What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912257 about?

The tribunal order states: Ugochukwu Oscar Jnr Obioha and Phillip Heaven must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4912257?

Advertising: $496.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $32.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,270.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912257?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542437-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912257 about?

The tribunal order states: Ugochukwu Oscar Jnr Obioha and Phillip Heaven must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4912257?

Advertising: $496.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $32.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,270.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912257?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542437-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 22 Cleveland Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4912257 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912257 — net $129.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 June 2024	$2,270.00	Rent arrears to 10 June 2024
Advertising	$496.75	Advertising
Lock/key replacement	$32.70	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess	$250.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$129.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$129.89

Ugochukwu Oscar Jnr Obioha and Phillip Heaven must pay [The landlord/s] $129.89 immediately as set out in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,940.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Ugochukwu Oscar Jnr Obioha and Phillip Heaven at Unit/Flat 4, 22 Cleveland Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052 is reduced and now ends at 11.59pm, 10 June 2024.

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video. The tenants were represented by Angela Fahey.

The tenancy began on 23 January 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 23 January 2025.

The landlord applied for termination, rent arrears, advertising costs and insurance excess for carpet damage.

The tenant applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy and for refund of the bond. Landlord application

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records.

There is a dispute in relation to whether the rent was $735.00 as per the tenancy agreement or $745.00 which the landlord says was the agreed increase to take account of the purchase of a drier and the extra amenity it provided.

Section 24(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act states that a landlord under a fixed term tenancy may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement to do so and may only do so only in accordance with this section and any such provisions of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord relied on section 28(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that the parties can agree to increase the rent if the landlord has, with consent of the tenant increased or improved the facilities or services (other than necessary or general repairs) provided for the tenant.

The landlord said at the hearing that the improved facilities was the provision of a drier for the tenants to use. I note it is recorded in the annexure to the tenancy agreement that the old drier was not part of the chattels because it was broken. The landlord says that the agreement to increase the rent based on the provision of a drier was verbal and was reached before the tenancy commenced but the landlord forgot to document the agreement.

The tenant denies that there was an agreement and claims that the rent increase was unlawful given that this is a fixed term tenancy.

While the landlord claims that the increase is due to the drier that was supplied the rent increase was applied from the beginning of the tenancy rather than when the drier was installed almost two months into the tenancy on 17 March 2024. The landlord said that the tenant had paid the increased amount from the start, so that was the amount claimed, but the rent summary could have recorded the increase only applying from the date that the drier was provided if that was the intention of the parties.

On the evidence I don’t accept that the drier had improved the facilities sufficiently to warrant a $10.00 per week increase (amounting to $520.00 to the end of the fixed term). Also, the agreement was not recorded, and the intention of the parties was not clear. For these reasons, the weekly rent is to be $735.00 as recorded in the tenancy agreement signed by the parties.

The amount of rent arrears owed is dependent on the outcome of the tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy which is considered later in this order.

The parties had agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early, but the tenant was to remain liable for rent up until new tenants were found and the tenant met the costs for advertising.

At the hearing the tenant accepted the advertising costs sought so that amount is ordered.

The landlord claims in relation to carpet damage. There were two areas of carpet damage. One area was a burn in the lounge. The other was in the hallway due to water from the bathroom. The landlord is seeking two lots of insurance excess of $250.00 to cover replacement of the carpet.

I note that the new tenancy is to commence on 5 July 2024, but the carpet has not been replaced. The landlord states that the insurance assessor recommended that the carpet be replaced but no documentation was available for the hearing.

The tenant accepts the damage for the burn on the carpet so that insurance excess is awarded.

The tenant denies that the water on the carpet requires replacement. Apparently as soon as the water made its way from the bathroom to the carpet the tenant used a dehumidifier which dried the carpet after running for several days.

The photograph of the carpet outside the bathroom shows a very small area that is wet. I am not satisfied that this carpet requires replacement and without supporting evidence the claim for that damage is dismissed.

The landlord applied for compensation to repair a light fitting where three light bulbs were not working. The landlord considered that as the light was working at the beginning of the tenancy but not at the end then the tenant was responsible. It is not clear that the repairs needed to the light fixture are due to any fault of the tenant. While the tenant is responsible for replacement of standard light bulbs, if all three LED lamps stopped working it may be more of a maintenance issue that requires an electrician. The landlord’s claim for repairs to the light fixture is dismissed. Tenant application

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 23 January 2025.

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenant referred to feeling harassed by the landlord. This was in relation to the rent increase, what they considered to be constant communication from the landlord and the landlord entering the premises without notice.

The landlord entry occurred on 21 April 2024. Three days earlier on 18 April 2024 there was text communication between the landlord and tenant. One of the tenants advised that he would not be home for the next couple of days, but the other tenant would likely be home on Saturday afternoon (20 April 2024). The tenant went on to say that if the landlord needed to collect the spare parts sooner, he could leave them in the kitchen for the landlord to collect.

The landlord replied that they may do it tomorrow (Friday 19 April) or Saturday (20 April) but would let them know before coming over.

It turns out that the landlord did not attend on either 19 or 20 April 2024. Instead on the morning of Sunday 21 April 2024 the landlord sent a message at

32am asking if either of the tenants were home and asking if they could come over. There was no reply from the tenant. The landlord attended at the premises without notice or consent.

When the landlord arrived one of the tenants was asleep as he works night shift. This was a clear breach of the Act. The tenant had agreed to the landlord attending on 19 or 20 April and the landlord advised notice would be given. The notice should have been in advance not just when the landlord was on the way. The landlord should have received confirmation that the notice was received.

On the evidence I accept that these incidents amount to an unforeseen change in circumstances.

The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The tenant’s evidence is that they do not have $5,000.00 which is the amount the landlord is seeking for rent arrears to the day before the new tenancy begins. One of the tenants has a commission only job and the other had a period where he was not employed.

The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced. The landlord evidence is that there is a mortgage over the property which has been owned by the Trust since 2014. The Trust must pay rates and body corporate fees regardless of whether the premises are tenanted. Two of the trustees are pensioners and the other only works part time.

I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.

Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I award compensation of $496.75 to the landlord, being the actual advertising costs incurred.

The tenant had applied for the fixed term to end 28 days after the notice given on 25 April 2024. As this is a fixed term tenancy it is not possible to give notice to end it before the fixed term ends. But the parties can agree to reduce the fixed term and the landlord agreed for it to end when a new tenant was secured.

I have reduced the fixed term by 24 days to 10 June 2024 rather than the day before the new tenants move in being 4 July 2024. I have reduced it by that amount because of the landlord’s advertisement which stated that the premises were available for rent from 26 May 2024. The landlord was aware, or should have been aware, on 2 May 2024 that the tenants had vacated the premises and it was available for rent. The reduction of 24 days is the difference of these two dates.

The tenant is liable for rent up until 10 June 2024 and that is ordered.

Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912257 — net $129.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 June 2024	$2,270.00	Rent arrears to 10 June 2024
Advertising	$496.75	Advertising
Lock/key replacement	$32.70	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess	$250.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$129.89
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$129.89