How much money was awarded in case 5125593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125593?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11475354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5125593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5125593?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5125593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11475354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

85 Waimairi Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5125593 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5125593?

The tribunal order states: Progressive Realty Limited (trading as First National) - as agent for Jing Chen

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Progressive Realty Limited (trading as First National) - as agent for Jing Chen and Jingnan Ke must pay Isabella Anais Reardon-Pollett, Tyla Tapp, Annabelle Barnes, Greir Donald, Lily Hasselman and Georgia Verhoeven $500.00 immediately, being compensation for the tenants’ loss of enjoyment due to cleaning and repairs being required at the start of the tenancy.

The application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

The application for a full refund of rent is dismissed.

Reasons

All tenants attended the hearing. Mr Main and Mr Scoble represented the landlord.

The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 7 December 2025 and compensation equivalent to a full refund of rent. Background

The tenancy started on 13 December 2024. The tenants did not move into the premises immediately but started moving in from around 7 January 2025.

The tenants had concerns that the premises were not reasonably clean, rubbish had not been removed, and some repairs were needed.

Due to those issues the tenants considered that the premises were uninhabitable, so they applied to the Tribunal to end the tenancy. They seek a full rent refund.

Since the application was lodged, the landlord has had work done at the premises – further cleaning has been done, the rubbish bins have been emptied and cleaned, light bulbs have been replaced; the light fitting in the lounge has been repaired and a cracked light shade replaced.

The tenants have detailed other work that is required. They have not applied for a work order since they want the tenancy ended. Issues

The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Have the tenants established ground for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy? •Can the tenants be awarded a full refund of rent? •Should the tenants be awarded any compensation?

Can the tenancy be ended?

The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy. There are limited grounds to end a fixed term tenancy. One ground is for the tenants (in this case) to apply for an order reducing the term of the tenancy – an application under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

An application under section 66 RTA is an application of high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts.

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

There has been no unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances in this case. All that has happened is that the tenants are dissatisfied with the state of the premises, and they have identified some repair issues.

Those matters do not meet the high threshold for a finding of ‘unforeseen change in circumstances’.

Often, tenants are not happy with some aspects of tenancy premises. But the matters the tenants have identified are all matters that can be simply rectified.

The tenants’ application does not clear the first statutory hurdle; they have not established an unforeseen change in their circumstances. I dismiss the application for a reduction of the term of the tenancy. Full rent refund

It follows from my decision not to reduce the term of the tenancy that there are no grounds for a full refund of rent, nor a partial refund.

Rent can only abate where the premises are destroyed, wholly or in part, so as to become uninhabitable. The evidence falls well short of establishing that the premises are uninhabitable in this case. The entry inspection report dated 12 December 2024 produced in evidence shows that the premises are generally in a reasonable condition.

But even when premises are considered uninhabitable, tenants are still required to pay some rent – the appeal decisions from the District Court following the Christchurch earthquakes confirmed that. Work required

The tenants did not apply for work orders so the Tribunal will not make work orders at this time. It is satisfied after hearing from Mr Main and Mr Scoble that the landlord will promptly attend to these matters: Master bedroom •Cracked left window •Cracked heater •Window seals not adequate Room by garage • Cracked heater Sun room • No seals on windows Room by front door •Broken plug •Window does not shut Overall •Living room chandelier has detached again, after being recently repaired •Light bulb in lounge not working •Extractor fans in bathroom and kitchen do not work properly •Broken window seals •Washing machine repair needed (pending) •No sink plug in the kitchen •A pressure problem with the kitchen tap

The cracked panel heaters are separate from the HHS heating standard for heating. They are additional. They appear to be wall panel heaters. Given that they were supplied chattels at the start of the tenancy the landlord should ensure they can operate safely as intended.

Only if the landlord fails to attend to these (mostly minor) repairs promptly would the Tribunal make a work order on application by the tenants. Mr Main and Mr Scoble said they were unaware of some of the issues the tenants have raised. They must be given the opportunity to attend to these matters.

The tenants suspect that the premises do not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The landlord produced a HHS compliance report dated 27 October 2020. The RTA does not require a landlord to have the premises professionally assessed for HHS compliance. I suggested to the landlord’s representatives that it might be prudent for them to have the premises reassessed. That is a decision for them to make. The tenants produced no evidence that the premises do not comply currently. Landlords are required to confirm HHS compliance upon request by the tenants. Issues arising from a flood in the kitchen

The tenants described a flood in the kitchen causing damage accepted by the landlord’s (the owner’s) insurer. The event happened after the Council turned off the water. When it was turned back on, the kitchen tap was in the ‘on’ position and the flooding occurred overnight.

The tenants expressed concern that the landlord had demanded they pay the owner’s insurance excess.

This is not a matter before the Tribunal. If the landlord makes a claim against the tenants they do not accept, the landlord will need to apply for an order, which the tenants can defend.

The tenants referred to additional power costs of $92.00 arising from the use of a dehumidifier. The landlord’s representatives said they would reimburse that once the tenants provided a copy of their power account. The Tribunal need not make an order since it has the landlord’s assurance that reimbursement will be made.

If the tenants have distinct compensation issues arising from the flooding in the kitchen, they can make a new application once the repair work has been completed. As this is an active claim and repair, the Tribunal cannot make any order now, as the length and scope of the disruption is unknown. It is a matter that the parties should be able to reach an agreement on.

Should the tenants be awarded any compensation?

The landlord’s representatives said the tenants made their application 1 day after they moved into the premises. They accepted that some cleaning and rubbish removal was required as were some repairs.

The landlord’s evidence shows that they acted promptly to address the issues raised; others they were unaware of.

I find that the tenants should have some compensation for the landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were reasonably clean, and all rubbish removed, and for the fact that some repairs were required. But to say the premises were uninhabitable is simply an exaggeration. The matters the tenants have raised are all capable of remedy within a short time.

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.

I award the tenants compensation of $500.00 in this case. Only if the landlord fails to have the matters noted above rectified would the tenants have a case for a higher award of compensation.

I make no award reimbursing the filing fee the tenants paid. The application is only marginally successful. Result

The tenants’ application to have the term of their fixed term tenancy reduced is dismissed.

The landlord will pay the tenants $500.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to ensure the premises were properly clean and all rubbish removed.

The tenants did not apply for work orders. However, the Tribunal is confident from the assurances the landlord’s representatives gave at the hearing that the work identified will be assessed and remedied promptly.

Finally, the tenants referred to the owner of the premises showing up without notice. The landlord’s representatives should remind the owner of what the RTA requires in terms of notice for visits. Name suppression.

The tenants sought a name suppression order. I make no order for name suppression as the application is only successful in small part – see section 95A RTA.

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Order

The application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

The application for a full refund of rent is dismissed.

Reasons

All tenants attended the hearing. Mr Main and Mr Scoble represented the landlord.

The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 7 December 2025 and compensation equivalent to a full refund of rent. Background

The tenancy started on 13 December 2024. The tenants did not move into the premises immediately but started moving in from around 7 January 2025.

The tenants had concerns that the premises were not reasonably clean, rubbish had not been removed, and some repairs were needed.

Due to those issues the tenants considered that the premises were uninhabitable, so they applied to the Tribunal to end the tenancy. They seek a full rent refund.

The tenants have detailed other work that is required. They have not applied for a work order since they want the tenancy ended. Issues

Can the tenancy be ended?

An application under section 66 RTA is an application of high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside contracts.

Those matters do not meet the high threshold for a finding of ‘unforeseen change in circumstances’.

Often, tenants are not happy with some aspects of tenancy premises. But the matters the tenants have identified are all matters that can be simply rectified.

It follows from my decision not to reduce the term of the tenancy that there are no grounds for a full refund of rent, nor a partial refund.

The tenants expressed concern that the landlord had demanded they pay the owner’s insurance excess.

This is not a matter before the Tribunal. If the landlord makes a claim against the tenants they do not accept, the landlord will need to apply for an order, which the tenants can defend.

Should the tenants be awarded any compensation?

The landlord’s evidence shows that they acted promptly to address the issues raised; others they were unaware of.

I award the tenants compensation of $500.00 in this case. Only if the landlord fails to have the matters noted above rectified would the tenants have a case for a higher award of compensation.

I make no award reimbursing the filing fee the tenants paid. The application is only marginally successful. Result

The tenants’ application to have the term of their fixed term tenancy reduced is dismissed.

The landlord will pay the tenants $500.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to ensure the premises were properly clean and all rubbish removed.

The tenants sought a name suppression order. I make no order for name suppression as the application is only successful in small part – see section 95A RTA.

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125593 — Cleanliness at 85 Waimairi Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5125593 — Cleanliness at 85 Waimairi Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the tenancy be ended?

Should the tenants be awarded any compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the tenancy be ended?

Should the tenants be awarded any compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions