What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939545 about?

The tribunal order states: Comprende Limited Simon Liddell must pay [The tenant/s] $1,337.00

How much money was awarded in case 4939545?

Compensation: loss of amenity - no d…: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: not having vacant poss…: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939545?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10948623-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939545 about?

The tribunal order states: Comprende Limited Simon Liddell must pay [The tenant/s] $1,337.00

How much money was awarded in case 4939545?

Compensation: loss of amenity - no d…: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: not having vacant poss…: $950.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939545?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939545?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10948623-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Thane Road, Roseneath, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939545 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939545 — net $1,337.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: not having vacant possession for 19 weeks	$950.00	not having vacant possession for 19 weeks
Compensation: loss of amenity - no dryer for 12 weeks	$360.00	loss of amenity - no dryer for 12 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,337.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,337.00

Comprende Limited Simon Liddell must pay [The tenant/s] $1,337.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The landlord must remove the cabinet and its contents from the tenancy premises by Friday 18 October 2024.

The landlord must unlock the locked cupboards and wardrobes and remove the owner’s belongings by Friday 18 October 2024.

If the cabinet and the belongings are not removed as ordered then the rent will reduce by $50 a week until the work is completed.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager represented the landlord.

This is a new tenancy. The tenants moved in on 7 June 2024 and are frustrated that some issues have not been resolved. They filed an application for work orders because the dryer and the dishwasher had not been repaired. They also want the landlord to remove a cabinet full of glassware in lounge and empty his belongings from the locked wardrobes and cupboards so the tenants can use them. They have asked for compensation. The questions I have to decide include: • Were the repairs carried out made in a reasonable timeframe? • Should the tenants have vacant possession?

Were the repairs carried out made in a reasonable timeframe?

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to repair.

The tenants did not use the dishwasher because of a leak. It seems the landlord acted promptly in arranging an electrician and then a plumber. There were some delays when a request got cancelled but the dishwasher was fixed in three weeks. This seems a reasonable timeframe to me, particularly when two different trades were called. I do not find there was a breach by the landlord and no compensation is allowed.

The dryer did not work when the tenants moved in and it took 12 weeks to check the dryer, and choose and install a new dryer. I find this was not a reasonable period of time, especially in the middle of winter. The tenants were paying rent for a dryer they could not use so there was a loss of amenity. They also had to chase the landlord and allow access for tradespeople. I allow compensation in the amount of $30 a week.

Should the tenants have vacant possession?

It is agreed evidence the owner has left belongings at the house. The house was an Airbnb before this tenancy. Vacant possession means the house is empty of all belongings except for those chattels agreed on the tenancy agreement. Section 37 RTA states: The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises.

Some belongings have been removed but the owner is refusing permission to remove a teak cabinet in the lounge which is locked and apparently full of glassware. The tenants have been told that they cannot move the cabinet. It is placed where they want to put their TV stand. The tenants are worried about being responsible for this piece of furniture and its contents. They also want to set up the lounge using their own furniture. They want the cabinet removed.

When the tenants moved in cupboards and wardrobes in three of the four bedrooms were locked. Two rooms still have locked cupboards and/or wardrobes. The tenants have recently been told that the wardrobe in the downstairs bedroom has the owner’s belongings locked inside and it must remain locked for the duration of the tenancy. This is frustrating for the tenants who quite reasonably expected they could use all the storage in the bedrooms.

The cabinet is not listed in the tenancy agreement. The owner’s belongings are not listed in the tenancy agreement. I find the landlord should remove the cabinet and all belongings from the wardrobes and cupboards immediately.

I also find the tenants should get compensation for the loss of amenity, and the time taken up with emailing the landlord trying to resolve the issue. I allow compensation in the amount of $50 and note it has been 19 weeks since the tenants moved in. As a further incentive, and an indicator of how seriously the Tribunal takes these claims, the rent will reduce by $50 a week until the tenants have vacant possession. Other orders

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when landlords have to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939545 — net $1,337.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: not having vacant possession for 19 weeks	$950.00	not having vacant possession for 19 weeks
Compensation: loss of amenity - no dryer for 12 weeks	$360.00	loss of amenity - no dryer for 12 weeks
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,337.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,337.00

Order

Comprende Limited Simon Liddell must pay [The tenant/s] $1,337.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord must remove the cabinet and its contents from the tenancy premises by Friday 18 October 2024.
The landlord must unlock the locked cupboards and wardrobes and remove the owner’s belongings by Friday 18 October 2024.
If the cabinet and the belongings are not removed as ordered then the rent will reduce by $50 a week until the work is completed.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager represented the landlord.
This is a new tenancy. The tenants moved in on 7 June 2024 and are frustrated that some issues have not been resolved. They filed an application for work orders because the dryer and the dishwasher had not been repaired. They also want the landlord to remove a cabinet full of glassware in lounge and empty his belongings from the locked wardrobes and cupboards so the tenants can use them. They have asked for compensation. The questions I have to decide include: • Were the repairs carried out made in a reasonable timeframe? • Should the tenants have vacant possession?

Were the repairs carried out made in a reasonable timeframe?

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to repair.
The tenants did not use the dishwasher because of a leak. It seems the landlord acted promptly in arranging an electrician and then a plumber. There were some delays when a request got cancelled but the dishwasher was fixed in three weeks. This seems a reasonable timeframe to me, particularly when two different trades were called. I do not find there was a breach by the landlord and no compensation is allowed.
The dryer did not work when the tenants moved in and it took 12 weeks to check the dryer, and choose and install a new dryer. I find this was not a reasonable period of time, especially in the middle of winter. The tenants were paying rent for a dryer they could not use so there was a loss of amenity. They also had to chase the landlord and allow access for tradespeople. I allow compensation in the amount of $30 a week.

Should the tenants have vacant possession?

It is agreed evidence the owner has left belongings at the house. The house was an Airbnb before this tenancy. Vacant possession means the house is empty of all belongings except for those chattels agreed on the tenancy agreement. Section 37 RTA states: The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises.
Some belongings have been removed but the owner is refusing permission to remove a teak cabinet in the lounge which is locked and apparently full of glassware. The tenants have been told that they cannot move the cabinet. It is placed where they want to put their TV stand. The tenants are worried about being responsible for this piece of furniture and its contents. They also want to set up the lounge using their own furniture. They want the cabinet removed.
When the tenants moved in cupboards and wardrobes in three of the four bedrooms were locked. Two rooms still have locked cupboards and/or wardrobes. The tenants have recently been told that the wardrobe in the downstairs bedroom has the owner’s belongings locked inside and it must remain locked for the duration of the tenancy. This is frustrating for the tenants who quite reasonably expected they could use all the storage in the bedrooms.
The cabinet is not listed in the tenancy agreement. The owner’s belongings are not listed in the tenancy agreement. I find the landlord should remove the cabinet and all belongings from the wardrobes and cupboards immediately.
I also find the tenants should get compensation for the loss of amenity, and the time taken up with emailing the landlord trying to resolve the issue. I allow compensation in the amount of $50 and note it has been 19 weeks since the tenants moved in. As a further incentive, and an indicator of how seriously the Tribunal takes these claims, the rent will reduce by $50 a week until the tenants have vacant possession. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when landlords have to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939545 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Thane Road, Roseneath, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939545 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Thane Road, Roseneath, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were the repairs carried out made in a reasonable timeframe?

Should the tenants have vacant possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Were the repairs carried out made in a reasonable timeframe?

Should the tenants have vacant possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions