How much money was awarded in case 4704900?

DER 1. The Tribunal Orders Suppressi…: $510.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704900?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9941553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4704900?

DER 1. The Tribunal Orders Suppressi…: $510.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4704900?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4704900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9941553-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 421A Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4704900 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4704900 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4704900. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
DER 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. The rent payable for this tenanc	$510.00		DER 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. The rent payable for this tenanc

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The rent payable for this tenancy is reduced to $510.00 per week.

Order 1 shall take effect from 6 October 2023 and the tenant is entitled to a refund of overpaid rent accordingly.

Street Smart Property Management Limited as Agent for YZY Holdings Ltd must pay [the tenant/s] $20.44 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

This tenancy began on 6 October 2023.

The tenant’s evidence is that only a brief time was available for an inspection of the premises before the tenancy started and it was not until she had moved in that issues with the premises became apparent.

Her evidence of initial communications with the landlord shortly after moving in shows her raising with the landlord a number of the concerns about the premises. The net curtains were torn, the bedroom and living room curtains were dirty, a big cupboard in the garage prevented it being used for parking, the living room door would not close properly and the rubbish bin was full of rubbish that the Council would not remove.

After the tenant brought this application, those issues were addressed, and the tenant seeks no Orders regarding those matters.

The tenant did have concerns about the premises compliance with Healthy Homes standards and sought an order that the landlord provide a Healthy Homes assessment. At the hearing the landlord was able to provide to the Tribunal and the tenant with a healthy homes report completed on 9 October 2023 which assesses the premises as healthy homes compliant, except for smoke alarm installation which has since been completed. The tenant now seeks no Orders regarding Healthy Homes compliance. Market Rent Assessment

The remaining issue for determination relates to the rent payable for the premises. The tenant’s application for a rent reduction to market rent was made within 3 months from the start of the tenancy so in terms of s.25(2), is able to be considered by the Tribunal.

The relevant subsections of s.25 provide as follows: “(1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent......... (3) For the purposes of this Act, the market rent for any tenancy shall be the rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy, taking into consideration the general level of rents (other than income-related rents within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992) for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant. (4) An order made under this section shall take effect on and from a date to be specified in the order, which may be the date of the order or any earlier or later date, but being no earlier than the date of the application for the order and no later than 30 days after the date of the order.”

These premises comprise Flat 1 in a block of three identical flats in what the tenant says are equivalent condition. After moving in the tenant became aware that the tenants of Flat 2 pay $440.00 weekly rent and the tenants in Flat 3 pay $500.00.

The tendency evidence is that she had a phone consultation with a property manager from Quinovic who, after the tenant described the location and nature of the premises to him, suggested a current market rent for the premises of $475.00 to $500.00 per week. That is of course hearsay evidence to which I can give only very limited weight.

The landlord says that the rent payable for the tenancies of Flats 2 and 3 cannot be taken as a reliable guide to current market rent as those tenancies have each been in place for four or five years – although the tenant has been told that the tenants of Flat 3 have only been there about a year.

The property manager’s evidence is that before the tenancy began, an assessment of current market rent was undertaken using the data on the Tenancy Services website. Having looked at that same data, my interpretation of what outcome it led to is different than the landlord’s.

The data shows that for two-bedroom flats in MT Roskill, from 189 active bonds for the period 1July 2023 to 31 December 2023, the average rent for the lower quartile was $500.00, the overall median rent was $530.00 and average rent for the upper quartile was $580.00.

From that information the landlord assessed a market rent for these premises at $540.00 per week.

In looking at what, “.......a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay....” a market rent assessment must necessarily take into account the nature and location of the rented premises. It must also take account of the characteristics and desirability of the particular premises.

The evidence satisfies me that the age, nature and condition of these premises would put them within the lower quartile of rents in the range of two-bedroom flats in the area.

The property is old with very dated decor. The amenities are very basic with a very old and dirty stove, old and stained bath with decay evidence in places. There is only one plug point in the kitchen. The bathroom has no vanity, and the shower is an over the bath type with separate hot and cold water taps and a fabric shower curtain. Bathroom wall linings are of joined coated wallboard type.

The tenancy evidence is that she cannot properly sit on the toilet for lack of space. She has offered (and still offers) to refurbish the bathroom at her cost to make it more usable. The property manager confirmed today that the owner does not agree to that proposal and the Tribunal cannot require that a landlord give consent to such alterations.

The premises have been upgraded to comply with healthy home standards by the installation of insulation and kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and the property manager’s evidence is that new carpet in the 2 carpeted rooms was installed before this tenancy began and the interior was repainted, although the tenant says that the new paintwork is already deteriorating.

Weighing those considerations, I am persuaded that a current market rent for the premises would be no more than $510.00. In terms of section 25(1) the additional $30.00 per week is a substantial amount.

I’m satisfied on balance that an Order reducing the rent to what I have assessed to be a rent in line with market rent, is justified. The decrease should take effect from the date of the tenant’s application.

Because the tenant has succeeded with the claim, I must award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4704900. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
DER 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. The rent payable for this tenanc	$510.00		DER 1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. The rent payable for this tenanc

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The rent payable for this tenancy is reduced to $510.00 per week.

Order 1 shall take effect from 6 October 2023 and the tenant is entitled to a refund of overpaid rent accordingly.

Street Smart Property Management Limited as Agent for YZY Holdings Ltd must pay [the tenant/s] $20.44 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

This tenancy began on 6 October 2023.

After the tenant brought this application, those issues were addressed, and the tenant seeks no Orders regarding those matters.

From that information the landlord assessed a market rent for these premises at $540.00 per week.

The evidence satisfies me that the age, nature and condition of these premises would put them within the lower quartile of rents in the range of two-bedroom flats in the area.

Because the tenant has succeeded with the claim, I must award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704900 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 1, 421A Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4704900 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 1, 421A Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions