How much money was awarded in case 4933239?

Cost Of Advertising For New Tenants: $249.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $11,931.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933239?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11372472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4933239?

Cost Of Advertising For New Tenants: $249.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $11,931.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933239?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933239?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11372472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933239 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933239 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address,

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933239 — net $9,997.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 October 2024	$11,931.43	Rent arrears to 13 October 2024
Water rates	$108.74	Water rates
Cost of advertising for new tenants	$249.00	Cost of advertising for new tenants
Broadband fibre box repair	$199.00	Broadband fibre box repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,997.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,997.43

The landlord’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must not be published.

Xia Zhao must pay [the landlord] $9,997.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre (if it holds a bond) is to pay the bond of $2,517.74 to [the landlord] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 13 October 2024$11,931.43 Water rates$108.74 Cost of advertising for new tenants$249.00 Broadband fibre box repair$199.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$12,515.17 Bond$2,517.74 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$9,997.43

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter, John Hong.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and payment over of the bond.

The tenant seeks an order for reduction of the tenancy’s fixed term, compensation for gas costs, and a rent refund. Background

The tenant is a new immigrant from China.

The tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy with the landlord remotely from China. She had a friend of a friend, Iris, act as her agent in New Zealand at the time. Among other things, Iris viewed the premises and attended an entry inspection with the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy.

The tenancy was for a fixed term, beginning on 25 January 2024 and ending on 23 January 2025.

Although the tenancy began on 25 January 2024, the tenant did not actually arrive from China and move into the premises until 1 April 2024.

The tenant secured a place for her 10-year-old son at a nearby school in advance of arriving in New Zealand.

The tenant also arranged for power and gas to be supplied to the premises months in advance of her arrival in New Zealand.

Despite being bound by the fixed term contract she moved out of the premises abruptly on 13 June 2024 to a new premises she had arranged nearby.

The premises is near a main road that has regular buses that stop at a bus stop right next to the front gate. The tenant says the noise and vibration severely affected her son’s sleep in particular.

She also complains that the heater malfunctioned, the dishwasher didn’t work, and the oven dial decals had worn off.

The landlord began advertising for a replacement tenant soon after the tenant and her son move out. A new tenant was found and moved into the premises on 14 October 2024.

Should the term of the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: 1 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.

The tenant submitted: Due to the extremely noisy environment outside the house, my child suffered from severe sleep deprivation. The house itself had many issues, such as being very cold without a heater, a non-functional dishwasher, and unreadable oven controls. When I discovered this series of problems, the landlord did not carry out timely repairs, so I had no choice but to move out.

The tenant says her son in particular was affected by the street noise at the premises. She felt compelled to abruptly move out to a new rental premises on 13 June 2024. The tenant produced the second page of a doctor’s letter relating to her son. That appointment was 5 days after the tenant had left the premises but records insomnia issues “in the last one month”.

The tenant complained about the flat’s gas heater, which was not working properly on high. The landlord was happy to repair the heater but did not do so because the tenant wanted a heat pump installed to replace the gas heater. The landlord agreed to that. She explained that said she would replace the gas heater with a wall heater initially and install a heat pump later that year in August or September.

The oven decals for settings such as temperature control had worn away. As a result, the tenant found it difficult to operate the oven. The landlord sent images of a comparable oven showing what the decals should look like. However, the tenant still struggled to use the oven.

The tenant first used the dishwasher on 7 June 2024, six days before she moved out. She told the landlord it was not working. The landlord advised she would replace the dishwasher on 9 June 2024. However, the tenant moved out four days later, so never got the benefit of the new dishwasher. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 66. Discussion

The tenant’s son gave evidence before me. His evidence came across as recited, as if it had been coached. But it is quite feasible he was troubled by traffic noise when he was trying to sleep.

I am not persuaded, however, that the tenant’s son’s sensitivity to the road noise was an insurmountable problem. Children are typically adaptable and resilient. There was no evidence to prove that this child was not. In time, he would have adapted to the noise levels.

The landlord responded positively to the maintenance problems at the premises. The landlord was happy to repair the heater or replace it, but the tenant did not give her the opportunity to do so. Similarly, the landlord was happy to replace the dishwasher, but the tenant did not allow the landlord a reasonable time to do so. The landlord could have done more with the oven than provide an image of what the oven decals should look like. I shall return to that deficiency later in the decision. Overall, however, the oven not having clear decals was not a serious breach which would lead to severe hardship.

The tenant has her own agent in New Zealand from whom the tenant could get independent advice about the premises. The tenant would have covered off any fundamental issues such as noise prior to agreeing to the tenancy. The tenant would be aware of her son’s sensitivities and had them at the forefront of her mind. Google Earth images of the premises show a bus stop outside the premises and the tenant was aware of the bus stop nearby.

The noise issues were foreseeable. It is more likely that not that the tenant foresaw them. The maintenance issues were minor and foreseeable, and the landlord addressed them promptly, albeit she should have done more with the oven decal issue.

I am not persuaded that there was any material change in the tenant’s circumstance nor that anything was unforeseen.

I am not satisfied that the tenant would have suffered severe hardship if she had not left the premises. The tenant’s son was apparently still suffering from insomnia at the new premises. Given that the tenant has had a series of previous tenants who have coped with the noise levels, it is likely the tenant’s son could have adapted with proper support.

A tenant cannot abandon a fixed-term tenancy without pressing grounds in favour of another premises they prefer and then seek to have the fixed term reduced for hardship of their own making.

The application for termination of the fixed term tenancy is refused. What must the tenant pay towards the landlord’s rent loss and costs?

The tenant paid rent to 19 June 2024. However, she was contractually obliged to pay the full rent for the tenancy until it was due to the end on 23 January 2025.

The landlord managed found a new tenant who moved into the premises on 14 October 2024. The landlord’s grant of new tenancy ended the tenant’s tenancy.

I order the tenant to pay rent until 13 October 2024.

The landlord also claims for lost rent after that date because the tenant paid $720.00 per week rent, whereas the landlord’s replacement tenant pays only $650.00 per week rent.

I accept, strictly speaking, the tenant is contractually bound to pay the difference to the end of the tenancy. However, I am troubled that ordering the extra rent would be unjust to the tenant. In my view, the rent was high. $720 per week.

Tenancy Services’ Bond Data indicates that market rent for a two-bedroom flat in the upper quartile is only $623.00 for the period, 1 June to 20 November 2024. A weekly rent of $720.00 per week was likely in excess of market rent for the period 13 October to 23 January 2025.

The Tribunal must decide cases in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case. Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

The tenant’s actions put the landlord to considerable inconvenience and loss of time. Nonetheless, the substantial merits and justice of the case require that I refrain from making an order for the landlord’s rent loss after 13 October 2024.

This lenience also recognises the tenant’s legitimate concerns about the oven mentioned above. The oven was more difficult to use than it should have been. The Tribunal’s forgiveness of the landlord’s rent loss after 13 October 2024 compensates the tenant for the inconvenience.

The landlord’s advertising costs to find a new tenant are allowed.

The landlord asked the Tribunal to make an order for $200.00 to $300.00 for her time and petrol costs to show prospective tenants the premises and communicate with applicants.

There is some merit in the claim. However, the landlord did not formally claim for her time before the hearing, provide timesheets, or a bill of costs in advance of the hearing. It would be unfair to allow the claim given the lack of any notice and given to the tenant of the claim and the lack of documentary evidence of the claim at the hearing.

The landlord’s claim for her time and petrol costs is not allowed.

Is the tenant liable for the damaged broadband fibre?

The landlord found at the end of the tenancy that the premises broadband fibre box was damaged. She had not noticed the damage herself. Her new tenant drew it to her attention when they found a vital cable had been damaged. The landlord then reviewed photos she had taken after the tenancy had ended but before the new tenancy began, which proved the damage existed before the new tenant moved in.

The tenant says she did not touch the box. However, her modem was plugged into the unit, so she would have had to have plugged it and unplugged it at the end of the tenancy.

It is likely the cable was damaged when the tenant removed her modem. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The tenant has not proven she or whoever it was who removed her modem cable was not careless. 2

It cost the landlord $199.00 to repair the cable.

The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the cost. Other matters

The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) in respect to the heating standard. 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The landlord undertook her own assessment of the heating standard and says the premises complied.

The tenant has not proved otherwise.

This claim is dismissed.

The tenant claimed for the landlord failing to obtain an independent professional HHS report. However, landlords are not required to obtain such reports. Landlords can undertake their own HHS assessments. That can be a perilous thing to do because lay people’s assessments may not be as accurate as a professional, but nonetheless landlord self-assessments are permitted.

The tenant sought an order for repayment of the rent she paid. There is no basis upon which to make an order for that.

The tenant applied for an order that the landlord reimburse her for gas charges. The premises needed gas for the gas fire. The tenant decided to organise gas and electricity for the premises well before she moved. The landlord suggested the tenant might have wanted to use a letter from a utility provider to prove her occupation of the premises to enrol her son at the local school. But the reason is irrelevant. It was the tenant’s choice to contract with a supplier early and it is the tenant who has to pay for the supplier’s invoices which predate her occupation of the premise.

The gas fire wasn’t working properly. The landlord told the tenant she would get it repaired but the tenant said she wanted a heat pump. The landlord was agreeable to that but installed a compliant panel heater in the meantime.

There is no basis to order the landlord to reimburse the tenant for her gas cost because the tenant preferred a heat pump. It is not for the tenant to dictate the premises’ energy sources. Bond

The landlord’s application indicates the existence of a bond totalling $2,517.74.

That amount is to be paid to the landlord. If the landlord does not hold the bond already, the Bond Centre is to pay it to her. Filing fee

The landlord has substantially succeeded in her claim.

The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 3 Non-publication

The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4

The landlord has substantially succeeded in her claim.

The landlord’s name, including the tenancy address must not be published.

The tenant has not substantially succeeded in her claim nor in resisting the landlord’s claim. Nor would an order for non-publication be in the public interest. 5

Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is refused.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933239 — net $9,997.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 October 2024	$11,931.43	Rent arrears to 13 October 2024
Water rates	$108.74	Water rates
Cost of advertising for new tenants	$249.00	Cost of advertising for new tenants
Broadband fibre box repair	$199.00	Broadband fibre box repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,997.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,997.43

The landlord’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address, must not be published.

Xia Zhao must pay [the landlord] $9,997.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre (if it holds a bond) is to pay the bond of $2,517.74 to [the landlord] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter, John Hong.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and payment over of the bond.

The tenant seeks an order for reduction of the tenancy’s fixed term, compensation for gas costs, and a rent refund. Background

The tenant is a new immigrant from China.

The tenancy was for a fixed term, beginning on 25 January 2024 and ending on 23 January 2025.

Although the tenancy began on 25 January 2024, the tenant did not actually arrive from China and move into the premises until 1 April 2024.

The tenant secured a place for her 10-year-old son at a nearby school in advance of arriving in New Zealand.

The tenant also arranged for power and gas to be supplied to the premises months in advance of her arrival in New Zealand.

Despite being bound by the fixed term contract she moved out of the premises abruptly on 13 June 2024 to a new premises she had arranged nearby.

She also complains that the heater malfunctioned, the dishwasher didn’t work, and the oven dial decals had worn off.

The landlord began advertising for a replacement tenant soon after the tenant and her son move out. A new tenant was found and moved into the premises on 14 October 2024.

Should the term of the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

The tenant’s son gave evidence before me. His evidence came across as recited, as if it had been coached. But it is quite feasible he was troubled by traffic noise when he was trying to sleep.

I am not persuaded that there was any material change in the tenant’s circumstance nor that anything was unforeseen.

A tenant cannot abandon a fixed-term tenancy without pressing grounds in favour of another premises they prefer and then seek to have the fixed term reduced for hardship of their own making.

The application for termination of the fixed term tenancy is refused. What must the tenant pay towards the landlord’s rent loss and costs?

The tenant paid rent to 19 June 2024. However, she was contractually obliged to pay the full rent for the tenancy until it was due to the end on 23 January 2025.

The landlord managed found a new tenant who moved into the premises on 14 October 2024. The landlord’s grant of new tenancy ended the tenant’s tenancy.

I order the tenant to pay rent until 13 October 2024.

The landlord also claims for lost rent after that date because the tenant paid $720.00 per week rent, whereas the landlord’s replacement tenant pays only $650.00 per week rent.

The landlord’s advertising costs to find a new tenant are allowed.

The landlord asked the Tribunal to make an order for $200.00 to $300.00 for her time and petrol costs to show prospective tenants the premises and communicate with applicants.

The landlord’s claim for her time and petrol costs is not allowed.

Is the tenant liable for the damaged broadband fibre?

The tenant says she did not touch the box. However, her modem was plugged into the unit, so she would have had to have plugged it and unplugged it at the end of the tenancy.

It is likely the cable was damaged when the tenant removed her modem. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The tenant has not proven she or whoever it was who removed her modem cable was not careless. 2

It cost the landlord $199.00 to repair the cable.

The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the cost. Other matters

The landlord undertook her own assessment of the heating standard and says the premises complied.

The tenant has not proved otherwise.

This claim is dismissed.

The tenant sought an order for repayment of the rent she paid. There is no basis upon which to make an order for that.

There is no basis to order the landlord to reimburse the tenant for her gas cost because the tenant preferred a heat pump. It is not for the tenant to dictate the premises’ energy sources. Bond

The landlord’s application indicates the existence of a bond totalling $2,517.74.

That amount is to be paid to the landlord. If the landlord does not hold the bond already, the Bond Centre is to pay it to her. Filing fee

The landlord has substantially succeeded in her claim.

The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 3 Non-publication

The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.

The landlord has substantially succeeded in her claim.

The landlord’s name, including the tenancy address must not be published.

The tenant has not substantially succeeded in her claim nor in resisting the landlord’s claim. Nor would an order for non-publication be in the public interest. 5

Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933239 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933239 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

Is the tenant liable for the damaged broadband fibre?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

Is the tenant liable for the damaged broadband fibre?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions