What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4799057?

The tribunal order states: Sanjeev Bhatnagar and Reena Bhatnagar must pay Abhishek Bal $2,000.00

How much money was awarded in case 4799057?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799057?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10572519-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4799057?

The tribunal order states: Sanjeev Bhatnagar and Reena Bhatnagar must pay Abhishek Bal $2,000.00

How much money was awarded in case 4799057?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799057?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10572519-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1, 28 Lorikeet Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799057 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 th July 2024.

The landlord applied for rent arrears, water and power arrears, professional cleaning costs, advertisement costs and interests on expenses and rent arrears.

The tenant made a cross-application seeking for refund of the bond, compensation for the sink not working, initial cleaning fees, and refund of the filing fees for the Disputes Tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal.

Initially, the tenant applied to the Disputes Tribunal On 7 th October 2023, the Disputes Tribunal struck out the tenant’s application for lack of jurisdiction and noted that the application should be heard in the Tenancy Tribunal.

On 8 th March 2024, Tenancy Tribunal Adjudicator Steens confirmed that the tenancy fell under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal noting that the 4799057, 48202772 exception under section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) did not apply.

Accordingly, the substantive claims came before me to be heard. I deal with landlord’s application first. The tenancy agreement

The tenancy was for a self-contained downstairs area at 28 Lorikeet Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland.

The landlord occupied the upstairs area while the tenant occupied downstairs.

The landlord advertised the premises for rent via myrent.co.nz.

The parties signed a “House – Sharing Agreement” drafted by the landlord on 3 rd May 2023.

Notable terms are reproduced below: This agreement is between the Property Owners and the Occupants and not covered under the New Zealand Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and amendments made time to time.

This agreement starts on the 03/05/2023 and will continue on a weekly basis.

Occupant (has NZ Resident Visa) confirms to stay in the property for 1 year and wish to renew/extend the stay if accepted by owners [...] Agreed that occupants will vacate the premises on an early date if owners require the premises on 3 weeks’ notice.

Gas-cooking allowed outside on the attached deck only. The GAS bar- be-cue and on the stove provided for occupants. Due to carpeted rooms and central ventilation system in the house, strong flavour cooking not allowed inside the house.

Electricity: The electricity bill payment: Occupants will pay as per the units recorded in the check meter. Remaining balance electricity consumption (Units) amount of the bill paid by the owners. The fixed charges will be shared 50% as per the electricity bill.

Water: Occupants will share 40% of the water and wastewater bill. The property owners will pay remaining 60% amount of the bill.

The property owners have full/all rights to terminate this agreement on a short notice of 2 weeks and occupants must vacate the premises without any hesitation.

The owners holds and have all rights and decisions to make, as per T & C of this agreement, to safeguard their property and privacy and maintain good neighbourhood at all times and their decision will be final & binding and not challengeable by the tenants in any court of law. 4799057, 48202773

Breach of terms & conditions mentioned in this agreement, will result in immediate termination of the agreement and owners have full rights to fortify the security deposit money towards the costs of inconvenience and loss incurred to the owners due the early termination of the agreement. The said occupants must vacate the premises within 24 hours.

Occupants agree to pay 24% interest to owners on all types of outstanding dues, including rent until it is fully paid in up.

Occupant/s agreed that he/they hold the responsibility to get occupant and shared portion professionally cleaned and washed. All the rubbish removed, at the end of occupancy term.

Owners have right to do physical inspection of the occupant portion every month. Occupants on urgent basis must fix any damage or cleaning issues if asked by the owners to do.

Occupants will be liable for the full cost of damage that they or their guests cause or that results from an act or omission that constitute an impressionable (sic) offence.

Occupant/s agree that, will have appropriate full insurance cover for self/selves at all times to cover the loss incurred, withdrawal of services, etc.

In the event of any dispute, owners and occupant agree that only the Dispute Tribunal, Auckland will determine the dispute if arises. Occupant/s have read, understood and accepted the above-mentioned terms of stay in the property. Rent arrears and interest claims

The landlord contended that this was a fixed-term tenancy of one year from 3 rd May 2023 and that the tenant should be liable to pay for the rent for the remainder of the one year fixed-term.

The landlord sought $20,500.00 for rent, $2,870.00 for interests and $150.00 for advertisement for new tenants.

Fixed-term tenancy is defined in section 2 of the RTA. It states: fixed-term tenancy means a tenancy for a fixed term; but, except as provided in section 58(1) or 58A, does not include such a tenancy that is terminable by notice.

The landlord had included in clauses in 2, 24 and 27 that the landlord was able to terminate the tenancy by giving notice of 3 weeks, 2 weeks and 24 hours.

Clause 2 was meant to be the clause that made the agreement a “fixed-term tenancy” while at the same time noted that the tenancy was terminable with just 3 weeks’ notice. 4799057, 48202774

The landlord contended that the agreement should be held valid as both parties have signed the agreement. Section 11 of the RTA states that any agreement that is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA is of no effect unless it is something that is expressly permitted by the RTA or the Tribunal is satisfied that the inconsistency should be permitted.

Section 11 allows for the landlord to voluntarily waive all or any of the rights and powers conferred on the landlord but it does not allow the tenant to waive the tenant’s right or power under the RTA.

I find that the tenancy agreement purporting to lock in the tenant for one year while giving the landlord the power to terminate the tenancy with as little as 24- hours’ notice inconsistent with the RTA and declare that it was not a fixed-term tenancy.

Therefore, the landlord’s application for rent arrears and interests for the remainder of the “fixed-term” is dismissed.

The tenant gave the landlord 2.5 weeks’ notice to terminate the tenancy. This is in line with the landlord being able to give the tenant 2 weeks’ notice for termination. I cannot see how the landlord can ask for longer period under these circumstances.

The landlord’s application for re-listing fee is dismissed. Water and electricity claim

The landlord sought $168.68 and $554.41 for water and electricity costs.

The landlord had calculated the amounts using clauses 18 and 19 of the tenancy agreement.

Again, this calculation is inconsistent with the RTA.

Section 39 of the RTA states that the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.

In practical terms, it means that unless there is a separate meter to measure the tenant’s water and electricity usage, the tenant cannot be charged separately.

There was no separate meter to measure the tenant’s water or electricity usage.

Water and electricity can be included in an “all-inclusive rent” instead in those situations.

The calculations of 40% and 50% for water and electricity usage are not allowed under the RTA.

Therefore, the landlord’s claims for water and electricity costs are dismissed. 4799057, 48202775 Cleaning claim

The landlord sought $180.00 for exit cleaning.

The tenant said that the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy and provided a video footage as evidence.

The landlord did not have any invoice for the cleaning and just said that the carpet was left smelly.

The landlord cannot require for the tenant to get the premises professionally cleaned under normal circumstances. This is inconsistent with the RTA.

I do not find that the landlord has proven this claim to the required standard. Having seen the video footage, I find that the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy.

Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Unlawful tenancy agreement

I give the landlord the benefit of the doubt and believe that the landlord did not know that he had to sign a proper residential tenancy agreement with the tenant.

However, as this is a tenancy that falls under the RTA, the landlord must ensure that the landlord uses the correct residential tenancy agreement with the tenants in the future.

The landlord must ensure that any bond received is sent to the Bond Centre within the required timeframe.

The landlord must ensure that the rented space complies with the Healthy Homes Standards.

The landlord must ensure that he complies with everything required under the RTA. Tenant’s cross-application

Having dealt with the landlord’s application, now I consider the tenant’s cross- application.

As the landlord’s application was dismissed entirely, the bond must be refunded to the tenant.

I order the landlord to pay $2,000.00 as refund of the bond.

In relation to the sink not working, the tenant informed the landlord on 6 th May 2024 that the sink was blocked. The landlord provided the tenant with a plunger to unblock the drain. The tenant did not raise issues with the landlord again. 4799057, 48202776

In those circumstances, the landlord cannot be faulted for not fixing the kitchen sink. The tenant must inform the landlord of the issue so that it can be fixed if the problem was on-going. Therefore, I decline to award any costs for the sink issue.

The tenant said that the tenant had incurred $80.00 for the initial cleaning as the premises was not provided in a clean and tidy state at the beginning of the tenancy. However, the tenant did not come prepare with any photos to prove the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy or had evidence of paying $80.00 for cleaning.

This claim is dismissed.

In relation to refund of the filing fees to the Disputes Tribunal or the Tenancy Tribunal, although the landlord had stated that the Disputes Tribunal was the correct forum, the tenant should have checked before applying. The tenant should have sought legal advice regarding the correct forum before applying to the Disputes Tribunal.

In relation to the refund of the Tenancy Tribunal filing fee, I do not find that the tenant had been wholly or substantially successful in the tenant’s application. Therefore, I do not grant the refund of the filing fees for the tenant. Name suppression

Neither party was wholly or substantially successful in their applications. No orders for suppression of details are made in relation to this judgment.