What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4821299 about?

The tribunal order states: Natalia Sergueevna Kourenkova must pay [The tenant/s] $58.58 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4821299?

Compensation: Rent Overpayment: $58.58 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4821299?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4821299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10162343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4821299 about?

The tribunal order states: Natalia Sergueevna Kourenkova must pay [The tenant/s] $58.58 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4821299?

Compensation: Rent Overpayment: $58.58 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4821299?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4821299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10162343-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Valron Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4821299 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4821299 — net $58.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent overpayment	$58.58	Rent overpayment
Net award	$58.58
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$58.58

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for compensation related to flooding, fumigation, mould and due to issues related to her health and wellbeing.

The landlord applied for compensation related to repairs, cleaning and reimbursement for outgoings and rubbish tags.

There was one matter that was agreed between the parties. That related to the tenant overpaying rent of one day. As there is agreement that amount is awarded. Tenant’s application

There was flooding at the premises in January 2024. The issue for the tenant is that the carpet was wet and smelt. She feels that the landlord did not do enough to assist with the wet carpet. At the hearing the tenant thought that the water had wet around a metre of carpet whereas the landlord thought it was only half a metre. In the documents produced by the tenant she also says that it affected a half a metre area of carpet.

The tenant had issued the landlord with a 14-day notice on 8 January 2024. The tenant said that the smell from the carpet went around the second week of January.

The landlord’s view was that the carpet needed time to dry and had suggested that the tenant open the windows, use a fan and the dehumidifier.

On the evidence I am not convinced that the landlord could have done more to assist with the situation. The landlord attended when the tenant advised of the flooding, turned off the water main, assisted with mopping up the water and arranged for a plumber to repair the burst pipe.

Given the small area of carpet that was affected I am not sure that a commercial drying machine would be necessary.

The tenant’s claim in respect of the flooding is dismissed.

The tenant claimed reimbursement for fumigation that she paid for in 2021. She had also paid for fumigation in 2018 and the landlord had reimbursed her for that cost.

The fumigation related to spiders. After undertaking the fumigation, the tenant emailed the landlord advising her. She did not ask for reimbursement in the email. The tenant did not seek the approval from the landlord in advance of undertaking the fumigation.

It is not clear that this is an expense that the landlord should be liable for. I accept that the tenant was bitten by some kind of insect but that does not mean that the landlord must pay for fumigation. The tenant should have at least sought the landlord’s approval in advance.

The tenant’s claim in respect of reimbursement for fumigation is dismissed.

The tenant claimed in respect of mould growth at the premises. The tenant says that she raised the issue of the mould with the landlord several times including during inspections.

The landlord says that the tenant never mentioned the mould. She said that the tenant would stay inside the premises for weeks and never open the windows. She also said that the tenant dried her washing inside, but this was denied by the tenant.

The photographs show that there was a small amount of mould in the premises. I note that the landlord has filed a claim for cleaning the mould at the end of the tenancy. On the evidence I do not accept that the mould was severe enough to warrant compensation to the tenant.

The tenant’s claim for compensation related to the mould is dismissed.

The tenant claimed in relation to her health and wellbeing. The tenant referred to an occasion where the landlord came to discuss the end of the tenancy and the tenant became upset. She produced a transcript of the conversation between the landlord and herself. The tenant says that she dialled 111 after this conversation because she feared for her life.

There is nothing in the conversation that would suggest that the tenant had any cause to fear for her life. Calling 111 after having the discussion with her landlord, even if it was heated, is in my opinion appeared unnecessary and an overreaction.

One of the issues for the tenant was the sounds caused by the landlord’s grandson and it seems that this was an issue between the parties.

The landlord said that there was no harassment and there was no reason to call

She said at first it was a normal conversation and then something went wrong.

I do not accept that the landlord has harassed the tenant. There was a disagreement between them. The evidence does not support a claim of compensation to the tenant.

The tenant’s claim in respect of health and wellbeing is dismissed. Landlord’s application

The landlord applied for compensation in relation to the wall inside the door. The tenant admitted that this damage was caused when she took the portable washing line in and out of the premises.

The tenant says the damage was caused over the six-year tenancy. The landlord says that the damage was caused in the first year of the tenancy but there is no evidence to support that.

The corner of the wall has been damaged but I consider that it is likely to have been caused over the term of the tenancy. Given that it was caused over a lengthy period of time I consider it to be wear and tear which the tenant is not responsible for (see section 49A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). I also note that the landlord did not provide any information in relation to whether the insurance was irrecoverable for the damage (see section 49B(8)(a)(iii) Residential Tenancies act 1986).

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the wall damage is dismissed.

The landlord claims compensation for cleaning. She refers to the area above the top shelf in the wardrobe where there is a small amount of visible mould.

Section 40(1)(e)(iii) provides that the tenant shall on the termination of the tenancy leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.

There are photographs produced showing that the premises were left in a reasonably clan and reasonably tidy condition. There is a small amount of mould in an area that would be difficult for the tenant to reach. The tenant has generally cleaned the premises to a high standard except for the area which was hard for her reach. In the circumstances I do not consider that the tenant should be liable for the cost of cleaning this area.

The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.

The landlord sought to claim for outgoings even though the Tenancy Agreement states that outgoings are included in the rent paid. The landlord referred to extra use of outgoings due to working from home because of the COVID lockdown.

The agreement is clear that the tenant is not responsible for outgoings and even if this was not stated in the agreement the Act states that the tenant is only responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to her occupation of the premises (see section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). There was no evidence produced showing outgoings exclusively attributable to the tenant.

The landlord’s claim for outgoings is dismissed.

The landlord sought to claim for rubbish tags used by the tenant during the six years of the tenancy. There is no evidence to support this claim and it is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim in relation to the affect that the tenant’s actions have had on her health is also dismissed due to lack of evidence to connect the actions with her health issues.

Given that the parties have both had some success with their opposition of the other’s claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. As the tenant has sought name suppression that is orders as she has had some success.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4821299 — net $58.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent overpayment	$58.58	Rent overpayment
Net award	$58.58
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$58.58