How much money was awarded in case 4693629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693629?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9542585-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4693629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4693629?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4693629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9542585-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 14, 20 Newall Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 4693629 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4693629 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The parking restriction imposed by the landlord and contained in the letter dated 28 August 2023 does not apply to this tenant.
The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal in relation to difficulties he is experiencing in relation to parking at the premises.
The tenancy began in August 2019. The tenant’s evidence is that he has not experienced any issues in relation to parking his car until recently.
At the entrance to the complex, which contains 26 units, there is a sign which states “Tenants cars only. Visitors park on street”. I understand that this sign has been in place since at least the beginning of this tenancy.
One of the issues affecting the parking is that the landlord has introduced parking restrictions that did not previously exist. The new policy for car parking is set out in a letter to residents dated 28 August 2023. The letter includes the following: “The parking allocation for this complex is as follows: •Units that have garages are to use their garage for parking; •The remaining “open” carparks are only for use by tenants who do not have a garage included in their unit. There is no public or visitor parking in this complex – all visitors are to park outside of the complex.”
As this tenant has a garage the parking policy means that he is unable to park within the complex (other than in his garage) even though he has previously.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that none of the carparks in the complex (other than the garages) are allocated to any particular unit.
This policy appears to be a new condition to the tenancy. The landlord has unilaterally introduced this restriction four years after commencement of the tenancy.
Section 13B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that every variation of a tenancy agreement shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant.
The tenant does not agree to this variation of the terms of the tenancy agreement and therefore he cannot be restricted by it. I have reached the view that the parking policy cannot apply to this tenant as he has not agreed to it.
To complicate matters the landlord has a separate agreement with one of the other units allowing visitors to use the carparks within the complex. I accept that the occupant of that unit has health issues which require carers to attend on him. However, this agreement should not impact on the other tenants and their use of the complex as they were not parties to the agreement.
At the hearing there was a suggestion by the landlord that the tenant would be assisted to other accommodation if he sought to vacate this tenancy. The tenant was clear that he has no wish to move from this tenancy and the landlord should accept his view unless he expresses otherwise.
The tenant sought compensation in relation to the parking issues. I have reached the view that compensation is not warranted. This purpose of this order is to provide some clarity for both parties in relation to the parking issue.
I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

The parking restriction imposed by the landlord and contained in the letter dated 28 August 2023 does not apply to this tenant.

The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied to the Tribunal in relation to difficulties he is experiencing in relation to parking at the premises.

The tenancy began in August 2019. The tenant’s evidence is that he has not experienced any issues in relation to parking his car until recently.

At the entrance to the complex, which contains 26 units, there is a sign which states “Tenants cars only. Visitors park on street”. I understand that this sign has been in place since at least the beginning of this tenancy.

One of the issues affecting the parking is that the landlord has introduced parking restrictions that did not previously exist. The new policy for car parking is set out in a letter to residents dated 28 August 2023. The letter includes the following: “The parking allocation for this complex is as follows: •Units that have garages are to use their garage for parking; •The remaining “open” carparks are only for use by tenants who do not have a garage included in their unit. There is no public or visitor parking in this complex – all visitors are to park outside of the complex.”

As this tenant has a garage the parking policy means that he is unable to park within the complex (other than in his garage) even though he has previously.

The landlord confirmed at the hearing that none of the carparks in the complex (other than the garages) are allocated to any particular unit.

This policy appears to be a new condition to the tenancy. The landlord has unilaterally introduced this restriction four years after commencement of the tenancy.

Section 13B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that every variation of a tenancy agreement shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant.

The tenant does not agree to this variation of the terms of the tenancy agreement and therefore he cannot be restricted by it. I have reached the view that the parking policy cannot apply to this tenant as he has not agreed to it.

To complicate matters the landlord has a separate agreement with one of the other units allowing visitors to use the carparks within the complex. I accept that the occupant of that unit has health issues which require carers to attend on him. However, this agreement should not impact on the other tenants and their use of the complex as they were not parties to the agreement.

At the hearing there was a suggestion by the landlord that the tenant would be assisted to other accommodation if he sought to vacate this tenancy. The tenant was clear that he has no wish to move from this tenancy and the landlord should accept his view unless he expresses otherwise.

The tenant sought compensation in relation to the parking issues. I have reached the view that compensation is not warranted. This purpose of this order is to provide some clarity for both parties in relation to the parking issue.

I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693629 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 14, 20 Newall Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4693629 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 14, 20 Newall Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions