What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5126430 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 5126430?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Payment: $650.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5126430?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5126430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12095885-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5126430 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 5126430?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Payment: $650.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5126430?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5126430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12095885-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 6J, Unit/Flat 6J, 155 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5126430 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5126430 — net $677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent payment	$650.00	Rent payment
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$677.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Room 6J, Unit/Flat 6J, 155 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Acrossia House is reduced and ended on 17 December 2024.
El Amor Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Mrs Pm Fee & Mr Rh Fee & Others must pay [The tenant/s] $677.00 immediately as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Rent payment $650.00 Filing fee $27.00 Total award $677.00 Plus, Bond $2,600.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $677.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlords claim for rent arrears of $3435.71 to 29 January 2025, advertising costs of $159.85 and viewing costs of $450.00, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
On 12 December 2024, the tenant viewed the apartment and entered into a 12- month fixed term tenancy with the Property Manager, commencing 17 December 2024. At the viewing the tenant asked specifically about the construction on her part of the building. As she was doing shift work, she would need to sleep in the day and needed a home that had black out curtains and was quiet.
The tenant is very certain that she was told by the property manager that the construction work had finished in her part of the building. The property manager says that their agent, Adele, who did the viewing with the tenant said the work on the northern/eastern side is completed or will be by Christmas. This claim is strongly rejected by the tenant who said she would not have taken a lease on a property that was undergoing construction work because of the disruption, dust, and noise.
I consider that the tenant had every intention of taking up this tenancy and that she was clear about what her requirements were. I accept that she would not have taken the tenancy had she been aware that the construction on her side would be ongoing and affecting her living in the apartment.
The Applicant had recently arrived from overseas to take up employment. She had no family or connections to New Zealand. Her place of work was nearby the apartment, and she was keen to settle into a permanent home and establish her new life in New Zealand.
There are 10 apartments on the 6 th floor, (which is where the tenant’s apartment was), of this 18-storey commercial and residential block.
On the 17 th of December 2024, the tenant went to the property management office to collect the keys. At this stage she was told that there was no specific mailbox for tenants at the apartment block. Mail for the businesses and tenants would be put in a central box where people could go to claim their own mail. The tenant was asked if she wanted to proceed with the tenancy knowing there was no mailbox. The tenant said at the hearing that she was not happy about this but needed to find a home and settle, so she accepted this.
While I acknowledge that it is not a legal requirement to have a mailbox, it is unusual for this not to be included in a tenancy and should have been told to the tenant before her tenancy commenced. The property manager said they were not aware of this prior to the start of the tenancy.
In the evening of 17 th of December 2024, the tenants took two bags to the apartment and left them there and went back to her hotel. She had not been able to move into the apartment earlier as the cleaners were still working on the apartment. On this occasion she said she had waited between 5-10 minutes for a lift to arrive in the lobby area of the apartment complex.
On 18 th of December 2024 the tenant went to the apartment complex with the intention of moving in her possessions. However, the lifts were not working. She waited 15-20 minutes for a lift, to no avail. She said the construction workers at the complex said that this was an ongoing issue with the lift being unreliable.
The tenant was directed to go up the fire escape stairwell to the 6 th floor to access her apartment. The tenant said the stairwell was cluttered with construction equipment such as wiring, buckets, concrete and machinery. The tenant considered this was a health and safety issue. She was able to place several smaller bags in the apartment but could not negotiate the bigger bags up the stairwell.
On the 19 th of December 2024, the tenant went back to the apartment, and she was told all the lifts were out of action.
The tenant was in communication with the property manager and emailed the building manager. The property manager said they were unaware of the issues with accessing the apartment because of lift failures and obstructed stairwells. The property manager did go to the building on the afternoon of the 19 th of December and was able to access the floor.
The property manager provided the Tribunal with an email from the building manager who confirmed the lift outages were caused by ongoing work within the building to upgrade the system. The building manager said he was not aware of the problem until residents contacted him complaining that they could not access the building or lifts. Furthermore, he stated that he had failed to explain to the residents of the building how they could access the west stairwell while the “periodic outages were happening.”
The property manager and building manager claim they did not know of the disruption and lift issues at the time that the tenant was attempting to gain access to her apartment. Regardless the property manager says the disruption would only be temporary, despite having no knowledge of when the construction work would end.
The tenant went to the property on the 21 of December 2024 to find the lift service technicians were working on the lifts and the lifts were not working. She was told that they “should be fixed tomorrow.”
The tenant advised the property manager that she was not able to access her apartment and she was continuing to incur hotel costs despite having paid rent on the apartment. The tenant explained that she did not feel safe living in an apartment with an unreliable lift and ongoing construction. The tenant worked night shift and needed to have reliable access to her home.
On 20 th of December 2024 the landlord advised the tenant that she had a fixed term tenancy, and she would be liable for the break lease fees and rent until a new tenant is found.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 16 th of December 2025.
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 an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenant has not been able to access the property that she had paid rent for. The circumstances of the “periodic lift outages” were not told to her before she took on the tenancy and there has clearly been some misunderstanding about the ongoing nature of the construction work onsite. In addition, the lack of a mailbox, dust from work in lifts and apartments and noise nuisance are genuine issues that would not have been negotiable for the tenant if she had been made aware of this prior to signing the tenancy.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. She needs to sleep at varying times of the day and night, and this will be hampered by the construction noise in the building. The tenant feels that the unreliability of the lifts makes her unsafe as she would be coming home at odd hours.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term were reduced. However, the owner and property manager knew about the construction and should have known about the issues with lifts, dust, and noise. Prior to this tenancy the property had been an Airbnb. The tenant provided a review on the apartment she found on Airbnb from a person who had stayed at there a month before the tenancy commenced. The review comments on the dust and construction noise.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, in these circumstances I am reducing the fixed term to the day the tenancy commenced.
I am reducing the fixed term tenancy to 17 th of December 2024. Effectively cancelling the tenancy agreement. I could have considered this application on a contractual basis that the contract between the landlord and tenant was frustrated and therefore void. However, the RTA has set out a clear path for dealing with fixed term tenancies and reducing the term.
I award the tenant a refund of her rent payment of $650.00 and her full bond of $2600.00.
I am not awarding the tenant the two days of alternative accommodation costs as she would have incurred them anyway given that I have refunded her entire rent payment and terminated the tenancy before it began.
The bond centre is to refund the tenants bond immediately.
Because the tenant has been successful, I am reimbursing her filing fee.
The tenant seeks suppression of her name and details and as she has been successful, I am granting suppression.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears are redundant as I have found the tenancy effectively did not commence and I have terminated it on the day it was to start. Therefore, the claim for the break lease fee, advertising, filing fee and refund of the bond are dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5126430 — net $677.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent payment	$650.00	Rent payment
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$677.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$677.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Room 6J, Unit/Flat 6J, 155 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Acrossia House is reduced and ended on 17 December 2024.
El Amor Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Mrs Pm Fee & Mr Rh Fee & Others must pay [The tenant/s] $677.00 immediately as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Rent payment $650.00 Filing fee $27.00 Total award $677.00 Plus, Bond $2,600.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $677.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlords claim for rent arrears of $3435.71 to 29 January 2025, advertising costs of $159.85 and viewing costs of $450.00, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
On 12 December 2024, the tenant viewed the apartment and entered into a 12- month fixed term tenancy with the Property Manager, commencing 17 December 2024. At the viewing the tenant asked specifically about the construction on her part of the building. As she was doing shift work, she would need to sleep in the day and needed a home that had black out curtains and was quiet.
The tenant is very certain that she was told by the property manager that the construction work had finished in her part of the building. The property manager says that their agent, Adele, who did the viewing with the tenant said the work on the northern/eastern side is completed or will be by Christmas. This claim is strongly rejected by the tenant who said she would not have taken a lease on a property that was undergoing construction work because of the disruption, dust, and noise.
I consider that the tenant had every intention of taking up this tenancy and that she was clear about what her requirements were. I accept that she would not have taken the tenancy had she been aware that the construction on her side would be ongoing and affecting her living in the apartment.
The Applicant had recently arrived from overseas to take up employment. She had no family or connections to New Zealand. Her place of work was nearby the apartment, and she was keen to settle into a permanent home and establish her new life in New Zealand.
There are 10 apartments on the 6 th floor, (which is where the tenant’s apartment was), of this 18-storey commercial and residential block.
On the 17 th of December 2024, the tenant went to the property management office to collect the keys. At this stage she was told that there was no specific mailbox for tenants at the apartment block. Mail for the businesses and tenants would be put in a central box where people could go to claim their own mail. The tenant was asked if she wanted to proceed with the tenancy knowing there was no mailbox. The tenant said at the hearing that she was not happy about this but needed to find a home and settle, so she accepted this.
While I acknowledge that it is not a legal requirement to have a mailbox, it is unusual for this not to be included in a tenancy and should have been told to the tenant before her tenancy commenced. The property manager said they were not aware of this prior to the start of the tenancy.
In the evening of 17 th of December 2024, the tenants took two bags to the apartment and left them there and went back to her hotel. She had not been able to move into the apartment earlier as the cleaners were still working on the apartment. On this occasion she said she had waited between 5-10 minutes for a lift to arrive in the lobby area of the apartment complex.
On 18 th of December 2024 the tenant went to the apartment complex with the intention of moving in her possessions. However, the lifts were not working. She waited 15-20 minutes for a lift, to no avail. She said the construction workers at the complex said that this was an ongoing issue with the lift being unreliable.
The tenant was directed to go up the fire escape stairwell to the 6 th floor to access her apartment. The tenant said the stairwell was cluttered with construction equipment such as wiring, buckets, concrete and machinery. The tenant considered this was a health and safety issue. She was able to place several smaller bags in the apartment but could not negotiate the bigger bags up the stairwell.
On the 19 th of December 2024, the tenant went back to the apartment, and she was told all the lifts were out of action.
The tenant was in communication with the property manager and emailed the building manager. The property manager said they were unaware of the issues with accessing the apartment because of lift failures and obstructed stairwells. The property manager did go to the building on the afternoon of the 19 th of December and was able to access the floor.
The property manager provided the Tribunal with an email from the building manager who confirmed the lift outages were caused by ongoing work within the building to upgrade the system. The building manager said he was not aware of the problem until residents contacted him complaining that they could not access the building or lifts. Furthermore, he stated that he had failed to explain to the residents of the building how they could access the west stairwell while the “periodic outages were happening.”
The property manager and building manager claim they did not know of the disruption and lift issues at the time that the tenant was attempting to gain access to her apartment. Regardless the property manager says the disruption would only be temporary, despite having no knowledge of when the construction work would end.
The tenant went to the property on the 21 of December 2024 to find the lift service technicians were working on the lifts and the lifts were not working. She was told that they “should be fixed tomorrow.”
The tenant advised the property manager that she was not able to access her apartment and she was continuing to incur hotel costs despite having paid rent on the apartment. The tenant explained that she did not feel safe living in an apartment with an unreliable lift and ongoing construction. The tenant worked night shift and needed to have reliable access to her home.
On 20 th of December 2024 the landlord advised the tenant that she had a fixed term tenancy, and she would be liable for the break lease fees and rent until a new tenant is found.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 16 th of December 2025.
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 an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenant has not been able to access the property that she had paid rent for. The circumstances of the “periodic lift outages” were not told to her before she took on the tenancy and there has clearly been some misunderstanding about the ongoing nature of the construction work onsite. In addition, the lack of a mailbox, dust from work in lifts and apartments and noise nuisance are genuine issues that would not have been negotiable for the tenant if she had been made aware of this prior to signing the tenancy.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. She needs to sleep at varying times of the day and night, and this will be hampered by the construction noise in the building. The tenant feels that the unreliability of the lifts makes her unsafe as she would be coming home at odd hours.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term were reduced. However, the owner and property manager knew about the construction and should have known about the issues with lifts, dust, and noise. Prior to this tenancy the property had been an Airbnb. The tenant provided a review on the apartment she found on Airbnb from a person who had stayed at there a month before the tenancy commenced. The review comments on the dust and construction noise.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, in these circumstances I am reducing the fixed term to the day the tenancy commenced.
I am reducing the fixed term tenancy to 17 th of December 2024. Effectively cancelling the tenancy agreement. I could have considered this application on a contractual basis that the contract between the landlord and tenant was frustrated and therefore void. However, the RTA has set out a clear path for dealing with fixed term tenancies and reducing the term.
I award the tenant a refund of her rent payment of $650.00 and her full bond of $2600.00.
I am not awarding the tenant the two days of alternative accommodation costs as she would have incurred them anyway given that I have refunded her entire rent payment and terminated the tenancy before it began.
The bond centre is to refund the tenants bond immediately.
Because the tenant has been successful, I am reimbursing her filing fee.
The tenant seeks suppression of her name and details and as she has been successful, I am granting suppression.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears are redundant as I have found the tenancy effectively did not commence and I have terminated it on the day it was to start. Therefore, the claim for the break lease fee, advertising, filing fee and refund of the bond are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5126430 — Tenancy dispute at Room 6J, Unit/Flat 6J, 155 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5126430 — Tenancy dispute at Room 6J, Unit/Flat 6J, 155 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

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