How much money was awarded in case 4719794?

Compensation: Broken door handle x13…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Letting Fee: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $18.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $414.28 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719794?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10344801-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4719794?

Compensation: Broken door handle x13…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Letting Fee: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $18.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $414.28 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719794?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10344801-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4719794 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4719794 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719794 — net $547.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$414.28		Rent arrears
Water rates	$89.82		Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$18.00		Lock/key replacement
Letting fee	$75.00		Letting fee
Compensation: Broken door handle x13 weeks		$50.00	Broken door handle x13 weeks
Total award	$597.10	$50.00
Net award	$547.10
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$547.10

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

Sarah Goffin and George Goffin to pay [The landlord/s] $547.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $547.10 George Oscar Michael Goffin and Sarah Marie Goffin: $1,772.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for damages, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The parties agree that the tenancy started on 12 February 2023 and was signed by both parties as a one-year fixed term tenancy.

During the tenancy, the tenants decided they wanted to vacate the property early. The landlord consented and the parties began a negotiation around the tenancy end date. The negotiation turned sour.

On 7 September 2023 the tenants asked for a six-week notice period ending on 10 October 2023. The landlord confirmed receipt of the notice but didn’t confirm the date of end of tenancy. Six weeks after 7 September, is 19 October.

One week before the end of tenancy date (10 October 2023) the tenants contacted the landlord to explain the error that they (the tenants) had made, and advised that the end of tenancy date needed to change to 20 October 2023. The landlord advised that a replacement tenant had been signed up to move in on 17 October 2023, and he did not consent to the change of end of tenancy date.

Neither party changed their position until 10 October 2023; the tenants advised they would be staying until 20 October 2023 and the landlord advised he wasn’t consenting to the extension, and the tenants would have to leave by 10 October 2023. On 10 October the tenants moved out.

The error was made by the tenants, whether it was in calculating 6 weeks, or whether it was in the making of a different calculation. As well as this, the tenants provided no notice to the landlord that they would leave the premises by 10 October 2023, until they actually left on 10 October 2023.

The landlord was in a position where he was unable to avoid acting in reliance on the tenants’ stated intention: Were he to disregard the tenants’ statements, and the tenants had carried through with their stated intention to stay until 20 October 2023, the landlord would have had two sets of tenants at the front door of the rental property on 17 October 2023. Therefore the landlord had to take the tenant at her word and make arrangements in reliance on the tenancy ending on 20 October 2023.

Against this, the tenant stated that despite her assertions that the tenancy should end on 20 October 2023, she nevertheless left on 10 October 2023 because the landlord refused to consent to the extension. Unfortunately, the landlord had no way of knowing how the tenant was going to act and if the tenant had chosen to stay, it is unlikely a forced eviction would have finalised the dispute before 20 October 2023.

For these reasons, I find the tenancy ended on 20 October 2023 which is the date the tenant wanted the tenancy to end on, and is 6 weeks after the date on which 6 weeks’ notice was given.

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $994.28 for rent arrears and $89.82 for water rates.

Against the rent arrears, the tenants made a claim for one week’s rent in compensation for the property being let without the electricity being connected for five days. The landlord offered the one week’s rebate, but the rent that was paid in advance was never refunded. The final rent arrears is therefore $414.28.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord accepted the tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy but sought costs to return the property to the condition it was in at the beginning of the tenancy. This is over and above the lawful requirement on a tenant. Nor did the landlord did not provide any information in support of the claim. The claim is dismissed.

The tenants did not return two gate keys. The landlord sought key cutting costs and time spent in getting the keys cut. The claim for keys is proved, but the time associated with the key cutting is not awarded.

The landlord sought reasonable costs of $225.00 for reletting the property. These are costs that the landlord would have been liable for at the conclusion of the one year fixed term tenancy which had already run for 8 months. Therefore, one third of the reletting costs are awarded, being the pro rata amount of the tenancy left to run.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord also sought storage costs for the tenant whose move in date to the property was delayed by one week. This was a cost to the incoming tenant and not a cost to the landlord; the landlord provided no evidence of him having paid this cost. The claim is dismissed. The tenants’ claims

The tenants’ claim for a rent rebate as compensation for lack of electricity at the beginning of the tenancy has been addressed above at paragraph 14.

The tenants claimed that during the tenancy the door handle to her bedroom broke off and it took the landlord 13 weeks to repair it. The landlord did not dispute the breakage, but provided personal reasons, not disputed by the tenant, why he was unable to attend to the maintenance. The tenant is seeking compensation of the equivalent of one week’s rent.

The door could still be closed and held closed, but it wouldn’t stay closed. The tenant was still able to sleep in the bedroom but lost an element of her privacy. The house was otherwise occupied by her adult son.

I consider this to be a loss of amenity, but not a large one. I consider $50.00 compensation for the 13 weeks adequately compensates for the loss of a door handle.

George Oscar Michael Goffin and Sarah Marie Goffin claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). George Oscar Michael Goffin and Sarah Marie Goffin considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The tenant submitted that whereas all windows in the house would open and stay open, there was no security catch on the windows meaning the windows could only be left open while the house was occupied, without creating a security risk. That is to say, the windows are without safety catches.

The tenants stated that this quality of the windows contributed to the house being damp and having a tendency to be mouldy. The tenant provided photographs of windows with condensation on them, mould on shoes and on the backs of framed pictures that had been hung on the wall.

In response the landlord submitted that the house is fully compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards, including ventilation and heating. The landlord stated that pot plants indoors and drying clothes indoors which the tenant did not dispute doing, increased moisture in the house.

I find that the house is compliant with Healthy Homes standards. Safety catches are not required on windows as part of the Healthy Homes Standards. Mould during a tenancy is in the first instance a matter for tenants to manage.

In this case I have determined that no breach of the Healthy Homes Standards has been proved by the tenant.

The claim is dismissed.

The tenants also claimed storage costs for their belongings of $222.00 for the 10 days between 10 October and 20 October. As I have found the tenancy was still extant at this time, the claim must fail.

No order regarding reimbursement of the applicants’ respective filing fees is made.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719794 — net $547.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$414.28		Rent arrears
Water rates	$89.82		Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$18.00		Lock/key replacement
Letting fee	$75.00		Letting fee
Compensation: Broken door handle x13 weeks		$50.00	Broken door handle x13 weeks
Total award	$597.10	$50.00
Net award	$547.10
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$547.10

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

Sarah Goffin and George Goffin to pay [The landlord/s] $547.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $547.10 George Oscar Michael Goffin and Sarah Marie Goffin: $1,772.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for damages, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The parties agree that the tenancy started on 12 February 2023 and was signed by both parties as a one-year fixed term tenancy.

During the tenancy, the tenants decided they wanted to vacate the property early. The landlord consented and the parties began a negotiation around the tenancy end date. The negotiation turned sour.

For these reasons, I find the tenancy ended on 20 October 2023 which is the date the tenant wanted the tenancy to end on, and is 6 weeks after the date on which 6 weeks’ notice was given.

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $994.28 for rent arrears and $89.82 for water rates.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The amounts ordered are proved.

The tenants’ claim for a rent rebate as compensation for lack of electricity at the beginning of the tenancy has been addressed above at paragraph 14.

I consider this to be a loss of amenity, but not a large one. I consider $50.00 compensation for the 13 weeks adequately compensates for the loss of a door handle.

In this case I have determined that no breach of the Healthy Homes Standards has been proved by the tenant.

The claim is dismissed.

No order regarding reimbursement of the applicants’ respective filing fees is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719794 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719794 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions