What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4474712?

The tribunal order states: Hannah Toni Sarah Jane Mclean shall pay Guardian Construction Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4474712?

Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Transport Charge: $23.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4474712?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4474712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10845510-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4474712?

The tribunal order states: Hannah Toni Sarah Jane Mclean shall pay Guardian Construction Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4474712?

Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Transport Charge: $23.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4474712?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4474712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10845510-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Tironui Station Road East, Papakura, Papakura 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4474712 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4474712 — net $161.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to wall	$138.00	Repairs to wall
Repairs: transport charge	$23.00	Repairs: transport charge
Net award	$161.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$161.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4474712 — net $161.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to wall	$138.00	Repairs to wall
Repairs: transport charge	$23.00	Repairs: transport charge
Net award	$161.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$161.00

Order

Hannah Toni Sarah Jane Mclean shall pay Guardian Construction Limited $161.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 5 February, 7 May, and 5 September 2024.
On 6 January 2023 the landlord applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross-application on 15 April 2024, seeking damages for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and wrongful eviction. Background
A summary is set out below: • The tenancy started on 12 January 2021 at a weekly rent of $600.00 and a bond of $2,400.00. • The landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy on 25 July 2022. • On 14 October 2022 the Tribunal declared the notice retaliatory and of no effect (application 4359641). The Tribunal also awarded compensation for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. The Tribunal did not make any work orders but clearly expected the landlord to take steps to fix the identified issues. • On 20 December 2022 the landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy from 21 March 2023. The notice said that redevelopment of the premises meant that it was not reasonably practicable for the tenant to live at the premises while the work was done. The notice also said that the premises were to be demolished and the demolition was to begin, or material steps towards this were to be taken, within 90 days of termination. • The tenant vacated on 2 February 2023. • The landlord re-let the premises from 14 April 2023 on a temporary basis. The tenancy agreement specified that 30 days’ notice of termination would be given before demolition. The maximum occupancy was set at 6 people. • The premises were in fact occupied by more than 10 migrant workers leading to overcrowding. The media reported on alleged migrant exploitation and poor living conditions. Relevant Law
Pursuant to section 51(1)(f) and (g) of the Residential Tenancies At 1986 (the Act) a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice, if: • extensive redevelopment of the premises is to be carried out by the landlord and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken, and the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date, or • the premises are to be demolished and the demolition is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
In Borlase v Davies (TT Nelson 95/95, 27 July 1995) the Tribunal decided that a notice to terminate remains valid even though the reason for giving the notice later changes. In Wills v DeVantier [2019] Rotorua 4162934, 416210 the Tribunal said that if grounds for termination no longer exist before expiry of the notice period, the landlord must notify the tenant and the original termination notice is invalidated. Landlord’s Claims
The landlord claimed a replacement curtain rail ($20.00) repairs to a bedroom wall ($138.00) repairs to a kitchen cabinet ($38.42) together with labour ($115.00) and transport costs ($69.00) relating to these claims. There was also a claim for tiling work ($1,593.43) locks replacement ($349.00) and repairs to a door handle ($109.23).
As a general observation, the Tribunal’s order of 14 October 2022 and the evidence presented in this application give the impression of a poorly maintained property.
The claim for replacement tiling raises a concern. The invoice refers to work performed on 8 and 9 December 2022. This is within the timeframe envisaged by the Tribunal for repairs, including to broken kitchen tiles. It seems likely that the landlord is claiming the cost of maintenance work the Tribunal expected the landlord to perform. I decline to award tiling costs.
The tenant said the curtain rail was taken down but left at the premises, as shown in one of the landlord’s photographs. I decline to award the cost of a replacement curtain rail.
The tenant said the kitchen cabinet only had one hinge at the start of the tenancy and it broke. Given other maintenance issues at the premises, I consider this explanation is plausible. I decline to award kitchen cabinet repair costs.
The previous property manager deducted $150.00 from the bond for lock changes. The invoice (for $190.00) stated that the lock was picked to gain entry on 10 February 2023 and a new lock was fitted to the front door. The landlord also relied on an earlier invoice (for $349.00) which stated that new locks were fitted to replace broken locks on 25 May 2022.
The landlord said the first locksmith cost was incurred when the tenant was still in occupation. The tenant issued a 14-day notice to remedy on 12 May 2022: “Not getting the locks fixed 3 days ago after I notified you by email”. The correspondence around that time shows the tenant blamed the difficulties on a previous “budget repair job”. It may be that the locks were broken rather than damaged by the tenant. I decline to award these costs ($349.00).
On the timeline provided to the Tribunal, the tenant had vacated a few days before the second locksmith invoice. The tenant would have had a reasonable expectation, after agreeing to deduct $150.00 from her bond, that the costs of a lock change at the end of the tenancy had been met. I also decline to award these further locksmith costs.
The invoice for the door handle replacement indicates that this work was performed on 8 June 2022, during the tenancy. The tenant said the handle fell off with normal use. There was also a hole in the wall behind this bedroom door which had been plastered over. This suggests more force than necessary for normal use. The wall damage was found at the final inspection.
I find that the door and wall were probably damaged carelessly by the tenant or her visitors. I award $138.00 for the wall, the cost of repairing the door ($120.00) having already been deducted from the bond. I also award a third of the transport costs ($23.00) on the basis that roughly a third of the claims have succeeded. Tenant’s Claims
I find that the tenant’s claim for compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations has already been determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s order of 14 October 2022 stated that the tenant had a working oven/stove from July 2022. A heat pump was installed in July 2021. The Tribunal recorded that, according to a Healthy Homes Assessment report, the property was compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards by 9 March 2021. The Tribunal considered that the premises were in fact compliant by 11 January 2022, when a ground moisture barrier was installed. This was before the compliance date.
The tenant complained that she never had a working oven, never had proper curtains, did not have underfloor insulation for the first winter, and the premises did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards. In my view, all these matters were either addressed by the Tribunal in its order of 14 October 2022, or ought to have been raised so that they could be determined by the Tribunal at the same time. The evidence presented by the tenant as part of this application does not establish that there have been maintenance issues after that time.
The tenant submitted that the December 2022 termination notice was wrongful because the landlord did not demolish the property within 90-days of the end of her tenancy. Instead, the landlord rented the property out again. The tenant said she was bullied out of the house so the landlord could extort migrant workers. The application was not argued on the basis that the notice was retaliatory.
The landlord is a developer and explained that they purchased the premises to demolish the property and develop the section. There is evidence that, in early November 2022, the landlord was anticipating a resource consent would be approved by the end of the year. A building consent would be applied for in January 2023 and was expected to be approved in March 2023. The landlord said they then ran into difficulties with drainage issues at the premises which seem to still be unresolved. The project being on hold, the landlord decided to rent the premises to defray costs.
The tenant pointed out that her tenancy ended on 2 February 2023; by 14 April 2023 the premises had been rented out to new tenants and not demolished. The tenant noted that this was less than 90 days after the end of her tenancy.
I am satisfied that there was a valid and genuine reason for the termination notice when it was given. It is unclear when difficulties with the development project became apparent. Even if these difficulties emerged before the tenant left, the basis for the termination notice had not changed by the vacate date – the landlord was still pursuing the intended redevelopment. The grounds for termination did not change. It follows that the termination notice was not invalid.
Further, section 51(1)(g) of the Act only requires that “material steps” towards demolition are to be taken within 90 days after termination. It is evident that the landlord’s engineer was working on a response to questions from the Council in early November 2022, in the context of a resource consent application that had already been made. Given the landlord had already engaged an engineer for the project and resource consent issues were being worked though, I consider that material steps had already been taken towards demolition and redevelopment when the notice was served.
There are no grounds for compensation or exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord gave notice of termination knowing they were not entitled to give the notice. The evidence shows that the landlord believed they were entitled to give notice in the context of their development project. They decided to rent the premises on a short-term basis while the project was on hold. The landlord said they did not know or permit large numbers of people to live there, and they reported the matter to the Council when they found out. There is correspondence with the Council about the issue in September 2023.
The tenant said she was forced to leave because the landlord was refusing to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal unless she did so. The tenant said these threats were made by one of the landlord’s employees, who was not called as a witness. The landlord said it was the tenant’s decision to leave before the notice had expired. I find it is not established on the evidence that the tenant was forced to leave early. Bond
I would have refunded the remaining bond to the tenant, but the information available indicates that it has been fully refunded already. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful, but I had concerns about certain aspects of it. The landlord can bear its own costs.
Both parties requested suppression, but I cannot identify applicable grounds for suppression in this case pursuant to section 95A of the Act. Neither party has been “wholly or substantially” successful. I decline to grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4474712 — Property damage at 16 Tironui Station Road East, Papakura, Papakura 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4474712 — Property damage at 16 Tironui Station Road East, Papakura, Papakura 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions