What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5028868 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5028868?

Pest Control: $382.50 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,088.97 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $24.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028868?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11552371-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5028868 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5028868?

Pest Control: $382.50 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,088.97 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $24.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028868?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11552371-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1210, 11 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5028868 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5028868 — net $731.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,088.97		Rent arrears
Water rates	$24.78		9. The landlord claimed water rates arrears of $156.54.
Refund 50% pest control costs paid		$382.50	Refund 50% pest control costs paid
Total award	$1,113.75	$382.50
Net award	$731.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$731.25

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Rocio Leonor Regalado and Jorge Garcia Rodriguez must pay [The landlord/s] $731.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $1800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: [The landlord/s]- $ 731.25 Jorge Garcia Rodriguez- $1,068.75

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Spanish translation was provided for the tenants.
The first application was filed by the tenants who sought to end their tenancy. They lodged a dispute against the landlord claim for the costs of bed bug treatment at the premises.
The landlord then applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

Mr Rodriguez gave 28 days’ notice of his intention to end the tenancy on 3 February 2025. Ms Regalado then gave notice of her intention to end the tenancy on 6 February 2025. Mr Rodriguez returned his keys on 3 February, Ms Regalado returned hers on the 6th.
The landlord confirms that it will not claim rent from Mr Rodriguez for the period from 3 to 6 February 2025.
A rent summary has been provided by the landlord, which shows the amount of unpaid rent. The rent arrears are calculated on the basis that: a. the tenants have a joint responsibility for rent to 3 February 2025; and b. Ms Regalado has a responsibility for 50% of the rent for the three days from 3 to 6 February 2025.
The parties are agreed that Mr Rodriguez has meet all his responsibilities under the tenancy through to the end of the tenancy, so the arrears represent rent unpaid by Ms Regalado.
I have made it clear that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine any dispute between tenants. However, the parties confirm that any bond available for refund should be paid to Mr Rodriguez, who paid a bond of $900.00 and paid the 50% of the pest control costs to be refunded under this Order.
The landlord claimed water rates arrears of $156.54. Those arrears however include charges from the Body Corporate that are not consumption based. Section 39 RTA only allows a landlord to recover metered consumption charges. The property manager has helpfully calculated the non-recoverable charges previously paid by the tenants and a refund of those overpayments is included in the calculation of the balance now due. Pest Control costs
The tenancy became somewhat complicated. A tenancy agreement was signed on 21 October 2022 for a fixed term from 3 December 2022 to 3 June 2023. The tenants under that agreement were Troy Scott and Brooke McAlavey.
Ms McAlavey moved out and Mr Scott brought Ms Regalado into the tenancy. No change of tenant form was signed.
The property manager says she then became aware that Mr Rodriguez had moved in, in place of Mr Scott. She had Mr Scott, Mr Rodriguez and Ms Regalado sign change of tenancy form recording Mr Scott as the departing tenant, Ms Regalado as the continuing tenant (although she was not a tenant at that point, having signed nothing) and Mr Rodriguez as the new tenant. That change of tenancy form is dated April 2024.
Ms Regalado’s evidence is that after she decided that she would continue living in the flat for longer and signed the change of tenancy form, she removed the plastic cover from a mattress provided with the premises and did some deep cleaning of the premises, which seems to have disturbed a population of bed bugs which thereafter became a very significant problem.
The issue was raised with the property manager who took the view that because this had been an ongoing tenancy since December 2022, the bed bug problem related to the occupation of the premises since then and was not the landlord’s responsibility. A quote was arranged for the bed bug treatment which the landlord arranged at a cost of $759.00, on the basis that the tenants could repay the cost by instalments. Mr Rodriguez paid 50% of that cost. The other 50% remains outstanding.
The evidence available persuades me that it is more likely than not that the bed bug problem was caused by events before these tenants began occupying the premises. A bed, which was provided to the previous tenants by the landlord and put into storage by them, was brought back to the premises for Ms Regalado’s use. The most likely explanation, from the evidence provided, is that the bed had, had become infested while in storage and the infestation was aggravated when Ms Regalado later took the plastic cover off and did some deep cleaning at the premises.
These circumstances raise the question of whether, by signing the change of tenant form, the tenants took the premises subject to all pre-existing issues and assumed responsibility for anything that had happened in the tenancy previously, or whether they were entitled to have the premises provided by the landlord in a clean, tidy end healthy condition.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the legal effect of the change of tenancy agreement is that the tenants became the new tenants under an existing, continuing tenancy agreement.
However, by the time the change of tenancy form was signed, neither of the original tenants was living in the premises.
The tenants say that the only document they were ever given was the change of tenancy form and that before signing the change of tenancy form, they were not provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement itself, which set out the rights and responsibilities they were assuming.
Section 13A requires that before tenants sign a tenancy agreement, detailed information needs to be provided. In this case the landlord says the tenants are liable for obligations the tenants were not, at the time, made aware they were expected to be responsible for. As the property manager says, in hindsight it would have been better to end the previous tenancy and enter into a new tenancy with these tenants. That is in substance what occurred.
The communications between the parties not long after the change of tenancy form was signed shows that the tenants, at that time had an expectation that the premises would be provided to them in reasonable condition. It does not suggest an awareness that they had taken on responsibility for the tenancy, including anything done by the previous tenants.
I find it proved on balance that the tenants signed the change of tenancy form without being provided with the information necessary to inform them that by doing so they would be expected to take responsibility for all aspects of the tenancy, including things that happened before they moved in.
In those circumstances it would be unjust to require the tenants to pay the cost of what I find more likely than not to have been a pre-existing bed bug infestation.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for the remaining 50% share of the decontamination costs is declined and the landlord should refund the half share already paid.
No order is made in respect to the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5028868 — net $731.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,088.97		Rent arrears
Water rates	$24.78		9. The landlord claimed water rates arrears of $156.54.
Refund 50% pest control costs paid		$382.50	Refund 50% pest control costs paid
Total award	$1,113.75	$382.50
Net award	$731.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$731.25

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Rocio Leonor Regalado and Jorge Garcia Rodriguez must pay [The landlord/s] $731.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $1800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: [The landlord/s]- $ 731.25 Jorge Garcia Rodriguez- $1,068.75

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Spanish translation was provided for the tenants.
The first application was filed by the tenants who sought to end their tenancy. They lodged a dispute against the landlord claim for the costs of bed bug treatment at the premises.
The landlord then applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

Mr Rodriguez gave 28 days’ notice of his intention to end the tenancy on 3 February 2025. Ms Regalado then gave notice of her intention to end the tenancy on 6 February 2025. Mr Rodriguez returned his keys on 3 February, Ms Regalado returned hers on the 6th.
The landlord confirms that it will not claim rent from Mr Rodriguez for the period from 3 to 6 February 2025.
A rent summary has been provided by the landlord, which shows the amount of unpaid rent. The rent arrears are calculated on the basis that: a. the tenants have a joint responsibility for rent to 3 February 2025; and b. Ms Regalado has a responsibility for 50% of the rent for the three days from 3 to 6 February 2025.
The parties are agreed that Mr Rodriguez has meet all his responsibilities under the tenancy through to the end of the tenancy, so the arrears represent rent unpaid by Ms Regalado.
I have made it clear that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine any dispute between tenants. However, the parties confirm that any bond available for refund should be paid to Mr Rodriguez, who paid a bond of $900.00 and paid the 50% of the pest control costs to be refunded under this Order.
The landlord claimed water rates arrears of $156.54. Those arrears however include charges from the Body Corporate that are not consumption based. Section 39 RTA only allows a landlord to recover metered consumption charges. The property manager has helpfully calculated the non-recoverable charges previously paid by the tenants and a refund of those overpayments is included in the calculation of the balance now due. Pest Control costs
The tenancy became somewhat complicated. A tenancy agreement was signed on 21 October 2022 for a fixed term from 3 December 2022 to 3 June 2023. The tenants under that agreement were Troy Scott and Brooke McAlavey.
Ms McAlavey moved out and Mr Scott brought Ms Regalado into the tenancy. No change of tenant form was signed.
The property manager says she then became aware that Mr Rodriguez had moved in, in place of Mr Scott. She had Mr Scott, Mr Rodriguez and Ms Regalado sign change of tenancy form recording Mr Scott as the departing tenant, Ms Regalado as the continuing tenant (although she was not a tenant at that point, having signed nothing) and Mr Rodriguez as the new tenant. That change of tenancy form is dated April 2024.
Ms Regalado’s evidence is that after she decided that she would continue living in the flat for longer and signed the change of tenancy form, she removed the plastic cover from a mattress provided with the premises and did some deep cleaning of the premises, which seems to have disturbed a population of bed bugs which thereafter became a very significant problem.
The issue was raised with the property manager who took the view that because this had been an ongoing tenancy since December 2022, the bed bug problem related to the occupation of the premises since then and was not the landlord’s responsibility. A quote was arranged for the bed bug treatment which the landlord arranged at a cost of $759.00, on the basis that the tenants could repay the cost by instalments. Mr Rodriguez paid 50% of that cost. The other 50% remains outstanding.
The evidence available persuades me that it is more likely than not that the bed bug problem was caused by events before these tenants began occupying the premises. A bed, which was provided to the previous tenants by the landlord and put into storage by them, was brought back to the premises for Ms Regalado’s use. The most likely explanation, from the evidence provided, is that the bed had, had become infested while in storage and the infestation was aggravated when Ms Regalado later took the plastic cover off and did some deep cleaning at the premises.
These circumstances raise the question of whether, by signing the change of tenant form, the tenants took the premises subject to all pre-existing issues and assumed responsibility for anything that had happened in the tenancy previously, or whether they were entitled to have the premises provided by the landlord in a clean, tidy end healthy condition.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the legal effect of the change of tenancy agreement is that the tenants became the new tenants under an existing, continuing tenancy agreement.
However, by the time the change of tenancy form was signed, neither of the original tenants was living in the premises.
The tenants say that the only document they were ever given was the change of tenancy form and that before signing the change of tenancy form, they were not provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement itself, which set out the rights and responsibilities they were assuming.
Section 13A requires that before tenants sign a tenancy agreement, detailed information needs to be provided. In this case the landlord says the tenants are liable for obligations the tenants were not, at the time, made aware they were expected to be responsible for. As the property manager says, in hindsight it would have been better to end the previous tenancy and enter into a new tenancy with these tenants. That is in substance what occurred.
The communications between the parties not long after the change of tenancy form was signed shows that the tenants, at that time had an expectation that the premises would be provided to them in reasonable condition. It does not suggest an awareness that they had taken on responsibility for the tenancy, including anything done by the previous tenants.
I find it proved on balance that the tenants signed the change of tenancy form without being provided with the information necessary to inform them that by doing so they would be expected to take responsibility for all aspects of the tenancy, including things that happened before they moved in.
In those circumstances it would be unjust to require the tenants to pay the cost of what I find more likely than not to have been a pre-existing bed bug infestation.
For those reasons, the landlord’s claim for the remaining 50% share of the decontamination costs is declined and the landlord should refund the half share already paid.
No order is made in respect to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028868 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1210, 11 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028868 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1210, 11 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions