What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4783538?

The tribunal order states: Sandeep Marvani is granted possession of the premises at 1 Regina Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4783538?

Compensation: Half Cost Oven: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4783538?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4783538?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10232119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4783538?

The tribunal order states: Sandeep Marvani is granted possession of the premises at 1 Regina Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4783538?

Compensation: Half Cost Oven: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4783538?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4783538?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10232119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Regina Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4783538 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4783538 — net $2,420.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,120.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Lodge bond		$500.00	Lodge bond
Compensation: Half cost oven		$200.00	Half cost oven
Total award	$3,120.00	$700.00
Net award	$2,420.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,420.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4783538 — net $2,420.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,120.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Lodge bond		$500.00	Lodge bond
Compensation: Half cost oven		$200.00	Half cost oven
Total award	$3,120.00	$700.00
Net award	$2,420.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,420.00

Order

Sandeep Marvani is granted possession of the premises at 1 Regina Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 immediately.
Alaina Leonie Bishop must pay Sandeep Marvani $0.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 19 April 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,420.00 (5009853-005) to Sandeep Marvani immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $180.00 (5009853- 005) to Alaina Leonie Bishop immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background:
This is a cross application. The landlord filed his application on 3 January 2024 seeking, termination of the tenancy, immediate possession of the property, rent arrears, water bills and an electrical bill, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant filed her cross application on 17 January 2024 seeking to claim the landlord had failed to lodge her bond in the correct time frame, failure to maintain the property, retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy and compensation for costs she has had to pay.
This tenancy commenced on 8 March 2021. The landlord had purchased this property just prior to the tenancy commencing. This is the landlord’s first and only rental property, which he and his wife managed.
Both parties accept at the start of the tenancy the property was in good condition. The Tribunal has been provided with photographs of the property prior to the start of the tenancy and it shows a lovely, maintained house and gardens.
The landlord, when he purchased the property, had a copy of a full Healthy Homes Assessment report completed in 2021. The property was either exempt or compliance with all standards other than the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans. Once the landlord took possession of the property, he had the extractor fans repaired. The tenant agrees with that the landlord fixed the extractor fans, but says they subsequently failed again.
At the start of the tenancy neither the landlord nor the tenant believed there were any issues with the property. It is clear there was no mould or rotting bathroom floorboards or deck evident at the start of the tenancy.
The covid lockdowns occurred during this tenancy which has hindered inspections. Regardless of the reasons the relationship between this tenant, the landlord and the tenants’ neighbours have deteriorated very badly over the course of the next few years. The police have been involved in disputes between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant and her direct neighbours.
The tenant felt so concerned about alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), she made a formal complaint with Tenancy Services, which has been investigated by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I am unaware of what, if anything, has happened regarding this complaint. Both the landlord and tenant acknowledge that there has been a complaint made by the tenant to MBIE.
The landlord does not go to the property despite the tenancy terminating on 31 December 2023 because the tenant still goes to the property every day. The tenant says she goes there to ensure that the property is not being vandalised. I understand that the tenant does have some possession left at the property. For these reasons I find that the tenant is still in possession of the property.
The tenant confirmed that she moved to another property with her family on 12 March 2024. The tenant paid rent up until 21 February 2024.
The landlord has sought to get the keys back from the tenant and get possession of his property. Termination:
I consider that the tenant accepts that the tenancy is terminated by the fact that she has moved and is living in another property in Pukekohe. Therefore, I only need to consider possession. Possession:
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 31 December 2023 however the tenant and her family remained in the property until 12 March 2024, and retain possession of the property. The landlord had served several termination Notices on the tenant.
The landlord filed an application with Tenancy Services on 3 January 2024 seeking to obtain possession of his property. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
The landlord is granted immediate possession of the property 1 Regina Street, Pokeno. Rent arrears:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which show the amount $6240.00 owing from the last rent payment made by the tenant on 21 February 2024 to the end of the tenancy on 19 April 2024 when the Tribunal has granted possession of the property to the landlord.
While I accept that the landlord has not had the possession of his property, due to the tenant refusing to provide the keys to the landlord and her going daily to the house, I am not awarding the full amount of rent arrears. Both parties told the Tribunal that the last time the landlord attempted to gain entry to his property, in March 2024, there was an incident where the tenant involved the police. The tenant claims that there is an investigation by police into an allegation of assault.
I absolutely accept that the landlord could not have gone to his property after the apparent end of the tenancy because of serious interactions with the tenant who still maintained control over the property.
I suspect that both parties have been at fault over behaviour during exchanges between them.
However, the tenant simply has no legal or equitable right to be at the landlord’s property after she vacated it on 12 March 2024.
I am awarding the landlord 50% of the rent arrears which is $3120.00. Landlord claims: water bills and electrician’s bill:
The landlord is claiming the cost of water bills and an electrician’s bill. The landlord has provided the Tribunal with an invoice for $1254.87 for Waikato District Council, which covers the period of 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024.
It was not clear to me if the landlord expected the tenant to cover this entire invoice. However, it was pointed out to him the tenant left on 12 March 2024, so she has no obligations for the period from 12 March to 30 June 2024.
The tenant and landlord provided me with paperwork confirming that WINZ had paid the landlord the sum of $2464.39 on 30 October 2023. The payment was made to cover overdue water bills of $2115.52 and electricians bill of $508.87.
The landlord acknowledge that he was paid this amount and confirms it was for overdue water bills and an electrician’s invoice.
I am not sure what the tenant has or has not paid in relation to overdue water bills nor the electrician bills. The landlord has not provided me with proof that supports his claim for these bills.
I am dismissing the landlords claims for water and electrician’s bills.
As both parties have been partially successful with their claims, I am not reimbursing either party for their filing fee.
The landlord advised that he has not had access to his property yet so is unable to know if there will be further claims for cleaning and damages to the property. As these as not before the court I cannot consider them. Tenants claims:
Alaina Leonie Bishop claims that the landlord has breached their 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. comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
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.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the property. It is clear that there were a few issues with the property.
The tenant claims the following problems with the property: - the property is mouldy, and the walls were damp. -that the rangehood fell off the ceiling and crashed into the oven breaking the oven glass -that the deck had rotten board that caused her and one of her children to fall through it -that another child fell through the rotten floor in the bathroom -that the electrical system was dangerous and would cause power surges
The tenant has provided the Tribunal with photographs of mouldy walls and doors, broken floorboards, and deck panels.
The tenant and her daughter Natalia said that every time they asked the landlord to maintain the property, he would threaten to kick them out. They say they were without hot water for one month and that the deck was unstable.
The landlord disputes there was no hot water for one month and says the repairs were carried out as soon as possible and would only have been a matter of days. The landlord claims to have never been told about issues with the deck.
Natalia says that her bedroom window was broken and was boarded up. The landlord says he knew nothing about this. The tenant complained that if the landlord did turn up to do work on the job it would just be a temporary fix.
The landlord says he would have carried out any repairs or maintenance required if he was aware of the problem. It is clear that the landlord did carry out necessary repairs when he was advised.
The landlord has a Healthy Homes Assessment completed in 2021.
The landlord says that the tenant refused often to allow his into the property to carry out routine inspections, in addition the Covid lockdowns hindered inspections. There have only been 3 inspections carried out in this whole tenancy. The last inspection was on 1 June 2023.
The landlord provides invoices and bank statements which show that he has paid for the following repairs and maintenance: -hot water cylinder repairs on 29 May 2023. -Oven repairs on 21 January 2022 ( 2 x repairs and replacement of oven) -Toilet repairs/ replaced on 2 January 2022 (2 x repairs to toilet) -Tuakau handyman repairs on 19 November 2021- window/toilet repairs -3 electricians came over the tenancy and worked on power issues. -Cupboard doors were hung by handyman and landlord ( although the tenant says they were too heavy and fell off) -The tenant said the landlord boarded up the bathroom floor after the tenant’s child fell through it. -Water leak repairs
The landlord says the repairs were carried out within days of being advised of the problem.
The pre let photographs and report show a home in good condition. The inspection reports from June 2023 show a home in poor condition, with rubbish around the property, and in untidy condition with overgrown lawns and gardens.
The Healthy Homes Assessment confirms that the property was compliant once the fans had been remedied.
Both parties contradict each other, and the tenant has little written evidence to support her claims, such as texts and emails.
It is extremely hard to determine claims without specific evidence to support claims.
I cannot reconcile the differences in the condition of the property in 2021 and the decline in 2023.
I do however accept that the landlord has carried out repairs and maintenance over the term of the tenancy. When the problems arose between the parties, the situation became very hostile and no fruitful interaction or cooperation was possible.
I do not find that the landlord has failed to maintain the property. Lodgement of the bond:
Alaina Leonie Bishop claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that he did not lodge the bond with the bond centre within the required time. I find they have committed 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.
The landlord claims that he did not know of his obligation to lodge the bond, due to being a first-time landlord. The tenant said she raised this with the landlord as she had expected to get a notice advising of the lodge of her bond from the bond centre. When this did not happen, she asked the landlord about it.
Regardless, a landlord has an obligation to know the relevant laws associated with bonds and responsibilities of a landlord.
I am awarding the tenant the sum of $500.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of his obligations to lodge the bond with the bond centre. Retaliatory Notice:
On 23 June and 31 July 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The date for termination was extended a number of times, but the end date was 31 December 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that the landlord gave her notice on 22 June 2023 after he became aware of a complaint to MBIE about the property.
The landlord said this is incorrect and that the reason for the notice was after he had conducted an inspection of the property on 1 June 2023 and saw the work that needed to be done.
The tenant raised concerns, particularly about the electrical system in the house. The landlord had employed electricians twice to repair electrical problems at the house and once the tenant obtained an electrician to do repairs. The landlord refunded the tenant for that electrician bill. Despite there being three separate repairs to the electrical system, the tenant still claimed that there were problems.
The landlord obtained a quote on 5 June 2023 from Energy Safe Limited for $16,000.00 to rewire the house. The work would require the removal of the old wiring, putting in new wiring throughout the house including the switchgears, distribution board and fitouts.
I accept the landlord’s claim that he served the notice to terminate based on the problems with the house, the electrical work and that he intended to move into the property after the work had been completed.
Another factor that persuaded me that the landlord did not know of the complaint to MBIE was that the investigator did not have contact with the landlord until 6 July 2023. Therefore, the landlord would not have known of the complaint at the time of serving the notice to terminate.
The landlord stated in his notice of 6 July 2023 that the reason for the termination was to conduct extensive repairs.
The landlord told the hearing that he and his wife intend to move into the property once the repairs are completed, as they presently live in a two- bedroom unit and their family is expanding, so they need more room.
I do not find that the landlord served the Termination of tenancy notice in retaliation for the complaint made to MBIE by the tenant. Compensation:
The tenant sought to be compensated for half the cost of purchasing an oven. The landlord stated that in 3 years the oven was repaired twice and replaced once.
When the oven was replaced, the tenant paid $200.00 which was half the cost of the replacement oven. The oven is for the benefit of the landlord’s property and therefore the tenant should not have had to pay for the oven.
I am reimbursing the tenant $200.00 for her share of the oven.
I cannot consider the cost of the keys and locks the tenant raised at the hearing because she did not provide proof of these costs.
The bond is to be split between the parties as set out in the order.
Neither party sought suppression of their names and details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4783538 — Rent arrears at 1 Regina Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4783538 — Rent arrears at 1 Regina Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

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