What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921255 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4921255?

Compensation: Rent Abatement: $135.00 awarded to tenant; Door Handles: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Food Costs: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,442.86 awarded to landlord; Wasted Food: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $218.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921255?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10837560-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4921255 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4921255?

Compensation: Rent Abatement: $135.00 awarded to tenant; Door Handles: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Food Costs: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,442.86 awarded to landlord; Wasted Food: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $218.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921255?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10837560-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 37 St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921255 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921255 — net $2,984.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,442.86		Rent arrears
Water rates	$218.17		Water rates
Door handles	$368.00		Door handles
Lawns and Garden work	$215.00		Lawns and Garden work
Food costs		$75.00	Food costs
Wasted food		$50.00	Wasted food
Compensation: Rent abatement		$135.00	Rent abatement
Total award	$3,244.03	$260.00
Net award	$2,984.03
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,984.03

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For How Good Group $2,984.03 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For How Good Group: $2,984.03 [The tenant/s]: $815.97

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by [one of the tenants], who appeared by teleconference.
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 for losses caused by a power outage at the premises.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy was for a fixed term ending on 9 June 2024. By agreement the tenancy ended on 25 April 2024 and a new tenancy started on 26 April 2024, although the tenants moved out on 14 April 2024.
There is no dispute about the amount of rent arrears or water rates owed, although the amount claimed by the landlord in the application for outstanding water rates ($318.17) includes $100.00 for lawnmowing charges at the end of the tenancy, which are disputed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises and grounds reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Photographs taken by the landlord on 24 April 2024 during the entry inspection report for the new tenancy, show that the lawns needed mowing.
There was ample opportunity between the tenants vacating and the end of the tenancy, for the tenant to do any extra work considered by the landlord necessary for the premises to be left in reasonably clean and tidy condition. There were exchanges between the parties, as a result of which the tenants did some additional cleaning at the property.
The tenants’ evidence, which is not disputed, is that the landlord did not raise with the tenants the need for the lawns to be mowed again before the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that had the landlord done so, there would have been an opportunity for the tenants to have their own lawnmowing contractor mow the lawns (the tenants had weeded the gardens) for $65.00 rather than $100.00 claimed by the landlord.
Given the landlord’s obligation under s.49 to take all reasonable steps to mitigate losses arising from the claimed breach by the tenant, I consider it fair to require the tenants to pay what they would have paid had they engaged their own contractor to do the work.
Evidence provided by the landlord in the form of an invoice from the lawn and garden contractor engaged in February, and the tenant ledger, satisfy me that there is a sum of $150.00 outstanding from the tenants for lawn mowing and weeding work done at that time.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

During the tenancy the tenants replaced door hardware to make a door lockable.
In terms of s.42B, even where a such minor changes are made with the landlord’s consent, s42B(4) requires that, “...the tenant must, on nor before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition of the premises were in before the minor changes were made.”
Before the end of the tenancy, the tenants reinstated the original door handles. The property manager’s evidence is that when he was doing the entry inspection report for the new tenancy on 24 April 2024 he discovered that the door handles did not fit properly. The photos provided in evidence were taken at that time. The landlord also says that the new tenants said that the door handles were not properly working.
The landlord arranged for the doors to be fixed but the tradesperson advised that the handles could not be adequately repaired and that new door hardware would need to be installed. The amount paid by the landlord for that work is proved by the invoice provided.
Photographs provided by the landlord which were taken on 24 April 2024, show gaps between the door handle plate and the hole in the door to accommodate the handle mechanism.
The tenants say that they had a tradesperson install the new locks and reinstate the old door hardware when the tenancy ended. They cannot say whether, as the landlord assumes, the holes in the door were made larger to accommodate the new lockable handles.
The tenants say that they were given no opportunity to reinstate the old handles in a way the landlord was happy with. They further say that the reinstatement was adequate and if it hadn't been, the property manager should have noticed the issue well before 24 April 2024 when earlier inspections were done.
As noted, s.42B requires the tenant to reinstate the premises to their condition that is substantially the same as before the change was made.
The photographic evidence satisfies me that the reinstatement was not adequate.
In terms of s.49, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
If I accept the property manager’s evidence that the inadequacy of the reinstatement was not discovered until the inspection on 24 April 2024, with a new tenancy due to start on 26 April 2024, I am not persuaded that it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to allow the tenant further opportunity to reinstate the door handles to their prior condition.
The tenant had paid to have the work done by tradespeople. There is no evidence that had further reinstatement opportunity been given to the tenants, the cost would be less than the amount charged to the landlord.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached its obligation to take reasonable mitigation steps and the tenants are therefore responsible for the cost of the reinstatement work. Tenants’ claims
The tenants’ evidence is that there was a power outage at the property, due to causes related to the property itself, not to do with the electricity supplier.
Their evidence is that the outage lasted for approximately 24 hours, from the morning of 28 February 2024 to the morning of 29 February 2024, during which time the premises had no power and as a result no hot water and no cooking facilities.
The tenant says that the following losses were caused: a. accommodation at a hotel - $350.00 b. lunch on 28 February 2024 - $50.00 c. dinner on 28 February 2024 $100.00 d. frozen food spoiled and discarded - $150.00 e. one day's rent - $135.00.
The same claims were notified to the landlord immediately after the event.
Under s.45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a liveable condition. It is not sufficient for the landlord to say that the landlord did not cause the outage so the tenant should not be compensated for losses or inconvenience caused. For example, under s.59 rent abates where premises (or part of the premises) is uninhabitable, where there has been no breach of the tenancy agreement.
This is not a situation where the tenants were impacted by failure of the electricity supply, where the tenants’ recourse is through the electricity supply contract. I find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the any reasonable loss and inconvenience caused by the interruption to the power supply caused by issues with the premises themselves.
Section 49 and the obligation to mitigate loss applies to tenant claims as much as to claims by a landlord. By analogy to s.59 I find that because there was no electricity supply and thereby no ability to heat water or cook, the premises were of limited utility and the rent for that day should abate.
In my view, the tenants’ obligation to mitigate loss is not met by the tenants (there are no children of the family) spending $150.00 on a lunch and evening meal or staying overnight at a hotel. The evidence does not persuade me that it was not possible for the tenants to remaining occupying the premises overnight, albeit with some inconvenience. A much more modest compensatory award for that inconvenience is appropriate.
The tenants claim compensation for the cost of freezer contents that had to be disposed of. Online sources indicate that freezer contents should remain safe and edible for 24-48 hours during a power outage. I accept the tenant’s evidence though that some food had defrosted and was discarded but again a much more modest compensatory award is appropriate
Each party had had claims upheld an no award is made in respect of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921255 — net $2,984.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,442.86		Rent arrears
Water rates	$218.17		Water rates
Door handles	$368.00		Door handles
Lawns and Garden work	$215.00		Lawns and Garden work
Food costs		$75.00	Food costs
Wasted food		$50.00	Wasted food
Compensation: Rent abatement		$135.00	Rent abatement
Total award	$3,244.03	$260.00
Net award	$2,984.03
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,984.03

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For How Good Group $2,984.03 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For How Good Group: $2,984.03 [The tenant/s]: $815.97

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by [one of the tenants], who appeared by teleconference.
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 for losses caused by a power outage at the premises.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy was for a fixed term ending on 9 June 2024. By agreement the tenancy ended on 25 April 2024 and a new tenancy started on 26 April 2024, although the tenants moved out on 14 April 2024.
There is no dispute about the amount of rent arrears or water rates owed, although the amount claimed by the landlord in the application for outstanding water rates ($318.17) includes $100.00 for lawnmowing charges at the end of the tenancy, which are disputed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises and grounds reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Photographs taken by the landlord on 24 April 2024 during the entry inspection report for the new tenancy, show that the lawns needed mowing.
There was ample opportunity between the tenants vacating and the end of the tenancy, for the tenant to do any extra work considered by the landlord necessary for the premises to be left in reasonably clean and tidy condition. There were exchanges between the parties, as a result of which the tenants did some additional cleaning at the property.
The tenants’ evidence, which is not disputed, is that the landlord did not raise with the tenants the need for the lawns to be mowed again before the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that had the landlord done so, there would have been an opportunity for the tenants to have their own lawnmowing contractor mow the lawns (the tenants had weeded the gardens) for $65.00 rather than $100.00 claimed by the landlord.
Given the landlord’s obligation under s.49 to take all reasonable steps to mitigate losses arising from the claimed breach by the tenant, I consider it fair to require the tenants to pay what they would have paid had they engaged their own contractor to do the work.
Evidence provided by the landlord in the form of an invoice from the lawn and garden contractor engaged in February, and the tenant ledger, satisfy me that there is a sum of $150.00 outstanding from the tenants for lawn mowing and weeding work done at that time.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

During the tenancy the tenants replaced door hardware to make a door lockable.
In terms of s.42B, even where a such minor changes are made with the landlord’s consent, s42B(4) requires that, “...the tenant must, on nor before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition of the premises were in before the minor changes were made.”
Before the end of the tenancy, the tenants reinstated the original door handles. The property manager’s evidence is that when he was doing the entry inspection report for the new tenancy on 24 April 2024 he discovered that the door handles did not fit properly. The photos provided in evidence were taken at that time. The landlord also says that the new tenants said that the door handles were not properly working.
The landlord arranged for the doors to be fixed but the tradesperson advised that the handles could not be adequately repaired and that new door hardware would need to be installed. The amount paid by the landlord for that work is proved by the invoice provided.
Photographs provided by the landlord which were taken on 24 April 2024, show gaps between the door handle plate and the hole in the door to accommodate the handle mechanism.
The tenants say that they had a tradesperson install the new locks and reinstate the old door hardware when the tenancy ended. They cannot say whether, as the landlord assumes, the holes in the door were made larger to accommodate the new lockable handles.
The tenants say that they were given no opportunity to reinstate the old handles in a way the landlord was happy with. They further say that the reinstatement was adequate and if it hadn't been, the property manager should have noticed the issue well before 24 April 2024 when earlier inspections were done.
As noted, s.42B requires the tenant to reinstate the premises to their condition that is substantially the same as before the change was made.
The photographic evidence satisfies me that the reinstatement was not adequate.
In terms of s.49, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
If I accept the property manager’s evidence that the inadequacy of the reinstatement was not discovered until the inspection on 24 April 2024, with a new tenancy due to start on 26 April 2024, I am not persuaded that it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to allow the tenant further opportunity to reinstate the door handles to their prior condition.
The tenant had paid to have the work done by tradespeople. There is no evidence that had further reinstatement opportunity been given to the tenants, the cost would be less than the amount charged to the landlord.
I do not find it proved that the landlord breached its obligation to take reasonable mitigation steps and the tenants are therefore responsible for the cost of the reinstatement work. Tenants’ claims
The tenants’ evidence is that there was a power outage at the property, due to causes related to the property itself, not to do with the electricity supplier.
Their evidence is that the outage lasted for approximately 24 hours, from the morning of 28 February 2024 to the morning of 29 February 2024, during which time the premises had no power and as a result no hot water and no cooking facilities.
The tenant says that the following losses were caused: a. accommodation at a hotel - $350.00 b. lunch on 28 February 2024 - $50.00 c. dinner on 28 February 2024 $100.00 d. frozen food spoiled and discarded - $150.00 e. one day's rent - $135.00.
The same claims were notified to the landlord immediately after the event.
Under s.45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a liveable condition. It is not sufficient for the landlord to say that the landlord did not cause the outage so the tenant should not be compensated for losses or inconvenience caused. For example, under s.59 rent abates where premises (or part of the premises) is uninhabitable, where there has been no breach of the tenancy agreement.
This is not a situation where the tenants were impacted by failure of the electricity supply, where the tenants’ recourse is through the electricity supply contract. I find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the any reasonable loss and inconvenience caused by the interruption to the power supply caused by issues with the premises themselves.
Section 49 and the obligation to mitigate loss applies to tenant claims as much as to claims by a landlord. By analogy to s.59 I find that because there was no electricity supply and thereby no ability to heat water or cook, the premises were of limited utility and the rent for that day should abate.
In my view, the tenants’ obligation to mitigate loss is not met by the tenants (there are no children of the family) spending $150.00 on a lunch and evening meal or staying overnight at a hotel. The evidence does not persuade me that it was not possible for the tenants to remaining occupying the premises overnight, albeit with some inconvenience. A much more modest compensatory award for that inconvenience is appropriate.
The tenants claim compensation for the cost of freezer contents that had to be disposed of. Online sources indicate that freezer contents should remain safe and edible for 24-48 hours during a power outage. I accept the tenant’s evidence though that some food had defrosted and was discarded but again a much more modest compensatory award is appropriate
Each party had had claims upheld an no award is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921255 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 37 St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921255 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 37 St Vincent Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions