What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4789777 about?

The tribunal order states: Supercity Property Management Limited as agent for Timothy Stewart must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4789777?

Compensation: for loss of amenity an…: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4789777?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4789777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10394487-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4789777 about?

The tribunal order states: Supercity Property Management Limited as agent for Timothy Stewart must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4789777?

Compensation: for loss of amenity an…: $5,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4789777?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4789777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10394487-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4789777 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4789777 — net $5,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for loss of amenity and breach of quiet enjoyment	$5,500.00	for loss of amenity and breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,520.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4789777 — net $5,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for loss of amenity and breach of quiet enjoyment	$5,500.00	for loss of amenity and breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,520.44

Order

Supercity Property Management Limited as agent for Timothy Stewart must pay [The tenant/s] $5,520.44 immediately, by consent, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Smith. Mr Smith has recently taken over the management of this property following the departure of the previous property manager. The tenants’ claims
The tenancy began on 8 August 2022. The property is a standalone house in Titirangi. The rental was $1,000 per week.
The tenants’ claim is based on various issues that they experienced during the tenancy as set out below: a. The property did not comply with the Healthy Home Standards as there was no extractor fan in the bathroom (as confirmed by the Tenancy Agreement); b. There was a leak in the kitchen around the window, apparently from water entering the wall from the roof and then dripping out through the top of the window; c. The landlord agreed to do moisture testing but the testing never in fact occurred; and d. The landlord arranged for the roof to be repaired and then replaced causing huge disruption for a period of 22 weeks, as detailed below: i. They were not given notice regarding works until an initial delivery of materials arrived unexpectedly on a HIAB truck one evening in July 2023; ii. Their life was disrupted by the erection of scaffolding, the constant arrival of contractors (frequently without prior notice) and ongoing noise and debris; iii. Their children could not play outside at times for safety reasons while the contractors were at work (often at unexpected times) and the garden became filled with sharp roofing clips and nails; iv. They were expected to deal with the contractors directly, there being a succession of three different contractors brought in to do the job; v. One of the contractors broke the skylight in the bathroom and the temporary repair was ineffective and leaked over a two-month period, and when the skylight was replaced (without prior notice while they were away) the contractor left debris on the floor; and vi. They could not use the entire driveway/parking for two months as the roofing material/debris was stored there, despite their requests that it be removed.
The tenants were initially told that the works would take 2 – 3 days. They were accommodating and helpful even as the work stretched on and on. They liaised with the contractors directly and reported to the landlord, all of which took up time. One of the tenants worked at home and the work caused them considerable disruption. The tenants would often have to go out with the children because of the disruption and as they did not know when contractors were going to arrive, it was difficult for them to make plans.
The tenants found the whole situation very stressful. When it rained they had to deal with the ongoing leak in the skylight and they were constantly cleaning up debris left by the contractors.
The tenants quite reasonably sought a rent reduction from the landlord due to the impact of the works, but not only was this declined, the landlord served them with a notice increasing the rent to $1,150.00 per week in December 2023, just as they were about to travel overseas.
The tenants gave notice and moved out of the property in January 2024, despite enjoying the area and having made friends in the street.
The tenants sought compensation of $5,500, being a rent reduction of $250 per week for the entire 22-week period that works were taking place on the roof. Their claim is based on loss of amenity and breach of quiet enjoyment as they did not have full use of the property during that time. The landlord’s response
At the hearing Mr Smith apologised unreservedly to the tenants for all of the issues they experienced. He said that the property manager who had been managing their tenancy no longer worked for the landlord and that, having reviewed the tenants’ claim and all of the evidence filed, he was horrified by the way the tenancy had been managed.
The landlord readily accepts that there should have been a rent reduction to compensate the tenants for the issues experienced and that the amount sought by the tenants is reasonable and appropriate.
I therefore make an order, by consent, that the tenant is entitled to compensation in the amount of $5,500, being $250 per week for the 22-week duration of the roof repairs/replacement and associated works and inconvenience.
I record that, had the landlord not consented to the order, I would have had no hesitation in awarding the amount sought by the tenants by way of compensation.
While the order has been made by consent, I consider that the tenants should also be entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee as they have had to file this claim in the Tribunal.
I have also made an order suppressing the tenants’ names pursuant to section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants’ names and the tenancy address will be removed from the published order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4789777 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4789777 — Tenancy dispute

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