What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753569 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4753569?

Cleaning: $3,485.72 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Replace Carpet: $3,809.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rubbish Tag: $8.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,228.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10090239-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4753569 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4753569?

Cleaning: $3,485.72 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Replace Carpet: $3,809.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rubbish Tag: $8.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,228.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4753569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4753569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10090239-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5B Lee Street, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753569 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

5B Lee Street, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4753569 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753569 — net $3,697.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,228.57		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday	$3,485.72		Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday
Compensation: Replace carpet		$3,809.00	Replace carpet
Compensation: Rubbish tag		$8.00	Rubbish tag
Exemplary damages: No tenancy agreement		$200.00	No tenancy agreement
Total award	$7,714.29	$4,017.00
Net award	$3,697.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,697.29

Claims and awards for application 4753569 — net $3,697.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $4,228.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday

Amount: $3,485.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday

Compensation: Replace carpet

Amount: $3,809.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Replace carpet

Compensation: Rubbish tag

Amount: $8.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rubbish tag

Exemplary damages: No tenancy agreement

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: No tenancy agreement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Compensation Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5B Lee Street, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510 is terminated, and possession is granted to Alison McCallum and Robert McCallum, immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Alison McCallum and Robert McCallum $3,697.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr McCallum attended via telephone; Ms McCallum did not appear. [The tenant/s] appeared and bought a support person with her.
The tenants initial contact with Ms McCallum was in August 2023 when she was looking for premises to relocate to Whitianga. Ms McCallum wrote via messenger that she had a two-bedroom house, and they agreed on rent of $400.00 a week.
On 18 August 2023 Ms McCallum wrote ‘... if you want to rent it you can. But its only 2 rooms and no garage. It’s in a very messy at the moment.’ The tenant replied ‘I don’t care about mess honestly...’
The tenant said that she spent some time at the premises painting rooms and tidying prior to taking possession on 1 October 2023. No tenancy agreement was provided on this date.
When the tenant moved in, she organised for Ms McCullum’s rubbish to be collected and paid for the collection tag. She also cleared some garden and arranged and paid for the replacement of the carpet through the premises.
In recognition of the work done by the tenant Ms McCallum agreed to a two-month rent holiday with the rent payments at the agreed amount to start on 1 December 2023. This was not disputed by the parties.
The tenant thought that she was dealing only with Ms McCallum, who had been living at the premises with her mother. She believed that Ms McCallum was renting it to her while she recovered from an operation and then went away on a trip in her campervan.
The tenant said they had an oral agreement for a fixed term tenancy of 2 years and that was why she was prepared to put the work in to tidy and clean the house and gardens.
There was no evidence provided of an agreement for a 2-year fixed term tenancy.
Ms McCallum sent a letter to the tenant on 11 November 2023 stating that her expectations of the rental were, that it was for a short term and was never intended to be long term ...’ as I will be requiring the property myself during winter...’
The terms of the tenancy that Ms McCallum presented were that, •it was a 6-month lease from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024, •for painting and carpet laying a 2-month rent free period was given •starting on 1 December 2023 rent of $400.00 per week was to be paid.
In response the tenant replied that her terms were that, •She would rent the house for a two-year period, •She would renovate the house for a rent holiday, •rental payments would start on 1 December 2023 once she had a signed tenancy agreement by that date.
The parties never agreed on the terms of the tenancy and no tenancy agreement was signed.
The tenant attached a breakdown of costs she had incurred and estimation of the time that she had spent at the premises working. She said she was happy to do this because she anticipated a long-term rental.
On 17 of November 2023 Mr McCallum discovered that his sister, Ms McCallum, had a person living in the family home. He said that his sister had been living there with his mother until his mother moved out because she required further care. His sister had moved out in late August as she had an operation and required help while she recovered.
The premises are owned by the family trust and he and his sister are trustees and ultimate beneficiaries. Once he discovered someone was living in the house, he was concerned that they did not know her full name, and instructed lawyers who advised him that a written tenancy agreement was required.
The agreement was sent to the tenant via the solicitors on 21 November 2023 and amended when the tenant confirmed her full name.
The tenant refused to sign the agreement because the dates were recorded as starting on 1 December 2023 and fixed to 1 February 2024, not for 2 years as she believed had been agreed to.
The tenant sought advice and filed an application with the Tribunal on 30 November 2023. No rent has been paid.
The tenant applied for compensation, a work order and confirmation that there is a current tenancy agreement for a fixed term period.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. The tenants claim.

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy her.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.
No tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing. See section 13C RTA.
Mr McCallum claimed that the start of the tenancy was a gift to the tenant in recognition of the tough situation she was in and the work she was doing.
To decide if there is a tenancy agreement, verbal or otherwise, what the Tribunal is seeking to do in most cases is to determine whether there is an appearance of mutual agreement; whether the communications between, and conduct of, the parties is such that a reasonable bystander would consider the tenant to have agreed to the terms proposed by the landlord.
The acid test in a case like the present is whether, viewed as a whole and objectively from the point of view of reasonable persons on both sides, the dealings show a concluded bargain. Meates v Attorney-General [1983] NZLR 308 (CA) at 377 per Cooke J.
In the present case there is evidence of an offer to rent which was accepted and there was an agreed rental and waiver for work at the premises. This was the rent holiday from 1 October 2023 and start date for rental payments of 1 December 2023. The tenant also requested an agreement by 1 December. I find that even though the length of the tenancy was not agreed upon there was sufficiency certainty of terms to find that a tenancy agreement existed at 1 October.
It is acknowledged that the tenant was only interested in signing an agreement in December that reflected her terms, but this does not absolve the landlord from the requirement to have a signed agreement provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. I find that the tenancy began on 1 October 2023,the tenant had taken possession and was working in lieu of rent.
Being a landlord is a commercial undertaking no matter the circumstances and a landlord is required to know and a comply with the requirements of the RTA. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was required to provide a written tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy commencing, which I have determined to be 1 October 2023.This would have clarified the parties position earlier as the terms would have been finalised. Not knowing the law is no excuse and I find that the result is that the tenant committed to a tenancy without the full information from the landlord.
I find it just in these circumstances to award exemplary damages of $200.00.

Was there an agreement that the tenancy was to be fixed for two years?

The tenant was unable to provide any evidence that the parties agreed upon a fixed term tenancy for 2 years.
This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the insulation standards?

The landlord said that the premises were insulated in the roof and walls but the floor was a concrete slab, so this was unable to be insulated. The tenant disputed this but was unable to provide any evidence.
This claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant and landlord agreed to 2 months’ rent free while the tenant worked on the premises cleaning and painting and recarpeting. The landlord said that the premises were messy. It was confirmed by Mr McCallum that Ms McCallum had moved out late August leaving some of her furniture and belongings there because she intended to return to her house for winter.
A breakdown of works costing drafted by the tenant to reflect what she believed her work was worth was sent in response to the landlord’s letter of 11 November to further support her claim that she would not have completed this work for a short-term tenancy. This was not to be a basis of any claim.
The tenant knew and agreed to clean, tidy, paint and recarpet and compensated by way of living rent free. The paint materials were provided, and it was agreed that the tenant paid for the carpet.
There was some evidence provided supporting the claim that the tenancy was not provided in a reasonable condition and upon examination of the tenants works document there was not a lot of evidence to support the time and amount she claimed. Her hourly rate of $75.00 was for someone who was not a professional.
There is also the issue that the tenant agreed to do the work to bring the premises up to a reasonable standard before the tenancy started and was compensated for this.
Even if I found that it was established that the landlord did not provide the tenancy reasonably clean. I do not find that there was any intention in breaching this requirement. No damages are awarded. Repairs
Under section 45, a landlord must also provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant claimed that there were leaks and a hole in an exterior wall and blocked drainpipe. Drainage
The downpipe was blocked, and the tenant contacted the landlord who instructed the to attend the premises. The tenant said that it wasn’t fixed by the handyman but by her by lifting it up and removing all the mud which unblocked it. The landlord offered to have the handyman revisit and look at the problem, but the tenant confirmed that it had been fixed. There was a 2-week period from when the tenant told the landlord and when the problem was fixed. Leak
The tenant said that there was a leak inside the premises and believed that that area was covered by gardens which were close the wall, and no air could circulate. There was no evidence establishing when the tenant had told the landlord about the leak. After the new carpet was laid there was no more leaks. Hole
There was a hole in the exterior wall which had been covered by a tree that the tenant dug out. The landlord was told about this on 20 October and the handy man came and covered this with plastic and duct tape.
The landlord said that they intended to remove the whole siding and have a look at the condition of the wall and that they believed it would be better if the tenant was not there when this occurred because a large planter box would also need to be dug out as well before the area could be assessed.
There was no evidence that the hole was letting in water or air or affecting the tenancy. Carpet
It was agreed that the tenant paid for the premises to be recarpeted, although the amount and what the invoice covered was disputed.
The replacement of the carpet was agreed by the landlord and tenant as part of the rent holiday. I do not find that it appropriate to find that the landlord has breached the RTA for failing to provide and maintain the premises when the parties agreed to this, and the tenant organised it and claims reimbursement for it.
The claims that the landlord breached their obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair the under section 45 of the RTA are dismissed. Compensation for the carpet replacement
The tenant pursued a claim for compensation for replacing the carpe. An invoice for the carpet was provided but had little detail. It did not stipulate the cost per metre and whether it included underlay, installation and uplift and disposal of the old carpet.
The tenant said that she removed and disposed of the old carpet and the underlay was reused.
The amount of the invoice was questioned by the landlord who provided information that the premises were only 65% carpet, and the rest was hard flooring and garaging.
The tenant provided a copy of the plan drawn by the landlord’s handy man and given to the flooring company which suggested a larger area.
The landlord said that the tenant was related to the carpet supplier and questioned the area quoted. The tenant provided evidence of the cost of carpeting a similar house and said that installation was free.
Initial information provided supports the claim that the tenants rent holiday of 2 months was to cover the repairs and preparation of the premises, and cost to recarpet.
I find that the award of 65% of the costs of the carpet replacement, being $3809.00, is justified as not all of the premises are carpeted and the invoice lacked important details.
There was evidence that the tenant also did other works such as gardening and painting in the house which the rent holiday was to cover. The tenant presented an invoice to Ms McCallum and breakdown of costs as evidence of the work she had undertaken. This was to support her claim that she would not have done this amount of work for a short-term tenancy. In the letter dated 29 November 2023 to Ms McCallum she clearly states that there was no agreement regarding payment of works.
There was no evidence of an agreement that if the tenancy was for only a short period that the tenant would be paid for her work at her claimed hourly rate.
The tenant’s application was not amended to include a claim for works at the premises and I find that there was no evidence provided that there was to be any payment over and above the rent holiday agreed by the parties. Work order
The tenant claims that the landlord did not insulate the walls and that an interior wall was exposed to the weather. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is not required to insulate the walls of the premises under the current requirements of the RTA.
There was evidence of the hole in the exterior wall but no evidence showing that an interior wall was exposed to the weather because of this. The claim about leaks were addressed. This claim is dismissed. The landlords claim.
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy based on 63-day notice issued on 30 November 2023 which terminated the tenancy on 1 February 2024.
I have found that there was a valid tenancy, acknowledging that the term of the tenancy was not agreed upon. The process of terminating a tenancy depends on whether the tenancy is for a fixed term or if it is periodic. The biggest difference being that a fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by notice.
The landlord, Ms McCallum, offered a fixed term to 1 March 2024 and this was rejected by the tenant who would sign a fixed term tenancy for a longer period.
The RTA recognises the importance of defining the terms of fixed term tenancies. In section 60A of the RTA A fixed term tenancy become periodic unless contrary notice is given. That is parties must agree to renew or extend the existing fixed term tenancy otherwise it reverts to a periodic tenancy.
The tenant’s rejection of the terms proposed by the landlord mean that the Tribunal cannot find that there is an agreed fixed term tenancy in place. The consequence of this is that the tendency must therefore be periodic.
I do not find that there was enough evidence provided supporting the tenants claim that there was an oral agreement to have a longer fixed term tenancy.
A periodic tenancy can be terminated by a valid notice being given. I find that the landlord issued a valid notice terminating the tenancy on 1 February 2024.
The tenancy is terminated immediately. Rent arrears
The tenant agreed that no rent or bond has been paid since the tenancy began and the amount claimed for rent arrears is awarded.
Because both parties are somewhat successful with their claims no filing fees will be reimbursed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant applied for name suppression and has been successful will some of her claims. Having regard to the interests of the parties I grant the application for name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4753569 — net $3,697.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,228.57		Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday	$3,485.72		Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday
Compensation: Replace carpet		$3,809.00	Replace carpet
Compensation: Rubbish tag		$8.00	Rubbish tag
Exemplary damages: No tenancy agreement		$200.00	No tenancy agreement
Total award	$7,714.29	$4,017.00
Net award	$3,697.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,697.29

Claims and awards for application 4753569 — net $3,697.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $4,228.57
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday

Amount: $3,485.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: Value of rent holiday

Compensation: Replace carpet

Amount: $3,809.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Replace carpet

Compensation: Rubbish tag

Amount: $8.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rubbish tag

Exemplary damages: No tenancy agreement

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: No tenancy agreement

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Compensation Exemplary damages Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5B Lee Street, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510 is terminated, and possession is granted to Alison McCallum and Robert McCallum, immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Alison McCallum and Robert McCallum $3,697.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr McCallum attended via telephone; Ms McCallum did not appear. [The tenant/s] appeared and bought a support person with her.
The tenants initial contact with Ms McCallum was in August 2023 when she was looking for premises to relocate to Whitianga. Ms McCallum wrote via messenger that she had a two-bedroom house, and they agreed on rent of $400.00 a week.
On 18 August 2023 Ms McCallum wrote ‘... if you want to rent it you can. But its only 2 rooms and no garage. It’s in a very messy at the moment.’ The tenant replied ‘I don’t care about mess honestly...’
The tenant said that she spent some time at the premises painting rooms and tidying prior to taking possession on 1 October 2023. No tenancy agreement was provided on this date.
When the tenant moved in, she organised for Ms McCullum’s rubbish to be collected and paid for the collection tag. She also cleared some garden and arranged and paid for the replacement of the carpet through the premises.
In recognition of the work done by the tenant Ms McCallum agreed to a two-month rent holiday with the rent payments at the agreed amount to start on 1 December 2023. This was not disputed by the parties.
The tenant thought that she was dealing only with Ms McCallum, who had been living at the premises with her mother. She believed that Ms McCallum was renting it to her while she recovered from an operation and then went away on a trip in her campervan.
The tenant said they had an oral agreement for a fixed term tenancy of 2 years and that was why she was prepared to put the work in to tidy and clean the house and gardens.
There was no evidence provided of an agreement for a 2-year fixed term tenancy.
Ms McCallum sent a letter to the tenant on 11 November 2023 stating that her expectations of the rental were, that it was for a short term and was never intended to be long term ...’ as I will be requiring the property myself during winter...’
The terms of the tenancy that Ms McCallum presented were that, •it was a 6-month lease from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024, •for painting and carpet laying a 2-month rent free period was given •starting on 1 December 2023 rent of $400.00 per week was to be paid.
In response the tenant replied that her terms were that, •She would rent the house for a two-year period, •She would renovate the house for a rent holiday, •rental payments would start on 1 December 2023 once she had a signed tenancy agreement by that date.
The parties never agreed on the terms of the tenancy and no tenancy agreement was signed.
The tenant attached a breakdown of costs she had incurred and estimation of the time that she had spent at the premises working. She said she was happy to do this because she anticipated a long-term rental.
On 17 of November 2023 Mr McCallum discovered that his sister, Ms McCallum, had a person living in the family home. He said that his sister had been living there with his mother until his mother moved out because she required further care. His sister had moved out in late August as she had an operation and required help while she recovered.
The premises are owned by the family trust and he and his sister are trustees and ultimate beneficiaries. Once he discovered someone was living in the house, he was concerned that they did not know her full name, and instructed lawyers who advised him that a written tenancy agreement was required.
The agreement was sent to the tenant via the solicitors on 21 November 2023 and amended when the tenant confirmed her full name.
The tenant refused to sign the agreement because the dates were recorded as starting on 1 December 2023 and fixed to 1 February 2024, not for 2 years as she believed had been agreed to.
The tenant sought advice and filed an application with the Tribunal on 30 November 2023. No rent has been paid.
The tenant applied for compensation, a work order and confirmation that there is a current tenancy agreement for a fixed term period.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. The tenants claim.

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy her.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.
No tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing. See section 13C RTA.
Mr McCallum claimed that the start of the tenancy was a gift to the tenant in recognition of the tough situation she was in and the work she was doing.
To decide if there is a tenancy agreement, verbal or otherwise, what the Tribunal is seeking to do in most cases is to determine whether there is an appearance of mutual agreement; whether the communications between, and conduct of, the parties is such that a reasonable bystander would consider the tenant to have agreed to the terms proposed by the landlord.
The acid test in a case like the present is whether, viewed as a whole and objectively from the point of view of reasonable persons on both sides, the dealings show a concluded bargain. Meates v Attorney-General [1983] NZLR 308 (CA) at 377 per Cooke J.
In the present case there is evidence of an offer to rent which was accepted and there was an agreed rental and waiver for work at the premises. This was the rent holiday from 1 October 2023 and start date for rental payments of 1 December 2023. The tenant also requested an agreement by 1 December. I find that even though the length of the tenancy was not agreed upon there was sufficiency certainty of terms to find that a tenancy agreement existed at 1 October.
It is acknowledged that the tenant was only interested in signing an agreement in December that reflected her terms, but this does not absolve the landlord from the requirement to have a signed agreement provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. I find that the tenancy began on 1 October 2023,the tenant had taken possession and was working in lieu of rent.
Being a landlord is a commercial undertaking no matter the circumstances and a landlord is required to know and a comply with the requirements of the RTA. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was required to provide a written tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy commencing, which I have determined to be 1 October 2023.This would have clarified the parties position earlier as the terms would have been finalised. Not knowing the law is no excuse and I find that the result is that the tenant committed to a tenancy without the full information from the landlord.
I find it just in these circumstances to award exemplary damages of $200.00.

Was there an agreement that the tenancy was to be fixed for two years?

The tenant was unable to provide any evidence that the parties agreed upon a fixed term tenancy for 2 years.
This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the insulation standards?

The landlord said that the premises were insulated in the roof and walls but the floor was a concrete slab, so this was unable to be insulated. The tenant disputed this but was unable to provide any evidence.
This claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenant and landlord agreed to 2 months’ rent free while the tenant worked on the premises cleaning and painting and recarpeting. The landlord said that the premises were messy. It was confirmed by Mr McCallum that Ms McCallum had moved out late August leaving some of her furniture and belongings there because she intended to return to her house for winter.
A breakdown of works costing drafted by the tenant to reflect what she believed her work was worth was sent in response to the landlord’s letter of 11 November to further support her claim that she would not have completed this work for a short-term tenancy. This was not to be a basis of any claim.
The tenant knew and agreed to clean, tidy, paint and recarpet and compensated by way of living rent free. The paint materials were provided, and it was agreed that the tenant paid for the carpet.
There was some evidence provided supporting the claim that the tenancy was not provided in a reasonable condition and upon examination of the tenants works document there was not a lot of evidence to support the time and amount she claimed. Her hourly rate of $75.00 was for someone who was not a professional.
There is also the issue that the tenant agreed to do the work to bring the premises up to a reasonable standard before the tenancy started and was compensated for this.
Even if I found that it was established that the landlord did not provide the tenancy reasonably clean. I do not find that there was any intention in breaching this requirement. No damages are awarded. Repairs
Under section 45, a landlord must also provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant claimed that there were leaks and a hole in an exterior wall and blocked drainpipe. Drainage
The downpipe was blocked, and the tenant contacted the landlord who instructed the to attend the premises. The tenant said that it wasn’t fixed by the handyman but by her by lifting it up and removing all the mud which unblocked it. The landlord offered to have the handyman revisit and look at the problem, but the tenant confirmed that it had been fixed. There was a 2-week period from when the tenant told the landlord and when the problem was fixed. Leak
The tenant said that there was a leak inside the premises and believed that that area was covered by gardens which were close the wall, and no air could circulate. There was no evidence establishing when the tenant had told the landlord about the leak. After the new carpet was laid there was no more leaks. Hole
There was a hole in the exterior wall which had been covered by a tree that the tenant dug out. The landlord was told about this on 20 October and the handy man came and covered this with plastic and duct tape.
The landlord said that they intended to remove the whole siding and have a look at the condition of the wall and that they believed it would be better if the tenant was not there when this occurred because a large planter box would also need to be dug out as well before the area could be assessed.
There was no evidence that the hole was letting in water or air or affecting the tenancy. Carpet
It was agreed that the tenant paid for the premises to be recarpeted, although the amount and what the invoice covered was disputed.
The replacement of the carpet was agreed by the landlord and tenant as part of the rent holiday. I do not find that it appropriate to find that the landlord has breached the RTA for failing to provide and maintain the premises when the parties agreed to this, and the tenant organised it and claims reimbursement for it.
The claims that the landlord breached their obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair the under section 45 of the RTA are dismissed. Compensation for the carpet replacement
The tenant pursued a claim for compensation for replacing the carpe. An invoice for the carpet was provided but had little detail. It did not stipulate the cost per metre and whether it included underlay, installation and uplift and disposal of the old carpet.
The tenant said that she removed and disposed of the old carpet and the underlay was reused.
The amount of the invoice was questioned by the landlord who provided information that the premises were only 65% carpet, and the rest was hard flooring and garaging.
The tenant provided a copy of the plan drawn by the landlord’s handy man and given to the flooring company which suggested a larger area.
The landlord said that the tenant was related to the carpet supplier and questioned the area quoted. The tenant provided evidence of the cost of carpeting a similar house and said that installation was free.
Initial information provided supports the claim that the tenants rent holiday of 2 months was to cover the repairs and preparation of the premises, and cost to recarpet.
I find that the award of 65% of the costs of the carpet replacement, being $3809.00, is justified as not all of the premises are carpeted and the invoice lacked important details.
There was evidence that the tenant also did other works such as gardening and painting in the house which the rent holiday was to cover. The tenant presented an invoice to Ms McCallum and breakdown of costs as evidence of the work she had undertaken. This was to support her claim that she would not have done this amount of work for a short-term tenancy. In the letter dated 29 November 2023 to Ms McCallum she clearly states that there was no agreement regarding payment of works.
There was no evidence of an agreement that if the tenancy was for only a short period that the tenant would be paid for her work at her claimed hourly rate.
The tenant’s application was not amended to include a claim for works at the premises and I find that there was no evidence provided that there was to be any payment over and above the rent holiday agreed by the parties. Work order
The tenant claims that the landlord did not insulate the walls and that an interior wall was exposed to the weather. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is not required to insulate the walls of the premises under the current requirements of the RTA.
There was evidence of the hole in the exterior wall but no evidence showing that an interior wall was exposed to the weather because of this. The claim about leaks were addressed. This claim is dismissed. The landlords claim.
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy based on 63-day notice issued on 30 November 2023 which terminated the tenancy on 1 February 2024.
I have found that there was a valid tenancy, acknowledging that the term of the tenancy was not agreed upon. The process of terminating a tenancy depends on whether the tenancy is for a fixed term or if it is periodic. The biggest difference being that a fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by notice.
The landlord, Ms McCallum, offered a fixed term to 1 March 2024 and this was rejected by the tenant who would sign a fixed term tenancy for a longer period.
The RTA recognises the importance of defining the terms of fixed term tenancies. In section 60A of the RTA A fixed term tenancy become periodic unless contrary notice is given. That is parties must agree to renew or extend the existing fixed term tenancy otherwise it reverts to a periodic tenancy.
The tenant’s rejection of the terms proposed by the landlord mean that the Tribunal cannot find that there is an agreed fixed term tenancy in place. The consequence of this is that the tendency must therefore be periodic.
I do not find that there was enough evidence provided supporting the tenants claim that there was an oral agreement to have a longer fixed term tenancy.
A periodic tenancy can be terminated by a valid notice being given. I find that the landlord issued a valid notice terminating the tenancy on 1 February 2024.
The tenancy is terminated immediately. Rent arrears
The tenant agreed that no rent or bond has been paid since the tenancy began and the amount claimed for rent arrears is awarded.
Because both parties are somewhat successful with their claims no filing fees will be reimbursed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant applied for name suppression and has been successful will some of her claims. Having regard to the interests of the parties I grant the application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753569 — Rent arrears at 5B Lee Street, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4753569 — Rent arrears at 5B Lee Street, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Was there an agreement that the tenancy was to be fixed for two years?

Was there a breach of the insulation standards?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a written tenancy agreement?

Was there an agreement that the tenancy was to be fixed for two years?

Was there a breach of the insulation standards?

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions