What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4741509?

The tribunal order states: Roseann Louise Reihana and Hoani Hills must pay Titania Hinehou Sanders

How much money was awarded in case 4741509?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741509?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9895083-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4741509?

The tribunal order states: Roseann Louise Reihana and Hoani Hills must pay Titania Hinehou Sanders

How much money was awarded in case 4741509?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741509?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9895083-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52B Surrey Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4741509 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741509 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 December 2023	$1,100.00	Rent arrears to 1 December 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,120.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,120.44

Order

Roseann Louise Reihana and Hoani Hills must pay Titania Hinehou Sanders $1,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 1 December 2023$1,100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,120.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,120.44
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I also heard from the property manager, Ms Bird of Birds Nest Property Management.
The landlord has applied for termination of a tenancy for abandonment and rent arrears or rent in lieu of notice. The tenants have claimed reimbursement of rent paid in advance and compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligation to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. Background
The landlord lived at the premises until renovations began in mid-September 2023.
The tenants viewed the property with Ms Bird while the renovations were underway. Ms Bird prepared a tenancy agreement which she signed as agent of the landlord on 24 October 2023. The tenants signed the agreement on the same day. The commencement date for the tenancy was 10 November 2023 and it was for a 12-month fixed term. Ms Bird provided them with the keys to the property around that time.
On 8 November 2023, Ms Bird contacted the landlord who was overseas (but was returning on 13 November 2023). Ms Bird advised that the property smelled of animal urine. She also advised that the tenants had decided not to move into the property. The landlord suggested having the carpets cleaned, but otherwise could not address the issue until she returned.
The tenants did not move in but stayed at their current address.
When the landlord returned, she visited the premises. She did not consider there to be a smell of animal urine. She had not had a dog living at the premises for at least two years. She said the house smelt closed up and newly renovated or painted and that the smell dissipated when windows were opened.
The landlord asked Ms Bird to visit the property to explain her and the tenant’s concerns. The landlord says that Ms Bird accused her of spraying something to cover the smell, indicating that there was no smell at that time.
The landlord also provided a report on the condition of the property from another property manager. The property was tenanted within three weeks of these tenants refusing to move in. The current tenant also provided a statement as to lack of smell at the property. While these are written statements, and have limited weight, it is relevant that the property could be re- let very quickly with no concerns from the in-going tenant. The Claims
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition (see s45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act). The tenant claims that the breach was so bad that it was not required to move into the premises, effectively cancelling the agreement.
The landlord says that the tenants have a tenancy agreement in place and were required to pay rent for the duration of that tenancy (or until another tenant was found, which ever was earlier).
I prefer the landlord’s assessment of the situation.
There was considerable inconsistency between the tenant’s evidence and Ms Bird’s evidence regarding timeframes, when any smell was noticed, by whom and how/when that was conveyed to others. I could not reconcile or explain the differences in that evidence. I was not satisfied that the property smelled or was dirty, and certainly not to the extent claimed by the tenants. The tenants did not establish any breach of the landlord’s obligations.
The District Court has recently confirmed that there is an obligation on the tenant to give notice to the landlord to undertake necessary repairs, prior to leaving tenancy on basis of repairs required. Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332.
These tenants did not give the landlord an opportunity to resolve any issues. The landlord offered to have carpets cleaned, but received no response, or confirmation that the tenants would not be moving in; the evidence was unclear.
I find that there was valid tenancy agreement in place. The tenants were required to pay rent for the duration of that tenancy, or until a replacement tenant was found. They did not do so. They did not provide the landlord with a reasonable opportunity to address concerns regarding cleanliness or smell of the property. In any event, the tenants have not established that is more likely than not that the landlord had breached its obligations at the start of the tenancy.
I award the landlord 2 weeks rent for the period before the new tenancy started. That is an award of $1,100. As the landlord was successful, I also award reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741509 — net $1,120.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1 December 2023	$1,100.00	Rent arrears to 1 December 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,120.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,120.44

Order

Roseann Louise Reihana and Hoani Hills must pay Titania Hinehou Sanders $1,120.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 1 December 2023$1,100.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,120.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,120.44
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I also heard from the property manager, Ms Bird of Birds Nest Property Management.
The landlord has applied for termination of a tenancy for abandonment and rent arrears or rent in lieu of notice. The tenants have claimed reimbursement of rent paid in advance and compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligation to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. Background
The landlord lived at the premises until renovations began in mid-September 2023.
The tenants viewed the property with Ms Bird while the renovations were underway. Ms Bird prepared a tenancy agreement which she signed as agent of the landlord on 24 October 2023. The tenants signed the agreement on the same day. The commencement date for the tenancy was 10 November 2023 and it was for a 12-month fixed term. Ms Bird provided them with the keys to the property around that time.
On 8 November 2023, Ms Bird contacted the landlord who was overseas (but was returning on 13 November 2023). Ms Bird advised that the property smelled of animal urine. She also advised that the tenants had decided not to move into the property. The landlord suggested having the carpets cleaned, but otherwise could not address the issue until she returned.
The tenants did not move in but stayed at their current address.
When the landlord returned, she visited the premises. She did not consider there to be a smell of animal urine. She had not had a dog living at the premises for at least two years. She said the house smelt closed up and newly renovated or painted and that the smell dissipated when windows were opened.
The landlord asked Ms Bird to visit the property to explain her and the tenant’s concerns. The landlord says that Ms Bird accused her of spraying something to cover the smell, indicating that there was no smell at that time.
The landlord also provided a report on the condition of the property from another property manager. The property was tenanted within three weeks of these tenants refusing to move in. The current tenant also provided a statement as to lack of smell at the property. While these are written statements, and have limited weight, it is relevant that the property could be re- let very quickly with no concerns from the in-going tenant. The Claims
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition (see s45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act). The tenant claims that the breach was so bad that it was not required to move into the premises, effectively cancelling the agreement.
The landlord says that the tenants have a tenancy agreement in place and were required to pay rent for the duration of that tenancy (or until another tenant was found, which ever was earlier).
I prefer the landlord’s assessment of the situation.
There was considerable inconsistency between the tenant’s evidence and Ms Bird’s evidence regarding timeframes, when any smell was noticed, by whom and how/when that was conveyed to others. I could not reconcile or explain the differences in that evidence. I was not satisfied that the property smelled or was dirty, and certainly not to the extent claimed by the tenants. The tenants did not establish any breach of the landlord’s obligations.
The District Court has recently confirmed that there is an obligation on the tenant to give notice to the landlord to undertake necessary repairs, prior to leaving tenancy on basis of repairs required. Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332.
These tenants did not give the landlord an opportunity to resolve any issues. The landlord offered to have carpets cleaned, but received no response, or confirmation that the tenants would not be moving in; the evidence was unclear.
I find that there was valid tenancy agreement in place. The tenants were required to pay rent for the duration of that tenancy, or until a replacement tenant was found. They did not do so. They did not provide the landlord with a reasonable opportunity to address concerns regarding cleanliness or smell of the property. In any event, the tenants have not established that is more likely than not that the landlord had breached its obligations at the start of the tenancy.
I award the landlord 2 weeks rent for the period before the new tenancy started. That is an award of $1,100. As the landlord was successful, I also award reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741509 — Rent arrears at 52B Surrey Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741509 — Rent arrears at 52B Surrey Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions