How much money was awarded in case 4686349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4686349?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4686349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9794273-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4686349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4686349?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4686349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9794273-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

338A Glengarry Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4686349 — 14-day notice

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4686349?

The tribunal order states: Bronson Reardon and Nichola Marie Gibson must allow access for the work set

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Bronson Reardon and Nichola Marie Gibson must allow access for the work set out in the email from Arc Projects dated 29 August 2023. The landlord must give 1 week notice of the commencement date of the work.

Bronson Reardon and Nichola Marie Gibson must pay Topline Rentals Limited Acting Agent for Sachin & Muskan Khubchandani $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

This matter is determined as indicated by the orders above, but the landlord is granted a period of 6 months within which, if access to complete the work is refused again, they can request that the application be brought back before to the Tribunal with new evidence in respect of the refusal to grant access and the matter will be re-opened.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, .

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to allow the landlord access to the premises to undertake repair work.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 September 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The tenant declined consent on the basis that they do not consider the work is necessary and consider that the landlord’s actions amount to insurance fraud. The only evidence of fraud from the tenant is his assertion that the carpet is in the same condition now as it was at the start of the tenancy.

The work arises out of damage to the flooring in the premises following the weather event and flooding across Auckland in January 2023. The damage has been assessed and approved for cover by the landlord’s insurance company.

The work was scheduled to commence on 11 September 2023, and the tenants were given notice of this on 28 August 2023. On 9 September 2023, the tenants refused to allow access on the basis that the work was not necessary. At that stage there was no allegation of fraud, rather the tenants state that the work would breach their quiet enjoyment.

A landlord is entitled to undertake repair work and renovations, so long as notice is given in accordance with section 48(2)(d) of the Act, and the work is necessary.

I consider the work is necessary to remedy the damage done by the flooding in January. The damage and the scope of repairs was accepted as necessary by the landlord’s insurer.

Accordingly, I consider that the tenant has breached the Act by declining access.

That said, I do not consider that termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response at this point. If the tenants refuse to allow access in accordance with this order, then the matter can come before me again for reconsideration.

The landlord claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter.

A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy 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 without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

As set out above, the tenant refused access on 11 September 2023. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In the present case, I do not consider that the tenant’s actions warrant an order for exemplary damages. They believed the work was not necessary and would be an undue breach of their right of quiet enjoyment. That is an issue for determination by the Tribunal in the event of a dispute.

That said, if access is refused again, then the situation may change.

Because Topline Rentals Limited Acting Agent for Sachin & Muskan Khubchandani has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.