What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5071148 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 5071148?

Compensation: Rent Reduction: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11603965-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5071148 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 5071148?

Compensation: Rent Reduction: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11603965-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44 Aurea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5071148 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071148 — net $2,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Rent reduction	$2,500.00	Rent reduction
Net award	$2,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Faith Hassen is to pay Tarique Fredericks and Faragh Barnes the sum of $2527.00 immediately being compensation for rent reduction and reimbursement of the filing fee as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Compensation: Rent reduction $2,500.00 Total award $2,527.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,527.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application. Background:
This was a 12-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 4 March 2024. The tenants were able to terminate the tenancy earlier by agreement with the landlord. The tenancy ended on 3 December 2024.
This was a two-storey house, the bottom level was the garaging, laundry, and a storage room. The upper level, bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, and bathroom.
Problems arose in this tenancy after a significant flood happened in the lower level of the house on 21 May 2024. The landlord was advised, and contractors set up drying equipment in the garage and storage areas from 22 May 2024 to 5 June 2024.
An insurance claim was made, and an insurance assessor was involved. There was further work that was needed to be done to the lower level, but there were protracted delays in the work commencing. These delays were related to contractors’ availability, insurance processes and needing a clear area to carry out the work. The garage became the storage room for the tenants as the storage room was not able to be used.
The tenants have a child that requires help with mobility. The home was chosen by the tenants as it had a garage that allowed them to transfer their daughter to the upper level through an internal access. Once the garage was flooded and the car could not be driven into it, the only means to access the house was a pathway to the front door. For a variety of reasons this access was very difficult to use with their child.
The landlord needed to carry out work in the front of the garage to ensure that the lower level would not flood again. While the landlord said this was a one-off event, areas were identified that could be improved such as levelling out a lip in front of the garage and driveway and removing a planter box.
The tenants are claiming a rent reduction from the time of the flood until the end of the tenancy which was 29 weeks. In addition, they seek compensation for lost days off work while dealing with a sick child and having to find a new property, cost of resitting an exam that she failed due to the stress of the home situation with the flood and moving costs. Civil burden of proof for Tenancy Tribunal:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.
If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Costs:
Generally, the Tribunal has no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it. There are exceptions such as in the case where the Tribunal finds the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and ought not to have been brought. (See s102 RTA).
However, the exceptions do not apply in this case, and I cannot award costs for days taken off work, resitting exams and moving costs. Moving costs are a part of a tenant’s responsibility when a tenancy ends.
I am dismissing the claims for costs. Rent reduction:
After the flood and to the end of the tenancy the tenants could not use the garage for parking their car. The storage room was unusable, and their possessions were stacked in the garage.
Where there has been a loss of amenity, which means that the tenant is not getting the full benefit of their tenancy agreement because the property is not in the condition, they expected it to be in, compensation maybe given.
The Tribunal can order compensation for the loss of amenity. In this case I accept that there was a flood that had a significant effect on the tenants. The landlord was hindered in carrying out the repairs required for a number of reasons, not related to a lack of intention to do the work.
The landlord does not dispute at the hearing that there should be some compensation by a rent reduction. The landlord disputes that the loss of amenity should cover 29 weeks and says it should only be from 11 October 2024 until 2 December 2024.
I do not agree, after the flood the garage was out of action for the purpose that it was intended, and that was housing their vehicle and internal access for their child. The storage room could not be used to store their possessions. This situation continued from May to December.
I am awarding the tenants $2500.00 for the loss of amenity, which is a 10% rent reduction from May through to December 2024. Onerous conditions in a tenancy agreement:
The tenants claim that the landlord-imposed conditions on them that breached their right of quiet enjoyment of the property. The particular conditions complained of were restricting visitors to the house, having visitors stay at the house and the use of the garden.
Landlords can include reasonable conditions in the tenancy agreement, as long as they are generally consistence with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), such as the number of occupants residing at the property, parking rules, smoking and pet restrictions.
A landlord can not add conditions that are inconsistent with the RTA or go beyond what the RTA requires of a tenant. A tenant cannot sign away any of their rights under the RTA.
A landlord cannot enforce a condition limiting visitors to the property without the landlord’s consent. A tenant is entitled under the RTA and the tenancy agreement to have quiet enjoyment of the property while they are renting it.
The tenants raise this claim saying the landlord impinged on their quiet enjoyment and made them feel that this was not their home.
The landlord claims that there was never an intention to restrict the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenants advised the landlord that their parents would be staying from overseas for 6 months. The landlord did consent to this, but the tenants felt they should not have to ask to have visitors staying.
There is a conflict with the tenants right to quiet enjoyment and the landlord right to know who is staying in the property for a significant period of time. Additional people residing at the property does have an impact of the property in terms of wear and tear.
The tenants do not seek compensation or exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment. Bond/ Filing Fee/ Suppression:
My understanding was that the bond had already been refunded to the tenants. If that is not the case, then the bond of $3440.00 is to be refunded immediately.
The tenants have applied for suppression of their names and identifying detail’s and as they have been successful, I am granting suppressing.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071148 — net $2,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Rent reduction	$2,500.00	Rent reduction
Net award	$2,527.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Faith Hassen is to pay Tarique Fredericks and Faragh Barnes the sum of $2527.00 immediately being compensation for rent reduction and reimbursement of the filing fee as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Compensation: Rent reduction $2,500.00 Total award $2,527.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,527.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a tenant application. Background:
This was a 12-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 4 March 2024. The tenants were able to terminate the tenancy earlier by agreement with the landlord. The tenancy ended on 3 December 2024.
This was a two-storey house, the bottom level was the garaging, laundry, and a storage room. The upper level, bedrooms, lounge, kitchen, and bathroom.
Problems arose in this tenancy after a significant flood happened in the lower level of the house on 21 May 2024. The landlord was advised, and contractors set up drying equipment in the garage and storage areas from 22 May 2024 to 5 June 2024.
An insurance claim was made, and an insurance assessor was involved. There was further work that was needed to be done to the lower level, but there were protracted delays in the work commencing. These delays were related to contractors’ availability, insurance processes and needing a clear area to carry out the work. The garage became the storage room for the tenants as the storage room was not able to be used.
The tenants have a child that requires help with mobility. The home was chosen by the tenants as it had a garage that allowed them to transfer their daughter to the upper level through an internal access. Once the garage was flooded and the car could not be driven into it, the only means to access the house was a pathway to the front door. For a variety of reasons this access was very difficult to use with their child.
The landlord needed to carry out work in the front of the garage to ensure that the lower level would not flood again. While the landlord said this was a one-off event, areas were identified that could be improved such as levelling out a lip in front of the garage and driveway and removing a planter box.
The tenants are claiming a rent reduction from the time of the flood until the end of the tenancy which was 29 weeks. In addition, they seek compensation for lost days off work while dealing with a sick child and having to find a new property, cost of resitting an exam that she failed due to the stress of the home situation with the flood and moving costs. Civil burden of proof for Tenancy Tribunal:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.
If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Costs:
Generally, the Tribunal has no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it. There are exceptions such as in the case where the Tribunal finds the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and ought not to have been brought. (See s102 RTA).
However, the exceptions do not apply in this case, and I cannot award costs for days taken off work, resitting exams and moving costs. Moving costs are a part of a tenant’s responsibility when a tenancy ends.
I am dismissing the claims for costs. Rent reduction:
After the flood and to the end of the tenancy the tenants could not use the garage for parking their car. The storage room was unusable, and their possessions were stacked in the garage.
Where there has been a loss of amenity, which means that the tenant is not getting the full benefit of their tenancy agreement because the property is not in the condition, they expected it to be in, compensation maybe given.
The Tribunal can order compensation for the loss of amenity. In this case I accept that there was a flood that had a significant effect on the tenants. The landlord was hindered in carrying out the repairs required for a number of reasons, not related to a lack of intention to do the work.
The landlord does not dispute at the hearing that there should be some compensation by a rent reduction. The landlord disputes that the loss of amenity should cover 29 weeks and says it should only be from 11 October 2024 until 2 December 2024.
I do not agree, after the flood the garage was out of action for the purpose that it was intended, and that was housing their vehicle and internal access for their child. The storage room could not be used to store their possessions. This situation continued from May to December.
I am awarding the tenants $2500.00 for the loss of amenity, which is a 10% rent reduction from May through to December 2024. Onerous conditions in a tenancy agreement:
The tenants claim that the landlord-imposed conditions on them that breached their right of quiet enjoyment of the property. The particular conditions complained of were restricting visitors to the house, having visitors stay at the house and the use of the garden.
Landlords can include reasonable conditions in the tenancy agreement, as long as they are generally consistence with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), such as the number of occupants residing at the property, parking rules, smoking and pet restrictions.
A landlord can not add conditions that are inconsistent with the RTA or go beyond what the RTA requires of a tenant. A tenant cannot sign away any of their rights under the RTA.
A landlord cannot enforce a condition limiting visitors to the property without the landlord’s consent. A tenant is entitled under the RTA and the tenancy agreement to have quiet enjoyment of the property while they are renting it.
The tenants raise this claim saying the landlord impinged on their quiet enjoyment and made them feel that this was not their home.
The landlord claims that there was never an intention to restrict the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
The tenants advised the landlord that their parents would be staying from overseas for 6 months. The landlord did consent to this, but the tenants felt they should not have to ask to have visitors staying.
There is a conflict with the tenants right to quiet enjoyment and the landlord right to know who is staying in the property for a significant period of time. Additional people residing at the property does have an impact of the property in terms of wear and tear.
The tenants do not seek compensation or exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment. Bond/ Filing Fee/ Suppression:
My understanding was that the bond had already been refunded to the tenants. If that is not the case, then the bond of $3440.00 is to be refunded immediately.
The tenants have applied for suppression of their names and identifying detail’s and as they have been successful, I am granting suppressing.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071148 — Tenancy dispute at 44 Aurea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071148 — Tenancy dispute at 44 Aurea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions