What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223570?

The tribunal order states: Vishal Birsah and Reshmee Appadoo Kanakiah to pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 5223570?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223570?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12249971-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223570?

The tribunal order states: Vishal Birsah and Reshmee Appadoo Kanakiah to pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 5223570?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223570?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12249971-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 16 Northall Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223570 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223570 — net $1,587.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 May 2025	$1,560.00	Rent arrears to 16 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,587.00
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,587.00

Order

Vishal Birsah and Reshmee Appadoo Kanakiah to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Blockhouse Bay As Agent For Rose, Lovell-Smith Maryam Arabzabeth $1,587.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (BN-00058169) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Blockhouse Bay As Agent For Rose, Lovell-Smith Maryam Arabzabeth: $1,587.00 Vishal Birsah and Reshmee Appadoo Kanakiah: $313.00
The tenant’s claim for $480.00 compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Appadoo Kanakiah represented the tenants and Mr Gil represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation, the refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

On 10 March 2025 the tenants signed a fixed-term tenancy agreement for the above property, to commence on 29 March 2025 and end on 27 March 2026.
The viewing of the property was on 8 March 2025, and at that time the outgoing tenants were still living there. The tenants were assured the premises would be well cleaned before their tenancy began, including new drapes, carpet wash, the vanity changed and some other minor work.
The tenants picked up the keys on 28 March 2025 and began to move in on Saturday 29 March 2025. They were immediately disappointed with the condition of the premises; the carpet was still wet from the carpet wash, there was an air of moisture about the property, the rangehood filter was on the stove and when they opened the oven door, the inside cover came off exposing the insulation in the door.
The tenants accepted that the premises had been repainted, had new drapes and net curtains, and the vanity had been updated.
On Sunday 30 March 2025 the tenants emailed the landlord and said they were not happy with the condition of the premises and on Monday 31 March 2025 the landlord responded apologising and asking for more details.
On Tuesday 2 April 2025 the tenants gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
Negotiations between the two parties began about the end of tenancy.
The tenants contracted an independent Standard House Inspection from Auckland Wide House Inspections which was completed on Tuesday 1 April 2025. The report states that the vast majority of the house is acceptable, but there is a higher than acceptable amount of moisture in some of the walls.
The tenants said the carpets took approximately five days to dry, during which time the windows had to be left open because of the smell. Five days after the start of the tenancy, ended on 3 April 2025.
The tenants moved out and returned the keys to the landlord on 22 April 2025.
The landlord produced photographs of the property showing it to be older style and well worn, but in generally clean condition. The low weekly rent of $475.00 reflects this. If the tenants expected the premises to be “as brand-new” they would have been disappointed.
The tenants provided photographs which show the carpet to be well worn and still stained, and an extractor fan cover to be old and dirty.
The usual rules of contract apply to residential tenancy agreements. A party may not unilaterally cancel the contract except in exceptional circumstances.
In this case the tenants notified the landlord of their displeasure regarding the condition of the property, and the information before me shows the landlord was open and responsive to the tenants’ complaint. The tenants nevertheless sought to cancel the tenancy agreement on the second working day after the tenancy began.
The tenants complained of the moisture in the flat, but they acknowledged the moisture was at least partly because the carpet was still damp from being cleaned.
The landlord is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make good on the contract. They were not given this.
I determine that in the circumstances, the tenants were bound by their fixed- term tenancy agreement, until such reasonable time as the landlord released them, in this instance when a replacement tenancy took over. The landlord stated the next tenancy began on 17 May 2025, four weeks after the tenants returned their keys to the landlord on 22 April 2025.
The landlord said today that they would have been happy to reduce the rent by “a couple of days” for the first week of the tenancy because of the wet carpet. The tenants said the carpet took five days to dry.
Because the landlord should have been given an opportunity to address the tenants’ complaints in the first instance, I do not consider it reasonable to order the landlord to pay for the House Inspection Report that the tenants ordered. I note that other than the moisture, the report finds the house acceptable.
The claim for compensation for the cost of the report is not proved.
The landlord said they are not seeking reasonable letting fees, which often amount to several hundred dollars.
The landlord produces a rent summary which proves that at the end of the tenancy on 16 May 2025, rent arrears was $1,900.00.
Out of fairness to the tenants, who were unquestionably disappointed the flat wasn’t ready for them at the beginning of the tenancy, I determine five days’ rent should be deducted from the start of the tenancy to account for its lack of readiness due to the carpet being wet.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Blockhouse Bay As Agent For Rose, Lovell-Smith Maryam Arabzabeth has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5223570 — net $1,587.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 May 2025	$1,560.00	Rent arrears to 16 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,587.00
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,587.00

Order

Vishal Birsah and Reshmee Appadoo Kanakiah to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Blockhouse Bay As Agent For Rose, Lovell-Smith Maryam Arabzabeth $1,587.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (BN-00058169) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited Blockhouse Bay As Agent For Rose, Lovell-Smith Maryam Arabzabeth: $1,587.00 Vishal Birsah and Reshmee Appadoo Kanakiah: $313.00
The tenant’s claim for $480.00 compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Appadoo Kanakiah represented the tenants and Mr Gil represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation, the refund of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

On 10 March 2025 the tenants signed a fixed-term tenancy agreement for the above property, to commence on 29 March 2025 and end on 27 March 2026.
The viewing of the property was on 8 March 2025, and at that time the outgoing tenants were still living there. The tenants were assured the premises would be well cleaned before their tenancy began, including new drapes, carpet wash, the vanity changed and some other minor work.
The tenants picked up the keys on 28 March 2025 and began to move in on Saturday 29 March 2025. They were immediately disappointed with the condition of the premises; the carpet was still wet from the carpet wash, there was an air of moisture about the property, the rangehood filter was on the stove and when they opened the oven door, the inside cover came off exposing the insulation in the door.
The tenants accepted that the premises had been repainted, had new drapes and net curtains, and the vanity had been updated.
On Sunday 30 March 2025 the tenants emailed the landlord and said they were not happy with the condition of the premises and on Monday 31 March 2025 the landlord responded apologising and asking for more details.
On Tuesday 2 April 2025 the tenants gave 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
Negotiations between the two parties began about the end of tenancy.
The tenants contracted an independent Standard House Inspection from Auckland Wide House Inspections which was completed on Tuesday 1 April 2025. The report states that the vast majority of the house is acceptable, but there is a higher than acceptable amount of moisture in some of the walls.
The tenants said the carpets took approximately five days to dry, during which time the windows had to be left open because of the smell. Five days after the start of the tenancy, ended on 3 April 2025.
The tenants moved out and returned the keys to the landlord on 22 April 2025.
The landlord produced photographs of the property showing it to be older style and well worn, but in generally clean condition. The low weekly rent of $475.00 reflects this. If the tenants expected the premises to be “as brand-new” they would have been disappointed.
The tenants provided photographs which show the carpet to be well worn and still stained, and an extractor fan cover to be old and dirty.
The usual rules of contract apply to residential tenancy agreements. A party may not unilaterally cancel the contract except in exceptional circumstances.
In this case the tenants notified the landlord of their displeasure regarding the condition of the property, and the information before me shows the landlord was open and responsive to the tenants’ complaint. The tenants nevertheless sought to cancel the tenancy agreement on the second working day after the tenancy began.
The tenants complained of the moisture in the flat, but they acknowledged the moisture was at least partly because the carpet was still damp from being cleaned.
The landlord is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make good on the contract. They were not given this.
I determine that in the circumstances, the tenants were bound by their fixed- term tenancy agreement, until such reasonable time as the landlord released them, in this instance when a replacement tenancy took over. The landlord stated the next tenancy began on 17 May 2025, four weeks after the tenants returned their keys to the landlord on 22 April 2025.
The landlord said today that they would have been happy to reduce the rent by “a couple of days” for the first week of the tenancy because of the wet carpet. The tenants said the carpet took five days to dry.
Because the landlord should have been given an opportunity to address the tenants’ complaints in the first instance, I do not consider it reasonable to order the landlord to pay for the House Inspection Report that the tenants ordered. I note that other than the moisture, the report finds the house acceptable.
The claim for compensation for the cost of the report is not proved.
The landlord said they are not seeking reasonable letting fees, which often amount to several hundred dollars.
The landlord produces a rent summary which proves that at the end of the tenancy on 16 May 2025, rent arrears was $1,900.00.
Out of fairness to the tenants, who were unquestionably disappointed the flat wasn’t ready for them at the beginning of the tenancy, I determine five days’ rent should be deducted from the start of the tenancy to account for its lack of readiness due to the carpet being wet.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Blockhouse Bay As Agent For Rose, Lovell-Smith Maryam Arabzabeth has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223570 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 16 Northall Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223570 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 16 Northall Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions