What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864620 about?

The tribunal order states: Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Kam Chuen Cheung &

How much money was awarded in case 4864620?

Rent Credit: $205.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864620?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11002688-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4864620 about?

The tribunal order states: Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Kam Chuen Cheung &

How much money was awarded in case 4864620?

Rent Credit: $205.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4864620?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4864620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11002688-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12E, 76 Albert Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4864620 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864620 — net $205.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent credit	$205.71	Rent credit
Net award	$205.71
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$205.71

Order

Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Kam Chuen Cheung & Mei Pui (Yolanda) Chan must pay [The tenant/s] $205.71 immediately, being for overpaid rent.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 th September 2024.
The tenancy was from 24 th January 2024 and was originally for a fixed term of one year. However, by agreement, the tenancy ended on 21 st April 2024.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for refund of the entire rent of $6,034.29, lost wages while searching for new accommodation of $1,346.16, medical bills of $100.00, alternative accommodation of $6,760.00.
The tenant also applied for the refund of the bond. Background
The tenant resided at 12E/76 Albert Street in Central Auckland. It is called the City Garden Apartments.
At 5:00 pm on 12 th April 2024, the Auckland Council issued a Dangerous Building Notice under section 124 of the Building Act 2004 for as the Council identified that the building had serious defects with the fire alarm system. The notice clarified: The apartment users/owners may continue to use the apartment building for the next 10 days however if the identified remedial works specified in the notice have not been performed, the building MUST BE VACATED before 12:00 pm Monday 22 nd April 2024.
The landlord informed the tenant of this on 13 th April 2024 by email.
On 15 th April 2024, the Body Corporate emailed the landlord informing that the Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) had not been renewed since 2017 and that there was a backlog of defects. It went on to state that after extensive efforts, the renewal of the building’s BWOF was nearing completion but that there had been significant issues with the fire alarm linkage between the downstairs car park and the apartment upstairs.
The Body Corporate informed that their fire and construction project managers had expressed confidence that remedial work will progress sufficiently to downgrade the Dangerous Building Notice before evacuation was necessary.
This email was forwarded to the tenant.
On 19 th April 2024, the Auckland Council confirmed that the building was no longer dangerous, and that the Council intended to remove the Dangerous Building Notice as soon as possible. The Council clarified that there was no longer any requirement to evacuate the building.
Accordingly, the landlord informed the tenant that she did not need to evacuate until further notice.
On the same day, the tenant gave termination notice to the landlord ending the tenancy as of 21 st April 2024 due to her concerns regarding the premises not having a current BWOF and the remedial work and fire alarm testing making her apartment akin to a construction site.
The landlord accepted the tenant’s termination notice the tenancy was terminated on 21 st April 2024. Claims
The tenant claimed for compensation as the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises and that the premises was in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). On a proper analysis, the argument was not one regarding HHS but the premises being an unlawful residential premises as the building did not have a current BWOF. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Under section 38(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming under the landlord.
Under section 38(2) RTA, the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Breaching this in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is an unlawful act.
The tenant claimed that five days of intense fire alarm testing resulted in fire alarms going off for long periods at all hours of the day and night causing her significant stress and panic.
Although I understand that it would have been difficult for the tenant, it was necessary to address the issue noted in the Dangerous Building Notice to stop the entire building having to be evacuated.
I also bear in mind that this is an apartment and not a stand-alone house. Fire alarm testing is something that apartments inevitably have to go through at times.
In the circumstances faced by City Garden Apartments at the time, I do not find that the fire alarm testing was unreasonable. Although the tenant was unable to enjoy her quiet enjoyment of the premises, I do not find that it amounts to harassment. I dismiss this claim. Lack of BWOF
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
The building without BWOF will make it an unlawful residential premise.
However, I understand that the BWOF issue had already been rectified almost by the time the tenant had started her tenancy. The issue was fully rectified when the fire alarm system issue was remedied.
I find that this amounts to special circumstances. I do not find that there is any public interest in the rent being refunded in this case.
Accordingly, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for refund of the entire rent. However, I note she was in rent credit of $205.71 at the end of the tenancy. This landlord is to pay this amount back to the tenant. Lost wages, alternative accommodation and medical bills
Although there was a Dangerous Building Notice issued, the building did not need to be evacuated until further notice.
It is understandable that the tenant had legitimate concerns and terminated the tenancy before the building was required to be evacuated.
However, this was a reasoned decision by the tenant and not something that she had to do.
Accordingly, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for lost wages and alternative accommodation.
Although the situation would have been stressful for the tenant, I do not find that the landlord is liable to pay for the tenant’s medical bills. I dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord had a claim against the bond regarding final cleaning but had not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4864620 — net $205.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent credit	$205.71	Rent credit
Net award	$205.71
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$205.71

Order

Supercity Property Management Limited As Agent For Kam Chuen Cheung & Mei Pui (Yolanda) Chan must pay [The tenant/s] $205.71 immediately, being for overpaid rent.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 th September 2024.
The tenancy was from 24 th January 2024 and was originally for a fixed term of one year. However, by agreement, the tenancy ended on 21 st April 2024.
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant applied for refund of the entire rent of $6,034.29, lost wages while searching for new accommodation of $1,346.16, medical bills of $100.00, alternative accommodation of $6,760.00.
The tenant also applied for the refund of the bond. Background
The tenant resided at 12E/76 Albert Street in Central Auckland. It is called the City Garden Apartments.
At 5:00 pm on 12 th April 2024, the Auckland Council issued a Dangerous Building Notice under section 124 of the Building Act 2004 for as the Council identified that the building had serious defects with the fire alarm system. The notice clarified: The apartment users/owners may continue to use the apartment building for the next 10 days however if the identified remedial works specified in the notice have not been performed, the building MUST BE VACATED before 12:00 pm Monday 22 nd April 2024.
The landlord informed the tenant of this on 13 th April 2024 by email.
On 15 th April 2024, the Body Corporate emailed the landlord informing that the Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) had not been renewed since 2017 and that there was a backlog of defects. It went on to state that after extensive efforts, the renewal of the building’s BWOF was nearing completion but that there had been significant issues with the fire alarm linkage between the downstairs car park and the apartment upstairs.
The Body Corporate informed that their fire and construction project managers had expressed confidence that remedial work will progress sufficiently to downgrade the Dangerous Building Notice before evacuation was necessary.
This email was forwarded to the tenant.
On 19 th April 2024, the Auckland Council confirmed that the building was no longer dangerous, and that the Council intended to remove the Dangerous Building Notice as soon as possible. The Council clarified that there was no longer any requirement to evacuate the building.
Accordingly, the landlord informed the tenant that she did not need to evacuate until further notice.
On the same day, the tenant gave termination notice to the landlord ending the tenancy as of 21 st April 2024 due to her concerns regarding the premises not having a current BWOF and the remedial work and fire alarm testing making her apartment akin to a construction site.
The landlord accepted the tenant’s termination notice the tenancy was terminated on 21 st April 2024. Claims
The tenant claimed for compensation as the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises and that the premises was in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”). On a proper analysis, the argument was not one regarding HHS but the premises being an unlawful residential premises as the building did not have a current BWOF. Breach of quiet enjoyment
Under section 38(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming under the landlord.
Under section 38(2) RTA, the landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Breaching this in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is an unlawful act.
The tenant claimed that five days of intense fire alarm testing resulted in fire alarms going off for long periods at all hours of the day and night causing her significant stress and panic.
Although I understand that it would have been difficult for the tenant, it was necessary to address the issue noted in the Dangerous Building Notice to stop the entire building having to be evacuated.
I also bear in mind that this is an apartment and not a stand-alone house. Fire alarm testing is something that apartments inevitably have to go through at times.
In the circumstances faced by City Garden Apartments at the time, I do not find that the fire alarm testing was unreasonable. Although the tenant was unable to enjoy her quiet enjoyment of the premises, I do not find that it amounts to harassment. I dismiss this claim. Lack of BWOF
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
The building without BWOF will make it an unlawful residential premise.
However, I understand that the BWOF issue had already been rectified almost by the time the tenant had started her tenancy. The issue was fully rectified when the fire alarm system issue was remedied.
I find that this amounts to special circumstances. I do not find that there is any public interest in the rent being refunded in this case.
Accordingly, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for refund of the entire rent. However, I note she was in rent credit of $205.71 at the end of the tenancy. This landlord is to pay this amount back to the tenant. Lost wages, alternative accommodation and medical bills
Although there was a Dangerous Building Notice issued, the building did not need to be evacuated until further notice.
It is understandable that the tenant had legitimate concerns and terminated the tenancy before the building was required to be evacuated.
However, this was a reasoned decision by the tenant and not something that she had to do.
Accordingly, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for lost wages and alternative accommodation.
Although the situation would have been stressful for the tenant, I do not find that the landlord is liable to pay for the tenant’s medical bills. I dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord had a claim against the bond regarding final cleaning but had not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864620 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 12E, 76 Albert Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4864620 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 12E, 76 Albert Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions