How much money was awarded in case 5102529?

The Tribunal Orders Suppression Of T…: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5102529?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5102529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11491716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5102529?

The Tribunal Orders Suppression Of T…: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5102529?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5102529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11491716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 4 Gull Lane, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5102529 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5102529 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 1, 4 Gull Lane, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5102529 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5102529. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no	$1,740.00		The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no

Claims and awards for application 5102529. Verify on MoJ.

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no

Amount: $1,740.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the tenant is not liable to pay $1,740.00 for the 3 weeks (unrebated) rent sought in the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a declaration of non-liability to pay 3 weeks’ rent while repairs were being attended to a burst water pipe in the bathroom wall.
The landlord extended a $600 rent rebate to the tenant towards a 3 week period (which rebate is calculated at $200 per week) that the tenant had moved away from the premises, having secured temporary AirBnb accommodation elsewhere.
I acknowledge the landlord’s position that the premises were not uninhabitable and that the tenant was not required to move out from the premises completely while repairs were being carried out.
However, the landlord was aware that the tenant and her children were moving to temporary accommodation elsewhere for which the tenant had to incur accommodation expenses.
I do not consider the landlord’s existing rebate of $200.00 per week to the tenant to be sufficient in the circumstances.
Given that the tenant had not resided at the tenanted premises for those three weeks, with the full knowledge of the landlord at the material time, I consider that the tenant should not be required to pay rent for those 3 weeks in its entirety. I consider the substantial merits and justice of the case to lie with a full 3 week rebate being accorded to the tenant in the circumstances.
The burst pipe event was significant; it resulted in a flooded bedroom and the only bathroom being unusable for almost 2 months.
The tenant secured temporary accommodation for her and her 3 teenage children initially through her personal insurance policy.
I am satisfied that the tenant moved out for 3 weeks while the builders were repairing 2 bedrooms which involved stripping the bathroom to its foundation.
The tenant then paid her normal rent to the temporary accommodation provider.
The landlord subsequently lodged an insurance claim for loss of rent for those 3 weeks. The fact that the landlord’s insurance claim had been declined did not render the tenant’s clam for full rebate of rent for the 3 weeks to be unwarranted.
As the tenant had not actually lived at the tenanted premises while the repairs to the premises were carried out, and the landlord knew of that situation, I consider it unjust for the tenant to have to pay double rents for those 3 weeks.
For the above reasons, I make an order declaring that the tenant is not liable to pay those 3 weeks’ rent concerned. Having already granted a $200 weekly rent rebate earlier, there will be an order that the tenant is not liable to pay the landlord the remainder of $1,740.00 for the three weeks’ rent.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5102529. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no	$1,740.00		The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no

Claims and awards for application 5102529. Verify on MoJ.

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no

Amount: $1,740.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. By way of declaration, the tenant is no

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the tenant is not liable to pay $1,740.00 for the 3 weeks (unrebated) rent sought in the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a declaration of non-liability to pay 3 weeks’ rent while repairs were being attended to a burst water pipe in the bathroom wall.
The landlord extended a $600 rent rebate to the tenant towards a 3 week period (which rebate is calculated at $200 per week) that the tenant had moved away from the premises, having secured temporary AirBnb accommodation elsewhere.
I acknowledge the landlord’s position that the premises were not uninhabitable and that the tenant was not required to move out from the premises completely while repairs were being carried out.
However, the landlord was aware that the tenant and her children were moving to temporary accommodation elsewhere for which the tenant had to incur accommodation expenses.
I do not consider the landlord’s existing rebate of $200.00 per week to the tenant to be sufficient in the circumstances.
Given that the tenant had not resided at the tenanted premises for those three weeks, with the full knowledge of the landlord at the material time, I consider that the tenant should not be required to pay rent for those 3 weeks in its entirety. I consider the substantial merits and justice of the case to lie with a full 3 week rebate being accorded to the tenant in the circumstances.
The burst pipe event was significant; it resulted in a flooded bedroom and the only bathroom being unusable for almost 2 months.
The tenant secured temporary accommodation for her and her 3 teenage children initially through her personal insurance policy.
I am satisfied that the tenant moved out for 3 weeks while the builders were repairing 2 bedrooms which involved stripping the bathroom to its foundation.
The tenant then paid her normal rent to the temporary accommodation provider.
The landlord subsequently lodged an insurance claim for loss of rent for those 3 weeks. The fact that the landlord’s insurance claim had been declined did not render the tenant’s clam for full rebate of rent for the 3 weeks to be unwarranted.
As the tenant had not actually lived at the tenanted premises while the repairs to the premises were carried out, and the landlord knew of that situation, I consider it unjust for the tenant to have to pay double rents for those 3 weeks.
For the above reasons, I make an order declaring that the tenant is not liable to pay those 3 weeks’ rent concerned. Having already granted a $200 weekly rent rebate earlier, there will be an order that the tenant is not liable to pay the landlord the remainder of $1,740.00 for the three weeks’ rent.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5102529 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 4 Gull Lane, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5102529 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 4 Gull Lane, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions