What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4839934?

The tribunal order states: Lynda Kay Mannix and Shaun Douglas Smith must pay Wongeoon Vast

How much money was awarded in case 4839934?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839934?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10399294-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4839934?

The tribunal order states: Lynda Kay Mannix and Shaun Douglas Smith must pay Wongeoon Vast

How much money was awarded in case 4839934?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839934?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839934?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10399294-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Althorp Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839934 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839934 — net $3,200.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/01/24	$5,100.00		Rent arrears to 28/01/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond already paid to landlord		$1,920.00	Bond already paid to landlord
Total award	$5,120.44	$1,920.00
Net award	$3,200.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,200.44

Order

Lynda Kay Mannix and Shaun Douglas Smith must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited as agent for Owner $3,200.44 immediately, being rent arrears to 28 January 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenant accepted that the rent was in arrears at the end of the tenancy in the amount of $5,100.00.
The bond was paid to the landlord in partial reduction of this debt.
The tenant gave evidence that she had offered to pay the balance at a rate of $50.00 per week but the landlord had responded by filing his application with the Tribunal.
The landlord gave evidence that he had signed a hardship form for the tenant to enable then to obtain funds from their Kiwi Saver account to pay the overdue rent. The arrears had not been paid.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant claimed in their application that they should be entitled to compensation as the landlord had failed to maintain the property. Specific reference was made to: a) bathroom repairs not having been completed in that the skirting remained unpainted; and b) the garage door having take six months to be repaired; and c) the replacement oven not being in proper working order.
The amount claimed by the tenant for compensation was $3,350.00 which is the equivalent to the landlord’s claim for outstanding rent arrears.
The tenant said that she had offered to pay the rent arrears off at $50.00 per week and had received no response from the landlord except the notice that the landlord had applied to the Tribunal. The tenant said she then decided to put her own claim in to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal had made previous orders (under numbers 4345688 and 4345679) in relation to this tenancy. This initially required work to be done by the landlord on various items at the property by a certain date. The second order awarded a monetary payment to the tenant as the required repairs had not been completed on time.
The landlord paid $4,250.00 in total to the tenant under that order and the tenant was given rent relief in the sum of $50.00 per week until the repairs were completed.
The tenant gave evidence that they had returned to the set rent even though they did not consider that the bathroom repairs had been fully completed.
The tenant has already been paid compensation for the delay in the repairs addressed by the above orders.
Evidence was provided by both parties in relation to the bathroom skirting.
The landlord said that he had arranged a painter to paint the bathroom, but the painter had got there to find the tenants already painting it. The painter provided a letter to confirm this.
The tenants had painted the bathroom themselves and asked the landlord to pay the account rendered for this work ($1,081.00). The landlord agreed but requested that they complete no further work themselves. The invoice included preparing and painting of the skirting boards.
Understandably, the landlord thought that the skirting boards had been painted as he had received and paid an invoice for that.
The tenant said that the skirting had been replaced later and the replacement skirting had never been painted. It was installed pre-primed so did not appear “raw”.
I consider that this failure to paint the skirting was minor and seemed to be due to misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than any intended breach on the part of the landlord. There is no loss to the tenant, so compensation is neither required nor appropriate.
The tenant reported a problem with the vehicle entry door to the garage. The problem was reported in July 2023, but the landlord was unable to gain access to the garage to attempt a repair himself due to the tenant’s vintage car being in the way.
The landlord sent a repairer to look at the problem in August 2023 and paid the account being, $120.75. The landlord thought the issue was resolved.
The tenant mentioned the door again and the landlord queried the account that had been paid. It became apparent that the repair person had billed a call out fee as they were unable to gain access due to the car still being in the way.
The tenant gave evidence that the car was moved in September and the garage door was not fixed until December.
The landlord provided evidence to show that he had contacted the repairer immediately on receiving notice that the car had been removed. The repairer did not attend in a timely way. The landlord asked another repairer to look at the door, but this repairer got covid and was unable to attend. The third repairer did attend to the repairs in December.
The initial delay, and unnecessary cost borne by the landlord, was due to the tenant’s car being in the garage. The later delays were caused by the repair people not being able or willing to complete the work.
The landlord immediately tried to arrange repair when he knew the car had been moved so I cannot find any intention to delay this repair on his part.
The door was still able to be opened and was opened to remove the car so there is limited inconvenience to the tenant.
I do not consider that any compensation can or should be paid in relation to the delay. If the tenant’s car had been removed so that the repairs could take place, then the repair would have been done in August when the initial repairer attended the property.
Under the initial order referred to above, the landlord had replaced the oven in the property in around January 2023. The tenant reported problems with the new oven in December 2023 and thought it should have been fixed before the tenancy ended in January 2024.
The landlord provided evidence that he had notified his contractor within a few days of receiving this information. The contractor told him that the oven was still under warranty and that he had made contact with the supplier.
The landlord gave further evidence that when he was showing a prospective tenant through the property, the oven was on, and food was being cooked in it.
The oven has not been repaired and the landlord provided information from the current tenant to say the oven works well.
There is no evidence to confirm that there was anything wrong with the oven and the evidence supplied suggests there was not. Further, the landlord immediately arranged for the matter to be investigated so there was no unnecessary delay in arranging repairs if any had been required.
No compensation can or should be awarded in these circumstances.
At the hearing the tenant raised the issue of a retaliatory rent increase notice. This matter had been to mediation, but that application was withdrawn by the tenant.
The tenant said that she received the Tribunal order referred to above and six minutes later, received a rent increase notice from the landlord.
The landlord provided evidence to show that the rent increase notice, in the company’s standard format, was sent at 5.22pm on 27 May 2023. The order was sent to the tenant at 5.35pm on the same date. The landlord had not received the order when the rent increase notice was sent and did not know what it contained. Th landlord did not see the order until the tenant forwarded it to him.
The landlord had provided this information to the tenant and thought this was why the retaliatory notice application had been withdrawn from mediation.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s rent increase notice was retaliatory.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839934 — net $3,200.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/01/24	$5,100.00		Rent arrears to 28/01/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond already paid to landlord		$1,920.00	Bond already paid to landlord
Total award	$5,120.44	$1,920.00
Net award	$3,200.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,200.44

Order

Lynda Kay Mannix and Shaun Douglas Smith must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited as agent for Owner $3,200.44 immediately, being rent arrears to 28 January 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenant accepted that the rent was in arrears at the end of the tenancy in the amount of $5,100.00.
The bond was paid to the landlord in partial reduction of this debt.
The tenant gave evidence that she had offered to pay the balance at a rate of $50.00 per week but the landlord had responded by filing his application with the Tribunal.
The landlord gave evidence that he had signed a hardship form for the tenant to enable then to obtain funds from their Kiwi Saver account to pay the overdue rent. The arrears had not been paid.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant claimed in their application that they should be entitled to compensation as the landlord had failed to maintain the property. Specific reference was made to: a) bathroom repairs not having been completed in that the skirting remained unpainted; and b) the garage door having take six months to be repaired; and c) the replacement oven not being in proper working order.
The amount claimed by the tenant for compensation was $3,350.00 which is the equivalent to the landlord’s claim for outstanding rent arrears.
The tenant said that she had offered to pay the rent arrears off at $50.00 per week and had received no response from the landlord except the notice that the landlord had applied to the Tribunal. The tenant said she then decided to put her own claim in to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal had made previous orders (under numbers 4345688 and 4345679) in relation to this tenancy. This initially required work to be done by the landlord on various items at the property by a certain date. The second order awarded a monetary payment to the tenant as the required repairs had not been completed on time.
The landlord paid $4,250.00 in total to the tenant under that order and the tenant was given rent relief in the sum of $50.00 per week until the repairs were completed.
The tenant gave evidence that they had returned to the set rent even though they did not consider that the bathroom repairs had been fully completed.
The tenant has already been paid compensation for the delay in the repairs addressed by the above orders.
Evidence was provided by both parties in relation to the bathroom skirting.
The landlord said that he had arranged a painter to paint the bathroom, but the painter had got there to find the tenants already painting it. The painter provided a letter to confirm this.
The tenants had painted the bathroom themselves and asked the landlord to pay the account rendered for this work ($1,081.00). The landlord agreed but requested that they complete no further work themselves. The invoice included preparing and painting of the skirting boards.
Understandably, the landlord thought that the skirting boards had been painted as he had received and paid an invoice for that.
The tenant said that the skirting had been replaced later and the replacement skirting had never been painted. It was installed pre-primed so did not appear “raw”.
I consider that this failure to paint the skirting was minor and seemed to be due to misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than any intended breach on the part of the landlord. There is no loss to the tenant, so compensation is neither required nor appropriate.
The tenant reported a problem with the vehicle entry door to the garage. The problem was reported in July 2023, but the landlord was unable to gain access to the garage to attempt a repair himself due to the tenant’s vintage car being in the way.
The landlord sent a repairer to look at the problem in August 2023 and paid the account being, $120.75. The landlord thought the issue was resolved.
The tenant mentioned the door again and the landlord queried the account that had been paid. It became apparent that the repair person had billed a call out fee as they were unable to gain access due to the car still being in the way.
The tenant gave evidence that the car was moved in September and the garage door was not fixed until December.
The landlord provided evidence to show that he had contacted the repairer immediately on receiving notice that the car had been removed. The repairer did not attend in a timely way. The landlord asked another repairer to look at the door, but this repairer got covid and was unable to attend. The third repairer did attend to the repairs in December.
The initial delay, and unnecessary cost borne by the landlord, was due to the tenant’s car being in the garage. The later delays were caused by the repair people not being able or willing to complete the work.
The landlord immediately tried to arrange repair when he knew the car had been moved so I cannot find any intention to delay this repair on his part.
The door was still able to be opened and was opened to remove the car so there is limited inconvenience to the tenant.
I do not consider that any compensation can or should be paid in relation to the delay. If the tenant’s car had been removed so that the repairs could take place, then the repair would have been done in August when the initial repairer attended the property.
Under the initial order referred to above, the landlord had replaced the oven in the property in around January 2023. The tenant reported problems with the new oven in December 2023 and thought it should have been fixed before the tenancy ended in January 2024.
The landlord provided evidence that he had notified his contractor within a few days of receiving this information. The contractor told him that the oven was still under warranty and that he had made contact with the supplier.
The landlord gave further evidence that when he was showing a prospective tenant through the property, the oven was on, and food was being cooked in it.
The oven has not been repaired and the landlord provided information from the current tenant to say the oven works well.
There is no evidence to confirm that there was anything wrong with the oven and the evidence supplied suggests there was not. Further, the landlord immediately arranged for the matter to be investigated so there was no unnecessary delay in arranging repairs if any had been required.
No compensation can or should be awarded in these circumstances.
At the hearing the tenant raised the issue of a retaliatory rent increase notice. This matter had been to mediation, but that application was withdrawn by the tenant.
The tenant said that she received the Tribunal order referred to above and six minutes later, received a rent increase notice from the landlord.
The landlord provided evidence to show that the rent increase notice, in the company’s standard format, was sent at 5.22pm on 27 May 2023. The order was sent to the tenant at 5.35pm on the same date. The landlord had not received the order when the rent increase notice was sent and did not know what it contained. Th landlord did not see the order until the tenant forwarded it to him.
The landlord had provided this information to the tenant and thought this was why the retaliatory notice application had been withdrawn from mediation.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s rent increase notice was retaliatory.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839934 — Rent arrears at 6 Althorp Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839934 — Rent arrears at 6 Althorp Place, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

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