What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259519 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 5259519?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Partial Rent Refund 13/4/2024 To 14/…: $4,320.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259519?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12184124-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259519 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 5259519?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Partial Rent Refund 13/4/2024 To 14/…: $4,320.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259519?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12184124-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259519 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259519 — net $4,347.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Partial rent refund 13/4/2024 to 14/11/2024	$4,320.00	Partial rent refund 13/4/2024 to 14/11/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,347.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,347.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[Tenant] is added as an applicant tenant.
Unity Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,497.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 (3217300015) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenants’ other claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hu represented the landlord. [Mr L] represented the tenants. [Mr L] was a tenant of the premises together with [Ms W]. He is therefore added as an applicant with the consent of Ms Hu.
The tenants had a one-year fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 17 November 2023. The tenancy ended on 14 November 2024 and they applied for payment of the bond. They also applied for compensation for failure by the landlord to repair the ceiling and walls in the bathroom, and for increasing rent in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and/or the tenancy agreement.

Are the tenants entitled to payment of the bond?

The landlord opposed payment of the bond, however, they did not file a cross application against the tenants as required by section 22B(2) of the Act. The tenants are therefore entitled to payment of the bond in full.

Did the landlord increase rent in breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement?

A landlord under a fixed term tenancy may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement and in accordance with section 24(1) of the Act. That section provides that rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
Section 11(1) of the Act prohibits any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or that is intended to exclude, modify or restrict the operation of any provision in the Act. Consequently, any such arrangement or agreement will have no effect (unless permitted by the Tribunal).
There was no dispute that the landlord increased the rent from $400 per week to $540 per week with effect from 13 April 2024 (some five months after the tenancy commenced), and the tenants paid this amount until the tenancy ended.
Ms Hu referred to clause 33 in the tenancy agreement which she said entitled the landlord to increase the rent from 13 April 2024. She said that this clause was inserted because the previous tenancy was for a term ending on 12 April 2024, but the previous tenants left the tenancy before its expiry. She therefore understood that this tenancy was effectively an assignment of the previous tenancy, and a new tenancy would take effect from 13 April 2024 at the new rent ($540 per week). However, the agreement entered into by the tenants was not an assignment of the tenancy by the previous tenants. It was a new one year fixed term agreement between these tenants and the landlord commencing on 17 November 2023. Thus, the landlord could not lawfully increase the rent within 12 months of 17 November 2023. Clause 33 in the tenancy agreement is unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 24(1) of the Act.
I therefore consider it appropriate that the landlord refund to the tenants rent paid above $400.00 per week ($140.00 per week from 13 April 2024 until 14 November 2024).

Is the landlord in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the premises?

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act provides that the landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant here. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once the tenants notified the landlord or the landlord otherwise became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner.
The tenants claim that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(b) by not repairing the peeling/flaking paintwork on the bathroom ceiling and walls.
There is no dispute that the tenants first told the landlord in writing (text messages) of the problem on 24 September 2024 but [Mr L] claims that he verbally told the landlord before this at property inspections after April 2024 (when he first noticed the problem beginning to appear).
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to establish that, before 24 September, they made it clear to the landlord that they required the walls and ceiling to be repainted or otherwise repaired. [Mr L] did not mention in the text messages on 24 September that he had advised the landlord of the problem earlier. The messages were in response to the list of cleaning items the landlord had provided for when the tenancy was to end on 14 November. [Mr L] simply mentions that the bathroom walls had some mould on them for a while. There were communications on how to remove the mould and [Mr L] sent two photographs of the areas saying that “you might have to repaint”. Given the tenants had told the landlord that they were vacating on 14 November I do not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to wait to have the painting work completed until after the tenancy ended.
I therefore dismiss the claim for compensation for issues with the paintwork and mould in the bathroom. Tribunal application fee
The tenants have been mostly successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have been substantially successful, and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply.
I therefore order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259519 — net $4,347.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Partial rent refund 13/4/2024 to 14/11/2024	$4,320.00	Partial rent refund 13/4/2024 to 14/11/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,347.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,347.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[Tenant] is added as an applicant tenant.
Unity Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $4,497.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 (3217300015) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenants’ other claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hu represented the landlord. [Mr L] represented the tenants. [Mr L] was a tenant of the premises together with [Ms W]. He is therefore added as an applicant with the consent of Ms Hu.
The tenants had a one-year fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 17 November 2023. The tenancy ended on 14 November 2024 and they applied for payment of the bond. They also applied for compensation for failure by the landlord to repair the ceiling and walls in the bathroom, and for increasing rent in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and/or the tenancy agreement.

Are the tenants entitled to payment of the bond?

The landlord opposed payment of the bond, however, they did not file a cross application against the tenants as required by section 22B(2) of the Act. The tenants are therefore entitled to payment of the bond in full.

Did the landlord increase rent in breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement?

A landlord under a fixed term tenancy may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement and in accordance with section 24(1) of the Act. That section provides that rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
Section 11(1) of the Act prohibits any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or that is intended to exclude, modify or restrict the operation of any provision in the Act. Consequently, any such arrangement or agreement will have no effect (unless permitted by the Tribunal).
There was no dispute that the landlord increased the rent from $400 per week to $540 per week with effect from 13 April 2024 (some five months after the tenancy commenced), and the tenants paid this amount until the tenancy ended.
Ms Hu referred to clause 33 in the tenancy agreement which she said entitled the landlord to increase the rent from 13 April 2024. She said that this clause was inserted because the previous tenancy was for a term ending on 12 April 2024, but the previous tenants left the tenancy before its expiry. She therefore understood that this tenancy was effectively an assignment of the previous tenancy, and a new tenancy would take effect from 13 April 2024 at the new rent ($540 per week). However, the agreement entered into by the tenants was not an assignment of the tenancy by the previous tenants. It was a new one year fixed term agreement between these tenants and the landlord commencing on 17 November 2023. Thus, the landlord could not lawfully increase the rent within 12 months of 17 November 2023. Clause 33 in the tenancy agreement is unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 24(1) of the Act.
I therefore consider it appropriate that the landlord refund to the tenants rent paid above $400.00 per week ($140.00 per week from 13 April 2024 until 14 November 2024).

Is the landlord in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the premises?

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act provides that the landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant here. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once the tenants notified the landlord or the landlord otherwise became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner.
The tenants claim that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(b) by not repairing the peeling/flaking paintwork on the bathroom ceiling and walls.
There is no dispute that the tenants first told the landlord in writing (text messages) of the problem on 24 September 2024 but [Mr L] claims that he verbally told the landlord before this at property inspections after April 2024 (when he first noticed the problem beginning to appear).
I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to establish that, before 24 September, they made it clear to the landlord that they required the walls and ceiling to be repainted or otherwise repaired. [Mr L] did not mention in the text messages on 24 September that he had advised the landlord of the problem earlier. The messages were in response to the list of cleaning items the landlord had provided for when the tenancy was to end on 14 November. [Mr L] simply mentions that the bathroom walls had some mould on them for a while. There were communications on how to remove the mould and [Mr L] sent two photographs of the areas saying that “you might have to repaint”. Given the tenants had told the landlord that they were vacating on 14 November I do not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to wait to have the painting work completed until after the tenancy ended.
I therefore dismiss the claim for compensation for issues with the paintwork and mould in the bathroom. Tribunal application fee
The tenants have been mostly successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have been substantially successful, and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply.
I therefore order that the tenants’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259519 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259519 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants entitled to payment of the bond?

Did the landlord increase rent in breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement?

Is the landlord in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants entitled to payment of the bond?

Did the landlord increase rent in breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement?

Is the landlord in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions