How much money was awarded in case 4861818?

Compensation: Rent: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861818?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10264356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4861818?

Compensation: Rent: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861818?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10264356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12 Flagstaff Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4861818 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861818 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4861818 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent	$4,000.00	rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

The order made in 1 is subject to one exception – the tenants may use the unredacted copy of this decision to refute any allegations of rent arrears made against them when seeking new tenancies.

Keimung Joe As Trustee For Kei Qunqing Joe Trustee Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,020.44 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation: rent$4,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$4,020.44

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The tenants’ applications for compensation for damage to furniture are withdrawn.

The landlord’s applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have applied for compensation/exemplary damages for loss of amenity, failure to maintain, and for the return of the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 6 September 2023.

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which he says prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

The rent summary indicates that there are rent arrears of $1,227.10 and water rates of $208.01.

There was a previous Tribunal order for this tenancy, dated 24 July 2023. At that time the landlord sought termination of the tenancy on the basis of rent arrears. The Tribunal declined the application, determining that as at 24 July 2023, the tenants had a rent credit of $1,399.62.

The landlord (via his property manager) appears to disagree with this finding, given the emails to the tenants, and the current claim for rent arrears. However, no appeal was lodged to challenge that decision, and I am not satisfied I can make a different finding, nor that a different finding would be appropriate.

Taking into account the Tribunal’s findings, and the rent paid since then, I find that no rent arrears are owed, and it would appear rent may have been overpaid, although there was no direct evidence on this point. Rather than make an award, I have taken this into account when setting the award of compensation for loss of amenity below.

The landlord also seeks water rates. Invoices have been provided, however they have been redacted in placed, including the previous readings, so I am unable to determine whether the amounts sought are accurate and whether the amounts sought include fixed fees. Some of the invoices for the relevant periods are missing. I am not satisfied that this claim is proved.

Both applications are accordingly dismissed. Loss of Amenity

This tenancy relates to a 5-bedroom, 3-bathroom house spread over two levels. There are three bedrooms, the main kitchen, living room and 2 bathrooms upstairs, then 2 bedrooms, a third bathroom and second living area downstairs.

The premises was damaged in the flooding that hit Auckland at the end of January 2023. The premises was extensively damaged. As part of the preparation for repair the cladding and floor coverings for the majority of the house was removed on 5 May 2023, including the bottoms of all walls, and the ceiling gib. This left large holes between rooms. The tenants were left with one downstairs bedroom, one upstairs bathroom and the kitchen. There was limited privacy, and the house was very cold and difficult to heat during the winter months.

In April 2023 the landlord reduced the rent to $440 per week (inaccurately recorded on the rent summary) and in July 2023 the Tribunal backdated that rent reduction to 27 January 2023.

The tenancy terminated on 6 September 2023, following the landlord giving notice pursuant to s51(2)(f) of the Act.

The tenants are seeking an additional rent abatement for the further loss of amenity suffered following the removal of the cladding and bathrooms in May 2023.

This was not considered in the July 2023 hearing, as there was no tenant application before the Tribunal on that date, only a landlord application for termination.

I acknowledge that the landlord did reduce the rent in April.

However, I cannot overlook the long-lasting, significant loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. I consider they are entitled to further compensation for the additional loss of amenity suffered following removal of the cladding.

The tenant seeks reimbursement of the full rent paid after 5 May 2023.

To the tenant’s credit they have continued to pay the rent requested for the entire period, and while the matter was before the Tribunal for determination.

The landlord denies that further compensation is payable, noting that there has already been compensation paid and that the tenants could have moved out earlier. The repairs were delayed somewhat by the need to give notice to terminate the tenancy, which has resulting in greater loss of rent by the landlord. The landlord stresses that the damage and the delay to repair it are not the landlord’s fault.

I entirely accept that the damage is not the landlord’s fault. But nor is it the tenant’s fault, and it is the tenants who have suffered the loss of use of a significant part of the premises they contracted to rent. The tenants have no ability to protect or insure themselves against this loss. Landlords are able to insure against lost rent.

Further, the tenants have struggled to obtain alternative accommodation, even now they remain in temporary housing. This is despite constant searching for rental properties and taking the difficult step of re-homing their dogs to assist them to find accommodation. The tenants have received feedback from property managers assessing their applications that the landlord’s previous property manager has made unfavourable comments about them, including that they have outstanding rent arrears.

I consider that a further rent abatement is appropriate in this case. Given the state of the premises, I consider the award of a global figure is appropriate. This includes compensation for loss of amenity, and the overpaid rent not referred to above.

The amount ordered is awarded as compensation for the loss of amenity suffered. Failure to maintain.

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants allege that even prior to the flooding in January 2023 the roof of the premises was prone to leaking. This began not long after they moved into the premises in 2014 and did not end until the roof was replaced in January 2021.

The landlord agrees that issues with the roof were raised, and that he responded to them with various efforts to remedy the issues, culminating in the replacement of the roof.

The tenants do not have contemporaneous evidence of the requests to repair the roof and the periods they allege that landlord was unresponsive. I am not satisfied that this portion of the claim has been proved to the requisite standard.

Further, even if I am wrong in that finding, I consider that the tenant is out of time to raise this claim. The roof was repaired in 2021. Section 109(2)(b) requires a claim for exemplary damages to be made within 12 months of the alleged act or omission. This application was filed on 25 September 2023 and is accordingly out of time. Filing fee

Because Keimung Joe As Trustee For Kei Qunqing Joe Trustee Limited have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4861818 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent	$4,000.00	rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44