What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971053?

The tribunal order states: Jaqueline Harvey and Thomas Arthur Harvey must pay Days Bay Estates

How much money was awarded in case 4971053?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971053?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11006336-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971053?

The tribunal order states: Jaqueline Harvey and Thomas Arthur Harvey must pay Days Bay Estates

How much money was awarded in case 4971053?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971053?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11006336-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Maire Street, Eastbourne, Lower Hutt 5013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971053 — Rent arrears

Order

Jaqueline Harvey and Thomas Arthur Harvey must pay Days Bay Estates Limited $3,282.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3178482-014) to Days Bay Estates Limited immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in February 2021 and ended on 16 August 2024. The parties can’t agree on the refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have applied for compensation because of maintenance and breaches to the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The tenants tried to raise new claims at the hearing but this was not allowed because the claims were not served on the landlord before the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 August 20924 by agreement. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The amount owed is agreed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacing three kitchen benches with stainless steel tops. The kitchen was very dated and had Formica benches when the tenants moved in. The tenants painted one of the benches and applied removable sticky tiles over the other two benches. The parties do not agree if permission was given for the changes. It seems most likely to me the landlord did not give permission for the changes.
With any claim for compensation I have to take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation I have to consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy, and their likely useful lifespan.
The yellow Formica looked original – probably from the 1970s or 1980s - and was already worn in places when the tenancy started. I find that replacing the Formica with stainless steel was a significant improvement and the tenants are not required to pay for that. This claim is dismissed.

Do the HHS apply to this tenancy?

There are claims for breaches to the HHS. I find this fixed term tenancy started in February 2021 and it was extended with one rent increase. It was not varied or renewed. It did not become periodic. This means the landlord has until 1 July 2025 to comply with the HHS. The HHS claims are dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA, which requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
I find the tenancy agreement did not contain a term that the landlord would be responsible for the gardens. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for the unsafe garage is not proved. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s photos and submissions. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for the shower is proved. The tenant notified the landlord about the shower not functioning properly in June 2023. The shower was smelly, slow to drain and squelched water up through the tiles laid over the top of the metal shower tray. One of the tenants slipped on the tiles and fell. The shower was eventually repaired on 9 August 2024 although the bathroom still had a hole in the wall and in the lino at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord agreed it had made a repair to the shower tray before these tenants moved in and that the tenants were correct in their reporting of the problem. The landlord said the shower could still be used so there was no loss.
I am more persuaded by the tenants’ evidence. The photos show an unsightly repair, and the shower looks old, unsanitary, and unsafe. Whether or not the tenants used the shower is irrelevant to the claim because they were paying rent for a proper shower, and I am persuaded they had less than that. I find there was a loss of amenity from June 2023 to the day they moved out, which is close to 61 weeks. I allow compensation in the amount of $50 a week. In deciding compensation I have considered the weekly rent, the landlord’s knowledge, the landlord’s lack of action, and the number of requests made by the tenants.

Did the landlord enter the house without notice?

The tenants have claimed compensation because the owner of the landlord company entered the premises without consent or notice. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenants said the owner came inside the house without knocking or giving notice four times during the last two years of the tenancy. The evidence about two of these was brief and vague. However, the evidence the owner came inside the house without consent on 23 February and on 9 August 2024 was credible.
The owner agreed he entered the house without notice or consent on 9 August. He said this happened because they needed to complete the repairs to the shower. He said he considered the notice given for the repairs for 5 – 7 August was ongoing until the job was complete. No one told the tenants about the need for a return visit. I find the landlord should have notified the tenants that the owner would be back in two days time.
The owner said he did not remember entering the house without consent in February when he went to fix the gate, but he said he was well aware of the requirement to get consent and would have knocked on the door rather than enter the foyer. The tenant said she clearly remembers coming downstairs and seeing the owner already inside. I am more persuaded by the tenant’s submission.
I find I should allow compensation for the loss of amenity and breach of quiet enjoyment in the amount of $135, which was the daily rent for those two days. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the landlord. The request for the refund of the bond has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties made applications for suppression. The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because the tenants are not the most successful party. I have used my discretion to publish the landlord’s name because there is public interest in names when landlords enter the tenancy premises unlawfully. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971053 — Rent arrears at 28 Maire Street, Eastbourne, Lower Hutt 5013

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971053 — Rent arrears at 28 Maire Street, Eastbourne, Lower Hutt 5013

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Do the HHS apply to this tenancy?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

Did the landlord enter the house without notice?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Do the HHS apply to this tenancy?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

Did the landlord enter the house without notice?

Property management