconference, it was determined that the this was a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and not a flatmate or a house sharing situation.
As such, the hearing was adjourned for the landlord to provide Council records to show: a. that the Council had consented for the double garage to be converted to a residential premise; and b. that the Council consented that the converted garage is a separate household unit under the Building Act 2004.
Ahead of this hearing, the landlord provided a report dated 22 nd April 2024 from J&J Building Consultancy Ltd who inspected the property, reviewed the history and scope of works and summarised the findings.
It concluded that the building work can be considered safe and sanitary in terms of sections 121 and 123 of the Building Act 2004 and that the building met the requirements of the building codes G4 and G7 to be classed as a habitable space for its intended use from the 1990 Building permit.
The report noted that the building work appeared to have been constructed in a manner that does not cause any evident structural failure and that there were no visible signs of weakness or problems that would have an adverse impact on the structural integrity of the property.
The report also noted that changes were made in 1990 but not recorded by the Auckland Council at the time or due to poor record-keeping. All the changes had been permitted as per the Auckland City Stamp.
A plumbing report had been done and that it proved that the plumbing performed and met the requirements of the current building code.
The photos shown in the report seem to show that the premises was built well and suitable to be used for residential purposes.
Further to this, J & J building Consultancy Ltd has since notified the Council of the unauthorised building work constructed prior to 1 st July 1992 along with the safe and sanitary report and plans. It is anticipated that any omission in Council records will be rectified as a result.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises under section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
I do not find that the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under sections 36 or 45(1)(c) has caused the occupation by the tenant to be unlawful or has contributed to the unlawful occupation of the tenant.
Even if I am wrong and there was a technical unlawfulness to the dwelling, having regard to the special circumstances of the case including the nature of the premises, I do not find there is any case for reimbursement of the rent.
The tenant had also raised issues with not lodging the bond and deducting $250.00 from the bond.
I do not find that there was any intentional failure of the landlord to not lodge the bond to the Bond Centre. The landlord had previously believed that the arrangement was one of a flatmate or house sharing which is not subjected to the same bond lodgement requirements as under the RTA.
The landlord had been told by me that any bond held for the current tenant must be lodged to the Bond Centre. If this is not done, that would be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded.
In relation to the cleaning amount deducted from the bond, I do not find that $250.00 was unreasonable given that there were two large dogs and for a period an additional three puppies present. I find that the landlord had proven with photos that the premises was not left reasonably clean by the tenant.
Further to that, I also note that the tenant had agreed to the deduction of the bond previously with the landlord.
The tenant also raised issues with windows leaking air, the premises being mouldy, a big gap at the bottom of the front door and only a portable heater being provided.
The tenant accepted that the tenant never raised any of these issues with the landlord during the tenancy and that the tenant declined the landlord’s offer for another heater during the tenancy.
Under the rules of mitigation, the tenant must raise these issues to the landlord before being able to claim compensation for them.
The tenant also claimed that there were no smoke alarms. This was disputed by the landlord.
The tenant did not provide any photos to prove that there were no smoke alarms despite having taken many photos of the premises.
Therefore, I do not find this claim proven.
Having seen the photos submitted by the tenant himself, I do not find that there was a failure to maintain the premises by the landlord in any case.
The tenant also raised issues with being told not to shower after 10 pm and being called a “scumbag” during an argument. At reality, the tenant was not denied the use of the showers after 10 pm even once and the name calling was a one-off and does not form a pattern of behaviour. I find no reason for any compensation.
Accordingly, the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
I grant name suppression for the parties but apply no suppression to the address to ensure that the landlord lodges the bond to the Bond Centre for the current and future tenants and to ensure that the jurisdiction issue regarding this address does not get revisited.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684583 — Rent arrears at 44 Awaruku Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684583 — Rent arrears at 44 Awaruku Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions