What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4694796 about?

This case concerned a rent arrears dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4694796?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694796?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10065593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4694796 about?

This case concerned a rent arrears dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4694796?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694796?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Healthy homes, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694796?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10065593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4694796 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Riddiford and Mr Delaney appeared for the Tenants. The Landlord attended with the owner of the property.
The Tenant applied for compensation for overpaid rent from 2 June 2023 to 27 August 2023. Background
A Tribunal Order made on 25 September 2023 required the Tenants to pay rent arrears of $4011.43 up to 27 August 2023.
Notably, the Tenants did not seek compensation for the property's state of repair, inability to use a bedroom, or breach of Healthy Home Standards ("HHS").
Mr. Riddiford's tenancy began on 17 January 2023 and Mr. Delaney's on 8 February 2023. Both ended on 27 August 2023.
The property, with five bedrooms and two bathrooms, rented for $1120.00 per week. The bathroom in question was upstairs and underneath it was a bedroom which I will refer to as ‘bedroom 5’ for ease of reference.
An HHS report received on 29 June 2023, organized and paid for by the Tenants, noted the property was non-compliant. It failed in the moisture ingress and drainage, heating and ventilation and draught standards. It highlighted draughts in the bathroom and bedroom 5 due to rotting floorboards, along with a covered hole in bedroom 5's ceiling less than 3mm in size.
The Tenants must prove their case beyond the balance of probabilities. This means that it is their job to persuade the Tribunal that their claim is more likely than not correct. They achieve this by presenting evidence such as oral testimony, witness statements, invoices, and receipts to support their claim. Tenants claim
The Tenant claimed rent overpayment of $3800.00 between 2 June 2023 and 27 August 2023.
On 7 June 2023, a leak from the upstairs bathroom into bedroom 5 was discovered, hindering the Tenant's ability to secure another flatmate. A new flatmate moved in on 28 May 2023 but left on 2 June 2023 due to the persistent leak. The Tenant notified the Landlord of the leak via email on 7 June 2023.
On 8 June 2023, a plumber identified issues with the shower tiling.
On 16 June 2023, the Tenant reported another shower leak. The Landlord requested that the Tenants refrain from using the shower until contractors could investigate. On the same day, the Tenant submits the Landlord verbally offered over the telephone to reduce the rent by $280.00 per week until the leak was fixed.
On or about 19 June 2023, the Owner and his contractor identified the issue as a shower mixer and repaired it. The Landlord advised the Tenants against leaving the showerhead against the wall to prevent unnecessary water drips on the tiles. The floor repair would commence once the shower dried. The Landlord stated the bathroom could still be used and pledged to start floor repairs once the leak issue was resolved. An invoice to substantiate the Plumber repairs was provided.
On 20 June 2023, the Tenant submits that the Landlord confirmed over the phone later that day that the agreed rent reduction to $840.00 per week until the entire bathroom was fixed.
The Tenant sent a follow up email to the Landlord on 22 June 2023 as follows:
The Landlord did not respond immediately to this email, leading the Tenants to assume acceptance of the agreement.
On 23 June 2023, the Tenants organized a HHS Assessment report and this was received on 29 June 2023. This reported that the property failed the HHS.
On 1 July 2023, the Tenants informed the Owner of the HHS assessment outcome and discussed compensation. The Owner directed them to his Property Manager, [The property manager/s], who the Tenants claim, suggested reducing the rent to $500.00 per week as an appropriate response.
On 4 July 2023, the Tenants notified the Landlord of their decision to reduce rent payments to $500.00 per week due to non-compliance with HHS. This was a unilateral decision.
On 6 July 2023, the Landlord issued a 14-day notice to the Tenants to pay rent arrears of $2551.43.
On 20 July 2023, a plumber repaired the bathroom floor; however, the Tenants considered the fix as temporary ‘stopgap’. An invoice was provided by the Plumber to substantiate the repairs. The Tenants submit the bathroom continued to leak after the floor was fixed.
On 30 July 2023, the Tenants served notice to terminate the lease due to ongoing issues and lack of clear communication.
On 3 August 2023, the Landlord in an email denied any agreement on rental reduction beyond one week. The Landlord claimed the Tenants owed $3271.43 in rent arrears, factoring in a one-week credit for the shower leak.
On 7 August 2023, the Tenants reiterated a rent reduction due to ongoing bathroom floor leaks, rendering the downstairs bedroom unusable. Photographs of the rotting floors taken in August 2023 were provided.
After the hearing, the Tenants submitted evidence of a photograph of the bedroom leaks taken in August 2023.
The Landlord submitted they only agreed to a one-week rent reduction, fixing the shower issue promptly and providing evidence of the repair. He did not reply to the Tenants confirmation email of the 22 June 2023 because he did not agree to it. He stipulated this in his email of 3 August 2023 and confirmed there was no agreement after he sent a 14 day notice for rent arrears in July 2023. He provided the invoices from the Plumber which confirmed the leaks to the floor and shower were repaired.

How long was the agreement to reduce the rent?

There is agreement that the parties agreed to reduce the rent while the leaks were being fixed however the dispute is to the length of time.
The relevant law states at section 24(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”): If the parties to a tenancy agree that, during a specified period or until the occurrence of a specified event, the tenant is entitled to pay a lower rent,— (a)the agreement is a variation of the tenancy agreement to which sections 13B and 13C apply; and (b)on the expiry of the period or the occurrence of the event, the rent payable before the variation is reinstated; and (c) that reinstatement does not constitute a rent increase.
The Tenants evidence was that there was agreement for the reduced rent until the bathroom was fully repaired. They provided email correspondence from themselves to the Landlord confirming this agreement. There was however no written evidence from the Landlord or a third-party independent witness to substantiate the Landlords agreement. The Tenant’s email correspondence also showed a tendency by the Tenants to make unilateral decisions without regard to the Landlords view or to the law. When the issues occurred with the leaks, they were bound by the Tenancy Agreement to continue to pay full rent until they either obtained agreement from the Landlord in writing to reduce the rent or they obtained an Order from the Tribunal to reduce it. Instead, the emails indicate the Tenant telling the Landlord what the rent reduction would be in compensation for the issues at the property.
There was clear evidence from the Landlord disagreeing to this rent reduction beyond a week on 3 August 2023 and that was also implied in the 14-day notice for rent arrears sent on 6 July 2023. If the Landlord did agree over the phone on 16 June 2023, it raises the question of why a written variation of the Tenancy Agreement was not entered into. A rent reduction of $280.00 is a substantial amount to agree to so one would have expected an experienced Landlord such as this one to provide a variation. It adds more weight to the assertion that a variation was never circulated because the Landlord only intended the rent reduction for one week.
The Tenant's claim for the amount of rent arrears also lacks sufficient evidence, as they claimed an overpayment but failed to provide a rent summary to verify it. The accuracy of the rent arrears claimed cannot be checked.
The Tenant also made unilateral rent reductions due to non-compliance with HHS however the law requires mutual agreement, which is lacking in the Tenants evidence.
The Tenants' also claim that the bathroom repairs were not completed up to the end of the tenancy so the rent reduction should carry to termination. The Tenant did not provide persuasive evidence to substantiate this. They provided a photograph of water leaking down the window of bedroom 5 in August 2023 however the shot excluded the top of the window frame and ceiling. It was impossible to see if this leak was coming from the upstairs bathroom. They provided photographs of the rotting floors in August 2023, however there was no independent builder report or plumber report substantiating, the leaks through the ceiling continued to the end of the tenancy because of the rotting floors.
Upon consideration, I find it more likely than not that the Tenants claim of agreed rent reduction until repairs were completed is unsubstantiated. The Tenant did not have solid evidence of an agreement by the Landlord that the rent reduction would extend beyond a week. There was also no evidence to show the bedroom leaks continued to the end of the tenancy.
Even if an amount was awarded, it is unclear what amount should be awarded given no rent summary was provided.
Had the Tenants made other claims for compensation, they may have been more successful however it is not for the Tribunal to advise the parties as to what claims they should amend their application to.
The claim is dismissed by the Tenants.
The Tenant is responsible for their filing fee, and name suppression is granted to the Landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694796 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694796 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

How long was the agreement to reduce the rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Reasons

How long was the agreement to reduce the rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions