What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048509?

The tribunal order states: Saket Bajaj and Soni Kumari must pay Investment Portfolio Management

How much money was awarded in case 5048509?

Cleaning: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: 18 weeks loss of ameni…: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of section 44(3…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenities on o…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,735.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048509?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11333042-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048509?

The tribunal order states: Saket Bajaj and Soni Kumari must pay Investment Portfolio Management

How much money was awarded in case 5048509?

Cleaning: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: 18 weeks loss of ameni…: $360.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: breach of section 44(3…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenities on o…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,735.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048509?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11333042-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Te Puketoka Lane, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048509 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048509 — net $1,399.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 December 2024	$4,735.71		Rent arrears to 1 December 2024
Lawns and Garden work	$15.00		Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$258.75		Cleaning
Compensation: 18 weeks loss of amenities for		$360.00	18 weeks loss of amenities for
Compensation: breach of section 44(3) RTA		$500.00	breach of section 44(3) RTA
Compensation: loss of amenities on overly high		$150.00	loss of amenities on overly high
Total award	$5,009.46	$1,010.00
Net award	$1,399.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,399.46

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and early release from the fixed term tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

This fixed term tenancy ended on 1 December 2024 after the landlord relet the property on 2 December 2024.

The tenant abandoned the fixed term tenancy on 14 October 2024. The landlord had not agreed to release the tenant from their obligations under the fixed term prior to the tenant vacating. The landlord had informed the tenant that they always intended to hold the tenant to account for rent until new tenants are found.

Section 61(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) provides that a tenant who abandons the premises shall, notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary, be liable to pay the rent for any period up to and including in the case of a fixed-term tenancy, the date of the expiry of the term; or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever is the earlier.

Subsection (4) of section 61 further provides that nothing in section 49 (on the common law rules of mitigation) shall impose upon the landlord any obligation, on finding that the tenant has abandoned the premises, to make an application under the section or to grant a new tenancy of the premises.

No order has been granted by the Tribunal under section 56 or 66 RTA to terminate/reduce the fixed term tenancy prematurely.

I therefore find that the tenant remains liable to rent until 1 December 2024 which is the date before commencement of the new tenancy of the premises.

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on 1 December 2024.

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 reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not mow the lawns.

The amounts ordered for cleaning and lawn mowing are proved.

Has the landlord breached their obligations under the RTA?

Saket Bajaj and Soni Kumari claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and c) provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.

The landlord failed to ensure that there is adequate and continuous supply of hot water to the premises for the 2-bedroom premises. The hot water supply for the shower lasts less than 20 minutes which is inadequate for two tenants/occupiers’ usage. This is despite the landlord’s replacement of the hot water element in July 2024. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that plumbers sent to the premises have indicated that a 180 litre capacity hot water cylinder should have been installed at the premises instead of the existing 120 litre capacity hot water cylinder installed at the premises.

I award the tenant general damages of $360.00 for 18 weeks loss of amenities for inadequate supply of continuous hot water @ $20.00 per week from 1 May 2024 to 14 October 2024. The duration of the inconvenience takes into account the tenant’s absence from the premises from 14 August to 25 September 2024.

The landlord also failed to ensure that the supplied microwave is placed at a suitable height. The microwave is situated higher than the rangehood and over 6 feet high which causes inconvenience to the tenant. Neither tenants are of below average heights. I award the tenant nominal damages for the inconvenience in the circumstances.

Finally, I find that the landlord withheld consent for the tenant to sublet the premises unreasonably.

The tenancy agreement allows for subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant sought consent from the landlord to sublet but the landlord only allows new tenancies to be entered directly between the landlord and new tenants. I consider such conditions from the landlord to effectively prohibit subletting altogether which is a breach of section 44(3) RTA.

For the avoidance of doubt, the landlord may carry out background checks on prospective sub-tenants proposed by the tenant, but the landlord may not insist that the prospective subtenants directly contract with the landlord if accepted. Such condition effectively bars subletting in breach of section 44 RTA, and in spite of clause 29 of the tenancy agreement which allows the tenant to sublet the premises with prior written consent of the landlord.

I award the tenant general damages of $500.00 for the landlord’s breach of section 44 RTA in the circumstances. This breach prevents the tenant from mitigating their loss from being unable to live at the premises due to the various failings of the premises to them.

Only the amounts ordered above are proved; the bond is released to the landlord accordingly having regard to the above orders.

As both parties have been successful in part on their respective claims, I make no orders on reimbursement of the filing fees for the claim and cross-claim filed herein.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048509 — net $1,399.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 December 2024	$4,735.71		Rent arrears to 1 December 2024
Lawns and Garden work	$15.00		Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$258.75		Cleaning
Compensation: 18 weeks loss of amenities for		$360.00	18 weeks loss of amenities for
Compensation: breach of section 44(3) RTA		$500.00	breach of section 44(3) RTA
Compensation: loss of amenities on overly high		$150.00	loss of amenities on overly high
Total award	$5,009.46	$1,010.00
Net award	$1,399.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,399.46

Order

Saket Bajaj and Soni Kumari must pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For As Agent For Peter Tugaga & Jane Frances Evans $1,399.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and early release from the fixed term tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

This fixed term tenancy ended on 1 December 2024 after the landlord relet the property on 2 December 2024.
The tenant abandoned the fixed term tenancy on 14 October 2024. The landlord had not agreed to release the tenant from their obligations under the fixed term prior to the tenant vacating. The landlord had informed the tenant that they always intended to hold the tenant to account for rent until new tenants are found.
Section 61(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) provides that a tenant who abandons the premises shall, notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary, be liable to pay the rent for any period up to and including in the case of a fixed-term tenancy, the date of the expiry of the term; or the date of commencement of a new tenancy of the premises, whichever is the earlier.
Subsection (4) of section 61 further provides that nothing in section 49 (on the common law rules of mitigation) shall impose upon the landlord any obligation, on finding that the tenant has abandoned the premises, to make an application under the section or to grant a new tenancy of the premises.
No order has been granted by the Tribunal under section 56 or 66 RTA to terminate/reduce the fixed term tenancy prematurely.
I therefore find that the tenant remains liable to rent until 1 December 2024 which is the date before commencement of the new tenancy of the premises.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing on 1 December 2024.

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 reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not mow the lawns.
The amounts ordered for cleaning and lawn mowing are proved.

Has the landlord breached their obligations under the RTA?

Saket Bajaj and Soni Kumari claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and c) provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
The landlord failed to ensure that there is adequate and continuous supply of hot water to the premises for the 2-bedroom premises. The hot water supply for the shower lasts less than 20 minutes which is inadequate for two tenants/occupiers’ usage. This is despite the landlord’s replacement of the hot water element in July 2024. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that plumbers sent to the premises have indicated that a 180 litre capacity hot water cylinder should have been installed at the premises instead of the existing 120 litre capacity hot water cylinder installed at the premises.
I award the tenant general damages of $360.00 for 18 weeks loss of amenities for inadequate supply of continuous hot water @ $20.00 per week from 1 May 2024 to 14 October 2024. The duration of the inconvenience takes into account the tenant’s absence from the premises from 14 August to 25 September 2024.
The landlord also failed to ensure that the supplied microwave is placed at a suitable height. The microwave is situated higher than the rangehood and over 6 feet high which causes inconvenience to the tenant. Neither tenants are of below average heights. I award the tenant nominal damages for the inconvenience in the circumstances.
Finally, I find that the landlord withheld consent for the tenant to sublet the premises unreasonably.
The tenancy agreement allows for subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant sought consent from the landlord to sublet but the landlord only allows new tenancies to be entered directly between the landlord and new tenants. I consider such conditions from the landlord to effectively prohibit subletting altogether which is a breach of section 44(3) RTA.
For the avoidance of doubt, the landlord may carry out background checks on prospective sub-tenants proposed by the tenant, but the landlord may not insist that the prospective subtenants directly contract with the landlord if accepted. Such condition effectively bars subletting in breach of section 44 RTA, and in spite of clause 29 of the tenancy agreement which allows the tenant to sublet the premises with prior written consent of the landlord.
I award the tenant general damages of $500.00 for the landlord’s breach of section 44 RTA in the circumstances. This breach prevents the tenant from mitigating their loss from being unable to live at the premises due to the various failings of the premises to them.
Only the amounts ordered above are proved; the bond is released to the landlord accordingly having regard to the above orders.
As both parties have been successful in part on their respective claims, I make no orders on reimbursement of the filing fees for the claim and cross-claim filed herein.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048509 — Rent arrears at 62 Te Puketoka Lane, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048509 — Rent arrears at 62 Te Puketoka Lane, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Has the landlord breached their obligations under the RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Has the landlord breached their obligations under the RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions