What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4649749?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the rent to be paid per week until the end of the

How much money was awarded in case 4649749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4649749?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4649749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10237044-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4649749?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares that the rent to be paid per week until the end of the

How much money was awarded in case 4649749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4649749?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4649749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10237044-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

73A Nile Road, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4649749 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal declares that the rent to be paid per week until the end of the tenancy is $705.00 per week.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 (6022664-008) to Jason Mittef immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, but there is a dispute between the parties as to the level of compensation that should have been provided to the tenant following flooding at the premises in January 2023, or more particularly between August and the tenancy ending in October 2023.
A hearing was convened today at the Northshore District Courthouse. Both parties attended. The landlord was represented by an officer of the property management company (Ms Ye), and also the landlord’s husband Mr Cai. The tenant attended in person.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 29 December 2022. The landlord is Rui Feng by way of an agent, Mengye Investments Limited. The sole tenant is Jason Mittef. The rent for the premises is $1,100.00.
The tenancy was described as five bedrooms, I understand that the tenant had flatmates in four of the rooms.
The premises were flooded following the extraordinary weather events on 27 January 2023.
The evidence is that the landlord arranged emergency work on the premises including drying the premises out and having an electrician attend.
On 2 February 2023 the Council issued a yellow sticker to the building, restricting the “lower levels of dwelling”.
The tenant advised the landlord that one of the flatmates moved out. I can see there was negotiation between the parties for a rent reduction, and on 13 March 2023 it was agreed that there would be a rent reduction to rent of $705.00 per week.
On 3 August 2023 the landlord advised the tenant that the claim from the insurer had been accepted and that the builder was soon to start the remediation work. The landlord requested that the rent return to $1,100.00.
I can see that the parties did try to negotiate an acceptable level of rent for the premises until the tenancy ended, but an agreement could not be reached.
Both parties filed applications with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal first convened a hearing from which a decision was issued dated 14 September 2023. The only matter the Tribunal considered was the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy (the other claims were adjourned, and are before me today). The landlord had applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground that it was so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the tenancy should end because the premises could not be occupied during the remediation, stating: I am satisfied that the work necessary to remediate requires the tenant/occupants to vacate. It is unreasonable for the Tribunal to make an order for the landlord to reinstate the property during the tenancy. The Tribunal must end the tenancy and give the landlord opportunity to reinstate the premises and then receive normal rent.
The adjudicator ordered that the tenancy terminates at 5:00pm on 30 October 2023.
On 25 September 2023 the Council advised that the premises were no longer ‘yellow placarded’
A comprehensive report has been provided by the landlord’s insurer, Vero, detailing the work that would be needed to remediate the premises from the flood damage. I am not certain of the date this was drafted so will record it here. The report confirms damage to multiple rooms including: a. Entry and lounge b. Dining room c. Kitchen d. Stairwell cupboard e. Hallway f. Bathroom g. Bedroom h. Garage
The report states in summary: Overall Property Damage Water Damage There is water damage from flood inundation less than 1m high, this has resulted in damage to the doors, internal linings, insulation, trims, kitchen joinery, appliances, floor coverings, curtains. Overall Property Repair Water Damage Repair Strategy Refer to the attached photos showcasing the location(s) of water damage at the property. Due to the damage caused from flood inundation, this will require repair of the doors, internal linings, insulation, trims, kitchen joinery, appliances, floor coverings, curtains.
As above, a hearing was convened in person on 22 April 2024. By the time of the hearing, the issues between the parties had been reduced to one of the level of rent compensation that should be provided. The tenant wants his full bond back, whereas the landlord is seeking rent of $1,000.00 per week from 7 August 2023.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord advised that the premises were flooded on 27 January, and the garage suffered the most damage. The premises were disinfected and a contractor was arranged to fix the power problem and to remove wall linings. The landlord considers that the house was returned to a reasonable condition.
The landlord states that they agreed to reduce the rent to $705.00. The landlord states that over time the flooded area dried out so all affected areas except the garage and laundry have returned to their normal use.
However, as a gesture of goodwill, the landlord states that the landlord delayed increasing the rent. The landlord considers the house to be fully habitable.
The landlord considers that $1,000.00 per week is reasonable, and they seek that from 7 August 2023.
The landlord considers that it would be reasonable that the tenants receive $100.00 compensation.
The landlord states that the downstairs bedroom is on the level of other rooms such as the kitchen. The landlord disputes that the tenants are not using the downstairs rooms fully.
The landlord considers the tenants should be paying rent for the premises.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant stated that one of the rooms downstairs was completely flooded and unusable.
The tenant states that from March no other work had been completed. The feeling of the house downstairs was that it was still moist. The person living downstairs moved out because of the state of the premises with that room being unusable.
The tenant disputes that he should pay more than $705.00 per week.

ANALYSIS

The issue I must determine is narrow – what level of rent compensation should be available to the tenant after 7 August 2024, in answer to that question, I have determined the correct level of rental due until the end of the tenancy is $705.00 per week, meaning compensation of $395.00 per week. I have reached that conclusion for these reasons.
I start by noting that it was the landlord and tenant that agreed in March 2023, that a fair level of rental for the premises at that time was $705.00 per week. Based on what I have seen on the files, that seems to have been a fair level of compensation, and I am not at all surprised to see an agreement around that level of compensation. The question though, is not what the appropriate level of compensation was in March, but what the appropriate level would be from August 2023.
There is a discrepancy between the evidence given by the landlord at the hearing, and other evidence on file, as to the extent of any damage to the premises. The landlord at the hearing today talked about how the bottom level of the plasterboard has been removed from the garage, indicating that was the most significant impact. However, in my view that is inconsistent with the report from Vero which described extensive damage to the premises from the floodwater.
It must also be recognised that the landlord came to the Tenancy Tribunal, and gave evidence and arguments that the Tenancy needed to end because of the extent of the damage to the premises. It is of course entirely inconsistent for the landlord to say in one proceeding that the premises were so severely damaged that the tenancy needed to end in order to undertake the necessary building work, but then in another proceeding to say it was not in fact that bad, and that the tenant could live normally in the premises, with only a very minimal level of rent reduction.
I accept the evidence from the tenant, that the downstairs flatmate needed to move out, and that flatmate would presumably have been contributing around 1/5 of the rental. The evidence from the council is that the yellow sticker restriction was only lifted mid-September, so the tenant cannot lawfully have had a tenant living in the downstairs room, so it would not be reasonable for the tenant to pay rent to the landlord for that room. It would also not be reasonable to expect that once the yellow sticker had been lifted, that the tenant then find a new flatmate to move into that downstairs room, given the Tenancy was to end at the end of October by order of the Tribunal.
In addition to the inability to rent out the bottom bedroom, it must be the case that the tenant wasn't receiving the quality of dwelling that he had contracted with the landlord to provide. It can be accepted that the flood damage would have caused damage to wide-ranging structures throughout the tenancy, and the tenant should be compensated for that. That would seem to be structure throughout the entire bottom floor of the dwelling. Of course remediation work to those structures is the precise reason the landlord applied to terminate the tenancy, so the landlord could have that building work completed, and therefore re-rent the premises for a full rent.
The landlord has not convinced me that the situation has materially changed between the earlier hearing with the Tribunal, or in fact that anything has materially changed in terms of the quality of the premises that the landlord was renting to the tenant. I find, therefore, that there would be no basis to require the tenants to pay a weekly rental above that negotiated in March.
For those reasons, the landlord’s application for rent compensation is declined, and I order the full bond to be returned to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4649749 — Healthy homes at 73A Nile Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4649749 — Healthy homes at 73A Nile Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions