What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4683769?

The tribunal order states: The application and cross application are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4683769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4683769?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4683769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10145989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4683769?

The tribunal order states: The application and cross application are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4683769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4683769?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4683769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10145989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Champion Street, Ranui, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4683769 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application and cross application are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has claimed compensation resulting from the premises becoming partly uninhabitable due to a burst waterpipe in the ceiling. The ceiling in part of the house collapsed with considerable debris, water and the need to expose electric wiring for the drying of the premises. The tenant claims that the landlord disposed of his goods.
The landlord has claimed clean-up costs from the tenant. The landlord claimed that the tenant left and did not remove rubbish, collect all his goods or leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The issues to be decided are: a. What part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies? b. Did either party breached the Act after the event? c. Should compensation be paid to either party? What part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies?
Section 59 of the Act applies. It provides as follows: 37692 59 Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (2)Where a landlord gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 7 days. (3)Where a tenant gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 2 days. (4)Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a)the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b)either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, and the Tribunal may make such an order if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.
Section 59 applies because the damage to the premises and resulting problems were not due to a breach of the tenancy by either party. However there are different scenarios within section 59.
Subsection (1) applies where premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable but subsection (4) applies where the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable [my emphasis]. In the case of damage to 62 Champion Street, Raniu, subsection (4) not subsection (1) applies because only part of the premises was so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. In that case either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, and the Tribunal may make such an order if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.

Did either party breached the Act after the event?

The parties behaved in a way that each believed the other had terminated the tenancy. The tenant moved goods out from the property leading the landlord to 37693 believe he was leaving. The tenant also asked the landlord to provide information that would assist with moving to a new tenancy. I understand why the landlord believed that tenant had terminated the tenancy and was moving out. I also understand why the tenant believed that the landlord was terminating the tenancy. However neither party could terminate the tenancy unless the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and so both parties should have continued the tenancy unless there was agreement between them to terminate the tenancy. Benjimin should not have moved to a new tenancy. Raj should not have then prevented Benjamin occupying the property.

Should compensation be paid to either party?

Benjimin is claiming for goods he believes the landlord disposed of and for inconvenience resulting from the event. His claim for goods is for the cost of new replacements. A landlord must not to dispose of a tenant’s goods in a case such as this. However there is a real difficulty with the evidence about Benjimin’s goods in this case. Not only is it difficult for the Tribunal to identify what was left at the premises that had any value but also, on 6 September Benjimin failed to collect valuable goods which were made available to him by the landlord. Benjimin cannot now recover the value of those items by an order of the Tribunal. By 6 September the landlord could dispose of the goods legally. I have assessed the value Benjimin has given to the goods he has claimed. Benjimin’s goods that could be identified were very well used. Goods that could be identified from photos looked like items that the Salvation Army would decline stock. The values Benjimin has claimed are significantly in excess of the value for similar second hand items. Looking at the prices on Trademe during the hearing confirmed that. If an order had been made for Raj to pay Benjimin it would have been for a very small amount.
I have also considered the cross application. It contains claims for items of loss that the tenant is not responsible for. There is a claim for compensation regarding the condition that Benjimin left the property in. However because Raj did not make the property available for Benjimin to clean up, any amount ordered regarding this would be minimal. I can see from the photos that Benjimin neglected to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An order for payment could be made about that.
In summary there could be minimal payments that each party might be ordered to pay the other resulting from the unforeseen collapse of the ceiling in part of the premises. However the amounts are minimal and are sufficiently similar that no order for payment by either party needs to be made. Suppression 37694
Both parties have requested name suppression.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95, RTA).
I decline to grant this. Neither party has been successful, and it is not in the public interest to do so. Filing Fee
Because the landlord and tenant have not been successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is not ordered to be paid by either party.

Order

The application and cross application are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has claimed compensation resulting from the premises becoming partly uninhabitable due to a burst waterpipe in the ceiling. The ceiling in part of the house collapsed with considerable debris, water and the need to expose electric wiring for the drying of the premises. The tenant claims that the landlord disposed of his goods.
The landlord has claimed clean-up costs from the tenant. The landlord claimed that the tenant left and did not remove rubbish, collect all his goods or leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The issues to be decided are: a. What part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies? b. Did either party breached the Act after the event? c. Should compensation be paid to either party? What part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies?
Section 59 of the Act applies. It provides as follows: 37692 59 Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (2)Where a landlord gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 7 days. (3)Where a tenant gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 2 days. (4)Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a)the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b)either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, and the Tribunal may make such an order if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.
Section 59 applies because the damage to the premises and resulting problems were not due to a breach of the tenancy by either party. However there are different scenarios within section 59.
Subsection (1) applies where premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable but subsection (4) applies where the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable [my emphasis]. In the case of damage to 62 Champion Street, Raniu, subsection (4) not subsection (1) applies because only part of the premises was so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. In that case either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, and the Tribunal may make such an order if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to reinstate the property or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.

Did either party breached the Act after the event?

The parties behaved in a way that each believed the other had terminated the tenancy. The tenant moved goods out from the property leading the landlord to 37693 believe he was leaving. The tenant also asked the landlord to provide information that would assist with moving to a new tenancy. I understand why the landlord believed that tenant had terminated the tenancy and was moving out. I also understand why the tenant believed that the landlord was terminating the tenancy. However neither party could terminate the tenancy unless the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and so both parties should have continued the tenancy unless there was agreement between them to terminate the tenancy. Benjimin should not have moved to a new tenancy. Raj should not have then prevented Benjamin occupying the property.

Should compensation be paid to either party?

Benjimin is claiming for goods he believes the landlord disposed of and for inconvenience resulting from the event. His claim for goods is for the cost of new replacements. A landlord must not to dispose of a tenant’s goods in a case such as this. However there is a real difficulty with the evidence about Benjimin’s goods in this case. Not only is it difficult for the Tribunal to identify what was left at the premises that had any value but also, on 6 September Benjimin failed to collect valuable goods which were made available to him by the landlord. Benjimin cannot now recover the value of those items by an order of the Tribunal. By 6 September the landlord could dispose of the goods legally. I have assessed the value Benjimin has given to the goods he has claimed. Benjimin’s goods that could be identified were very well used. Goods that could be identified from photos looked like items that the Salvation Army would decline stock. The values Benjimin has claimed are significantly in excess of the value for similar second hand items. Looking at the prices on Trademe during the hearing confirmed that. If an order had been made for Raj to pay Benjimin it would have been for a very small amount.
I have also considered the cross application. It contains claims for items of loss that the tenant is not responsible for. There is a claim for compensation regarding the condition that Benjimin left the property in. However because Raj did not make the property available for Benjimin to clean up, any amount ordered regarding this would be minimal. I can see from the photos that Benjimin neglected to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An order for payment could be made about that.
In summary there could be minimal payments that each party might be ordered to pay the other resulting from the unforeseen collapse of the ceiling in part of the premises. However the amounts are minimal and are sufficiently similar that no order for payment by either party needs to be made. Suppression 37694
Both parties have requested name suppression.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s 95, RTA).
I decline to grant this. Neither party has been successful, and it is not in the public interest to do so. Filing Fee
Because the landlord and tenant have not been successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is not ordered to be paid by either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683769 — Tenancy dispute at 62 Champion Street, Ranui, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683769 — Tenancy dispute at 62 Champion Street, Ranui, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did either party breached the Act after the event?

Should compensation be paid to either party?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did either party breached the Act after the event?

Should compensation be paid to either party?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions