What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4735949?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of William Cooper-Higgins and Bridget

How much money was awarded in case 4735949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735949?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9712291-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4735949?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of William Cooper-Higgins and Bridget

How much money was awarded in case 4735949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735949?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9712291-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

111 Longstaffs Road, RD 4, Prebbleton 7674 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4735949 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of William Cooper-Higgins and Bridget Dobbie at 111 Longstaffs Road, RD 4, Prebbleton 7674 is reduced and, subject to paragraph 2, now ends at 9.00pm on 31 January 2024.

William Cooper-Higgins and Bridget Dobbie may vacate the premises before 31 January 2024, with a minimum of seven-days’ notice, and the obligation to pay rent will cease from the date that possession is given to the landlord.

Liron Allon and Oliver Phillips must pay William Cooper-Higgins and Bridget Dobbie $3,800.00 on the day after the tenancy ends under either order 1 or order 2 above.

Liron Allon and Oliver Phillips will allow a maximum of four working dogs belonging to William Cooper-Higgins and/or Bridget Dobbie to continue to be kennelled at 111 Longstaffs Road, RD 4, Prebbleton 7674 with no rent payable until 20 June 2024 if no suitable alternative can be found before that date. If the dogs remain at the property after the tenancy ends, they do so at the tenants’ risk and the maintenance and care of the dogs is the sole responsibility of the tenant.

Liron Allon and Oliver Phillips will install a blind or other window covering on the bathroom window within two weeks of the date of this order.

Liron Allon and Oliver Phillips will instruct their gardener to attend to the gardens at the premises on weekdays and during usual business hours only. Further, they will provide the gardener with the tenants’ contact details and instruct the gardener to contact the tenant the day before any work is to be completed at the property.

Liron Allon and Oliver Phillips will provide the tenants with an outline of the planned work schedule at the sheds, accessed via the shared driveway, on at least a weekly basis.

All other claims are dismissed or resolved by agreement as detailed below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for work to be done at the property, for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment and a related compensation claim for $10,130.30 for reimbursement for the costs of having someone else complete farm work on behalf of Mr Cooper-Higgins when he felt he had to return to support Ms Dobbie. These claims are considered from paragraph 24 below.

The landlord has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 28 September 2024.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.

There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances.

The landlords and their three young children moved to Israel in June 2023 and intended to stay there for the Israeli school year to enable their children to experience their mother’s culture having been unable to visit as usual over the past few years due to Covid travel restrictions.

As is well documented, a war broke out in Israel in October 2023.

The landlord provided evidence to show their initial intention to stay in Israel for a year, the immediate effects of the outbreak of hostilities on them and their children and their struggle to return to New Zealand urgently following this.

The landlord would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced.

The landlords provided evidence of the ongoing effect that the experience of being caught up in this war has had on their family. They wish to provide the security of familiar surroundings for themselves and their three young children.

The family has lived in this area since 2018 and their older children have previously attended the local school. They are unable to attend that school if they are out of zone.

They have attempted to find alternative accommodation and have attempted to discuss possible solutions with the tenants, including the possibility of allowing the tenants to move a “tiny home” to the premises. These attempts at finding a workable solution have been unsuccessful.

The landlords are not currently employed due to circumstances outlined above, and this has proved a barrier to finding alternative rental accommodation.

The landlords provided medical evidence to show that Ms Allon is suffering ongoing stress, anxiety and inability to sleep. Her doctor provided evidence that returning to her own home would provide significant benefits to Ms Allon’s mental health.

The landlords accept that ending the tenancy early will cause hardship to the tenants and they are sympathetic to that but claim that their family will suffer greater hardship if the fixed term is not reduced.

The landlord’s offered to reduce the burden on the tenant by agreeing that the four farm dogs currently kennelled at the property could remain there at no cost to the tenant until such time as appropriate arrangements could be made elsewhere. This offer is reflected in 4 order above.

Both parties expressed empathy for the other’s position, and I acknowledge that this is a very difficult situation for all involved and through no fault of any of the parties.

The tenants’ and their children have been through what can only be described as an horrific experience. Returning to the stability and security of their family home will help to reduce the severity of their continuing hardship.

After considering all of the evidence provided, I find that the landlords’ hardship, if the tenancy continues to September 2024, would be greater than the tenants’ hardship if the tenancy ends before the end of the current fixed term.

The fixed term is therefore reduced, and the tenancy will now end at 9.00pm on 31 January 2024 when possession is to be returned to the landlord.

Should the landlord pay compensation for ending the fixed term tenancy early?

Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the landlord to pay the tenant reasonable compensation for any resulting loss under section 66(2) of the Act.

I award compensation of $3800.00 to the tenant, taking into account the stress and inconvenience of having to move unexpectedly before the end of the fixed term and the costs associated with doing so.

The landlord is to pay $3800.00 to the tenant on the day after possession is returned to the landlord. The tenants’ work order and breach of quiet enjoyment claims

The tenants’ work order application included garden work, air in the plumbing pipes and a leaking toilet. The parties acknowledged that the leaking toilet has been fixed so this part of the claim was withdrawn at the hearing.

The tenant provided oral evidence and photographs to show that the property has excess air in the water pipes causing water to splash out of taps and stated that the air issues had got worse since a power cut. The tenant feels this is a matter that should be attended to by the landlord.

The landlord gave oral evidence that the water pipes had excess air issues throughout their own occupation of the property and stated that this was due to the age of the house and the age and design of the water system.

The landlord further suggested that to fix this issue would likely cost many thousands of dollars as it would require an entire replacement of the water system.

Given the tenancy is now to end on 31 January 2024 and there is limited evidence as to the consequences of this problem for the tenant or as to whether it constitutes a breach, I do not consider that a work order is appropriate in this instance and this claim is dismissed.

The issues around the gardener providing notice and attending during working hours and on weekdays only were agreed to by consent and are reflected in order 6 above.

The tenant claimed for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment. This relates to the particular situation at the property whereby the tenancy agreement specifically excludes specified sheds and the surrounding land, and the driveway to the property.

The landlords excluded these areas as they wished to complete work on the sheds and the surrounding area with a view to leasing these out separately and they required free use of the driveway to access the sheds. Clearly, the tenant could also expect access over the driveway as it is the only way to access the tenancy premises, and this was not disputed.

When accessing the excluded area, it is necessary to drive past a bathroom window which has no window treatment. The tenants’ flatmate provided a written statement indicating that she considered it a breach of privacy and felt distressed to find that someone was driving past when she was showering.

The parties agreed that this was the only access to the sheds and that the bathroom window did not have any window treatment.

The parties agreed that the landlord would provide a blind or other window treatment for the bathroom window as reflected in order 5 above.

The tenants made a further claim for the costs of paying for a contractor to complete work for Mr Cooper-Higgins so that he could return home to provide support to Ms Dobbie who felt unsafe being home alone having received correspondence from the landlord about vacating early and compounded by the landlord coming and going from the sheds as outlined above.

Neither party disputes that the sheds and the driveway are excluded from the tenancy. To access the sheds requires movement up and down the driveway. I do not consider that the landlord has breached the tenancy agreement or the Act by accessing an area excluded from the tenancy agreement. There can be no compensation awarded where there is no breach and I do not consider the tenant has proven a breach in this case.

Although the driveway is not part of the tenancy agreement, the landlord has agreed to provide a general work schedule to the tenant (in relation to work being completed in and around the sheds) on a weekly basis to reduce the tenants’ concerns about who is coming and going from the sheds. This agreement is recorded in order 7 above.

The tenants’ claim for compensation for the contractor ($10,130.30) is dismissed. Additional matters to note.

The tenant also raised two matters for the Tribunal to note.

The first is that the landlord should have appointed an agent given they were out of New Zealand for the first part of the tenancy. This is correct under section 16A of the Act and the landlord acknowledged that they should have done so but were unaware of the requirement.

The second matter is that the landlord is required to give notice before entering tenancy premises. This is also correct, but the complaint seems to be in relation to the landlord accessing the part of the premises that is excluded from the agreement so is not relevant in this case.

I do not consider there is any requirement to make any orders in relation to these matters and, in any case, I was not asked to do so. Filing fee

As this is a cross application and each party has had some success with their claims, no costs are awarded in respect of either application.