What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4439942?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4439942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4439942?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4439942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9211802-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4439942?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4439942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4439942?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4439942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9211802-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

83 Fisher-Point Drive, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4439942 — Rent arrears

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
There have been two previous orders in relation to this tenancy. The first order dated 25 October 2022 1 terminated the tenancy at 11.59pm on Wednesday 26 October 2022. That order also dismissed the tenant’s application for compensation.
The second order dated 23 November 2022 2 awarded the landlord rent arrears of $3,800.00 and the filing fee reimbursement totalling $3,820.44. That order also referred to the tenant’s cross application which was considered today and 1 [2022] NZTT 4358780 2 [2022] NZTT 4427623 stated that the debt and bond from the November order are payable after the hearing and determination of the tenant’s application. Tenant’s application
The tenant claims compensation of $3,100.00 due to the landlord failing to maintain the premises, in particular the fence, during the tenancy. The claim is calculated at $100.00 per week for the 31 weeks that the fence was not repaired.
The tenancy agreement records on page 3 that the tenant shall not keep pets on the property without the written consent of the landlord. The tenant says that he has an email from the landlord agreeing to the tenant having a dog at the premises, and the presence of the dog is not at issue.
The issue relates to the damage to the fence at the premises. In an email dated 23 March 2022 the landlord states, “As advised, we believe the townhouse is unsuitable for the dog as it has grown.” In reply the tenant stated in an email on the same day, “The dog we have trained her strictly these days and so far she behaves better than before. We would let you know when we find a better place for her to stay.”
At the hearing the tenant stated that his dog was not solely responsible for the damage but had agreed to pay for the fence repair. In an email dated 28 March 2023 the tenant stated, “I remember last time through the phone, you told me you would arrange a builder come here have a look the fence and he make a quote to us. If its reasonable, we’ll pay the whole bill.”
In later communication the tenant claims that the neighbour’s dog was responsible for some of the damage, however in an email dated 22 July 2022 the neighbour denied that her dog caused any of the damage.
Photographs were produced showing that some repair was carried out on the trellis fence using cable ties. Apparently, the repairs were carried out around March or April 2022.
While the fence was temporarily repaired the tenant says that his dog could not be let outside to play in the back yard because the fence was not properly repaired by the landlord. The tenant was worried that the dog would cause further damage to the fence. The photograph shows that the neighbour had installed a second fence on their side.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the tenant should be compensated for the landlord not carrying out full repairs on the fence during the tenancy.
There were several quotes for repairing the fence. The first quote dated 29 March 2022 was at a cost of $439.75. Apparently, this invoice was provided from viewing a photograph due to COVID restrictions and was later increased after a site visit. The second quote dated 30 July 2022 was to completely replace the trellis fencing at a cost of $1,445.50.
The third quote dated 19 September 2022 provided two options. The first option was a long-term fix at a cost of $554.30. The second option was a temporary fix at a cost of $270.25. The quote states “With any dog jumping against a trellis fence the problem will continue to occur. In this case, either option will eventually require further repair.”
The email communication submitted to the Tribunal shows that there was disagreement about whether the fence should be repaired or replaced and whether both the tenant and the neighbour should contribute to the cost of repair. This contributed to the delay in repairing the fence.
The second option from the September 2022 quote was accepted and the tenant paid this amount. A photograph was produced showing that the repairs consisted of the use of more cable ties to secure more of the trellis slats. After the tenancy ended the landlord carried out a full repair of the fence. The landlord is not seeking any costs from the tenant toward this.
The tenant claims that he and his dog were inconvenienced due to the landlord not carrying out the repairs. There was no evidence produced by the tenant to support this. The fence appears secure in the photographs. The only issue would be if the dog were to cause further damage as suggested in the September 2022 quote. It is understandable that the landlord would not carry out a full repair while the dog remained in the premises and there was an ongoing possibility of further damage.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The bond remains with the Bond Centre. Given that the tenant has been unsuccessful with his application both the debt from the November 2022 order and the bond are now payable to the landlord.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
There have been two previous orders in relation to this tenancy. The first order dated 25 October 2022 1 terminated the tenancy at 11.59pm on Wednesday 26 October 2022. That order also dismissed the tenant’s application for compensation.
The second order dated 23 November 2022 2 awarded the landlord rent arrears of $3,800.00 and the filing fee reimbursement totalling $3,820.44. That order also referred to the tenant’s cross application which was considered today and 1 [2022] NZTT 4358780 2 [2022] NZTT 4427623 stated that the debt and bond from the November order are payable after the hearing and determination of the tenant’s application. Tenant’s application
The tenant claims compensation of $3,100.00 due to the landlord failing to maintain the premises, in particular the fence, during the tenancy. The claim is calculated at $100.00 per week for the 31 weeks that the fence was not repaired.
The tenancy agreement records on page 3 that the tenant shall not keep pets on the property without the written consent of the landlord. The tenant says that he has an email from the landlord agreeing to the tenant having a dog at the premises, and the presence of the dog is not at issue.
The issue relates to the damage to the fence at the premises. In an email dated 23 March 2022 the landlord states, “As advised, we believe the townhouse is unsuitable for the dog as it has grown.” In reply the tenant stated in an email on the same day, “The dog we have trained her strictly these days and so far she behaves better than before. We would let you know when we find a better place for her to stay.”
At the hearing the tenant stated that his dog was not solely responsible for the damage but had agreed to pay for the fence repair. In an email dated 28 March 2023 the tenant stated, “I remember last time through the phone, you told me you would arrange a builder come here have a look the fence and he make a quote to us. If its reasonable, we’ll pay the whole bill.”
In later communication the tenant claims that the neighbour’s dog was responsible for some of the damage, however in an email dated 22 July 2022 the neighbour denied that her dog caused any of the damage.
Photographs were produced showing that some repair was carried out on the trellis fence using cable ties. Apparently, the repairs were carried out around March or April 2022.
While the fence was temporarily repaired the tenant says that his dog could not be let outside to play in the back yard because the fence was not properly repaired by the landlord. The tenant was worried that the dog would cause further damage to the fence. The photograph shows that the neighbour had installed a second fence on their side.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the tenant should be compensated for the landlord not carrying out full repairs on the fence during the tenancy.
There were several quotes for repairing the fence. The first quote dated 29 March 2022 was at a cost of $439.75. Apparently, this invoice was provided from viewing a photograph due to COVID restrictions and was later increased after a site visit. The second quote dated 30 July 2022 was to completely replace the trellis fencing at a cost of $1,445.50.
The third quote dated 19 September 2022 provided two options. The first option was a long-term fix at a cost of $554.30. The second option was a temporary fix at a cost of $270.25. The quote states “With any dog jumping against a trellis fence the problem will continue to occur. In this case, either option will eventually require further repair.”
The email communication submitted to the Tribunal shows that there was disagreement about whether the fence should be repaired or replaced and whether both the tenant and the neighbour should contribute to the cost of repair. This contributed to the delay in repairing the fence.
The second option from the September 2022 quote was accepted and the tenant paid this amount. A photograph was produced showing that the repairs consisted of the use of more cable ties to secure more of the trellis slats. After the tenancy ended the landlord carried out a full repair of the fence. The landlord is not seeking any costs from the tenant toward this.
The tenant claims that he and his dog were inconvenienced due to the landlord not carrying out the repairs. There was no evidence produced by the tenant to support this. The fence appears secure in the photographs. The only issue would be if the dog were to cause further damage as suggested in the September 2022 quote. It is understandable that the landlord would not carry out a full repair while the dog remained in the premises and there was an ongoing possibility of further damage.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The bond remains with the Bond Centre. Given that the tenant has been unsuccessful with his application both the debt from the November 2022 order and the bond are now payable to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4439942 — Rent arrears at 83 Fisher-Point Drive, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4439942 — Rent arrears at 83 Fisher-Point Drive, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions