What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4498213?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4498213?

Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Garage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,140.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $120.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498213?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9185679-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4498213?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4498213?

Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Garage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,140.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $120.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4498213?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4498213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9185679-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 5 Merriefield Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4498213 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4498213 — net $3,531.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/07/2023	$4,140.00		Rent arrears to 14/07/2023
Water rates arrears	$120.60		54. There was also water rates arrears of $120.60 that was not disputed by the tenant.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Loss of use of garage		$750.00	Loss of use of garage
Total award	$4,281.04	$750.00
Net award	$3,531.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,531.04

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Dirk Neumann at Unit/Flat 2, 5 Merriefield Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 is terminated, and possession is granted to Harcourts Cooper and Co Ltd as agent for Bob & Lyn McCulloch, at 5:00 pm on Sunday 27 th August 2023.
Dirk Neumann must pay Harcourts Cooper and Co Ltd as agent for Bob & Lyn McCulloch $3,531.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 th July 2023.
The tenant made an application seeking various orders, compensation for stress, mental pressure, breach of privacy and reimbursement for time spent working on the application itself. Further to that, the tenant made a claim for the landlord’s failure to maintain, racism and misleading the tenant.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking for termination of tenancy due to rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 11 th June 2016.
It seems that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated more in recent times.
Due to the Auckland flooding on 27 th January 2023, the garage was flooded briefly. It took until 13 th May 2023 for the garage walls to be replaced.
The tenant confirmed that the flooding affected only the garage and not the living area of the premises.
The tenant said that on 13 th May 2022, a contractor had attended who was bearing a different company name on the trailer to the company name provided by the property manager originally and that the landlord himself attended to assist which the tenant was unhappy about. The tenant said that he felt was an attempt by the landlord to have a cheap “cash job” and not a professional repair.
Although the rent was $530.00 per week, from 17 th February 2023, the tenant stared paying $350.00 instead on the basis that there should be a $180.00 reduction of rent per week to reflect the loss of use of the garage.
From the photos provided, it seemed that the garage continued to be used as a storage after the flooding although not in the orderly manner it previously was.
Interestingly, despite the garage being repaired by the contractor on 13 th May 2023, the tenant continued paying $350.00 saying that the work may have been substandard due to it being a “cash job”.
The tenant also said that he had been so traumatised by the landlord attending to fix the garage walls together with the contractor that the tenant could not enter the garage since.
The tenant accepted that the landlord was in the garage only and not inside the actual premises.
The tenant sought: a. for the tenancy to be placed under independent administration or management instead of the current property manager of the landlord; b. for the Tribunal to issue a trespass notice against the property manager and the landlord as they were dishonest and racist towards the tenant; c. for the Tribunal to appoint an independent builder and electrician to check all electrics in the garage and the workmanship from “cash job builder”’; d. for the Tribunal to find out who actually entered the tenancy premises on the day the garage was repaired as they had access to the tenant’s belongings and tools.
The tenant also sought for work orders for anything and everything that the landlord had not adequately addressed in the tenant’s 14-day notice to repair the premises sent to the landlord on 14 th February 2023.
The tenant also said that the landlord was in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to complete repairs after the flooding in a timely manner and that the premises itself was uninhabitable.
The tenant wanted a rent reduction of $180.00 but did not want the tenancy itself to be terminated.
The landlord was willing to offer some compensation for the loss of use of the garage between 27 th January 2023 and 13 th May 2023.
However, the landlord wanted the tenancy to be terminated based on rent arrears regardless of the tenant’s application. Tenant’s claims
Firstly, in relation to the orders sought from the Tribunal regarding appointing an independent administrator or management of the tenancy premises, it is something that simply cannot be done under the RTA.
The jurisdiction and order the Tribunal can make are listed in section 77 and 78 RTA. There is no power to do what the tenant is asking.
It is the landlord’s prerogative to manage the premises personally or through an agent.
This claim is dismissed.
Secondly, in relation to issuing a trespass notice, that is also something that the Tribunal cannot do.
There is nothing stopping the tenant from issuing a trespass notice against the landlord. However, it must be noted that the landlord’s right of entry under section 48 RTA would trump any trespass notice as long as the correct notice periods have been given by the landlord. So that claim is dismissed also.
In relation to appointing an independent assessor to check the workmanship of the garage repair, at the hearing it was confirmed that the contractor who came to repair the garage was indeed the same person indicated to the tenant by the landlord’s property manager. The contractor had borrowed a trailer from another company and that trailer had a different company logo on it.
Also, the landlord confirmed that an insurance assessor from IAG attended together with the contractor and the landlord when the garage was being repaired and all names were provided to the tenant at the hearing.
The landlord confirmed that the repair was done through insurance and was not a “cash job” as suspected by the tenant. In fact, there was no objective basis for the tenant suspecting so.
The claims regarding appointing an independent assessor or providing names of the persons involved in the garage repair work are dismissed.
The tenant’s compensation claim for stress and mental pressure did not have much substance neither.
It was unclear as to what stress or mental pressure resulted from his garage being repaired or any delays with it.
Although the landlord was there to help at the request of the contractor, the presence of the landlord was confined to the garage only and there was no objective basis for any stress or mental pressure.
The tenant raised the possibility of his goods in the garage being moved or stolen but they were accusations by the tenant without any grounds. The tenant said that he had not been back inside the garage since it was repaired and did not know whether there was anything that had been touched or not.
If there was anything that had been stolen, the tenant should raise the matter with the Police.
Regarding the breach of privacy claim, the tenant says that his privacy was breached when the property manager referred to his job as a plumber.
This was mentioned by the property manager via text messages during the time of the Auckland flooding and the gutters and drainage being blocked.
I can see no breach of privacy in the text messages.
Regarding the time spent working on the Tribunal application itself, costs are not ordinarily given for any party preparing the application him or herself.
In relation to work orders and compensation for landlord’s failure to maintain, the landlord had attended to almost every point raised by the tenant in the tenant’s 14-day notice given to the landlord on 14 th February 2023.
The landlord had a meeting with the tenant to go through each point raised and had engaged in workers to address the points as required.
The tenant did not notify the landlord of any shortcomings on the contractor’s repair work until the day of the hearing itself.
There were parts that the landlord’s contractors had missed entirely but as they had not been previously notified to the landlord, only response the landlord could provide was that the work could and would be attended to.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I cannot see that the landlord had intentionally failed to maintain any parts of the premises. There is no basis for compensation or exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain.
If the tenancy was to continue, a work order may have been granted to ensure everything was attended to adequately. However, with the tenant’s claims being unsuccessful, there was not enough compensation to offset the rent arrears to a level that allowed for the tenancy to continue.
For the period between 27 th January 2023 and 13 th May 2023, I accept that compensation should be given for the loss of use of the garage. The landlord offered $50.00 reduction per week which I accept is more than reasonable given the slight loss of use only. For the period of some 15 weeks, there will be a total reduction of $750.00 in rent.
There was also a brief accusation by the tenant of the landlord being racist towards the tenant. There was no evidence of any discrimination and there was no objective basis for an allegation of racism neither.
There was also a brief accusation of the landlord and the property manager being dishonest and misleading. This was in relation to $15.00 for the lawns being managed by the landlord instead of the tenant. There was some access issue by the landlord’s contractor that prohibited the lawns being mowed. I find no dishonesty involved at all.
Regarding the tenant’s final claim regarding the premises having become uninhabitable under section 59(1) RTA, it is clear that the premises was not destroyed or seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. Therefore, that section does not apply at all.
Other than the loss of use of the garage for 15 weeks, all other claims by the tenant are dismissed. Landlord’s cross-application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and rent arrears.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See sections 55 and 56(2) RTA.
The rent owing by the tenant to 14 th July 2023 is $4,140.00. Even with the rent arrears being offset by $750.00, rent was at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy must be terminated.
There was also water rates arrears of $120.60 that was not disputed by the tenant.
The tenant wanted to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.
A conditional termination order can be made only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant will pay any rent arrears within a period specified by the Tribunal, and it is unlikely the that the tenant will commit any further specified breach.
I am not satisfied that the tenant will not commit any further breaches in relation to rent in the future. This is taking into account the tenant’s level of income and there is quite a significant deterioration of the relationship between the parties that may cause a repeat of the current situation.
Therefore, the landlord’s application for final termination is granted.
The tenancy will end at 5:00 pm on Sunday 27 th August 2023.
The tenant is liable to pay rent until then. If there are any further rent arrears at the end of the tenancy, the landlord can apply to the Tribunal to have the additional rent arrears awarded to the landlord. Filing fee reimbursement
As the landlord had wholly succeeded with the application, the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee of $20.44.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4498213 — net $3,531.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/07/2023	$4,140.00		Rent arrears to 14/07/2023
Water rates arrears	$120.60		54. There was also water rates arrears of $120.60 that was not disputed by the tenant.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Loss of use of garage		$750.00	Loss of use of garage
Total award	$4,281.04	$750.00
Net award	$3,531.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,531.04

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Dirk Neumann at Unit/Flat 2, 5 Merriefield Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 is terminated, and possession is granted to Harcourts Cooper and Co Ltd as agent for Bob & Lyn McCulloch, at 5:00 pm on Sunday 27 th August 2023.
Dirk Neumann must pay Harcourts Cooper and Co Ltd as agent for Bob & Lyn McCulloch $3,531.04 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 th July 2023.
The tenant made an application seeking various orders, compensation for stress, mental pressure, breach of privacy and reimbursement for time spent working on the application itself. Further to that, the tenant made a claim for the landlord’s failure to maintain, racism and misleading the tenant.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking for termination of tenancy due to rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 11 th June 2016.
It seems that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated more in recent times.
Due to the Auckland flooding on 27 th January 2023, the garage was flooded briefly. It took until 13 th May 2023 for the garage walls to be replaced.
The tenant confirmed that the flooding affected only the garage and not the living area of the premises.
The tenant said that on 13 th May 2022, a contractor had attended who was bearing a different company name on the trailer to the company name provided by the property manager originally and that the landlord himself attended to assist which the tenant was unhappy about. The tenant said that he felt was an attempt by the landlord to have a cheap “cash job” and not a professional repair.
Although the rent was $530.00 per week, from 17 th February 2023, the tenant stared paying $350.00 instead on the basis that there should be a $180.00 reduction of rent per week to reflect the loss of use of the garage.
From the photos provided, it seemed that the garage continued to be used as a storage after the flooding although not in the orderly manner it previously was.
Interestingly, despite the garage being repaired by the contractor on 13 th May 2023, the tenant continued paying $350.00 saying that the work may have been substandard due to it being a “cash job”.
The tenant also said that he had been so traumatised by the landlord attending to fix the garage walls together with the contractor that the tenant could not enter the garage since.
The tenant accepted that the landlord was in the garage only and not inside the actual premises.
The tenant sought: a. for the tenancy to be placed under independent administration or management instead of the current property manager of the landlord; b. for the Tribunal to issue a trespass notice against the property manager and the landlord as they were dishonest and racist towards the tenant; c. for the Tribunal to appoint an independent builder and electrician to check all electrics in the garage and the workmanship from “cash job builder”’; d. for the Tribunal to find out who actually entered the tenancy premises on the day the garage was repaired as they had access to the tenant’s belongings and tools.
The tenant also sought for work orders for anything and everything that the landlord had not adequately addressed in the tenant’s 14-day notice to repair the premises sent to the landlord on 14 th February 2023.
The tenant also said that the landlord was in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to complete repairs after the flooding in a timely manner and that the premises itself was uninhabitable.
The tenant wanted a rent reduction of $180.00 but did not want the tenancy itself to be terminated.
The landlord was willing to offer some compensation for the loss of use of the garage between 27 th January 2023 and 13 th May 2023.
However, the landlord wanted the tenancy to be terminated based on rent arrears regardless of the tenant’s application. Tenant’s claims
Firstly, in relation to the orders sought from the Tribunal regarding appointing an independent administrator or management of the tenancy premises, it is something that simply cannot be done under the RTA.
The jurisdiction and order the Tribunal can make are listed in section 77 and 78 RTA. There is no power to do what the tenant is asking.
It is the landlord’s prerogative to manage the premises personally or through an agent.
This claim is dismissed.
Secondly, in relation to issuing a trespass notice, that is also something that the Tribunal cannot do.
There is nothing stopping the tenant from issuing a trespass notice against the landlord. However, it must be noted that the landlord’s right of entry under section 48 RTA would trump any trespass notice as long as the correct notice periods have been given by the landlord. So that claim is dismissed also.
In relation to appointing an independent assessor to check the workmanship of the garage repair, at the hearing it was confirmed that the contractor who came to repair the garage was indeed the same person indicated to the tenant by the landlord’s property manager. The contractor had borrowed a trailer from another company and that trailer had a different company logo on it.
Also, the landlord confirmed that an insurance assessor from IAG attended together with the contractor and the landlord when the garage was being repaired and all names were provided to the tenant at the hearing.
The landlord confirmed that the repair was done through insurance and was not a “cash job” as suspected by the tenant. In fact, there was no objective basis for the tenant suspecting so.
The claims regarding appointing an independent assessor or providing names of the persons involved in the garage repair work are dismissed.
The tenant’s compensation claim for stress and mental pressure did not have much substance neither.
It was unclear as to what stress or mental pressure resulted from his garage being repaired or any delays with it.
Although the landlord was there to help at the request of the contractor, the presence of the landlord was confined to the garage only and there was no objective basis for any stress or mental pressure.
The tenant raised the possibility of his goods in the garage being moved or stolen but they were accusations by the tenant without any grounds. The tenant said that he had not been back inside the garage since it was repaired and did not know whether there was anything that had been touched or not.
If there was anything that had been stolen, the tenant should raise the matter with the Police.
Regarding the breach of privacy claim, the tenant says that his privacy was breached when the property manager referred to his job as a plumber.
This was mentioned by the property manager via text messages during the time of the Auckland flooding and the gutters and drainage being blocked.
I can see no breach of privacy in the text messages.
Regarding the time spent working on the Tribunal application itself, costs are not ordinarily given for any party preparing the application him or herself.
In relation to work orders and compensation for landlord’s failure to maintain, the landlord had attended to almost every point raised by the tenant in the tenant’s 14-day notice given to the landlord on 14 th February 2023.
The landlord had a meeting with the tenant to go through each point raised and had engaged in workers to address the points as required.
The tenant did not notify the landlord of any shortcomings on the contractor’s repair work until the day of the hearing itself.
There were parts that the landlord’s contractors had missed entirely but as they had not been previously notified to the landlord, only response the landlord could provide was that the work could and would be attended to.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I cannot see that the landlord had intentionally failed to maintain any parts of the premises. There is no basis for compensation or exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain.
If the tenancy was to continue, a work order may have been granted to ensure everything was attended to adequately. However, with the tenant’s claims being unsuccessful, there was not enough compensation to offset the rent arrears to a level that allowed for the tenancy to continue.
For the period between 27 th January 2023 and 13 th May 2023, I accept that compensation should be given for the loss of use of the garage. The landlord offered $50.00 reduction per week which I accept is more than reasonable given the slight loss of use only. For the period of some 15 weeks, there will be a total reduction of $750.00 in rent.
There was also a brief accusation by the tenant of the landlord being racist towards the tenant. There was no evidence of any discrimination and there was no objective basis for an allegation of racism neither.
There was also a brief accusation of the landlord and the property manager being dishonest and misleading. This was in relation to $15.00 for the lawns being managed by the landlord instead of the tenant. There was some access issue by the landlord’s contractor that prohibited the lawns being mowed. I find no dishonesty involved at all.
Regarding the tenant’s final claim regarding the premises having become uninhabitable under section 59(1) RTA, it is clear that the premises was not destroyed or seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. Therefore, that section does not apply at all.
Other than the loss of use of the garage for 15 weeks, all other claims by the tenant are dismissed. Landlord’s cross-application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and rent arrears.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must make either a final or a conditional termination order. See sections 55 and 56(2) RTA.
The rent owing by the tenant to 14 th July 2023 is $4,140.00. Even with the rent arrears being offset by $750.00, rent was at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy must be terminated.
There was also water rates arrears of $120.60 that was not disputed by the tenant.
The tenant wanted to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.
A conditional termination order can be made only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant will pay any rent arrears within a period specified by the Tribunal, and it is unlikely the that the tenant will commit any further specified breach.
I am not satisfied that the tenant will not commit any further breaches in relation to rent in the future. This is taking into account the tenant’s level of income and there is quite a significant deterioration of the relationship between the parties that may cause a repeat of the current situation.
Therefore, the landlord’s application for final termination is granted.
The tenancy will end at 5:00 pm on Sunday 27 th August 2023.
The tenant is liable to pay rent until then. If there are any further rent arrears at the end of the tenancy, the landlord can apply to the Tribunal to have the additional rent arrears awarded to the landlord. Filing fee reimbursement
As the landlord had wholly succeeded with the application, the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee of $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4498213 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 5 Merriefield Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4498213 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 5 Merriefield Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland

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