What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4986211 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4986211?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,564.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986211?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11486103-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4986211 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4986211?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,564.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986211?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11486103-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Tanera Crescent, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4986211 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986211 — net $6,391.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 February 2025	$10,564.00	Rent arrears to 14 February 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,391.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,391.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Jacqueline Lisa Cardie and Ahmed Barazanchi must pay [The landlord/s] $6,391.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its directors.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term of one year, starting in February 2024. The tenants bought a house part way through the tenancy and the parties agreed the tenancy would end once new tenants were found. The parties exchanged emails in August discussing the safety of the house. The tenants said they were concerned because the section was affected by four slips in August 2022. The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for an order reducing or ending their fixed term tenancy. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the tenants proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances? • Should tenants pay for the engineer’s report? • How much is owed in rent? • Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Have the tenants proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances?

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: • there has been a change in their circumstances • the change was unforeseen • the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced • the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
The tenants said there was an unforeseen change in circumstances because they discovered the house they were living in was not safe. They provided me with photos, engineering reports and other reports obtained under the Official Information Act 1982, and emails between the landlord and the Council under an Official Information Act request. The house was yellow stickered after slips in August 2022. The Council repairs to the slope below the house started in June 2024. The tenants’ conversations with the Council contractors and neighbours around this time created fears about safety. In the weeks before they moved out the tenants said they were concerned about cracks, movement in the house and shed, some crumbling rock on the section, and subsidence in the lawn.
The landlord replied that there has been no change of circumstances because the house is safe to live in. The Council checked the house in 2022 and removed the yellow sticker status once a fence had been built and the plumbing repaired. The landlord has its own engineers report dated 19 March 2024 which states: At the time of preparing our report in 2022, the property was not occupied because the council considered the dwelling to be unsafe, due to the proximity of Landslip 1 to the corner deck pile. Based on our inspection and assessment of the ground conditions around the deck pile, and our review of council records on the recent piling works to the deck, we considered that the dwelling was as stable as it was before the landslip and it was not at risk of damage as a direct result of the landslip that has occurred.
The landlord submitted that the timing of the safety issue was suspicious given that the tenants had just bought a house. They had another engineer’s report carried out to directly answer the tenants concerns about the cracks and movement. That report by DTCE Structural Engineers, who inspected on 28 August 2024, states: Based on our visit and our background knowledge of the building and surrounds, we consider there is no immediate or significant risk to life safety, in or around the building. The property is not considered dangerous or unsafe as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I accept the photos taken after the slips in 2022 are alarming. However, I am more persuaded by the two engineers reports provided by the landlord. This is because their reports are particular to the tenancy premises. It seems unlikely to me that the Council would allow people to live in the house if the Council contactors and geotech engineers - who have been at the tenancy premises in 2024 - thought the house was not safe.
The tenants also submitted that the landlord should have fully disclosed the history of slips when they were negotiating the tenancy agreement. They said they would never have taken the tenancy if they had all the facts. I am not persuaded the landlord was required to disclose the slips. According to the landlord’s engineers the house is “as stable as it was before the landslip”.
It seems most likely to me the house was safe to live in. I do not find there was an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances and the claim for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed. Should tenants pay for the engineer’s report?
The landlord wants the tenants to pay the almost $800 fee for the structural engineers to go on site and check the house for cracks, movement, and for safety. I find the landlord should pay for the report. This is because the instructions to the engineers included that the report could be used to assure new tenants about safety. Further, there were in fact cracks inside the house and a dip in the lawn. It seems most likely to me the landlord also wanted reassurance the house and section were safe. This claim is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

I find the tenancy ended on 15 October 2024. The parties agreed that the landlord could offer a reduced rent in an effort to get replacement tenants quickly. I have seen the tenancy agreement for the new tenants and I confirm the new rent is $900 a week, starting on 16 October. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 15 October, and the amount owing from 16 October 2024 to 14 February 2025 at $150 a week.

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

Tenants must return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for lawn mowing after the tenants moved out and before the new tenancy. This was during winter. I have a photo from the tenants showing the lawn was reasonably tidy a couple of weeks before they moved out. I do not have any photos from the landlord showing the need for lawn mowing. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for damage to a wall in a bedroom because the tenant used two screws to hang the vacuum cleaner on the wall. The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
I can allow compensation if there has been a loss. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
The landlord has provided me with two photos showing two screw holes and some scuff marks on the wall. There is no invoice because the work has not been done, even though the tenancy ended months ago. The tenants said they used an existing hole so they are only responsible for one screw hole and the scuff marks. They said the marks are mostly hidden by a door. It seems most likely to me there has been no loss to the landlord. The room can still be used. New tenants were found without the repair. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request for the refund of the bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants leave fixed term tenancies. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986211 — net $6,391.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 February 2025	$10,564.00	Rent arrears to 14 February 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,391.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,391.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Jacqueline Lisa Cardie and Ahmed Barazanchi must pay [The landlord/s] $6,391.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its directors.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term of one year, starting in February 2024. The tenants bought a house part way through the tenancy and the parties agreed the tenancy would end once new tenants were found. The parties exchanged emails in August discussing the safety of the house. The tenants said they were concerned because the section was affected by four slips in August 2022. The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for an order reducing or ending their fixed term tenancy. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the tenants proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances? • Should tenants pay for the engineer’s report? • How much is owed in rent? • Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Have the tenants proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances?

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: • there has been a change in their circumstances • the change was unforeseen • the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced • the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
The tenants said there was an unforeseen change in circumstances because they discovered the house they were living in was not safe. They provided me with photos, engineering reports and other reports obtained under the Official Information Act 1982, and emails between the landlord and the Council under an Official Information Act request. The house was yellow stickered after slips in August 2022. The Council repairs to the slope below the house started in June 2024. The tenants’ conversations with the Council contractors and neighbours around this time created fears about safety. In the weeks before they moved out the tenants said they were concerned about cracks, movement in the house and shed, some crumbling rock on the section, and subsidence in the lawn.
The landlord replied that there has been no change of circumstances because the house is safe to live in. The Council checked the house in 2022 and removed the yellow sticker status once a fence had been built and the plumbing repaired. The landlord has its own engineers report dated 19 March 2024 which states: At the time of preparing our report in 2022, the property was not occupied because the council considered the dwelling to be unsafe, due to the proximity of Landslip 1 to the corner deck pile. Based on our inspection and assessment of the ground conditions around the deck pile, and our review of council records on the recent piling works to the deck, we considered that the dwelling was as stable as it was before the landslip and it was not at risk of damage as a direct result of the landslip that has occurred.
The landlord submitted that the timing of the safety issue was suspicious given that the tenants had just bought a house. They had another engineer’s report carried out to directly answer the tenants concerns about the cracks and movement. That report by DTCE Structural Engineers, who inspected on 28 August 2024, states: Based on our visit and our background knowledge of the building and surrounds, we consider there is no immediate or significant risk to life safety, in or around the building. The property is not considered dangerous or unsafe as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I accept the photos taken after the slips in 2022 are alarming. However, I am more persuaded by the two engineers reports provided by the landlord. This is because their reports are particular to the tenancy premises. It seems unlikely to me that the Council would allow people to live in the house if the Council contactors and geotech engineers - who have been at the tenancy premises in 2024 - thought the house was not safe.
The tenants also submitted that the landlord should have fully disclosed the history of slips when they were negotiating the tenancy agreement. They said they would never have taken the tenancy if they had all the facts. I am not persuaded the landlord was required to disclose the slips. According to the landlord’s engineers the house is “as stable as it was before the landslip”.
It seems most likely to me the house was safe to live in. I do not find there was an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances and the claim for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed. Should tenants pay for the engineer’s report?
The landlord wants the tenants to pay the almost $800 fee for the structural engineers to go on site and check the house for cracks, movement, and for safety. I find the landlord should pay for the report. This is because the instructions to the engineers included that the report could be used to assure new tenants about safety. Further, there were in fact cracks inside the house and a dip in the lawn. It seems most likely to me the landlord also wanted reassurance the house and section were safe. This claim is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

I find the tenancy ended on 15 October 2024. The parties agreed that the landlord could offer a reduced rent in an effort to get replacement tenants quickly. I have seen the tenancy agreement for the new tenants and I confirm the new rent is $900 a week, starting on 16 October. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 15 October, and the amount owing from 16 October 2024 to 14 February 2025 at $150 a week.

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

Tenants must return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for lawn mowing after the tenants moved out and before the new tenancy. This was during winter. I have a photo from the tenants showing the lawn was reasonably tidy a couple of weeks before they moved out. I do not have any photos from the landlord showing the need for lawn mowing. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for damage to a wall in a bedroom because the tenant used two screws to hang the vacuum cleaner on the wall. The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
I can allow compensation if there has been a loss. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
The landlord has provided me with two photos showing two screw holes and some scuff marks on the wall. There is no invoice because the work has not been done, even though the tenancy ended months ago. The tenants said they used an existing hole so they are only responsible for one screw hole and the scuff marks. They said the marks are mostly hidden by a door. It seems most likely to me there has been no loss to the landlord. The room can still be used. New tenants were found without the repair. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request for the refund of the bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants leave fixed term tenancies. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986211 — Rent arrears at 14 Tanera Crescent, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986211 — Rent arrears at 14 Tanera Crescent, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Have the tenants proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions