What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784077 about?

The tribunal order states: Shenee Stamper, Sean Turner and Acquila Lammas to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4784077?

Dehumidifier: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Fan Heater: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns Work: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Locksmith: $416.88 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss 3 June To 16 August At /Wk: $114.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10448713-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4784077 about?

The tribunal order states: Shenee Stamper, Sean Turner and Acquila Lammas to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4784077?

Dehumidifier: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Fan Heater: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns Work: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Locksmith: $416.88 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss 3 June To 16 August At /Wk: $114.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4784077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4784077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10448713-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4784077 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4784077 — net $1,290.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 29 September 2022	$200.00	Rent arrears 29 September 2022
Lawns work	$320.00	Lawns work
Locksmith	$416.88	Locksmith
Dehumidifier	$199.00	Dehumidifier
Fan heater	$40.00	Fan heater
Rent loss 3 June to 16 August at /wk	$114.29	Rent loss 3 June to 16 August at /wk
Net award	$1,290.17
Bond	$1,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,290.17

Shenee Stamper, Sean Turner and Acquila Lammas to pay [The landlord/s] $1,290.17 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,290.17 Shenee Stamper, Sean Turner and Acquila Lammas: $349.83

The amount to pay from the bond is calculated as follows:

Reasons

All parties except Acquila Lammas 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. How much is owed for rent.

The landlord has claimed two amounts for rent. The first is a short payment of rent by $200.00 on 29 September 2022. The second is a claim $2,720.00 for a shortfall of rent for the period from 25 May to 13 September 2022 based on the landlord’s claim that the tenants caused a delay in repairs by refusing entry to the builder.

Regarding the claim for $200.00, I am satisfied that the tenants agreed on 13 September 2022 that they would pay rent of $750.00 per week. They paid $1500.00 rent on 14 September 2022 for two weeks rent but only $1,300.00 on 29 September 2022. Therefore, an additional $200.00 is due.

Regarding the landlords claim for $2,720.00, being 16 weeks at $170.00, there are two parts of that claim to deal with. The first is whether the difference in rent due to repairs was $170.00 or $100.00 per week. That is because the landlord reduced rent to $650.00 when there was a leak but then agreed to $750.00 after the leak was repaired but before the carpet was replaced. My view is that any rent loss should be considered at $100.00 per week, not $170.00.

The second part of the claim for $2,720.00 is whether the tenants caused a delay in repairs and if so, for how long. From the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants caused a delay by refusing to allow the builder to appear on the day work was scheduled. That is clear from Shenee’s text to the landlord on 3 June 2022 and from the tenants’ submissions today. They believed that they could have a say in the scheduling of repairs. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not provide for tenants to have a say in or obstruct or refuse to assist the landlord with access for repairs to be carried out. Their refusal to allow the builder to proceed with scheduled work for the whole day on 3 June caused an unnecessary loss for the landlord. This resulted in lost rent caused by hindering entry for repairs to be carried out promptly and normal rent being paid sooner.

Regarding the period of time caused by the tenant’s refusal to allow access, I have taken the following into account. The tenants’ refusal to allow the landlord’s builder access on 3 June caused a delay. However the delay to August appears to be because the builder could not get access on 11 June, 8 days later or on 25 June 2022. There was no one home. But if the landlord had provided a key to the builder he could have carried out work on those days. Therefore while I accept the tenants were obstructive on 3 June, they did not prevent access on 11 June or on 25 June when the builder was ready to do the work. I must conclude that the tenants caused a delay of 8 days and should therefore pay $114.29 (8/7 x $100.00) for their delay. Compensation

The tenants did not dispute the amounts claimed for the lawns, locksmith, dehumidifier and fan.

Regarding the claim for $400.00 for the builder not having access on 11 June and 25 June, I am satisfied that the builder couldn’t get access because the landlord did not keep a key. That was a mistake. It is not the tenant’s responsibility to make sure that the landlord holds a key. I have declined to order that amount. The landlord could have sent a locksmith to the property and had keys made. Filing Fee

Because the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4784077 — net $1,290.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 29 September 2022	$200.00	Rent arrears 29 September 2022
Lawns work	$320.00	Lawns work
Locksmith	$416.88	Locksmith
Dehumidifier	$199.00	Dehumidifier
Fan heater	$40.00	Fan heater
Rent loss 3 June to 16 August at /wk	$114.29	Rent loss 3 June to 16 August at /wk
Net award	$1,290.17
Bond	$1,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,290.17

Order

Shenee Stamper, Sean Turner and Acquila Lammas to pay [The landlord/s] $1,290.17 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,290.17 Shenee Stamper, Sean Turner and Acquila Lammas: $349.83
The amount to pay from the bond is calculated as follows:

Reasons

All parties except Acquila Lammas 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. How much is owed for rent.
The landlord has claimed two amounts for rent. The first is a short payment of rent by $200.00 on 29 September 2022. The second is a claim $2,720.00 for a shortfall of rent for the period from 25 May to 13 September 2022 based on the landlord’s claim that the tenants caused a delay in repairs by refusing entry to the builder.
Regarding the claim for $200.00, I am satisfied that the tenants agreed on 13 September 2022 that they would pay rent of $750.00 per week. They paid $1500.00 rent on 14 September 2022 for two weeks rent but only $1,300.00 on 29 September 2022. Therefore, an additional $200.00 is due.
Regarding the landlords claim for $2,720.00, being 16 weeks at $170.00, there are two parts of that claim to deal with. The first is whether the difference in rent due to repairs was $170.00 or $100.00 per week. That is because the landlord reduced rent to $650.00 when there was a leak but then agreed to $750.00 after the leak was repaired but before the carpet was replaced. My view is that any rent loss should be considered at $100.00 per week, not $170.00.
The second part of the claim for $2,720.00 is whether the tenants caused a delay in repairs and if so, for how long. From the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants caused a delay by refusing to allow the builder to appear on the day work was scheduled. That is clear from Shenee’s text to the landlord on 3 June 2022 and from the tenants’ submissions today. They believed that they could have a say in the scheduling of repairs. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not provide for tenants to have a say in or obstruct or refuse to assist the landlord with access for repairs to be carried out. Their refusal to allow the builder to proceed with scheduled work for the whole day on 3 June caused an unnecessary loss for the landlord. This resulted in lost rent caused by hindering entry for repairs to be carried out promptly and normal rent being paid sooner.
Regarding the period of time caused by the tenant’s refusal to allow access, I have taken the following into account. The tenants’ refusal to allow the landlord’s builder access on 3 June caused a delay. However the delay to August appears to be because the builder could not get access on 11 June, 8 days later or on 25 June 2022. There was no one home. But if the landlord had provided a key to the builder he could have carried out work on those days. Therefore while I accept the tenants were obstructive on 3 June, they did not prevent access on 11 June or on 25 June when the builder was ready to do the work. I must conclude that the tenants caused a delay of 8 days and should therefore pay $114.29 (8/7 x $100.00) for their delay. Compensation
The tenants did not dispute the amounts claimed for the lawns, locksmith, dehumidifier and fan.
Regarding the claim for $400.00 for the builder not having access on 11 June and 25 June, I am satisfied that the builder couldn’t get access because the landlord did not keep a key. That was a mistake. It is not the tenant’s responsibility to make sure that the landlord holds a key. I have declined to order that amount. The landlord could have sent a locksmith to the property and had keys made. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been wholly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord’s request for name suppression is granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784077 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4784077 — Rent arrears

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