What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266799 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 5266799?

Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent In Advance: $1,190.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266799?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12410322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266799 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 5266799?

Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Rent In Advance: $1,190.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266799?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12410322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266799 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266799 — net $3,747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund bond	$2,380.00	Refund bond
Refund rent in advance	$1,190.00	Refund rent in advance
Compensation for tenants’ expenses	$150.00	Compensation for tenants’ expenses
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,747.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,747.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Okahu Limited and Donna Miers must pay [The tenant/s] $3,747.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages for the non-lodgement of the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing which I conducted by phone. The landlord did not attend. My calls to the landlord went to voice mail.
The tenants have applied for a refund of their bond, rent in advance, and compensation for their expenses as well as for exemplary damages for the non- lodgement of the bond. Background
The tenants entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord company for a periodic tenancy to commence on 19 February 2025.
The landlord company has its registered office and address for service in Auckland. Ms Miers is the sole director.
The landlord had a Timaru property manager, but Ms Miers signed the tenancy agreement as the director of Okahu Limited.
The tenants paid a bond of $2,380.00 and 2 weeks’ rent in advance of $1,190.00. The money was advanced to them from WINZ between them equally.
On 19 February 2025, the day the tenancy was to start, the tenants drove from Dunedin to Timaru. The premises were full of rubbish and rodent droppings. The state of the premises was such that they could not take possession.
The tenants had to return home. They were the advised by the landlord’s property manager (its agent) not to return because the state of the premises was so bad. She told them she had quit as her attempts to clean the premises had made her unwell.
The landlord (Ms Miers) appears to have acknowledged the tenants’ concerns, but then stopped communicating when the tenants queried whether they would receive their bond and rent back.
Due to the lack of any response to their (legitimate) concerns, the tenants applied to the Tribunal for relief. Issues
The issue the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the landlord provide the premises in a condition where the tenancy could commence? •If not, what is the remedy? Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. It provides in part: (1) The landlord shall – (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness ... (c) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises
Section 85 RTA is important in this case so I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Discussion Did the landlord provide the premises in a condition where the tenancy could commence?
It is very clear from the evidence that these premises were not in a state where they could be offered for rent. The tenants gave evidence that there was a huge amount of rubbish throughout the premises and rodent droppings everywhere.
The tenants relied on the text message they received from the landlord’s agent who said on 25 February 2025 (one week after the tenancy was meant to start): Good morning, I do apologize for not returning your calls or messages yesterday. I have stepped away from being the property manager. The flat is beyond liveable as it is infested with rats, so my only advice would be to push to get your money back as I will be taking this further with the council as it has made me sick from clearing that crap out.
The landlord’s agent provided the tenants with photos that show the dreadful state of the premises.
At this point I note that the tenants had a young child under the age of one.
Ms Miers seems to have acknowledged the situation blaming the state of the premises on the previous tenants. She said in a text message to the tenants: Takes time to clean up a house when people are to lazy to clean up after them.
The Tribunal has no hesitation in concluding that the premises were not suitable to be rented. Apart from being unclean, they were non-compliant with health and safety regulations due to the rodent contamination.
Simply put, the landlord was never in a position to grant possession of the premises to the tenants due to the state they were in.
As a consequence, the tenancy agreement was frustrated; the tenancy could not commence.
That aside, section 85 RTA (considering the substantial merits and justice of the case) would require the Tribunal to find that the premises that were the subject of this tenancy were not in a state to be rented.

What is the remedy?

Because the tenancy could not even start due to the state of the premises, the landlord cannot expect to retain the bond or the 2-weeks’ rent in advance the tenants (via a WINZ advance) paid. I have ordered the landlord to refund those amounts to the tenants.
The tenants incurred costs travelling from Dunedin to Timaru to take possession of the tenancy. For the reasons noted, they could not take possession. I award them compensation for their time and fuel costs for the trip on 19 February 2025. I cannot award compensation for the planned second trip as it did not eventuate.
The tenants gave evidence that they had to live with a relative for 1 week before going into emergency accommodation, so the effects on them were significant.
The tenants sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. Given the Tribunal’s finding that the tenancy never came into effect, the landlord did not commit any unlawful act by not lodging the bond. The remedy is the refund of the bond. Comment
I have made this order against Okahu Limited and Ms Miers personally as she is the sole director of that company and she communicated with the tenants. They understood her to be the landlord.
I note from the tenancy agreement the following unlawful term: WINZ re-direction must be set up before move-in and must stay in place, non-compliance will result in termination and forfeiture of bond
The landlord should be aware that section 137 RTA prohibits arrangements that contravene any of the provisions of the RTA. Requiring any person to make any contract or arrangement that contravenes the provisions of the RTA is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of $1,800.00 can be awarded 1 . Result
The landlord Okahu Limited and Ms Miers will pay the tenants $3,747.00 comprising a refund of the bond, 2 weeks’ rent in advance, compensation for the tenants’ losses and inconvenience travelling from Dunedin to Timaru to take possession, and the filing fee they paid to lodge their application. Name suppression
The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as the application is successful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266799 — net $3,747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund bond	$2,380.00	Refund bond
Refund rent in advance	$1,190.00	Refund rent in advance
Compensation for tenants’ expenses	$150.00	Compensation for tenants’ expenses
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,747.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,747.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Okahu Limited and Donna Miers must pay [The tenant/s] $3,747.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for exemplary damages for the non-lodgement of the bond is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing which I conducted by phone. The landlord did not attend. My calls to the landlord went to voice mail.
The tenants have applied for a refund of their bond, rent in advance, and compensation for their expenses as well as for exemplary damages for the non- lodgement of the bond. Background
The tenants entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord company for a periodic tenancy to commence on 19 February 2025.
The landlord company has its registered office and address for service in Auckland. Ms Miers is the sole director.
The landlord had a Timaru property manager, but Ms Miers signed the tenancy agreement as the director of Okahu Limited.
The tenants paid a bond of $2,380.00 and 2 weeks’ rent in advance of $1,190.00. The money was advanced to them from WINZ between them equally.
On 19 February 2025, the day the tenancy was to start, the tenants drove from Dunedin to Timaru. The premises were full of rubbish and rodent droppings. The state of the premises was such that they could not take possession.
The tenants had to return home. They were the advised by the landlord’s property manager (its agent) not to return because the state of the premises was so bad. She told them she had quit as her attempts to clean the premises had made her unwell.
The landlord (Ms Miers) appears to have acknowledged the tenants’ concerns, but then stopped communicating when the tenants queried whether they would receive their bond and rent back.
Due to the lack of any response to their (legitimate) concerns, the tenants applied to the Tribunal for relief. Issues
The issue the Tribunal must determine are these: •Did the landlord provide the premises in a condition where the tenancy could commence? •If not, what is the remedy? Relevant law
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. It provides in part: (1) The landlord shall – (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness ... (c) comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises
Section 85 RTA is important in this case so I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Discussion Did the landlord provide the premises in a condition where the tenancy could commence?
It is very clear from the evidence that these premises were not in a state where they could be offered for rent. The tenants gave evidence that there was a huge amount of rubbish throughout the premises and rodent droppings everywhere.
The tenants relied on the text message they received from the landlord’s agent who said on 25 February 2025 (one week after the tenancy was meant to start): Good morning, I do apologize for not returning your calls or messages yesterday. I have stepped away from being the property manager. The flat is beyond liveable as it is infested with rats, so my only advice would be to push to get your money back as I will be taking this further with the council as it has made me sick from clearing that crap out.
The landlord’s agent provided the tenants with photos that show the dreadful state of the premises.
At this point I note that the tenants had a young child under the age of one.
Ms Miers seems to have acknowledged the situation blaming the state of the premises on the previous tenants. She said in a text message to the tenants: Takes time to clean up a house when people are to lazy to clean up after them.
The Tribunal has no hesitation in concluding that the premises were not suitable to be rented. Apart from being unclean, they were non-compliant with health and safety regulations due to the rodent contamination.
Simply put, the landlord was never in a position to grant possession of the premises to the tenants due to the state they were in.
As a consequence, the tenancy agreement was frustrated; the tenancy could not commence.
That aside, section 85 RTA (considering the substantial merits and justice of the case) would require the Tribunal to find that the premises that were the subject of this tenancy were not in a state to be rented.

What is the remedy?

Because the tenancy could not even start due to the state of the premises, the landlord cannot expect to retain the bond or the 2-weeks’ rent in advance the tenants (via a WINZ advance) paid. I have ordered the landlord to refund those amounts to the tenants.
The tenants incurred costs travelling from Dunedin to Timaru to take possession of the tenancy. For the reasons noted, they could not take possession. I award them compensation for their time and fuel costs for the trip on 19 February 2025. I cannot award compensation for the planned second trip as it did not eventuate.
The tenants gave evidence that they had to live with a relative for 1 week before going into emergency accommodation, so the effects on them were significant.
The tenants sought exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. Given the Tribunal’s finding that the tenancy never came into effect, the landlord did not commit any unlawful act by not lodging the bond. The remedy is the refund of the bond. Comment
I have made this order against Okahu Limited and Ms Miers personally as she is the sole director of that company and she communicated with the tenants. They understood her to be the landlord.
I note from the tenancy agreement the following unlawful term: WINZ re-direction must be set up before move-in and must stay in place, non-compliance will result in termination and forfeiture of bond
The landlord should be aware that section 137 RTA prohibits arrangements that contravene any of the provisions of the RTA. Requiring any person to make any contract or arrangement that contravenes the provisions of the RTA is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of $1,800.00 can be awarded 1 . Result
The landlord Okahu Limited and Ms Miers will pay the tenants $3,747.00 comprising a refund of the bond, 2 weeks’ rent in advance, compensation for the tenants’ losses and inconvenience travelling from Dunedin to Timaru to take possession, and the filing fee they paid to lodge their application. Name suppression
The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as the application is successful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266799 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266799 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 25 Sefton Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions