What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573571?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ claim is withdrawn without prejudice

How much money was awarded in case 4573571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9481757-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573571?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ claim is withdrawn without prejudice

How much money was awarded in case 4573571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9481757-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Siren Street, Wainui, Wainui 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4573571 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Mehdy Farzeneh attended the hearing for the landords.

Maarten Peremans attended the hearing for the tenants.

The tenancy ended on 16 January 2023.

On 12 April 2023, following a mediation, the Tribunal sealed the mediator’s order confirming the tenants’ debt as $1,883.73 and recording an agreement between the parties that the tenants would repay the debt at the rate of $75.00 per week. 1

The tenants did not comply with the Tribunal’s order. That means pursuant to Order 4 of the Order is engaged and the landlords may enforce the Tribunal’s order for the amount of the debt that remains unpaid, plus the costs of enforcement. 1 Farzaney & another v Peremans & another 4511119, sealed 12 April 2023.

In this lates application, the landlords had applied for costs of painting and for their time attending the mediation of the last matter. These matters were not raised in the first application even though the application was made several months after the tenancy ended.

Parties are usually required to prosecute their claims reasonably diligently and not to split their claims. This latest application appears to potentially breach that principle.

Moreover, I did not see an invoice (only an estimate) or photographs to support the claim of paint damage and repair and the Tribunal would not be inclined to reimbursing parties’ wages for the time they spent undertaking mediation or adjudication of a claim.

Mr Peremans claims that the tenants should not have been required to pay for water arrear because the premises did not have its own water meter. He has only just become aware that meant he could challenge the amounts he paid for water.

The tenants can file an application for a rehearing of the earlier case if they want to pursue non-liability for the water costs. I note that the tenants appear to have only paid $50.00 per month for water which suggests the agreement to apportion the cost of water between the two properties was fair in accordance with s 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

It may be in the landlords’ best interests, however, to secure separate meters for each property so issues like this do not recur.

After discussion, Mr Farzaneh elected to withdraw his claim. He is aware that he can enforce the Tribunal’s earlier order. If so, the tenants will be liable to pay for enforcement costs.

I do not dismiss the claim in case the landlords find some proper basis for renewing the fresh claim.

Reasons

Mehdy Farzeneh attended the hearing for the landords.

Maarten Peremans attended the hearing for the tenants.

The tenancy ended on 16 January 2023.

Parties are usually required to prosecute their claims reasonably diligently and not to split their claims. This latest application appears to potentially breach that principle.

It may be in the landlords’ best interests, however, to secure separate meters for each property so issues like this do not recur.

After discussion, Mr Farzaneh elected to withdraw his claim. He is aware that he can enforce the Tribunal’s earlier order. If so, the tenants will be liable to pay for enforcement costs.

I do not dismiss the claim in case the landlords find some proper basis for renewing the fresh claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573571 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Siren Street, Wainui, Wainui 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573571 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Siren Street, Wainui, Wainui 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions