What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826798 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4826798?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826798?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826798?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10253406-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826798 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4826798?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826798?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826798?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10253406-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Crosby Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826798 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Waugh and Ms Slight represented the landlord. Background
The tenant has applied for a full refund of rent from 28 July 2023 until now because he says the premises were misrepresented.
The premises were advertised for sale in 2019 as having 2 bedrooms. Since then, the owner has undertaken work in the conservatory to convert it to a bedroom.
The tenancy was advertised as a 3-bedroom property. The tenancy started on 28 July 2023.
The tenant viewed the premises before he signed the tenancy agreement. He raised no objection to the description of the premises as a 3-bedroom property.
The tenant made his application on 4 March 2024, so about 7 months after the tenancy started. In response to my enquiry, he said he made the application because his niece pointed out to him that the third bedroom was not a bedroom in fact. He said he delayed making the application because he was busy. The evidence
The tenant said his son used the renovated conservatory as a bedroom ‘on occasion’ as did his friends when they stayed over.
Mr Waugh gave evidence that the room was obviously used as a bedroom based on the inspections the landlord did.
Mr Henwood’s case is based on a technicality. He said the Hamilton City Council’s records still showed the premises as comprising 2 bedrooms.
Mr Waugh said the work done did not require a building consent. He produced evidence from Mr Owen Smith who describes his experience in roles undertaking Building Act regulatory compliance for two councils in Waikato.
Mr Smith describes how he contacted the building contractor who converted the conservatory to a bedroom. The contractor is a Licensed Building Practitioner who can undertake work without a building consent up to 30m². The conservatory/bedroom is less than 10m².
Mr Henwood did not produce any evidence to prove that the work undertaken was in breach of the Building Act, nor that it required Council consent.
Mr Henwood did not provide any evidence that the converted conservatory cannot properly be described as a bedroom. Indeed, he confirmed the room is used as a bedroom.
I am not persuaded that there was any material misrepresentation in this case. The tenant viewed the premises and clearly accepted that they comprised 3 bedrooms. That his niece later suggested he might be able to challenge that and claim a full refund of rent is wholly unrealistic.
It appears that the tenant’s motivation was based on him finding ‘times were tough’. To suggest that he could live rent free by having his rent refunded for a 9-month period (which would be the effect of the relief he seeks) has no basis in law.
Even if Mr Henwood had proved a material misrepresentation (which he has not) the relief he would be granted in terms of a contractual loss would nowhere equate to a full rent refund. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Waugh and Ms Slight represented the landlord. Background

The tenant has applied for a full refund of rent from 28 July 2023 until now because he says the premises were misrepresented.

The premises were advertised for sale in 2019 as having 2 bedrooms. Since then, the owner has undertaken work in the conservatory to convert it to a bedroom.

The tenancy was advertised as a 3-bedroom property. The tenancy started on 28 July 2023.

The tenant viewed the premises before he signed the tenancy agreement. He raised no objection to the description of the premises as a 3-bedroom property.

The tenant made his application on 4 March 2024, so about 7 months after the tenancy started. In response to my enquiry, he said he made the application because his niece pointed out to him that the third bedroom was not a bedroom in fact. He said he delayed making the application because he was busy. The evidence

The tenant said his son used the renovated conservatory as a bedroom ‘on occasion’ as did his friends when they stayed over.

Mr Waugh gave evidence that the room was obviously used as a bedroom based on the inspections the landlord did.

Mr Henwood’s case is based on a technicality. He said the Hamilton City Council’s records still showed the premises as comprising 2 bedrooms.

Mr Waugh said the work done did not require a building consent. He produced evidence from Mr Owen Smith who describes his experience in roles undertaking Building Act regulatory compliance for two councils in Waikato.

Mr Smith describes how he contacted the building contractor who converted the conservatory to a bedroom. The contractor is a Licensed Building Practitioner who can undertake work without a building consent up to 30m². The conservatory/bedroom is less than 10m².

Mr Henwood did not produce any evidence to prove that the work undertaken was in breach of the Building Act, nor that it required Council consent.

Mr Henwood did not provide any evidence that the converted conservatory cannot properly be described as a bedroom. Indeed, he confirmed the room is used as a bedroom.

I am not persuaded that there was any material misrepresentation in this case. The tenant viewed the premises and clearly accepted that they comprised 3 bedrooms. That his niece later suggested he might be able to challenge that and claim a full refund of rent is wholly unrealistic.

It appears that the tenant’s motivation was based on him finding ‘times were tough’. To suggest that he could live rent free by having his rent refunded for a 9-month period (which would be the effect of the relief he seeks) has no basis in law.

Even if Mr Henwood had proved a material misrepresentation (which he has not) the relief he would be granted in terms of a contractual loss would nowhere equate to a full rent refund. Result

The application is dismissed. Name suppression

Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826798 — Tenancy dispute at 34 Crosby Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826798 — Tenancy dispute at 34 Crosby Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions