What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4692971?

The tribunal order states: The net payable by Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Shiva Sadat after an equitable

How much money was awarded in case 4692971?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692971?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9979136-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4692971?

The tribunal order states: The net payable by Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Shiva Sadat after an equitable

How much money was awarded in case 4692971?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4692971?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4692971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9979136-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 18A Aratonga, Auckland, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4692971 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692971 — net $2,850.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,850.00		Rent arrears
Compensation		$500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$4,850.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$2,850.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,850.00

Order

The net payable by Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Shiva Sadat after an equitable set-off is $2,850.00, as shown in the table below.
Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Shiva Sadat agreed to pay Street Smart Property Management Limited As Agent For Saffron Trust 88 $2,850.00 in monthly instalments of $150, being rent arrears (after an equitable set-off) to 18 February 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Nicole Zhang and Mr Jared Hoy Fong appeared as the representatives of Smart Property Management Limited. Ms Nicole Zhang is the main participant in the hearing.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Ms Shiva Sadat are the tenants. Mr Aghaie-Wilson is the main participant in the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2021 and is a current tenancy.
The parties agree each party has a complaint I need to adjudicate. a. For the landlord: the issue of rent arrears. b. For the tenant: the landlord failed to maintain the toilet near the laundry. The landlord’s complaint
The parties agree with the amount of rent arrears owing. There was a misunderstanding between the parties regarding the frequency of rent payments. Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson believed that he had an agreement with the property manager to pay monthly, which led to confusion.
Ms Zhang issued 11 notices to remedy but did not file any application with the Tribunal to address rent arrears by way of seeking an order to terminate the tenancy. The accumulation of rent arrears continued to be a live issue for some time.
It is important to note here that Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson has never missed a rent payment. The rent arrears were caused by a misunderstanding of the rent payment schedule, leading to missed payments and accumulation of debt. Once the misunderstanding cleared up, Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson started paying $100 monthly to reduce the rent arrears.
While the landlord wants the rent arrears to be paid off as soon as possible, the frequency and amount of payment should be agreed upon by both parties, as there is no dispute about the amount owed.
Ms Zhang has confirmed that the landlord has no intention of terminating the tenancy as Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson is a "good tenant."
After listening to both parties about the reasons why they are before the Tribunal, I engaged in a discussion that resulted in Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson agreeing to increase his rent arrears payment to $150 a month. While the landlord would like the rent arrears to be paid within three months, I acknowledge a moderate increase of $50 a month may not be satisfactory. However, given that the landlord is happy with Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson's tenancy, it is a reasonable compromise.
As there is no dispute regarding the amount of the rent arrears and Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson agreed to pay an extra $50 to $150 a month to reduce his rent arrears is in place, I do not need to adjudicate the matter.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed. Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson’s complaint
I turn now to Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson’s complaint regarding the landlord's failure to maintain the wall behind the toilet near the laundry. The wall was damaged as a result of water leakage.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Ms Shiva Sadat claim that the landlord has breached her 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.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson reported an ongoing maintenance issue with the toilet's corner wall, which had been damaged due to water leakage since the beginning of the tenancy two years and four months ago.
Despite raising this maintenance issue with the property managers on multiple occasions over the past two years, the maintenance issue was not addressed, which led to concerns about mould and bugs entering through the hole in the toilet.
However, Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson's primary concern was not about the mould and bugs entering through the hole. I was unable to clearly identify the mould or the hole in the toilet from the photos submitted as evidence.
In any event, Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson said his primary concern is that the landlord had failed to maintain the wall behind the toilet.
Ms. Zhang submitted six inspection reports, including a pre-tenancy inspection report from 2 July 2021, and the most recent inspection report from 12 September 2023. Both reports have photos clearly identified the damage caused by water leakage, as evidenced by the rusty colour, moisture, and bubbling paint.
Of the six inspection reports, the 18 November 2021 report noted that the laundry and toilet required "maintenance that need[s] addressing" and that "no leaks were reported, but the toilet walls were not yet fixed by Nancy." In the 6 December 2022 report, the inspector noted that "leaks were reported, but the toilet walls were not yet fixed by Johnny."
The pre-tenancy inspection report and the remaining three inspection reports (5 April 2022, 21 June 2023, and 12 September 2023) did not mention the issue with the corner wall. The inspector for each of the remaining three inspection reports described the laundry and toilet as being in "good condition," despite the visible damage to the corner wall.
Although the damage was eventually repaired in the first week of November 2023, it is worth noting that the inspection reports did not accurately reflect the condition of the toilet. Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson confirmed during the hearing that the damage had been remedied. Ms Zhang submitted an invoice as evidence that the damage had been remedied.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson questioned the lengthy delay in fixing the damage in the toilet. According to his records, he reported the damage issue on 1st July 2021, which was the start of his tenancy, but it was only remedied on or around 4 November 2023. It took the landlord two years and four months to fix the damage.
Ms Zhang, who spoke on behalf of the landlord, explained the reasons for the delay. She stated that the landlord preferred to use her own contractors instead of relying on the property management company, which might have caused a delay in getting the issues addressed. The landlord also did not consider the wall damage to be a significant problem, as it did not affect the functionality or cleanliness of the toilet, but rather a cosmetic moisture issue from a house built in the 70s. The issue was resolved only after the tenant persisted in raising it for two years. This prompted the landlord to accept a referral from Ms Zhang and send a contractor to fix it a few months ago.
Although the damage did not affect the functionality of the toilet, it still affected the cleanliness and tidiness of the house, which was otherwise well-maintained. Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson kept the place clean and tidy, as confirmed by various inspection reports. Ms Zhang, on behalf of the landlord, described Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson a “good tenant”.
Accordingly, I consider the tenant was entitled to compensation for living with the damage for two years and four months. The compensation was set at $500, which was considered moderate.
I found the landlord to have failed to maintain the toilet for over two years, which was an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I acknowledge that the damage was on the wall behind the toilet and did not affect its functionality. However, Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson repeatedly raised this maintenance issue with Ms Zhang, and if he had not, I doubt that the damage would have been remedied anytime soon.
Taking all circumstances into consideration, I consider that $1,500 in exemplary damages is appropriate. It is unacceptable for Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson to wait for two years and four months to have obvious damage remedied. Filing fee
Both parties have been successful in their respective claims. Costs should lie where they fall. Name suppression
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson did not seek a name suppression order.
Ms Zhang, acting on behalf of the landlord, applied for name suppression.
In regard to Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson's case against the landlord, I found that the landlord had committed an unlawful act and was ordered to pay exemplary damages. As a result, the landlord's application for name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4692971 — net $2,850.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,850.00		Rent arrears
Compensation		$500.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages		$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$4,850.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$2,850.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,850.00

Order

The net payable by Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Shiva Sadat after an equitable set-off is $2,850.00, as shown in the table below.
Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Shiva Sadat agreed to pay Street Smart Property Management Limited As Agent For Saffron Trust 88 $2,850.00 in monthly instalments of $150, being rent arrears (after an equitable set-off) to 18 February 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Nicole Zhang and Mr Jared Hoy Fong appeared as the representatives of Smart Property Management Limited. Ms Nicole Zhang is the main participant in the hearing.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Ms Shiva Sadat are the tenants. Mr Aghaie-Wilson is the main participant in the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2021 and is a current tenancy.
The parties agree each party has a complaint I need to adjudicate. a. For the landlord: the issue of rent arrears. b. For the tenant: the landlord failed to maintain the toilet near the laundry. The landlord’s complaint
The parties agree with the amount of rent arrears owing. There was a misunderstanding between the parties regarding the frequency of rent payments. Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson believed that he had an agreement with the property manager to pay monthly, which led to confusion.
Ms Zhang issued 11 notices to remedy but did not file any application with the Tribunal to address rent arrears by way of seeking an order to terminate the tenancy. The accumulation of rent arrears continued to be a live issue for some time.
It is important to note here that Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson has never missed a rent payment. The rent arrears were caused by a misunderstanding of the rent payment schedule, leading to missed payments and accumulation of debt. Once the misunderstanding cleared up, Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson started paying $100 monthly to reduce the rent arrears.
While the landlord wants the rent arrears to be paid off as soon as possible, the frequency and amount of payment should be agreed upon by both parties, as there is no dispute about the amount owed.
Ms Zhang has confirmed that the landlord has no intention of terminating the tenancy as Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson is a "good tenant."
After listening to both parties about the reasons why they are before the Tribunal, I engaged in a discussion that resulted in Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson agreeing to increase his rent arrears payment to $150 a month. While the landlord would like the rent arrears to be paid within three months, I acknowledge a moderate increase of $50 a month may not be satisfactory. However, given that the landlord is happy with Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson's tenancy, it is a reasonable compromise.
As there is no dispute regarding the amount of the rent arrears and Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson agreed to pay an extra $50 to $150 a month to reduce his rent arrears is in place, I do not need to adjudicate the matter.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed. Mr. Omid Aghaie-Wilson’s complaint
I turn now to Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson’s complaint regarding the landlord's failure to maintain the wall behind the toilet near the laundry. The wall was damaged as a result of water leakage.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson and Ms Shiva Sadat claim that the landlord has breached her 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.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson reported an ongoing maintenance issue with the toilet's corner wall, which had been damaged due to water leakage since the beginning of the tenancy two years and four months ago.
Despite raising this maintenance issue with the property managers on multiple occasions over the past two years, the maintenance issue was not addressed, which led to concerns about mould and bugs entering through the hole in the toilet.
However, Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson's primary concern was not about the mould and bugs entering through the hole. I was unable to clearly identify the mould or the hole in the toilet from the photos submitted as evidence.
In any event, Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson said his primary concern is that the landlord had failed to maintain the wall behind the toilet.
Ms. Zhang submitted six inspection reports, including a pre-tenancy inspection report from 2 July 2021, and the most recent inspection report from 12 September 2023. Both reports have photos clearly identified the damage caused by water leakage, as evidenced by the rusty colour, moisture, and bubbling paint.
Of the six inspection reports, the 18 November 2021 report noted that the laundry and toilet required "maintenance that need[s] addressing" and that "no leaks were reported, but the toilet walls were not yet fixed by Nancy." In the 6 December 2022 report, the inspector noted that "leaks were reported, but the toilet walls were not yet fixed by Johnny."
The pre-tenancy inspection report and the remaining three inspection reports (5 April 2022, 21 June 2023, and 12 September 2023) did not mention the issue with the corner wall. The inspector for each of the remaining three inspection reports described the laundry and toilet as being in "good condition," despite the visible damage to the corner wall.
Although the damage was eventually repaired in the first week of November 2023, it is worth noting that the inspection reports did not accurately reflect the condition of the toilet. Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson confirmed during the hearing that the damage had been remedied. Ms Zhang submitted an invoice as evidence that the damage had been remedied.
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson questioned the lengthy delay in fixing the damage in the toilet. According to his records, he reported the damage issue on 1st July 2021, which was the start of his tenancy, but it was only remedied on or around 4 November 2023. It took the landlord two years and four months to fix the damage.
Ms Zhang, who spoke on behalf of the landlord, explained the reasons for the delay. She stated that the landlord preferred to use her own contractors instead of relying on the property management company, which might have caused a delay in getting the issues addressed. The landlord also did not consider the wall damage to be a significant problem, as it did not affect the functionality or cleanliness of the toilet, but rather a cosmetic moisture issue from a house built in the 70s. The issue was resolved only after the tenant persisted in raising it for two years. This prompted the landlord to accept a referral from Ms Zhang and send a contractor to fix it a few months ago.
Although the damage did not affect the functionality of the toilet, it still affected the cleanliness and tidiness of the house, which was otherwise well-maintained. Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson kept the place clean and tidy, as confirmed by various inspection reports. Ms Zhang, on behalf of the landlord, described Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson a “good tenant”.
Accordingly, I consider the tenant was entitled to compensation for living with the damage for two years and four months. The compensation was set at $500, which was considered moderate.
I found the landlord to have failed to maintain the toilet for over two years, which was an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I acknowledge that the damage was on the wall behind the toilet and did not affect its functionality. However, Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson repeatedly raised this maintenance issue with Ms Zhang, and if he had not, I doubt that the damage would have been remedied anytime soon.
Taking all circumstances into consideration, I consider that $1,500 in exemplary damages is appropriate. It is unacceptable for Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson to wait for two years and four months to have obvious damage remedied. Filing fee
Both parties have been successful in their respective claims. Costs should lie where they fall. Name suppression
Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson did not seek a name suppression order.
Ms Zhang, acting on behalf of the landlord, applied for name suppression.
In regard to Mr Omid Aghaie-Wilson's case against the landlord, I found that the landlord had committed an unlawful act and was ordered to pay exemplary damages. As a result, the landlord's application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692971 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 18A Aratonga, Auckland, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4692971 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 18A Aratonga, Auckland, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions