What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302785 about?

The tribunal order states: Craig Tatnell must pay Sharon Maree Regan-Cooper and Stephen Warren

How much money was awarded in case 5302785?

Compensation: loss of amenity/quiet…: $576.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Subletting Fee: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302785?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12656790-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302785 about?

The tribunal order states: Craig Tatnell must pay Sharon Maree Regan-Cooper and Stephen Warren

How much money was awarded in case 5302785?

Compensation: loss of amenity/quiet…: $576.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Subletting Fee: $100.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302785?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302785?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12656790-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2C Cautley Street, Richmond, Richmond 7020 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302785 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302785 — net $676.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment	$576.00	loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment
Refund subletting fee	$100.00	Refund subletting fee
Net award	$676.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$676.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302785 — net $676.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment	$576.00	loss of amenity/quiet enjoyment
Refund subletting fee	$100.00	Refund subletting fee
Net award	$676.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$676.00

Order

Craig Tatnell must pay Sharon Maree Regan-Cooper and Stephen Warren Cooper $676.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
An adjournment window was made available to receive and review a rent summary. The tenants claimed overpayment, the landlord rent arrears.
The tenant sought compensation of $22,940.
The landlord sought rent arrears. The claim regarding water rates was withdrawn.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” [emphasis added]
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
The parties were known to each other through both work and a personal relationship.
The landlord offered the tenants this property with some unique agreements in place. Essentially, the rent was struck at a discount to market on the basis the landlord and his wife could retain one bedroom for their personal use when in town and use the garage for whiteware and their use.
The relationship between the parties continued to operate beyond what is usual for a landlord and tenant. The tenants spent time at the landlord’s properties, mutually beneficial tasks were undertaken. The landlord had open access to the premises. The tenant claims
The tenants provided a written breakdown of the grounds and amount sought.
These are addressed below: 1/ Claiming over paid rent. $430
The tenants believed they had overpaid rent. In particular, they focused on a payment of $960.00 paid at the commencement of the tenancy that they believed was not captured. This payment was reflected in the rent summary provided (below):
The tenants later submitted that, based on the totals on each page of the rent summary, they had paid more. This misunderstanding was due to the landlord carrying a balance across sheets and that being added to the page totals.
I do not find the tenants have evidenced any payments other than those captured in the rent summary.
The claim of overpaid rent is unproven and dismissed. 2/ Accommodating deck Hands with a room when Over and family of 4 for Up to 3 days at anytime. We thought that C.Tatnell Might have offered us at Least 4wks rent free. (Over that year). When rent went Up to $530pw. We are Claiming that is Subletting by the owner C.Tatnell when we were The Tenants for the Property. $2120
By mutual agreement, the third bedroom would be used as accommodation by others. This was requested of the tenants prior and granted without issue being raised at the time. 3/ we had a friend stay with Us for 1wk as she was in Between houses. C.Tatnell wanted $100 for Her there as they claimed We were Subletting. We Paid the $100 to keep Him happy. We are now Claiming that back. $100
The third bedroom was used by the tenants for a friend to stay in for a period of time. The landlord observed this and claimed a subletting arrangement had been entered into and demanded $100.00. The tenants paid this as they claim they wanted to keep the peace. Given what might appear elsewhere as advantageous arrangements for the landlord, including guests in the third bedroom, the demand from the landlord appears both unreasonable and unjustified. The tenants were not proven to be sub-letting. The $100.00 demanded and paid is returned to the tenants. 4/ power for storage for Stand up fridge, stand up Freezer, also storage of Furniture belonging to C.Tatnell and Partner in Double garage from the Day we moved into and Up until the day we Moved out of cautley st. (2yrs) And we were told It would be removed. Claiming $100pw $10,400.
The original agreement for the landlord to use the second bedroom included the storage and use of whiteware in the garage, with electricity costs paid by the tenants. The tenants also used the appliances at times during the tenancy. The storage, use and electricity costs incurred being included in the tenancy agreement was mutually accepted between the parties from the start and I see no grounds established by the tenants to consider grounds for compensation.
The claim seeking compensation for the use of the garage for other, long-term storage by the landlord without agreement cannot be proven to the required standard and it must therefore be dismissed. 5/Holding a room for C.Tatnell and Partner 1yr When ever they came Over and stayed after They increased the rent C.Tatnell informed us That the rent would Remain at a cheaper Rate, then rent increased $50pw. So we are Claiming 1yr for use, Holding room, water, gas, Power at a rate of $150pw. $7,800
The original agreement accepted the landlord could have unfettered use of the second bedroom when in town. The rent was set with this agreement understood. Albeit it unusual, I do not consider there are grounds to revisit that agreement retrospectively and no grounds for compensation exist. The claim is dismissed. 6/ skip hire, removal of trees. The use of my chainsaw, Fuel etc and labour. We were hoping for at Least 1wks free rent for All the work I had done, But no nothing just asked To help pay for the skip. Skip payment $160. my labour etc. $630. Total amount $790
This relates to a joint exercise to remove vegetation interfering with the roof Sky dish reception of the tenants. In a collaborative effort, both parties felled and removed the cuttings. A skip bin was delivered and a ½ share apportioned and paid by each. There was no issue raised at the time and despite the “hope” of a rent rebate, I consider attempting to revisit what appears a mutually agreed arrangement now is inappropriate, and the claim is dismissed. 7/ Waiting on return of bond. Money from C.Tatnell. Then having to reapply For the bond money and Wait a further 15 working Days, then refunded by The Bonds Department. $1000
The bond was returned in full to the tenants. I do not consider the delay was unacceptable and the lapsed time reasonable. I find no grounds for any order here. The claim is dismissed. 8/ The fridge freezer we left In house. $300
In this instance, there was a “swapping” of fridges as the landlord had stored some in the garage, intending they be moved later to his business. The tenants claim they were worse off through this. The landlord, in a text between them at, or near, the end of the tenancy (undated) wrote “Leave...my stainless fridge that you cunningly swapped and take your own one”.
I remain unclear on what was actually intended and agreed here. In the absence of evidence to establish the tenant version as the more likely, the claim must be dismissed. Even if proven, evidence of actual loss is weak. 9/ House incomplete when Moving in on 31/03/2023. Flooring,Kitchen, Tiles, Curtains through out the House, fire still in crate In the lounge, Dishwasher And cupboards in Kitchenette middle of Floor. $TBC
It is not disputed the premises were not ready at commencement. As with many other events during the tenancy, the parties worked through the issue as the time without any formal recourse. The tenants were packed and ready to move with a truck to be emptied and returned. That created some urgency for them. The commencement date was mutually agreed prior, based on an expected completion date of the works underway at the time. They took longer to complete and for the first six weeks of the tenancy, the tenants experienced a loss of amenity (reducing over time as tasks completed) and a commensurate loss of quiet enjoyment.
I consider the tenants experienced an unreasonable impact while paying full rent. They are not prevented from seeking compensation now. I award compensation of $576.00 based on 20% of the $480.00 rent at that time. The landlord claims.
The landlord sought rent arrears and water rates. By the time of the hearing, water rates had been paid, and the claim was withdrawn by the landlord.
Both parties claimed different rent balances at the end of the tenancy and the landlord was required to provide a full rent summary after the hearing. That was done and provided to the tenants for a response. That has been addressed under the Tenant claims.
Based on the rent summary as provided, no rent arrears exist and the claim is dismissed.

Was these arrangements or agreements unconscionable bargains?

The Tribunal can make orders relating to unconscionable bargains 1 under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 77(2)(b) of the RTA gives the Tribunal the power to make any order that the High Court or District Court could make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts. This includes the ability to set aside or vary an unconscionable bargain under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. 1 An unconscionable bargain is an agreement where one party has taken unfair advantage of another’s weakness, resulting in terms that are harsh, oppressive, or unjust.
The Tribunal will consider factors such as the relative bargaining power of the parties, the circumstances in which the agreement was made, and whether one party took unfair advantage of the other.
I did consider if this broad tenancy arrangement might fall under such a categorisation. It appears to me that the landlord enjoyed a number of benefits and the tenants appeared genuine but possibly confused or extra accommodating regarding the respective the roles and responsibilities.
However, having considered the submissions and evidence provided I do not find the threshold exists to consider the various arrangements to be unfair such that one or more form an unconscionable bargain. The relationship was broader than a straight landlord-tenant one, the informal arrangements and agreements during the tenancy reflect that. I am also mindful that other relationship benefits were extended to the tenants by the landlord.
I consider the tenants were very accommodating and flexible but also more than capable of bringing their claims forward to the Tribunal in a timelier manner if as aggrieved at the time as they appear now. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302785 — Tenancy dispute at 2C Cautley Street, Richmond, Richmond 7020

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302785 — Tenancy dispute at 2C Cautley Street, Richmond, Richmond 7020

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was these arrangements or agreements unconscionable bargains?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was these arrangements or agreements unconscionable bargains?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions