What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808157 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The landlord/s] agrees 50% rent reduction for the first four weeks

How much money was awarded in case 4808157?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808157?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10136311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808157 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The landlord/s] agrees 50% rent reduction for the first four weeks

How much money was awarded in case 4808157?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808157?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10136311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808157 — Tenancy dispute

Order

By consent, [The landlord/s] agrees 50% rent reduction for the first four weeks of the maintenance work.
[The landlord/s] must reduce the rent by 30% if the maintenance work continues beyond the first four weeks.

Reasons

The hearing is held on 26 March 2024 in [Court].
Both parties attended the hearing.
[The landlord’s representative] and [The landlord/s] attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] attended the hearing.

What was the dispute?

The landlord wanted to perform maintenance work on the house's exterior starting from 5 January 2024.
The tenant did not consent for the landlord's maintenance team to enter the property.
The parties exchanged emails, and the tenant eventually sought legal advice and issued a cease-and-desist notice to prevent the landlord from entering the property.
At the start of the hearing, the tenant clarified that she did not object to the maintenance work itself when the landlord approached her but rather to the timing of the work, which coincided with social events she had planned at the house. She suggested that the work could be postponed until March 2024.
In the hearing, the tenant confirmed that the landlord could start the work because this is March 2024 now.
The issue of appropriate compensation for the tenant was also discussed, as the noise caused by the work and tradespeople on the property would impact the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the property. The landlord did not dispute this would happen.

What is the appropriate compensation?

What was agreed?

The landlord initially offered no compensation for the maintenance work that needed to be done on the house's exterior. Later, the landlord offered a 30% rent reduction, and then a 50% rent reduction offer was made in February 2024. However, the tenant did not accept any of the offers.
During the hearing, it was established that the only dispute was regarding the appropriate compensation for the maintenance work. The parties were advised that it would be preferable for them to discuss and agree on an appropriate compensation rather than for me to make the decision.
The hearing was adjourned for 20 minutes to allow the landlord to take instructions from her client and discuss the proposal with the tenant.
When the hearing resumed, the landlord confirmed that her client had offered a 50% rent reduction for the first four weeks of work on the house's exterior.
The tenant accepted the offer of 50% rent reduction for the first four weeks of work on the house's exterior.

What was not agreed?

The parties could not agree on the appropriate compensation if the landlord could not complete the work by the end of the fourth week.
The landlord offered a 20% reduction in rent, which the tenant counter-offered with a request for a 50% reduction. The tenant claimed to work from home and paid an annual rent of $195,000 for a water-front house. She believed any work around the house would significantly breach her quiet enjoyment.
While I understand the tenant's concerns, if the work needs to continue beyond the fourth week, the disruption or inconvenience caused would be far less than it was at the beginning. In my view, the amount of work or tradespeople on site would not be the same as the work commenced at the beginning.
Therefore, although the tenant's quiet enjoyment would still be affected, it would be significantly less. Consequently, I consider that a 30% reduction in rent for work done after the first four weeks is appropriate. Filing fee
Each party has been successful in their respective application. Costs should like where they fall. Name suppression
The tenant sought a name suppression order. The landlord did not.
I do not consider this case to have any public interest because the parties have reached an agreement except for a minor issue regarding the appropriate level of compensation for work beyond the first four weeks.
Accordingly, I order to suppress the names and identifying details of the parties involved. Other issues the tenant raised.
The tenant brought up additional maintenance issues regarding the property's interior.
I informed the tenant that I had only been made aware of these issues a few days ago and that the landlord had not yet responded.
In fairness to the landlord and focus on the main issue before me, I explained that I would not consider these additional maintenance issues in the hearing.
However, I informed the tenant that she was welcome to file a new application with the Tribunal if the parties could not resolve these other maintenance issues.
It is important to note that these additional issues were not included in the tenant's original application.
Accordingly, if the tenant deems it necessary, she may file a new application.

Reasons

The hearing is held on 26 March 2024 in [Court].

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The landlord’s representative] and [The landlord/s] attended the hearing.

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing.

What was the dispute?

The landlord wanted to perform maintenance work on the house's exterior starting from 5 January 2024.

The tenant did not consent for the landlord's maintenance team to enter the property.

The parties exchanged emails, and the tenant eventually sought legal advice and issued a cease-and-desist notice to prevent the landlord from entering the property.

At the start of the hearing, the tenant clarified that she did not object to the maintenance work itself when the landlord approached her but rather to the timing of the work, which coincided with social events she had planned at the house. She suggested that the work could be postponed until March 2024.

In the hearing, the tenant confirmed that the landlord could start the work because this is March 2024 now.

The issue of appropriate compensation for the tenant was also discussed, as the noise caused by the work and tradespeople on the property would impact the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the property. The landlord did not dispute this would happen.

What is the appropriate compensation?

What was agreed?

The landlord initially offered no compensation for the maintenance work that needed to be done on the house's exterior. Later, the landlord offered a 30% rent reduction, and then a 50% rent reduction offer was made in February 2024. However, the tenant did not accept any of the offers.

During the hearing, it was established that the only dispute was regarding the appropriate compensation for the maintenance work. The parties were advised that it would be preferable for them to discuss and agree on an appropriate compensation rather than for me to make the decision.

The hearing was adjourned for 20 minutes to allow the landlord to take instructions from her client and discuss the proposal with the tenant.

When the hearing resumed, the landlord confirmed that her client had offered a 50% rent reduction for the first four weeks of work on the house's exterior.

The tenant accepted the offer of 50% rent reduction for the first four weeks of work on the house's exterior.

What was not agreed?

The parties could not agree on the appropriate compensation if the landlord could not complete the work by the end of the fourth week.

The landlord offered a 20% reduction in rent, which the tenant counter-offered with a request for a 50% reduction. The tenant claimed to work from home and paid an annual rent of $195,000 for a water-front house. She believed any work around the house would significantly breach her quiet enjoyment.

While I understand the tenant's concerns, if the work needs to continue beyond the fourth week, the disruption or inconvenience caused would be far less than it was at the beginning. In my view, the amount of work or tradespeople on site would not be the same as the work commenced at the beginning.

Therefore, although the tenant's quiet enjoyment would still be affected, it would be significantly less. Consequently, I consider that a 30% reduction in rent for work done after the first four weeks is appropriate. Filing fee

Each party has been successful in their respective application. Costs should like where they fall. Name suppression

The tenant sought a name suppression order. The landlord did not.

I do not consider this case to have any public interest because the parties have reached an agreement except for a minor issue regarding the appropriate level of compensation for work beyond the first four weeks.

Accordingly, I order to suppress the names and identifying details of the parties involved. Other issues the tenant raised.

The tenant brought up additional maintenance issues regarding the property's interior.

I informed the tenant that I had only been made aware of these issues a few days ago and that the landlord had not yet responded.

In fairness to the landlord and focus on the main issue before me, I explained that I would not consider these additional maintenance issues in the hearing.

However, I informed the tenant that she was welcome to file a new application with the Tribunal if the parties could not resolve these other maintenance issues.

It is important to note that these additional issues were not included in the tenant's original application.

Accordingly, if the tenant deems it necessary, she may file a new application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808157 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808157 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What was the dispute?

What is the appropriate compensation?

What was agreed?

What was not agreed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What was the dispute?

What is the appropriate compensation?

What was agreed?

What was not agreed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions