What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4528329?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4528329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4528329?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4528329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9190845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4528329?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4528329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4528329?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4528329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9190845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17A Moana Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4528329 — Mould & damp

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Paula Maree Fogden’s claims for reimbursement of rent, bond and filing fee are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6472015-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For Nathan Skerten$1,157.11 Paula Maree Fogden$ 642.89

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought reimbursement of her move-in costs for a tenancy, which she says was not valid and did not commence. The total amount sought was $2,399.04, comprised as follows: a. Bond: $1,800 b. Rent one week and two days: $578.60 c. Filing fee: $20.44.
The landlord has agreed to end the tenancy but required 28 days’ notice. Fortunately they were able to retenant the property within that time and so seek rent up to 8 April 2023. On that basis, they are prepared to reimburse $642.89 only. Background
On 2 March 2023 the tenant signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term of 12 months commencing on 13 March 2023.
The agreement lists some chattels including a refrigerator, washing machine and microwave.
On 8 March 2023 the tenant asked to look at the property so she could take some measurements before moving in. She was not happy with the state of the property and took some photographs. Her concerns included mould on the curtains and on the gutters and some areas of the floor, a power socket that was pulled out from the wall, some missing kitchen cupboard knobs, a dirty light socket, and the fact that there was no microwave, even though it was listed as a chattel. She also wanted the fridge and washing machine removed as she had her own and there was a cabinet in the lounge that she wanted removed. She tried to communicate with the property managers about these matters.
The landlord provided to the Tribunal photos of the property taken on 3 March 2023. It appeared reasonably clean and tidy and Ms Onishenko, appearing for the landlord, advised that the previous tenants had their bond reimbursed.
That does not mean that the property did not require a further thorough clean before retenanting and the landlord produced an invoice dated 11 March 2023 which included a clean, installation of a window latch, fitting of two knobs on kitchen cupboard doors, fitting curtains, repair of loose wires, filling holes and paint touchups. The landlord had replaced the mouldy curtains and provided a receipt from Briscoes.
These efforts were all acknowledged by the tenant, but she remained concerned about dirt and mould in the laundry, carport, clothesline, side garden and outside in the carport and also the chattels left by the owner as well as no key to the security door. She wanted to know if the mould had been cleaned or treated as she was concerned about her health. She decided not to move in and sought reimbursement of the payments she had made. She claimed there was no valid occupancy and no valid lease.

Was there a valid tenancy agreement?

There was a written tenancy agreement as required by section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). This was a standard printed form, with names and signatures added. The tenant did not dispute that the signature is hers, but she says that it is invalid because: a. The chattels were not correct b. The landlord did not sign all parts of it.
The agreement contains the address of the property, the parties’ names, the commencement and end date of the tenancy, the rent amount and other details required by section 13A.
It also contains the signatures of the agent, Ms Onishenko and the tenant.
I am satisfied that the tenant had entered into an agreement to rent the property on the terms set out in the tenancy agreement. The tenant’s arguments to not establish this was not a valid tenancy agreement.
Whether or not the landlord signed the bond form is not relevant.

What is the tenant liable for?

The tenant had signed a valid agreement to rent the property for 12 months. Therefore, the starting point is that she is liable for the rent for the term of the tenancy. The fact that the tenant did not move in is not relevant. Although she had some concerns about the property, she has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the property was uninhabitable either before or after the commercial clean that was done between 8 March 2023 and 13 March 2023.
The tenant did not apply to reduce the fixed-term tenancy, but the landlord agreed to treat it as a periodic tenancy and accept 28-days’ notice. As noted above, they managed to find a tenant quickly and so they seek rent only until 8 April 2023. The rent owing is $1,157.11.
That was a very reasonable compromise on the part of the landlord. The tenant must pay rent until 8 April. The balance owing is $1,157.11.
The tenants’ claims for reimbursement of rent and bond are dismissed.
Because the tenant has not been successful in her claims, there is no order for name suppression and no reimbursement of the filing fee.
The bond is to be split between the parties as set out above in the order

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Paula Maree Fogden’s claims for reimbursement of rent, bond and filing fee are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6472015-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Watson Real Estate Limited As Agent For Nathan Skerten$1,157.11 Paula Maree Fogden$ 642.89

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought reimbursement of her move-in costs for a tenancy, which she says was not valid and did not commence. The total amount sought was $2,399.04, comprised as follows: a. Bond: $1,800 b. Rent one week and two days: $578.60 c. Filing fee: $20.44.
The landlord has agreed to end the tenancy but required 28 days’ notice. Fortunately they were able to retenant the property within that time and so seek rent up to 8 April 2023. On that basis, they are prepared to reimburse $642.89 only. Background
On 2 March 2023 the tenant signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term of 12 months commencing on 13 March 2023.
The agreement lists some chattels including a refrigerator, washing machine and microwave.
On 8 March 2023 the tenant asked to look at the property so she could take some measurements before moving in. She was not happy with the state of the property and took some photographs. Her concerns included mould on the curtains and on the gutters and some areas of the floor, a power socket that was pulled out from the wall, some missing kitchen cupboard knobs, a dirty light socket, and the fact that there was no microwave, even though it was listed as a chattel. She also wanted the fridge and washing machine removed as she had her own and there was a cabinet in the lounge that she wanted removed. She tried to communicate with the property managers about these matters.
The landlord provided to the Tribunal photos of the property taken on 3 March 2023. It appeared reasonably clean and tidy and Ms Onishenko, appearing for the landlord, advised that the previous tenants had their bond reimbursed.
That does not mean that the property did not require a further thorough clean before retenanting and the landlord produced an invoice dated 11 March 2023 which included a clean, installation of a window latch, fitting of two knobs on kitchen cupboard doors, fitting curtains, repair of loose wires, filling holes and paint touchups. The landlord had replaced the mouldy curtains and provided a receipt from Briscoes.
These efforts were all acknowledged by the tenant, but she remained concerned about dirt and mould in the laundry, carport, clothesline, side garden and outside in the carport and also the chattels left by the owner as well as no key to the security door. She wanted to know if the mould had been cleaned or treated as she was concerned about her health. She decided not to move in and sought reimbursement of the payments she had made. She claimed there was no valid occupancy and no valid lease.

Was there a valid tenancy agreement?

There was a written tenancy agreement as required by section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). This was a standard printed form, with names and signatures added. The tenant did not dispute that the signature is hers, but she says that it is invalid because: a. The chattels were not correct b. The landlord did not sign all parts of it.
The agreement contains the address of the property, the parties’ names, the commencement and end date of the tenancy, the rent amount and other details required by section 13A.
It also contains the signatures of the agent, Ms Onishenko and the tenant.
I am satisfied that the tenant had entered into an agreement to rent the property on the terms set out in the tenancy agreement. The tenant’s arguments to not establish this was not a valid tenancy agreement.
Whether or not the landlord signed the bond form is not relevant.

What is the tenant liable for?

The tenant had signed a valid agreement to rent the property for 12 months. Therefore, the starting point is that she is liable for the rent for the term of the tenancy. The fact that the tenant did not move in is not relevant. Although she had some concerns about the property, she has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the property was uninhabitable either before or after the commercial clean that was done between 8 March 2023 and 13 March 2023.
The tenant did not apply to reduce the fixed-term tenancy, but the landlord agreed to treat it as a periodic tenancy and accept 28-days’ notice. As noted above, they managed to find a tenant quickly and so they seek rent only until 8 April 2023. The rent owing is $1,157.11.
That was a very reasonable compromise on the part of the landlord. The tenant must pay rent until 8 April. The balance owing is $1,157.11.
The tenants’ claims for reimbursement of rent and bond are dismissed.
Because the tenant has not been successful in her claims, there is no order for name suppression and no reimbursement of the filing fee.
The bond is to be split between the parties as set out above in the order

Tenancy Tribunal case 4528329 — Mould & damp at 17A Moana Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4528329 — Mould & damp at 17A Moana Street, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a valid tenancy agreement?

What is the tenant liable for?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a valid tenancy agreement?

What is the tenant liable for?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions