Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4606054 — Rent arrears at 13 John Street, Petone, Lower Hutt 5012
Decided 26 Jul 2023 · Published 26 Jul 2023 · Application 4606054
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
- No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
- Evgeny Rakhimov and Almira Kurbangaleeva must pay Wellington Property Management Limited $763.93 immediately. The amount to pay is as follows.
Reasons
The Application
- The landlord has claimed that rent is owed to 16 July 2023. The dispute about how much rent is due has arisen because the tenants ended the tenancy before the end of the fixed term. They believe that they should not be charged the amount of rent to the time when new tenants began their tenancy.
- The tenants raised reasons why they believe that it was unreasonable to pay rent to that date. They submitted that before signing the tenancy agreement they informed the landlord that they intended buying a house and the landlord agreed that they could leave with 28 days notice. The landlord did not recall any conversation with the tenants about them buying a house. The landlord said that the tenants would have been informed that they could break the lease but not that they would have to give only 28 days notice. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord required only 28 days notice to end the fixed term tenancy.
- The tenants also submitted that they should not pay rent to 16 July 2023 because the landlord failed to meet Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) obligations under section 22F. However that section only requires that price for weekly rent be given. That was given in the advertisement. The RTA does not require the landlord to state the total amount payable for the whole of the fixed term and the advertisement does not require a landlord to specify whether the tenancy is for a fixed term or periodic.
- I am satisfied that the landlord’s rent statement is correct. It records all the tenants’ payments.
- The landlord has claimed the break lease fee. The fee is reasonable. The tenants agreed to pay the fee at the time the landlord agreed on the reduction of the fixed term. The Cross Application
- Evgeny Rakhimov and Almira Kurbangaleeva claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
- On 15 January 2023 and again on 26 January the tenants emailed the landlord stating that the burglar alarm was not working, was beeping, and had to be turned off by disconnecting the power. The email informed the landlord that the wiring for the alarm was also the wiring for the internet and so the internet could not be used. In addition the code did not work with the burglar alarm. The landlord said today that the smoke alarms were also affected by the tenants turning off the power.
- The landlord’s obligation is to remedy any fault that occurs. This was a serious fault because the alarm the internet and the hard wired smoke alarm was affected. The landlord has been unable to show what maintenance was carried out to rectify the problem. The tenants left the property on 28 May. It is reasonable that they be compensated for the inconvenience caused. I have allowed $40.00 per week compensation for 16.5 weeks from 26 February 2023. This includes the cost of internet they paid during that time.
- The tenants also claimed for a breach of quiet enjoyment. They referred to maintenance work carried out. However I am satisfied that they did not inform the landlord that they were unhappy about maintenance work that was carried out and in fact on 15 March emailed the landlord requesting repairs to be carried out because they had not been finished. If the tenants had informed the landlord that they were unhappy with the repairs, then the outcome of their application may have been different. No compensation is therefore ordered regarding this matter. Filing Fee
- Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, I have made no order regarding the filing fee.