What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224157 about?

The tribunal order states: Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For The Otokita Family Trust must

How much money was awarded in case 5224157?

Pay Michael Gerard Sheehan And Emily…: $401.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224157?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12752021-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224157 about?

The tribunal order states: Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For The Otokita Family Trust must

How much money was awarded in case 5224157?

Pay Michael Gerard Sheehan And Emily…: $401.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224157?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12752021-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Rosalind Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5224157 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5224157. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
pay Michael Gerard Sheehan and Emily Sheehan	$401.36		pay Michael Gerard Sheehan and Emily Sheehan

Order

Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For The Otokita Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $401.36 immediately, being reimbursement for the installation of an ariel.
The tenancy ended on 27 January 2025.
The tenant’s claim for overpayment of rent is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with his daughter, Ms Sheehan, as a support person. Ms Rustle and Ms Roman of Cooper & Co Real Estate attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant is seeking: a determination regarding the end date of the tenancy; compensation for overpayments of rent; and reimbursement for a replacement ariel. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the 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 the party bringing the claim 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 by the District Court 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

When did the tenancy end?

The last tenancy agreement was for a fixed term tenancy ending on 19 July 2023. The tenancy then became a periodic tenancy. At the relevant time, section 50(2B) of the RTA provided that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy may be terminated by a tenant by providing 28 days’ notice.
Section 50(3) of the RTA provides that a notice to terminate a tenancy by a tenant shall: be in writing; identify the premises; and specify the date the tenancy will end. However, section 50 (4) goes on to provide that a special form of words is not required in a notice to terminate a tenancy provided ...the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
On 21 December 2024, the tenant sent an email to the landlord advising that he was in hospital and that when he left hospital he would be looking for new accommodation. The tenant said that the other tenant would be “moving on” and asked how much notice he needed to give to end the tenancy.
The landlord replied on 30 December 2025 advising that the notice period was 28 days. The tenant replied asking for the 28 days to run from 21 December 2025. The landlord did not agree to this request.
The tenant says that the end date of the tenancy is 18 January 2025 and the landlord says the end date is 27 January 2025.
The tenant says that his email of 21 December 2025 should be deemed 28 days’ notice because it was clear that he intended to end the tenancy and because of the delay in the landlord’s response to the email.
The landlord says that an out of office response was issued to the tenant’s email of 21 December 2024. The landlord provided an email of 18 December 2024 showing that the landlord’s office would be closed from 23 December 2024 and would reopen on 06 January 2025 and giving the contact details for emergencies during this time.
The tenant said that he did not receive the email of 18 December or an out of office to his email of 21 December.
I do not consider that the tenant’s email of 21 December 2025 was a termination notice.. The email does not satisfy the requirements of section 50(3) of the RTA. Section 50(4) does not assist me to find that the email was a termination notice because that sections requires that the written notice states “... an intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period”.
While I have sympathy for the tenant’s circumstances, I do not consider that the landlord had an obligation to respond to the email immediately. The requirement to provide 28 written notice is set out in the RTA. Tenancy Services has detailed information about the amount of notice required to be given on its website. Tenancies Services also has a 0800 helpline for tenants and landlords to use if they have a specific query.
I find that the end date of the tenancy is 27 January 2025. The tenant’s claim that it ended on 18 January 2025 is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for overpayment of rent:
The tenant claimed that he made several payments to the landlord which had not been paid towards rent. During the hearing, the tenant provided copies of his bank statements showing the payments in question. The payments were located on the rent summary provide by the landlord.
This claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for reimbursement for the replacement arial:
The parties entered into a new agreement for a fixed term tenancy starting on 19 July 2022. The tenant said that within a month of the new tenancy starting, he noticed that the TV arial was broken. The tenant said he notified the agent at the time, Mr Fan, by telephone and that Mr Fan told him to replace the arial, send him the invoice and the cost would be reimbursed to the tenant.
The tenant has provided an email he sent to Mr Fan 05 August 2022 attaching the invoice for installation of the new arial. The tenant says he was not reimbursed for this invoice and is claiming the cost of $401.35.
The landlord says that Mr Fan left Cooper & Co Real Estate in 2022. The landlord says it has checked their records and been able to find any preapproval issued for the arial and, without this record, it is not satisfied that they had agreed to meet the cost of the replacement arial.
Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord must: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
I consider that the landlord was responsible for the costs of installing a new arial. I consider it is more likely than not that the tenant did notify the landlord’s agent that the arial was broken. I also find it is more likely than not the landlord told the tenant to arrange for the arial to be installed and told him he would be reimbursed for this cost.
This claim is proved, and I award $401.36 (including GST) for this claim. Filing fee:
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have not ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5224157. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
pay Michael Gerard Sheehan and Emily Sheehan	$401.36		pay Michael Gerard Sheehan and Emily Sheehan

Order

Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For The Otokita Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $401.36 immediately, being reimbursement for the installation of an ariel.
The tenancy ended on 27 January 2025.
The tenant’s claim for overpayment of rent is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing with his daughter, Ms Sheehan, as a support person. Ms Rustle and Ms Roman of Cooper & Co Real Estate attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant is seeking: a determination regarding the end date of the tenancy; compensation for overpayments of rent; and reimbursement for a replacement ariel. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the 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 the party bringing the claim 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 by the District Court 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

When did the tenancy end?

The last tenancy agreement was for a fixed term tenancy ending on 19 July 2023. The tenancy then became a periodic tenancy. At the relevant time, section 50(2B) of the RTA provided that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy may be terminated by a tenant by providing 28 days’ notice.
Section 50(3) of the RTA provides that a notice to terminate a tenancy by a tenant shall: be in writing; identify the premises; and specify the date the tenancy will end. However, section 50 (4) goes on to provide that a special form of words is not required in a notice to terminate a tenancy provided ...the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
On 21 December 2024, the tenant sent an email to the landlord advising that he was in hospital and that when he left hospital he would be looking for new accommodation. The tenant said that the other tenant would be “moving on” and asked how much notice he needed to give to end the tenancy.
The landlord replied on 30 December 2025 advising that the notice period was 28 days. The tenant replied asking for the 28 days to run from 21 December 2025. The landlord did not agree to this request.
The tenant says that the end date of the tenancy is 18 January 2025 and the landlord says the end date is 27 January 2025.
The tenant says that his email of 21 December 2025 should be deemed 28 days’ notice because it was clear that he intended to end the tenancy and because of the delay in the landlord’s response to the email.
The landlord says that an out of office response was issued to the tenant’s email of 21 December 2024. The landlord provided an email of 18 December 2024 showing that the landlord’s office would be closed from 23 December 2024 and would reopen on 06 January 2025 and giving the contact details for emergencies during this time.
The tenant said that he did not receive the email of 18 December or an out of office to his email of 21 December.
I do not consider that the tenant’s email of 21 December 2025 was a termination notice.. The email does not satisfy the requirements of section 50(3) of the RTA. Section 50(4) does not assist me to find that the email was a termination notice because that sections requires that the written notice states “... an intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period”.
While I have sympathy for the tenant’s circumstances, I do not consider that the landlord had an obligation to respond to the email immediately. The requirement to provide 28 written notice is set out in the RTA. Tenancy Services has detailed information about the amount of notice required to be given on its website. Tenancies Services also has a 0800 helpline for tenants and landlords to use if they have a specific query.
I find that the end date of the tenancy is 27 January 2025. The tenant’s claim that it ended on 18 January 2025 is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for overpayment of rent:
The tenant claimed that he made several payments to the landlord which had not been paid towards rent. During the hearing, the tenant provided copies of his bank statements showing the payments in question. The payments were located on the rent summary provide by the landlord.
This claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claim for reimbursement for the replacement arial:
The parties entered into a new agreement for a fixed term tenancy starting on 19 July 2022. The tenant said that within a month of the new tenancy starting, he noticed that the TV arial was broken. The tenant said he notified the agent at the time, Mr Fan, by telephone and that Mr Fan told him to replace the arial, send him the invoice and the cost would be reimbursed to the tenant.
The tenant has provided an email he sent to Mr Fan 05 August 2022 attaching the invoice for installation of the new arial. The tenant says he was not reimbursed for this invoice and is claiming the cost of $401.35.
The landlord says that Mr Fan left Cooper & Co Real Estate in 2022. The landlord says it has checked their records and been able to find any preapproval issued for the arial and, without this record, it is not satisfied that they had agreed to meet the cost of the replacement arial.
Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord must: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and
I consider that the landlord was responsible for the costs of installing a new arial. I consider it is more likely than not that the tenant did notify the landlord’s agent that the arial was broken. I also find it is more likely than not the landlord told the tenant to arrange for the arial to be installed and told him he would be reimbursed for this cost.
This claim is proved, and I award $401.36 (including GST) for this claim. Filing fee:
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have not ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224157 — State of repair at 31 Rosalind Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224157 — State of repair at 31 Rosalind Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions