What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609329?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made and the

How much money was awarded in case 4609329?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,658.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9578604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609329?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made and the

How much money was awarded in case 4609329?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,658.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9578604-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Trevor Hosken Drive, Wiri, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609329 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609329 — net $1,638.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,658.57		5. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,658.57	$20.44
Net award	$1,638.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,638.13

Order

An application for name suppression has been made and the Tribunal declines suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
The Tenancy of Shannon Maruia Reiri, Daryn Kahia at 33 Trevor Hosken Drive, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is terminated and possession is granted to the Landlord on Monday 9 October 2023.
Shannon Maruia Reiri and Daryn Kahia must pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited Haley Jones $1,638.13 immediately, being rent arrears to 2 October 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tenant has applied for work orders, breach of Healthy Home Standards and compensation.
The Tenancy commenced on 4 September 2018 and is still current.

How much is owed in rent and water arrears?

The Landlord claimed rent arrears of $1658.57 as of 2 October 2023. They provided a rent summary to reflect this and deposed their accounting system had changed on or about 4 September 2023. Although a rent summary was provided, the explanation from the Landlord was not entirely clear as to why there was a discrepancy with the Tenants estimation of rent arrears. The Landlord stated that rent was increased on 24 October 2019 but the Tenant believed it was increased in 2020.
The Tenant disputed the rent arrears, claiming it was approximately one weeks rent which is $650.00. They provided a copy of their payments they had been making to the bank from 2 February 2023 to 2 October 2023, 13 April 2023 to 23 June 2023 and 24 October 2019 to 13 February 2020. It showed that during the period of 24 October 2019 and 13 February 2020, the Tenant paid $460.00 on multiple occasions, but the Landlords rent summary only showed payment of $430.00 each week. Some of this data was presented in a table rather than direct statements from the bank. The Tenant stated the rent did not increase until 2020 and this is reflected in the Landlords statements from February 2020.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided a rent summary derived from their accounting system which is commonly used and accepted in the Tribunal. The Tenant presented a table which showed payments they made from October 2019 and February 2020 were more than the amount showing in the Landlord’s rent summary. The table however was not from a bank statement but sent from one flatmate to the other. Had it been data directly from a bank statement then it would be more reliable.
For these reasons, the Landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted.
The Landlord claimed water rates arrears of $39.56. They provided records to prove the amount owing.
The Tenant disputed this stating she was in credit for water rates arrears. She had always paid extra money on top of her rent which should have been allocated to her water but never was.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided their records which indicate the water rates arrears claimed however invoices were not presented to substantiate the records.
For this reason, the claim for water is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: i. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and ii. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and iii. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and iv. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The tenancy is terminated. Tenants claim for work orders
The Tenant has claimed work orders for the mould in the property, the toilet and the front door to be repaired. As the tenancy is terminating, work orders will not be granted. Tenants claim for breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant claimed the Landlord breached the Healthy Home Standards because of the mould accumulation in the house which the Tenant had notified the Landlord about as early as 2016. It was predominantly in the back rooms of the house and bathroom. The mould was noted down in a handwritten list of repairs which was dated 2017. The Tenant claimed it was in the wardrobes and walls of the back bedroom. Photographs of mould on a pair of boots, toilet seat, side of the wash basin, in the shower and on the grouting on the bathroom tiles. The Tenant submitted they repeatedly requested the mould in the property be remedied which was affecting her son’s eczema and asthma. The Landlord did not repair it.
The Landlord submitted they had conducted an inspection on 1 August 2023 and found not signs of mould. A copy of the inspection report was provided. At the time of the inspection, the Landlord asked the Tenants son who was present, where the mould was so they could investigate the issue but the Tenant’s son did not know. The Landlord also submitted a Healthy Homes Inspection report dated July 2022 which indicated the property was not in breach of any of the Healthy Home Standards.
The HHS applies to new or renewed tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2021, but there is a final date that all private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.This tenancy commenced in 2018 and was not new or renewed from 1 July 2021.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord is not in breach of Healthy Home Standards. Tenants claim- Compensation
The Tenant claimed $1000.00 for the frustration of never having their repairs attended to by the current Landlord. This was in contrast to the previous Property Manager who they had a good relationship with. The repairs included the mould, the verandah and the oven. The Tenant was unable to close the oven door properly and could not bake. The Landlord sent someone to water blast the house in 2022 and advised the Tenant that the mould issue was then resolved when it was not the case.
The Tenant also claimed $4000.00 because they never had a verandah until 2021. There was a step where she walked but no verandah. The original verandah was unsafe and the Landlord took too long to rebuild it. In the end they only built a stairs.
The Landlord claimed the delay building the verandah was due to a wood shortage after COVID-19. There was a nine month back order. An invoice dated 17 October 2022 indicated the Landlord sent a Tradesperson to repair the door. The mould could have been resolved by the Tenant using mould cleaner. The Landlord also provided invoices for multiple repairs to the oven, toilet, carpet, floorboard, and smoke alarm which were done in 2022. The Tenant also prolonged the repairs when they advised they were not going to allow any more Tradespersons at their house because they stayed too long.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not provide evidence to substantiate when they first notified the Landlord of the various repairs. There was no email or text correspondence presented by the Tenant, only follow up requests that referred to the Tenants first notification in 2019. The Landlord provided multiple invoices and email correspondence showing the Landlord undertook extensive repair jobs. It was therefore unknown as to whether the Landlord failed to fix the damages in a reasonable timeframe.
Photographs were provided of the front door which showed a slight gap in it but no evidence of rain that would come through the door. There was also no medical evidence of the Tenant’s son suffering from eczema or asthma and the property’s mouldy conditions causing this to worsen. The Landlord also presented an inspection report dated 1 August 2023 which confirmed there were no issues.
For these reasons, the Tenants claim for compensation is dismissed.
As the Tenant has not been successful in their claim, name suppression is not granted.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their claim, the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609329 — net $1,638.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,658.57		5. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,658.57	$20.44
Net award	$1,638.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,638.13

Order

An application for name suppression has been made and the Tribunal declines suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
The Tenancy of Shannon Maruia Reiri, Daryn Kahia at 33 Trevor Hosken Drive, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is terminated and possession is granted to the Landlord on Monday 9 October 2023.
Shannon Maruia Reiri and Daryn Kahia must pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited Haley Jones $1,638.13 immediately, being rent arrears to 2 October 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, water rates arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tenant has applied for work orders, breach of Healthy Home Standards and compensation.
The Tenancy commenced on 4 September 2018 and is still current.

How much is owed in rent and water arrears?

The Landlord claimed rent arrears of $1658.57 as of 2 October 2023. They provided a rent summary to reflect this and deposed their accounting system had changed on or about 4 September 2023. Although a rent summary was provided, the explanation from the Landlord was not entirely clear as to why there was a discrepancy with the Tenants estimation of rent arrears. The Landlord stated that rent was increased on 24 October 2019 but the Tenant believed it was increased in 2020.
The Tenant disputed the rent arrears, claiming it was approximately one weeks rent which is $650.00. They provided a copy of their payments they had been making to the bank from 2 February 2023 to 2 October 2023, 13 April 2023 to 23 June 2023 and 24 October 2019 to 13 February 2020. It showed that during the period of 24 October 2019 and 13 February 2020, the Tenant paid $460.00 on multiple occasions, but the Landlords rent summary only showed payment of $430.00 each week. Some of this data was presented in a table rather than direct statements from the bank. The Tenant stated the rent did not increase until 2020 and this is reflected in the Landlords statements from February 2020.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided a rent summary derived from their accounting system which is commonly used and accepted in the Tribunal. The Tenant presented a table which showed payments they made from October 2019 and February 2020 were more than the amount showing in the Landlord’s rent summary. The table however was not from a bank statement but sent from one flatmate to the other. Had it been data directly from a bank statement then it would be more reliable.
For these reasons, the Landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted.
The Landlord claimed water rates arrears of $39.56. They provided records to prove the amount owing.
The Tenant disputed this stating she was in credit for water rates arrears. She had always paid extra money on top of her rent which should have been allocated to her water but never was.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided their records which indicate the water rates arrears claimed however invoices were not presented to substantiate the records.
For this reason, the claim for water is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: i. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and ii. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and iii. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and iv. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The tenancy is terminated. Tenants claim for work orders
The Tenant has claimed work orders for the mould in the property, the toilet and the front door to be repaired. As the tenancy is terminating, work orders will not be granted. Tenants claim for breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant claimed the Landlord breached the Healthy Home Standards because of the mould accumulation in the house which the Tenant had notified the Landlord about as early as 2016. It was predominantly in the back rooms of the house and bathroom. The mould was noted down in a handwritten list of repairs which was dated 2017. The Tenant claimed it was in the wardrobes and walls of the back bedroom. Photographs of mould on a pair of boots, toilet seat, side of the wash basin, in the shower and on the grouting on the bathroom tiles. The Tenant submitted they repeatedly requested the mould in the property be remedied which was affecting her son’s eczema and asthma. The Landlord did not repair it.
The Landlord submitted they had conducted an inspection on 1 August 2023 and found not signs of mould. A copy of the inspection report was provided. At the time of the inspection, the Landlord asked the Tenants son who was present, where the mould was so they could investigate the issue but the Tenant’s son did not know. The Landlord also submitted a Healthy Homes Inspection report dated July 2022 which indicated the property was not in breach of any of the Healthy Home Standards.
The HHS applies to new or renewed tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2021, but there is a final date that all private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.This tenancy commenced in 2018 and was not new or renewed from 1 July 2021.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord is not in breach of Healthy Home Standards. Tenants claim- Compensation
The Tenant claimed $1000.00 for the frustration of never having their repairs attended to by the current Landlord. This was in contrast to the previous Property Manager who they had a good relationship with. The repairs included the mould, the verandah and the oven. The Tenant was unable to close the oven door properly and could not bake. The Landlord sent someone to water blast the house in 2022 and advised the Tenant that the mould issue was then resolved when it was not the case.
The Tenant also claimed $4000.00 because they never had a verandah until 2021. There was a step where she walked but no verandah. The original verandah was unsafe and the Landlord took too long to rebuild it. In the end they only built a stairs.
The Landlord claimed the delay building the verandah was due to a wood shortage after COVID-19. There was a nine month back order. An invoice dated 17 October 2022 indicated the Landlord sent a Tradesperson to repair the door. The mould could have been resolved by the Tenant using mould cleaner. The Landlord also provided invoices for multiple repairs to the oven, toilet, carpet, floorboard, and smoke alarm which were done in 2022. The Tenant also prolonged the repairs when they advised they were not going to allow any more Tradespersons at their house because they stayed too long.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not provide evidence to substantiate when they first notified the Landlord of the various repairs. There was no email or text correspondence presented by the Tenant, only follow up requests that referred to the Tenants first notification in 2019. The Landlord provided multiple invoices and email correspondence showing the Landlord undertook extensive repair jobs. It was therefore unknown as to whether the Landlord failed to fix the damages in a reasonable timeframe.
Photographs were provided of the front door which showed a slight gap in it but no evidence of rain that would come through the door. There was also no medical evidence of the Tenant’s son suffering from eczema or asthma and the property’s mouldy conditions causing this to worsen. The Landlord also presented an inspection report dated 1 August 2023 which confirmed there were no issues.
For these reasons, the Tenants claim for compensation is dismissed.
As the Tenant has not been successful in their claim, name suppression is not granted.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful in their claim, the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609329 — Rent arrears at 33 Trevor Hosken Drive, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609329 — Rent arrears at 33 Trevor Hosken Drive, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent and water arrears?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent and water arrears?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions