What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4899916 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Mills Gibbon And Co Limited T/A Collective First

How much money was awarded in case 4899916?

Rent Arrears: $7,243.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899916?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899916?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10846361-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4899916 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Mills Gibbon And Co Limited T/A Collective First

How much money was awarded in case 4899916?

Rent Arrears: $7,243.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899916?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899916?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10846361-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

56A Hokioi Drive, Kenepuru, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4899916 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899916 — net $4,543.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/5/24	$7,243.85	Rent arrears to 10/5/24
Net award	$4,543.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,543.85

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Mills Gibbon And Co Limited T/A Collective First National As Agent For Venkat Manoharan And Nithya Rose $4,543.85 immediately, in accordance with the following table:
This order replaces the Tenancy Tribunal order of 29 January 2024 under application 4758504 and as such that order is no longer enforceable.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Mills Gibbon And Co Limited T/A Collective First National As Agent For Venkat Manoharan And Nithya Rose immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by audio visual link. Ms Tararo represented the landlord.
This tenancy was in place between 4 October 2023 and 10 May 2024 and the parties have filed a variety of claims with the Tribunal with respect to it.
It has now ended, and the landlord seeks rent arrears. [The tenant/s] claims in response compensation for issues relating to the heat pump and mice. I discuss each claim separately as follows.

How much is owed in rent arrears?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. [The tenant/s] was provided with time prior, during and after the hearing to establish any discrepancies with the rent records. She has provided bank statements that accord with the payments recorded on the rent summary. Therefore I find the amount claimed proven in evidence.
I appreciate that [The tenant/s] was having difficulties with Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) over this period which accounts for the arrears, and I empathise with her situation. The rent arrears have been accrued however and as such I make the order as sought.
On 29 January 2024 I made an order for rent arrears pursuant to application number 4758504. This order is to supersede that order as it includes rent arrears for the same period. Accordingly, the 29 January order is no longer enforceable.

Did the landlord breach their obligations with respect to the heat pump?

[The tenant/s] had a number of difficulties with the heat pump over her tenure. This was discussed in my decision under application 4778840 on 15 April 2024 at paragraphs 29 to 36. Compensation was awarded for the lack of amenity until that date.
The new heat pump was installed on 16 April. [The tenant/s] says it still did not work although acknowledges that the installer told her it needed to run for a few hours to get working. She was not prepared to incur the cost in doing so, and so did not take his advice. The tenancy ended several weeks later and as she was extremely frustrated by that time, she did not advise the landlord that an issue continued.
Ms Tararo submits that this issue has previously been litigated and the new heat pump was installed just after the previous decision. She is not aware of any issues with it since.
I cannot re-consider the issue of the malfunctioning heat pump as I have already done so. This is the principal of res judicata; that a claim once decided cannot further be. The District Court 1 explains it concisely: "In English law a res judicata is a decision pronounced by judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case and the parties which disposes once and for all of all the matters decided, so that except on appeal, they cannot afterwards be re-litigated between the same parties or their privies."
The heat pump was installed just after my decision and it has not been established in evidence to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities, that there continued to be a problem with it. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.

Did the landlord fail in their maintenance obligations with respect to the mice?

In April [The tenant/s] started noticing mice in the property. She has provided evidence substantiating this. This was naturally of significant concern to her given her particular health challenges. She raised it with Ms Tararo who sent around a pest controller within a few days. He laid traps and advised Ms Tararo that he only saw droppings under the oven and there was not a smell present that indicated a significant concern.
[The tenant/s] says the response was unacceptable as she was left to clear out the mouse traps which was a danger to her health. She again did not raise this with Ms Tararo as she was extremely frustrated with the tenancy by that point and had chosen to leave. [The tenant/s] submits that this was a breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This application must also be dismissed. Ms Tararo has responded within days of [The tenant/s] notification. She has responded appropriately in sending a pest controller. The law with respect to pests details a joint responsibility. Landlords need to make sure the property is free from pests and tenants need to keep their house in a condition that doesn’t encourage pests.
I consider the choice to lay traps was made by a professional pest controller and as such was appropriate. It is not a significant burden on a tenant to empty and re-set the traps which is of a benefit to them. I appreciate that doing so did present a risk to [The tenant/s] health, however she did not give Ms Tararo the opportunity of addressing this concern, therefore the landlord cannot be said to have failed in that respect. 1 Flood v LJ Hooker, Gisborne District Court, 28 October 2009,CIV-2009-016-248
Certainly the invasion of the mice was concerning for [The tenant/s] but I find the landlord acted appropriately in response with the information they had, therefore they did not breach section 45 of the RTA.
I understand and empathise with the challenges [The tenant/s] has, and still does, face. There is no doubt that this tenancy has been a difficult one for her and I sincerely hope she is able to find suitable accommodation in the near future. I am tasked with applying the law and have done so. I understand this may be frustrating for her however that is my sole jurisdiction.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

As both parties were put to the cost of filing their applications, it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.

Should suppression orders be made?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest. [The tenant/s] seeks suppression and although she was not successful in her claims I approve that application given her health issues discussed in this decision.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4899916 — net $4,543.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/5/24	$7,243.85	Rent arrears to 10/5/24
Net award	$4,543.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,543.85

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Mills Gibbon And Co Limited T/A Collective First National As Agent For Venkat Manoharan And Nithya Rose $4,543.85 immediately, in accordance with the following table:
This order replaces the Tenancy Tribunal order of 29 January 2024 under application 4758504 and as such that order is no longer enforceable.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Mills Gibbon And Co Limited T/A Collective First National As Agent For Venkat Manoharan And Nithya Rose immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by audio visual link. Ms Tararo represented the landlord.
This tenancy was in place between 4 October 2023 and 10 May 2024 and the parties have filed a variety of claims with the Tribunal with respect to it.
It has now ended, and the landlord seeks rent arrears. [The tenant/s] claims in response compensation for issues relating to the heat pump and mice. I discuss each claim separately as follows.

How much is owed in rent arrears?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. [The tenant/s] was provided with time prior, during and after the hearing to establish any discrepancies with the rent records. She has provided bank statements that accord with the payments recorded on the rent summary. Therefore I find the amount claimed proven in evidence.
I appreciate that [The tenant/s] was having difficulties with Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) over this period which accounts for the arrears, and I empathise with her situation. The rent arrears have been accrued however and as such I make the order as sought.
On 29 January 2024 I made an order for rent arrears pursuant to application number 4758504. This order is to supersede that order as it includes rent arrears for the same period. Accordingly, the 29 January order is no longer enforceable.

Did the landlord breach their obligations with respect to the heat pump?

[The tenant/s] had a number of difficulties with the heat pump over her tenure. This was discussed in my decision under application 4778840 on 15 April 2024 at paragraphs 29 to 36. Compensation was awarded for the lack of amenity until that date.
The new heat pump was installed on 16 April. [The tenant/s] says it still did not work although acknowledges that the installer told her it needed to run for a few hours to get working. She was not prepared to incur the cost in doing so, and so did not take his advice. The tenancy ended several weeks later and as she was extremely frustrated by that time, she did not advise the landlord that an issue continued.
Ms Tararo submits that this issue has previously been litigated and the new heat pump was installed just after the previous decision. She is not aware of any issues with it since.
I cannot re-consider the issue of the malfunctioning heat pump as I have already done so. This is the principal of res judicata; that a claim once decided cannot further be. The District Court 1 explains it concisely: "In English law a res judicata is a decision pronounced by judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case and the parties which disposes once and for all of all the matters decided, so that except on appeal, they cannot afterwards be re-litigated between the same parties or their privies."
The heat pump was installed just after my decision and it has not been established in evidence to the civil law standard of proof, being on the balance of probabilities, that there continued to be a problem with it. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.

Did the landlord fail in their maintenance obligations with respect to the mice?

In April [The tenant/s] started noticing mice in the property. She has provided evidence substantiating this. This was naturally of significant concern to her given her particular health challenges. She raised it with Ms Tararo who sent around a pest controller within a few days. He laid traps and advised Ms Tararo that he only saw droppings under the oven and there was not a smell present that indicated a significant concern.
[The tenant/s] says the response was unacceptable as she was left to clear out the mouse traps which was a danger to her health. She again did not raise this with Ms Tararo as she was extremely frustrated with the tenancy by that point and had chosen to leave. [The tenant/s] submits that this was a breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This application must also be dismissed. Ms Tararo has responded within days of [The tenant/s] notification. She has responded appropriately in sending a pest controller. The law with respect to pests details a joint responsibility. Landlords need to make sure the property is free from pests and tenants need to keep their house in a condition that doesn’t encourage pests.
I consider the choice to lay traps was made by a professional pest controller and as such was appropriate. It is not a significant burden on a tenant to empty and re-set the traps which is of a benefit to them. I appreciate that doing so did present a risk to [The tenant/s] health, however she did not give Ms Tararo the opportunity of addressing this concern, therefore the landlord cannot be said to have failed in that respect. 1 Flood v LJ Hooker, Gisborne District Court, 28 October 2009,CIV-2009-016-248
Certainly the invasion of the mice was concerning for [The tenant/s] but I find the landlord acted appropriately in response with the information they had, therefore they did not breach section 45 of the RTA.
I understand and empathise with the challenges [The tenant/s] has, and still does, face. There is no doubt that this tenancy has been a difficult one for her and I sincerely hope she is able to find suitable accommodation in the near future. I am tasked with applying the law and have done so. I understand this may be frustrating for her however that is my sole jurisdiction.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

As both parties were put to the cost of filing their applications, it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall.

Should suppression orders be made?

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest. [The tenant/s] seeks suppression and although she was not successful in her claims I approve that application given her health issues discussed in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899916 — Rent arrears at 56A Hokioi Drive, Kenepuru, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899916 — Rent arrears at 56A Hokioi Drive, Kenepuru, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent arrears?

Did the landlord breach their obligations with respect to the heat pump?

Did the landlord fail in their maintenance obligations with respect to the mice?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent arrears?

Did the landlord breach their obligations with respect to the heat pump?

Did the landlord fail in their maintenance obligations with respect to the mice?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions