What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855440 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4855440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855440?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503894-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855440 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4855440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855440?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503894-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Mohill Place, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855440 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 13 November 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a 90-days’ notice ending the tenancy on 11 February 2024. The tenant vacated on 29 December 2023 but filed an application to the Tribunal claiming the notice is retaliatory and misconceived.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must apply to the Tribunal within 28 working days after receipt of the notice. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).

Because the application has only been lodged on 9 April 2024, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider it as it is outside the 28 working days timeframe.

I now address the tenant’s claim that the grounds proffered in the 90-days’ notice is misconceived and invalid.

In their notice, the landlord has stated: The landlord or owner wishes to retake possession of the rental dwelling because the landlord or owner plans to conduct extensive alterations, refurbishments, repairs, or redevelopment. Therefore it would not be reasonably practicable for you the tenant to remain in occupation of the property while the work is undertaken. And the work is to begin, or material steps taken towards it within 90 days after the termination date and material step means applying for any regulatory consent, seeking engineering or other professional help or taking any other significant step.

The tenant contends that only a few minor refurbishments have been carried out after their tenancy had ended and they could well have remained at the premises during that time. The work undertaken was not structural.

I find however that extensive refurbishment of the premises had been carried out by the landlord pursuant to section 51(2)(f) RTA and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken.

I accept the landlord’s evidence that the existing wallpaper at the premises had been stripped, the walls sanded down and fully repainted after the tenancy had ended. This constitutes extensive refurbishment of the premises which would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken.

The landlord spent more than $23,000 on the refurbishment work, including about $10,000 on painting and plastering work.

There is no requirement under section 51(2)(f) RTA that the landlord must carry out structural work to the premises.

Section 51(2)(f) RTA also does not require that the work is “necessary”, only that such extensive refurbishment will be and had in fact been carried out.

The tenant’s assertions that the wallpapering in the premises was still “adequate” and that it did not need to be replaced have therefore no bearing on the landlord’s compliance with section 51(2)(f) RTA when the notice to terminate was issued.

For the above reasons, the tenant’s claims for appropriate remedies under the RTA fail.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must apply to the Tribunal within 28 working days after receipt of the notice. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).

Because the application has only been lodged on 9 April 2024, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider it as it is outside the 28 working days timeframe.

I now address the tenant’s claim that the grounds proffered in the 90-days’ notice is misconceived and invalid.

The landlord spent more than $23,000 on the refurbishment work, including about $10,000 on painting and plastering work.

There is no requirement under section 51(2)(f) RTA that the landlord must carry out structural work to the premises.

Section 51(2)(f) RTA also does not require that the work is “necessary”, only that such extensive refurbishment will be and had in fact been carried out.

For the above reasons, the tenant’s claims for appropriate remedies under the RTA fail.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855440 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Mohill Place, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855440 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Mohill Place, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions