What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4875007 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4875007?

Compensation: Loss of amenity and po…: $1,299.60 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875007?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4875007 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4875007?

Compensation: Loss of amenity and po…: $1,299.60 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875007?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat b, 19 Larch Hill Place, Queenstown, Queenstown Tenancy Tribunal Case 4875007 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875007 — net $1,320.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity and power	$1,299.60	Loss of amenity and power
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,320.04
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,320.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Joanne Kirker and Alan Kirker must pay [The tenant/s] $1,320.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 11 September 2021 and was for a fixed term (extended) to 11 March 2024.
The tenants moved out of the tenancy on 11 February 2024.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation in relation to a flood, a leak and a claim in relation to termination of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation for damage. Tenant’s application
A flood occurred at the premises on 21 September 2023. The water entered through the space between the wall and building slab. The water entered and affected one of the bedrooms, a closet and the hallway to the bathroom. The tenant advised the landlord on the night when the water entered the premises.
The landlord attended the following day. At the time the tenant had a baby aged around one month old. The landlord used industrial driers to dry the carpet and underlay. The tenant moved from the premises from 22 September 2023 and returned on 25 September 2023.
The tenant was concerned about whether the affected area had been effectively dried. An insurance assessor inspected the premises on 3 October 2023 and said that further remediation was required. The tenant moved out on 9 October 2023. On 10 October 2023 the affected carpet was removed, and the landlord removed wall lining. The landlord said that some of the wall lining was replaced, and he carried out a first coat of plaster to the wall and painted a seal on the bare concrete. Some of the wall lining was not replaced because it required bracing over several days.
The issue is whether the tenant has had any loss of amenity due to the flood. The tenant sought compensation for the three days in September that they moved out and ten days in October. At the hearing it was not clear why the tenant did not move back in on 15 October 2024. I note that at the time a lot of the communication between the parties was verbal due to the good relationship.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated for loss of amenity. Due to the situation, I consider it totally appropriate that the tenant and family, including a newborn baby, would move out while remediation work was carried out. The tenant continued to pay full rent and had asked for a rent rebate, but this was not forthcoming.
The landlord referred to the insurance company declining any pay out for loss of rent because this only applies when the property is deemed uninhabitable. As the insurance company considered only one bedroom was affected the loss of rent cover was not available.
The landlord said it was the tenant’s choice to move out. The landlord also said that the tenant did not want the carpet replaced however there is an email dated 15 October 2023 which records that the landlord advised the carpet was 5 weeks away. It is that email where the tenant asked to offset the rent for power and the days, they had to stay away due to the repairs.
However, even though the landlord was not successful with a claim for loss of rent through insurance that does not mean that the tenant is not entitled to compensation.
I have calculated the compensation at 10 days plus one weeks rent for inconvenience together with the power reimbursement of $12.60 as calculated by the landlord at the hearing. The total compensation is $1,299.60.
The tenant also claimed for compensation in relation to the inconvenience for the scaffolding and a leak in the living room. After considering the evidence I have decided that compensation is not warranted.
The tenant claimed in relation to the notice given by the landlord. This is because the ground given for termination was that a family member (the landlord’s mother) planned to move in. The tenant later discovered that the premises had been listed as being available as an Air BNB and doubted that the ground for termination was genuine.
After considering the evidence I accept that the notice to end the tenancy was genuinely given. The landlord said that her mother moved into the premises and lived there until 4 May 2024 when the family travelled to Canada. There is no evidence that this did not occur. The issue is whether the landlord required the premises for at least 90 days as provided by section 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. While the landlord’s mother stayed at the premises short of the 90 days, I consider it was due to a change in circumstances and no compensation is warranted.
I accept the landlord’s evidence. The claim that the landlord terminated without grounds is dismissed. Landlord application
After the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy on 16 March 2024 the parties agreed for the tenants to move out earlier on 11 February 2024.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is for rent up until 16 March 2024. I note the landlord’s evidence that her mother moved into the premises the day after the tenant moved out. Also, the exit inspection was carried out on 11 February 2024. In relation to rent arrears at that stage the landlord mistakenly thought that one week’s rent was owed, however subsequently the parties agreed that the landlord had made a mistake in her spreadsheet and no rent was owed.
It was only after the tenant filed proceedings and the relationship between the parties continued to deteriorate that the landlord sought rent arrears to 16 March 2024.
Due to the parties agreeing for the tenancy ending on 11 February 2024, the premises being returned to the landlord on the same date and acknowledgement at the end of the tenancy that no rent was owed, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for costs related to damage caused by the tenant. The damage was in relation to the lounge and bedroom walls and damage caused by a missing seal on the shower.
The landlord produced invoices from his company, but he carried out the work himself.
The landlord did not produce any photographs of the damage or any photographs of the areas from before the tenancy commenced. The landlord said that the premises are always repainted between tenants.
The tenant produced a photograph taken of the shower area, including the skirting board which shows some damage was present when the tenancy commenced. Also, the tenant took over the tenancy from friends who moved out the day prior to them moving in, therefore there was no painting between tenancies as claimed by the landlord.
The onus is on the landlord to prove this claim. Given the lack of evidence from the landlord establishing that any damage occurred during this tenancy the landlord’s claim for damages is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875007 — net $1,320.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity and power	$1,299.60	Loss of amenity and power
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,320.04
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,320.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Joanne Kirker and Alan Kirker must pay [The tenant/s] $1,320.04 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 11 September 2021 and was for a fixed term (extended) to 11 March 2024.
The tenants moved out of the tenancy on 11 February 2024.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation in relation to a flood, a leak and a claim in relation to termination of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears and compensation for damage. Tenant’s application
A flood occurred at the premises on 21 September 2023. The water entered through the space between the wall and building slab. The water entered and affected one of the bedrooms, a closet and the hallway to the bathroom. The tenant advised the landlord on the night when the water entered the premises.
The landlord attended the following day. At the time the tenant had a baby aged around one month old. The landlord used industrial driers to dry the carpet and underlay. The tenant moved from the premises from 22 September 2023 and returned on 25 September 2023.
The tenant was concerned about whether the affected area had been effectively dried. An insurance assessor inspected the premises on 3 October 2023 and said that further remediation was required. The tenant moved out on 9 October 2023. On 10 October 2023 the affected carpet was removed, and the landlord removed wall lining. The landlord said that some of the wall lining was replaced, and he carried out a first coat of plaster to the wall and painted a seal on the bare concrete. Some of the wall lining was not replaced because it required bracing over several days.
The issue is whether the tenant has had any loss of amenity due to the flood. The tenant sought compensation for the three days in September that they moved out and ten days in October. At the hearing it was not clear why the tenant did not move back in on 15 October 2024. I note that at the time a lot of the communication between the parties was verbal due to the good relationship.
I consider that the tenant should be compensated for loss of amenity. Due to the situation, I consider it totally appropriate that the tenant and family, including a newborn baby, would move out while remediation work was carried out. The tenant continued to pay full rent and had asked for a rent rebate, but this was not forthcoming.
The landlord referred to the insurance company declining any pay out for loss of rent because this only applies when the property is deemed uninhabitable. As the insurance company considered only one bedroom was affected the loss of rent cover was not available.
The landlord said it was the tenant’s choice to move out. The landlord also said that the tenant did not want the carpet replaced however there is an email dated 15 October 2023 which records that the landlord advised the carpet was 5 weeks away. It is that email where the tenant asked to offset the rent for power and the days, they had to stay away due to the repairs.
However, even though the landlord was not successful with a claim for loss of rent through insurance that does not mean that the tenant is not entitled to compensation.
I have calculated the compensation at 10 days plus one weeks rent for inconvenience together with the power reimbursement of $12.60 as calculated by the landlord at the hearing. The total compensation is $1,299.60.
The tenant also claimed for compensation in relation to the inconvenience for the scaffolding and a leak in the living room. After considering the evidence I have decided that compensation is not warranted.
The tenant claimed in relation to the notice given by the landlord. This is because the ground given for termination was that a family member (the landlord’s mother) planned to move in. The tenant later discovered that the premises had been listed as being available as an Air BNB and doubted that the ground for termination was genuine.
After considering the evidence I accept that the notice to end the tenancy was genuinely given. The landlord said that her mother moved into the premises and lived there until 4 May 2024 when the family travelled to Canada. There is no evidence that this did not occur. The issue is whether the landlord required the premises for at least 90 days as provided by section 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. While the landlord’s mother stayed at the premises short of the 90 days, I consider it was due to a change in circumstances and no compensation is warranted.
I accept the landlord’s evidence. The claim that the landlord terminated without grounds is dismissed. Landlord application
After the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy on 16 March 2024 the parties agreed for the tenants to move out earlier on 11 February 2024.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is for rent up until 16 March 2024. I note the landlord’s evidence that her mother moved into the premises the day after the tenant moved out. Also, the exit inspection was carried out on 11 February 2024. In relation to rent arrears at that stage the landlord mistakenly thought that one week’s rent was owed, however subsequently the parties agreed that the landlord had made a mistake in her spreadsheet and no rent was owed.
It was only after the tenant filed proceedings and the relationship between the parties continued to deteriorate that the landlord sought rent arrears to 16 March 2024.
Due to the parties agreeing for the tenancy ending on 11 February 2024, the premises being returned to the landlord on the same date and acknowledgement at the end of the tenancy that no rent was owed, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for costs related to damage caused by the tenant. The damage was in relation to the lounge and bedroom walls and damage caused by a missing seal on the shower.
The landlord produced invoices from his company, but he carried out the work himself.
The landlord did not produce any photographs of the damage or any photographs of the areas from before the tenancy commenced. The landlord said that the premises are always repainted between tenants.
The tenant produced a photograph taken of the shower area, including the skirting board which shows some damage was present when the tenancy commenced. Also, the tenant took over the tenancy from friends who moved out the day prior to them moving in, therefore there was no painting between tenancies as claimed by the landlord.
The onus is on the landlord to prove this claim. Given the lack of evidence from the landlord establishing that any damage occurred during this tenancy the landlord’s claim for damages is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875007 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat b, 19 Larch Hill Place, Queenstown, Queenstown

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875007 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat b, 19 Larch Hill Place, Queenstown, Queenstown

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions