What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4728809 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4728809?

Compensation: Lack Of Car Park: $3,344.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Garage: $3,344.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4728809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4728809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10000530-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4728809 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4728809?

Compensation: Lack Of Car Park: $3,344.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lack Of Garage: $3,344.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4728809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4728809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10000530-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4728809 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4728809 — net $6,708.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Lack of garage	$3,344.00	Lack of garage
Compensation: Lack of car park	$3,344.00	Lack of car park
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,708.44
Bond	$3,040.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,708.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenants $6708.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy began on 17 December 2022 and ended on 28 October 2023. The Tenancy was fixed to 15 December 2023. There was a garage/shed on the property which the Landlord stored their belongings in and would access at times during the tenancy. During the tenancy, the Tenants would liaise with the Property Manager and the Property Owner separately, however it became apparent that sometimes the Property Manager and Owner did not communicate with one another. Tenants claim for lack of parking
The Tenant claimed compensation because they were unable to access the parking spot for the full term of their tenancy and unable to use the garage since the start of the tenancy.
When the Tenants attended the initial property viewing, they spoke only with the Owner of the property. The Owner verbally informed them they could park their car in a designated spot by the garage at night time only. The Tenants had two cars. The Tenants drew a picture of the layout of the property and where their designated spot was at the hearing. It was very close to the garage.
Approximately three or four months into the tenancy, the parties had a dispute regarding the Tenant’s brother’s dog living at the property. As a result of this dispute, the Tenants submitted the Landlord started to complain about various other issues including the carparking. The Landlord advised them they could no longer park their car at the designated car spot because it blocked the Landlord’s access to the shed.
Over the next few months, the Landlord without notice to the Tenant, installed a gate which blocked the Tenant’s access to the car spot and the driveway to the property. The Tenants had to park on the road. As one of the Tenants was injured and in crutches at the time, they had huge difficulties accessing the property. The inconvenience of having to park on the road was one of the main reasons why the Tenants decided to terminate the tenancy early.
The Tenants also found the Landlord and other people who they did not know entering the property to attend the shed. They found this very intrusive and a safety issue. They had three children so it was very concerning for them that the Landlord and other persons were attending the shed without notifying the Tenants.
The Landlord submitted the Owner agreed from the outset that the Tenants could park their car at the designated spot at night-time only. The issue they started to have was that the Tenants also parked there during the daytime. It was not because of the dog that the Owner started to raise issues about the parking.
In perusing the tenancy agreement, there was reference to the Tenants being permitted to park their cars on the property. Clause 11 of the Tenants Maintenance Duties and costs stated: Park only the Tenant’s car(s) or occupants cars in the space(s) provided and to ensure that all guests park on the street. The Tenant/s further agree to: a. keep the garage or carport free from oil drippings and if necessary supply and use a drip tray; b. not to repair any motor vehicle on the premises nor leave any motor vehicle in an immobile condition where it may cause damage to the premises, grounds or facilities or breach the Tenant’s obligation to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant was permitted to park their car on the property however the Landlord unilaterally ceased this during the tenancy. There was nothing in writing to state they could no longer use the spot. The Landlord gave the tenants a spot and then retracted it by blocking their access. The Tenants had to park on the road which made it inconvenient to access the property. This was particularly obstructive for the Tenant who had an injury at the time. I find the appropriate amount to award for compensation is ten percent of the weekly rent. I have calculated the period to be 44 weeks for when the Tenant did not have full use of the car parking spot and ten percent to equate to $76.00 per week. Tenants claim for lack of use of the garage/shed
The Tenants claimed compensation for the lack of use of the garage/shed. The Landlord still had their belongings in there which was why they would continue to enter the property.
The Landlord did not dispute the landlord’s belongings remaining in the garage/shed.
Section 37(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: “The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises”.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not provide vacant possession of the garage by storing their personal belongings in there. Because of this, the Tenants were not able to use it to park their car or store their belongings. The Tenant’s also had to tolerate the Landlord and other unknown persons entering the property, without notice to access the garage. They found this intrusive and unsettling particularly having children staying at the property.
I find the appropriate amount to award in this instance is ten percent for the 44 weeks they did not have access to the garage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory if they wish to dispute payment of the bond. As the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
As [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim the Landlord must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Tenants.
Name suppression is not granted to the Landlord as they did not request it.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4728809 — net $6,708.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Lack of garage	$3,344.00	Lack of garage
Compensation: Lack of car park	$3,344.00	Lack of car park
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,708.44
Bond	$3,040.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,708.44

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenants $6708.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy began on 17 December 2022 and ended on 28 October 2023. The Tenancy was fixed to 15 December 2023. There was a garage/shed on the property which the Landlord stored their belongings in and would access at times during the tenancy. During the tenancy, the Tenants would liaise with the Property Manager and the Property Owner separately, however it became apparent that sometimes the Property Manager and Owner did not communicate with one another. Tenants claim for lack of parking
The Tenant claimed compensation because they were unable to access the parking spot for the full term of their tenancy and unable to use the garage since the start of the tenancy.
When the Tenants attended the initial property viewing, they spoke only with the Owner of the property. The Owner verbally informed them they could park their car in a designated spot by the garage at night time only. The Tenants had two cars. The Tenants drew a picture of the layout of the property and where their designated spot was at the hearing. It was very close to the garage.
Approximately three or four months into the tenancy, the parties had a dispute regarding the Tenant’s brother’s dog living at the property. As a result of this dispute, the Tenants submitted the Landlord started to complain about various other issues including the carparking. The Landlord advised them they could no longer park their car at the designated car spot because it blocked the Landlord’s access to the shed.
Over the next few months, the Landlord without notice to the Tenant, installed a gate which blocked the Tenant’s access to the car spot and the driveway to the property. The Tenants had to park on the road. As one of the Tenants was injured and in crutches at the time, they had huge difficulties accessing the property. The inconvenience of having to park on the road was one of the main reasons why the Tenants decided to terminate the tenancy early.
The Tenants also found the Landlord and other people who they did not know entering the property to attend the shed. They found this very intrusive and a safety issue. They had three children so it was very concerning for them that the Landlord and other persons were attending the shed without notifying the Tenants.
The Landlord submitted the Owner agreed from the outset that the Tenants could park their car at the designated spot at night-time only. The issue they started to have was that the Tenants also parked there during the daytime. It was not because of the dog that the Owner started to raise issues about the parking.
In perusing the tenancy agreement, there was reference to the Tenants being permitted to park their cars on the property. Clause 11 of the Tenants Maintenance Duties and costs stated: Park only the Tenant’s car(s) or occupants cars in the space(s) provided and to ensure that all guests park on the street. The Tenant/s further agree to: a. keep the garage or carport free from oil drippings and if necessary supply and use a drip tray; b. not to repair any motor vehicle on the premises nor leave any motor vehicle in an immobile condition where it may cause damage to the premises, grounds or facilities or breach the Tenant’s obligation to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant was permitted to park their car on the property however the Landlord unilaterally ceased this during the tenancy. There was nothing in writing to state they could no longer use the spot. The Landlord gave the tenants a spot and then retracted it by blocking their access. The Tenants had to park on the road which made it inconvenient to access the property. This was particularly obstructive for the Tenant who had an injury at the time. I find the appropriate amount to award for compensation is ten percent of the weekly rent. I have calculated the period to be 44 weeks for when the Tenant did not have full use of the car parking spot and ten percent to equate to $76.00 per week. Tenants claim for lack of use of the garage/shed
The Tenants claimed compensation for the lack of use of the garage/shed. The Landlord still had their belongings in there which was why they would continue to enter the property.
The Landlord did not dispute the landlord’s belongings remaining in the garage/shed.
Section 37(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states: “The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises”.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not provide vacant possession of the garage by storing their personal belongings in there. Because of this, the Tenants were not able to use it to park their car or store their belongings. The Tenant’s also had to tolerate the Landlord and other unknown persons entering the property, without notice to access the garage. They found this intrusive and unsettling particularly having children staying at the property.
I find the appropriate amount to award in this instance is ten percent for the 44 weeks they did not have access to the garage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of their bond following the end of the tenancy.
Section 22B RTA provides: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory if they wish to dispute payment of the bond. As the landlord has not done so, the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. This does not prevent the landlord from filing a claim against the tenant at a later date. It just means that, if the landlord’s claim is successful, there is no bond to put towards any monetary award made.
As [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim the Landlord must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Tenants.
Name suppression is not granted to the Landlord as they did not request it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4728809 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4728809 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions