What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4840501?

The tribunal order states: Xiaohe (Hollis) Yang must pay Nicholas James Kench $1,070.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4840501?

Compensation: Failure to complete wo…: $1,050.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840501?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10295715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4840501?

The tribunal order states: Xiaohe (Hollis) Yang must pay Nicholas James Kench $1,070.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4840501?

Compensation: Failure to complete wo…: $1,050.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840501?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840501?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10295715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12A Danube Lane, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4840501 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840501 — net $1,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to complete work order	$1,050.00	Failure to complete work order
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,070.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,070.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Stephen Logan.

The tenant has applied for a work order, compensation, exemplary damages and that the notice given by the landlord was retaliatory.

The Tribunal made an order on 31 October 2023 1 which included a work order. A further order was made on 7 February 2024 which amends the earlier order including replacing the file number 4376261 with 4404540.

At paragraph 7 of the order dated 31 October 2023 the work required to be carried out by the landlord is listed. The order states that the work must be commenced by 15 January 2024 and completed within a reasonable time.

At paragraph 8 the order states that if the landlord fails to comply with orders 5- 7 leave is granted for the matter to return to the Tribunal where consideration will be given to making orders for compensation and exemplary damages as an alternative to the work orders directed.

The tenant states that the landlord has not completed all the work specified in the work order. He also considers that some of the work carried out by the landlord has been to an inferior standard.

The landlord acknowledged that some of the work has not been completed or needs further work such as repair of the ranchslider. Also, the landlord agreed that the front steps had not been replaced as required under 7(g) of the order. Instead, the landlord said that he repaired the stairs.

The landlord needs to comply with the order made by the Tribunal. It is not appropriate for me to change an order made by another Adjudicator. The landlord therefore needs to comply with the order as it was made.

Due to the landlord’s failure to comply with the earlier order I make an order for compensation to the tenant for the inconvenience caused by that failure. I have calculated the compensation to be three weeks of the current rent payable (reduced to $350.00) amounting to $1,050.00.

The tenant’s claim for compensation concerns work that the tenant has carried out including house painting and fence work. No evidence was submitted showing that there was agreement between the parties for the tenant to carry out work for payment. That claim is dismissed.

The tenant claims exemplary damages for stress caused by the landlord not complying with the earlier Tribunal order. I have taken account of this when I considered the amount of compensation that I have ordered.

Finally, the tenant seeks an order that the notice given by the landlord is retaliatory and therefore has no effect. Section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, section 66U), the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that 1 TT4382260/4376261 the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.

On 19 March 2024 the landlord gave notice to the tenant to terminate the periodic tenancy and that the last day of the tenancy would be 17 June 2024 (90 days later). The reason given in the notice for terminating the tenancy was because the landlord intended to put the premises on the market for sale 2 . The notice complies with section 51(3) of the Act.

The tenant had stated that service of the notice did not comply however I am satisfied that the notice was brought to the attention of the tenant even though it was not handed to him. The landlord left the notice on the table in the premises when he was attending to hang curtains. He also advised either the tenant or his agent, or both, that the notice was on the table. I do not consider that the notice is of no effect due to service.

The tenant has exercised his remedy by applying to the Tribunal. The Tribunal made an order on 31 October 2023. At the hearing the tenant seemed to consider that the landlord gave notice due to the stress of the Tribunal proceedings. Alternatively, he thought the landlord was upset about issues to do with work carried out on the fence. The tenant does not believe that the landlord will sell the premises.

The tenant had served the landlord with a 14-day notice on 27 February 2024. That notice related to the landlord’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s order. The tenant said that he recorded the landlord saying that he wanted the tenant to stay in the premises. He thinks that the landlord has changed his mind to be vindictive.

The landlord says that he and his wife have decided to sell the premises due to financial pressures. The landlord provided evidence to show that the fixed rate of the mortgage over the property is due to end in August 2024. Due to the current interest rates, it is possible that the interest rate will at least double at that stage.

While the notice to end the tenancy has come during a time where there has been considerable conflict between the parties, I am not satisfied that the landlord was motivated either wholly or partly by the exercise of the tenant’s remedy (being his application to the Tribunal). If he had been then I would expect that the landlord would have given notice around the time of the earlier hearing or after the Tribunal order made on 31 October 2023. Also, the landlord has completed most of the work required to comply with the Tribunal order likely 2 Section 51(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to be at a considerable cost. He did not give notice before carrying out the work.

For these reasons I do not consider that the notice given by the landlord was retaliatory. Therefore, the tenancy will end in accordance with the notice given on 17 June 2024. I acknowledge that this has been a lengthy tenancy, but the landlord is entitled to sell the premises if that is what he wishes to do. As that is the reason given by the landlord for giving notice, he must put the house on the market within 90 days of termination as provided for in the Act 3 .

Because Nicholas James Kench has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840501 — net $1,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to complete work order	$1,050.00	Failure to complete work order
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,070.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,070.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Stephen Logan.

The tenant has applied for a work order, compensation, exemplary damages and that the notice given by the landlord was retaliatory.

The tenant states that the landlord has not completed all the work specified in the work order. He also considers that some of the work carried out by the landlord has been to an inferior standard.

Because Nicholas James Kench has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840501 — Tenancy dispute at 12A Danube Lane, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840501 — Tenancy dispute at 12A Danube Lane, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions