What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799301 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 4799301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10432441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799301 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 4799301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10432441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11B Cross Street, Drury, Drury 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799301 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s 63 days’ notice dated 10 January 2024 issued to the tenant to terminate the tenancy is hereby declared to be retaliatory and of no effect.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord Abbey Zeinoun attended along with the agent/property manager Samantha MacDonald.
I have addressed these issues before me today: a. Whether the landlord has delayed in attending to the maintenance and repairs on the leaking toilet and broken extractor fan; b. Whether the 63 days’ notice dated 10 January 2024 issued to the tenant to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory and of no effect; and c. Whether the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
There was no written tenancy agreement executed by the parties since the start of the tenancy on 25 March 2022. The parties are keen to have the tenancy agreement formalised now with the property manager’s assistance.
The key terms of the tenancy agreement have been agreed upon whereby the weekly rent payable from the commencement of the tenancy is $500.00.
The landlord’s rent ledger shows that rent is up to date and in advance with no arrears.
The parties disagree on whether, at the start of the tenancy, the landlord has stipulated a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises. The disagreement is centered on whether the maximum number of people that may ordinarily reside in the premises is 2 adults plus one child or 3 adults plus one child.
There being no written tenancy agreement at the start of the tenancy, it is not possible for the landlord to now insist on a maximum number of persons who may ordinarily reside in the premises.
Consequently, the parties cannot now retrospectively create a written tenancy agreement which specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy. I consider that this outcome has been brought about by the failure by the landlord to draft a written tenancy agreement to be executed at or before the start of the tenancy.
The landlord is entitled to appoint an agent and Ms MacDonald now acts as the landlord’s property manager despite there being no proper written tenancy agreement in place.
Consequently, notices of inspections and maintenance can be issued by the landlord’s agent on behalf of the landlord. The tenant must comply with those notices accordingly.
The parties agree that the leaking toilet and broken extractor fan have now been attended to and repaired by the landlord towards the end of March 2024.
Until the case conference before me on 1 March 2024, the tenant has not facilitated access the premises by the property manager who was unable to conduct the required property inspection of the premises.
That being the case, I consider that any delay by the landlord in attending to the maintenance and repairs on the leaking toilet and broken extractor fan has been brought about by the tenant herself. For that reason, I do not consider that the tenant is entitled to any compensation for the delay in the landlord attending to the repairs.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment also fails. There has been insufficient evidence in support of the claim; the tenant has only given a general statement that the landlord has been coming to her property unannounced.
Under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord may enter the premises with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry. This mean that the landlord is also entitled to knock on the door and ask the tenant for permission to enter, unannounced, which permission may of course be refused by the tenant.
The tenant concedes that she has permitted the landlord to enter the premises freely given, at times. At other times, the landlord only spoke with the tenant outside of the house.
I do not consider that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises has been unreasonably breached in the circumstances.
Finally, I find the landlord’s issuance of 63 day’s notice to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory. This is despite the landlord genuinely wanting to move back into their premises in Drury from Bombay.
With the leaking toilet and extractor fan still unrepaired at the time the landlord issued the 63 days’ notice to the tenant on 10 January 2024, I find that the landlord is motivated at least partly by the exercise of the tenant of their right to require the premises to be duly repaired and attended to.
At the time of issuance of the 63 days’ notice, the landlord has still not prepared a written tenancy agreement that reflects the parties’ agreement at the start of the tenancy. The tenant has in November 2023 given a breach notice to the landlord to have a written tenancy agreement drawn up, albeit belatedly.
All those factors point to the landlord being motivated at least partly by the exercise of the tenant of her rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I therefore declare the 63 days’ notice issued by the landlord on 10 January 2024 to be retaliatory and or no effect.

Order

The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s 63 days’ notice dated 10 January 2024 issued to the tenant to terminate the tenancy is hereby declared to be retaliatory and of no effect.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord Abbey Zeinoun attended along with the agent/property manager Samantha MacDonald.
I have addressed these issues before me today: a. Whether the landlord has delayed in attending to the maintenance and repairs on the leaking toilet and broken extractor fan; b. Whether the 63 days’ notice dated 10 January 2024 issued to the tenant to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory and of no effect; and c. Whether the landlord has breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
There was no written tenancy agreement executed by the parties since the start of the tenancy on 25 March 2022. The parties are keen to have the tenancy agreement formalised now with the property manager’s assistance.
The key terms of the tenancy agreement have been agreed upon whereby the weekly rent payable from the commencement of the tenancy is $500.00.
The landlord’s rent ledger shows that rent is up to date and in advance with no arrears.
The parties disagree on whether, at the start of the tenancy, the landlord has stipulated a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises. The disagreement is centered on whether the maximum number of people that may ordinarily reside in the premises is 2 adults plus one child or 3 adults plus one child.
There being no written tenancy agreement at the start of the tenancy, it is not possible for the landlord to now insist on a maximum number of persons who may ordinarily reside in the premises.
Consequently, the parties cannot now retrospectively create a written tenancy agreement which specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy. I consider that this outcome has been brought about by the failure by the landlord to draft a written tenancy agreement to be executed at or before the start of the tenancy.
The landlord is entitled to appoint an agent and Ms MacDonald now acts as the landlord’s property manager despite there being no proper written tenancy agreement in place.
Consequently, notices of inspections and maintenance can be issued by the landlord’s agent on behalf of the landlord. The tenant must comply with those notices accordingly.
The parties agree that the leaking toilet and broken extractor fan have now been attended to and repaired by the landlord towards the end of March 2024.
Until the case conference before me on 1 March 2024, the tenant has not facilitated access the premises by the property manager who was unable to conduct the required property inspection of the premises.
That being the case, I consider that any delay by the landlord in attending to the maintenance and repairs on the leaking toilet and broken extractor fan has been brought about by the tenant herself. For that reason, I do not consider that the tenant is entitled to any compensation for the delay in the landlord attending to the repairs.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment also fails. There has been insufficient evidence in support of the claim; the tenant has only given a general statement that the landlord has been coming to her property unannounced.
Under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord may enter the premises with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry. This mean that the landlord is also entitled to knock on the door and ask the tenant for permission to enter, unannounced, which permission may of course be refused by the tenant.
The tenant concedes that she has permitted the landlord to enter the premises freely given, at times. At other times, the landlord only spoke with the tenant outside of the house.
I do not consider that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises has been unreasonably breached in the circumstances.
Finally, I find the landlord’s issuance of 63 day’s notice to terminate the tenancy is retaliatory. This is despite the landlord genuinely wanting to move back into their premises in Drury from Bombay.
With the leaking toilet and extractor fan still unrepaired at the time the landlord issued the 63 days’ notice to the tenant on 10 January 2024, I find that the landlord is motivated at least partly by the exercise of the tenant of their right to require the premises to be duly repaired and attended to.
At the time of issuance of the 63 days’ notice, the landlord has still not prepared a written tenancy agreement that reflects the parties’ agreement at the start of the tenancy. The tenant has in November 2023 given a breach notice to the landlord to have a written tenancy agreement drawn up, albeit belatedly.
All those factors point to the landlord being motivated at least partly by the exercise of the tenant of her rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I therefore declare the 63 days’ notice issued by the landlord on 10 January 2024 to be retaliatory and or no effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799301 — Leaks at 11B Cross Street, Drury, Drury 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799301 — Leaks at 11B Cross Street, Drury, Drury 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions