What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720035 about?

The tribunal order states: Said Zaki Saad and Sawsan Rizkallah must pay [The tenant/s] $943.23

How much money was awarded in case 4720035?

Compensation: Power: $922.79 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720035?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720035?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10060731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720035 about?

The tribunal order states: Said Zaki Saad and Sawsan Rizkallah must pay [The tenant/s] $943.23

How much money was awarded in case 4720035?

Compensation: Power: $922.79 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720035?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720035?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10060731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

91 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720035 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720035 — net $943.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Power	$922.79	Power
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$943.23
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$943.23

Order

Said Zaki Saad and Sawsan Rizkallah must pay [The tenant/s] $943.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Power$922.79 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$943.23
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I note that in a previous hearing, the landlord was assisted by an Arabic interpreter. On this occasion the use of an interpreter was declined by the landlord.
The tenant seeks refund of the bond and reimbursement of the electricity costs paid. The tenant further seeks compensation for stress arising out the tenancy and these proceedings.
I do not have jurisdiction to award general compensation for stress. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the matters contained in the Act. The tenant’s application in this respect is dismissed.
The landlord seeks refund of the bond, compensation for outgoings, reimbursement of the amounts paid in accordance with an order made by the Tribunal and payment of rent for the first two weeks of the tenancy.
Today’s hearing was the second hearing relating to this tenancy. On 6 July 2023, Adjudicator J R Smith heard cross-applications between these parties and considered applications in relation to – a. The nature of the tenancy. It was determined that this was a residential tenancy, not a boarding house. b. The enforceability of the manner in which the electricity costs was divided. The Tribunal directed that power be charged on a consumption basis in accordance with s39(3) of the Act. c. The reduction of the fixed term. By consent it was agreed that the tenancy was periodic from that point on. d. Work orders, which were not required following the hearing and were declined. e. A rent abatement of $445.00 was granted for flood damage. f. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond and failure to provide HHS information were dismissed. g. Landlord application for damage to property and exemplary damages were dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the parties to determine the quantum of power to be refunded between themselves. The parties could not agree, so the tenants have filed a claim for reimbursement of the full amount of power paid. The full amount of power paid is $922.79. The calculation of the amount paid is accepted by the landlord.
However, the landlord claims it is “unfair” that the tenants have the benefit of pay reduced rent, and not paying for power. The landlord bases this on the fact that previous tenants have paid $500.00 per week in rent, including power. The landlords want to recalculate the power cost refunded on the basis that the tenants pay $500.00 per week including rent. That would result in the tenant owing the landlord $1871.31, which is what the landlord is now claiming from the tenants.
I note that the property was advertised for $440.00 rather than $500.00 including power.
As the previous Adjudicator explained to the parties, the law only allows landlords to pass on the costs of outgoings on a consumption basis. Any agreement to the contrary is unlawful, pursuant to section 11 of the Act.
I consider that an award of the full cost of the power paid by the tenants is appropriate. I do not accept that renegotiating the basis of the tenancy is appropriate, particularly in the manner sought by the landlord. Was that approach taken it would result in the landlord being compensated well beyond the cost of power. The agreement reached is to be enforced to the extent it is lawful and consistent with the Act. The parties agreed to a rental figure of $440.00 (which is what the property was advertised for), the fact that their agreement in relation to electricity in unenforceable does not change that.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for reimbursement of the power cost is proved.
In relation to the application for reimbursement of the amounts ordered previously, this relates to the $445.00 rent abatement order by Adjudicator Smith. As I explained to the landlord, the Tribunal cannot and does not sit in appeal of itself. If the landlord was unhappy with the decision made by Adjudicator Smith, the appropriate course of action was an application for rehearing or an application for appeal to the District Court.
The landlord’s indicated they had applied for a rehearing, and it was dismissed. They were then out of time to appeal.
There is nothing I can do about that. An order of the Tribunal is final, unless a re-hearing is granted, or an appeal upheld. I cannot revisit the matter now, no matter how “unfair” the landlord believes this to be.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
In relation to the application for the first two weeks rent, it is the landlord’s position that they waived the first two weeks rent because the tenants signed a 2-year fixed term tenancy agreement. Given the tenancy ended in less than 2 years, they are seeking to have the tenants pay the first two week rent.
The problem the landlord faces with this application is that the reduction of the fixed term was considered by Adjudicator Smith, who records that the parties agreed that the tenancy was to be made into a periodic tenancy. Adjudicator Smith made a consent order to that effect. The landlords did not make their agreement to that variation conditional on compensation in any form.
Accordingly, I consider that the change from a fixed term tenancy to a residential tenancy was an agreed change. The landlord cannot now put conditions on that variation.
The application for unpaid rent is dismissed.
For completeness, I note that the landlord claims that she advised Adjudicator Smith of the situation with the waiving of rent, and it is not reflected in the orders made. If that is the case, then, again, any questions of compensation for the variation were a matter for Adjudicator Smith. As no orders were made, the appropriate course for the landlords was an application for re-hearing or appeal.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720035 — net $943.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Power	$922.79	Power
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$943.23
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$943.23

Order

Said Zaki Saad and Sawsan Rizkallah must pay [The tenant/s] $943.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: Power$922.79 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$943.23
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I note that in a previous hearing, the landlord was assisted by an Arabic interpreter. On this occasion the use of an interpreter was declined by the landlord.
The tenant seeks refund of the bond and reimbursement of the electricity costs paid. The tenant further seeks compensation for stress arising out the tenancy and these proceedings.
I do not have jurisdiction to award general compensation for stress. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the matters contained in the Act. The tenant’s application in this respect is dismissed.
The landlord seeks refund of the bond, compensation for outgoings, reimbursement of the amounts paid in accordance with an order made by the Tribunal and payment of rent for the first two weeks of the tenancy.
Today’s hearing was the second hearing relating to this tenancy. On 6 July 2023, Adjudicator J R Smith heard cross-applications between these parties and considered applications in relation to – a. The nature of the tenancy. It was determined that this was a residential tenancy, not a boarding house. b. The enforceability of the manner in which the electricity costs was divided. The Tribunal directed that power be charged on a consumption basis in accordance with s39(3) of the Act. c. The reduction of the fixed term. By consent it was agreed that the tenancy was periodic from that point on. d. Work orders, which were not required following the hearing and were declined. e. A rent abatement of $445.00 was granted for flood damage. f. Exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond and failure to provide HHS information were dismissed. g. Landlord application for damage to property and exemplary damages were dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the parties to determine the quantum of power to be refunded between themselves. The parties could not agree, so the tenants have filed a claim for reimbursement of the full amount of power paid. The full amount of power paid is $922.79. The calculation of the amount paid is accepted by the landlord.
However, the landlord claims it is “unfair” that the tenants have the benefit of pay reduced rent, and not paying for power. The landlord bases this on the fact that previous tenants have paid $500.00 per week in rent, including power. The landlords want to recalculate the power cost refunded on the basis that the tenants pay $500.00 per week including rent. That would result in the tenant owing the landlord $1871.31, which is what the landlord is now claiming from the tenants.
I note that the property was advertised for $440.00 rather than $500.00 including power.
As the previous Adjudicator explained to the parties, the law only allows landlords to pass on the costs of outgoings on a consumption basis. Any agreement to the contrary is unlawful, pursuant to section 11 of the Act.
I consider that an award of the full cost of the power paid by the tenants is appropriate. I do not accept that renegotiating the basis of the tenancy is appropriate, particularly in the manner sought by the landlord. Was that approach taken it would result in the landlord being compensated well beyond the cost of power. The agreement reached is to be enforced to the extent it is lawful and consistent with the Act. The parties agreed to a rental figure of $440.00 (which is what the property was advertised for), the fact that their agreement in relation to electricity in unenforceable does not change that.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for reimbursement of the power cost is proved.
In relation to the application for reimbursement of the amounts ordered previously, this relates to the $445.00 rent abatement order by Adjudicator Smith. As I explained to the landlord, the Tribunal cannot and does not sit in appeal of itself. If the landlord was unhappy with the decision made by Adjudicator Smith, the appropriate course of action was an application for rehearing or an application for appeal to the District Court.
The landlord’s indicated they had applied for a rehearing, and it was dismissed. They were then out of time to appeal.
There is nothing I can do about that. An order of the Tribunal is final, unless a re-hearing is granted, or an appeal upheld. I cannot revisit the matter now, no matter how “unfair” the landlord believes this to be.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
In relation to the application for the first two weeks rent, it is the landlord’s position that they waived the first two weeks rent because the tenants signed a 2-year fixed term tenancy agreement. Given the tenancy ended in less than 2 years, they are seeking to have the tenants pay the first two week rent.
The problem the landlord faces with this application is that the reduction of the fixed term was considered by Adjudicator Smith, who records that the parties agreed that the tenancy was to be made into a periodic tenancy. Adjudicator Smith made a consent order to that effect. The landlords did not make their agreement to that variation conditional on compensation in any form.
Accordingly, I consider that the change from a fixed term tenancy to a residential tenancy was an agreed change. The landlord cannot now put conditions on that variation.
The application for unpaid rent is dismissed.
For completeness, I note that the landlord claims that she advised Adjudicator Smith of the situation with the waiving of rent, and it is not reflected in the orders made. If that is the case, then, again, any questions of compensation for the variation were a matter for Adjudicator Smith. As no orders were made, the appropriate course for the landlords was an application for re-hearing or appeal.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720035 — Tenancy dispute at 91 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720035 — Tenancy dispute at 91 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions