What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872901?

The tribunal order states: This tenancy between the named landlord and the tenant began on 1 March

How much money was awarded in case 4872901?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872901?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10765694-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872901?

The tribunal order states: This tenancy between the named landlord and the tenant began on 1 March

How much money was awarded in case 4872901?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872901?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10765694-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 5, 12 Innes Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872901 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

This tenancy between the named landlord and the tenant began on 1 March 2024 and ended on 18 May 2024.

The $341.43 rent arrears owed by the tenant is waived and the tenant has no further liability to the landlord for rent in relation to this tenancy.

The tenant’s claims against the landlord are dismissed, to the extent that they have not already been dismissed.

The tenant’s rehearing application in relation to the Tribunal’s order made on 31 May 2024 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dempsey and Mr Whitehouse represented the landlord.

I made an order on the tenant’s first application, 4872901, on 31 May which dismissed the tenant’s claims in relation to the landlord’s maintenance obligations. The tenant’s claims in relation to insulation in the premises were adjourned.

The tenant has made a second application, 4887725, which makes similar claims to those made in his first application albeit broader in scope. It also repeats claims that have already been dismissed.

The tenant has also made a rehearing application based on his assertion that the landlords owed the premises before 1 March 2024, and that they were therefore his landlord prior to that time.

The tenant has alleged that the landlord has misled the Tribunal regarding their ownership of the boarding house building which the tenant occupied. I make no finding about that because the issue is not when they became the owners of the building, it is when they became the landlord.

The documents make it perfectly clear that the tenant’s landlord until March 2024 was Three B’s Incorporated Limited. They were named on the original tenancy agreement. The tenant received notice of change of landlord to the landlord named in these applications in February 2024. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they were not involved in the management of the boarding house before March 2024. Their interest was as owner of the building.

The landlord produced a rent statement that went back before March 2024 and the tenant relied on that as evidence that they were the landlord before March 2024. The landlord explained that they used the same software as the previous landlord. I accept that, and in any case the issue is determined by the documents, not by the software that was used. The tenant was unaware of ownership or the software until recently.

I have therefore made a declaration that the term of this tenancy was from 1 March 2024 until 18 May 2024 when the tenant left following a termination notice from the landlord.

It follows that the tenant’s rehearing application must also be dismissed.

As to insulation, there is not doubt that the insulation in the roof space was insufficient. There was insulation there, but it was not sufficiently thick. There was no insulation below the floor, and I accept that none was required because it was not reasonably practicable to install it there.

There was no exemption for demolition of the premises. The landlords intended demolishing them, but they have run into consenting difficulties. I accept that the landlords are house builders, not professional landlords. They allowed Three B’s to operate the building as a boarding house and received rent from them.

There is no dispute that the tenant owes $341.43 rent arrears.

The remaining issue is whether there should be an order against the landlords for the breach of the insulation requirements.

The following factors are relevant; - • The short duration of the tenancy. • There was insulation in the roof and the effect of its inadequacy on the tenant would be marginal. • The landlords were not aware of the inadequacy of the insulation until after they took over. Although this point is offset to some extent by the fact that they were the owners of the building prior. • The landlords took reasonable steps to top up the insulation when they became aware of the deficiency.

If I were to award compensation, it would be a modest amount. The tenant’s claims concerning the conditions in the premises were not established by the evidence and in my view, they were grossly exaggerated.

If I were minded to award exemplary damages the amount would be nominal.

I have decided to resolve this according to the substantial merits and justice of the case (applying s85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986) and so I have waived the rent due from the tenant. To the extent that his remaining claims have not already been dismissed, they are dismissed by this order.

I make no award of the filing fees.

Order