How much money was awarded in case 5258321?

Compensation: for loss of amenity 2…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258321?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12136279-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5258321?

Compensation: for loss of amenity 2…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258321?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12136279-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

64 Bridge Street, Rongotai, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258321 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258321 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258321 — net $1,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for loss of amenity 2 July - 28 November 2024	$1,500.00	for loss of amenity 2 July - 28 November 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.00
Bond	$3,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,527.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Total Property Solutions Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and compensation because they could not use the garage roller door for 21 weeks of the tenancy. There is also a claim for clearing the garage.

The landlord said the bond has not been refunded because the tenants did not pay all the rent during the tenancy. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.

Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

On 7 July 2024 one of the tenants advised the landlord that the garage roller door was hard to use. He said:

The landlord knew about the issue because the reply was:

On 5 August the tenant followed up again because the door was worse. A new roller door was installed on 28 November 2024.

The tenant has claimed compensation in the amount of $10 a day for the 150 days he could not use the garage. The landlord did not agree to the claim. She said there was never any mention of compensation during the tenancy. She said the tenant continued to use the roller door and use the garage for storage. There was also a back door which meant the garage could always be used for storage. In reply, the tenant submitted that he needed to use the garage for tools and larger items that would not fit through the back door.

This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s submission. I have seen photos of the rusty roller door. The emails I have been provided with show the tenant raised the issue straight away, the landlord already knew about the issue, and it took 150 days for the new door to be installed. I find the tenant could not use the garage as intended and so there was a loss of amenity. The $70 a week, which is less than 10% of the weekly rent, seems reasonable. The $1,500 claimed is proved and allowed.

The tenant has also claimed $500 for his labour tidying the garage and removing rubbish. Again, this is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have not been provided with any photos showing the state of the garage before he started tidying and the small pile of rubbish left on the side of the driveway does not support such a large claim for time. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258321 — net $1,527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for loss of amenity 2 July - 28 November 2024	$1,500.00	for loss of amenity 2 July - 28 November 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,527.00
Bond	$3,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,527.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Total Property Solutions Wellington Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $1,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for refund of the bond and compensation because they could not use the garage roller door for 21 weeks of the tenancy. There is also a claim for clearing the garage.
The landlord said the bond has not been refunded because the tenants did not pay all the rent during the tenancy. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.
Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.
On 7 July 2024 one of the tenants advised the landlord that the garage roller door was hard to use. He said:
The landlord knew about the issue because the reply was:
On 5 August the tenant followed up again because the door was worse. A new roller door was installed on 28 November 2024.
The tenant has claimed compensation in the amount of $10 a day for the 150 days he could not use the garage. The landlord did not agree to the claim. She said there was never any mention of compensation during the tenancy. She said the tenant continued to use the roller door and use the garage for storage. There was also a back door which meant the garage could always be used for storage. In reply, the tenant submitted that he needed to use the garage for tools and larger items that would not fit through the back door.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s submission. I have seen photos of the rusty roller door. The emails I have been provided with show the tenant raised the issue straight away, the landlord already knew about the issue, and it took 150 days for the new door to be installed. I find the tenant could not use the garage as intended and so there was a loss of amenity. The $70 a week, which is less than 10% of the weekly rent, seems reasonable. The $1,500 claimed is proved and allowed.
The tenant has also claimed $500 for his labour tidying the garage and removing rubbish. Again, this is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have not been provided with any photos showing the state of the garage before he started tidying and the small pile of rubbish left on the side of the driveway does not support such a large claim for time. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are ordered to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258321 — Tenancy dispute at 64 Bridge Street, Rongotai, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258321 — Tenancy dispute at 64 Bridge Street, Rongotai, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions