What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984329?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4984329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11133287-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984329?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4984329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11133287-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Sunvista Avenue, Oteha, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4984329 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s cross-application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Porter was represented by Ms Faa’atau, a support worker from Te Puna Hauora. Ms Hu And Ms Han appeared as the landlord’s agents. Background:
The premises are currently occupied by Ms Porter, and her children.
From 27 April 2024 to 23 September 2024, the premises were occupied by Ms Porter and her children, and a flatmate, Mr Garcia. A tenancy agreement was signed by the landlord and tenants, with both Ms Porter and Mr Garcia named as tenants. The tenancy agreement commenced 27 April 2024.
In late August, following some issues between the flatmates, Mr Garcia gave the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy agreement. The landlord agreed to Ms Porter remaining as a tenant and a new tenancy agreement with only Ms Porter named as tenant was signed. The new tenancy agreement commenced 24 September 2024 and remains in place. Tenant’s application:
On 23 September 2024, the tenant made an application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking the following orders: a. Work orders: i. To fix a faulty gate; and ii. To fix the bathroom fan which was noisy. b. Exemplary damages for: i. Failing to provide a signed tenancy agreement; ii. The landlord permitting, or failing to stop, the tenant (Mr Garcia) using the premises for an unlawful purpose (drug use); iii. The landlord permitting, or failing to stop, a tenant (Mr Garcia) harassing another tenant; iv. The landlord failing to ensure the number of residents did not exceed the maximum.
At the hearing, the tenant’s representative stated the gate had been fixed, but a work order in relation to the bathroom fan was sought.
The tenant’s representative stated exemplary damages were not sought in relation to the other issues, however the tenant was concerned for her safety in the house and sought compensation for the cost of changing the locks.
The tenant also asked that the Tribunal make an order that Mr Garcia return the keys to the premises as the tenant was concerned for her and her children’s safety.
The question of jurisdiction arises as the Tribunal can only deal with disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises. Landlord’s cross-application:
On 17 October 2024, the landlord made a cross-application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking the following orders: a. Termination: i. For breach of the tenancy agreement (failure to pay rent); b. Rent arrears.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed the rent arrears had been paid and, on that basis, the landlord no longer sought termination.
I dismiss the landlord’s application for termination and rent arrears. Jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim:
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes. There are some exclusions, listed in s5 of the Act.
A tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means: the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent...
A landlord, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 1
A tenant, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 2
Section 77 of the RTA provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine (in accordance with the RTA) any dispute that: (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
The legislation is clear that the Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes between a landlord and tenant(s). There is no jurisdiction to consider disputes between tenants or flatmates. Analysis in relation to tenant’s claim:
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to determine the tenant’s claim(s) related to the conduct of her flatmate, Mr Garcia.
The tenant’s representative referred me to s40 of the RTA as the basis for Ms Porter’s claim. Section 40 sets out the tenant(s) responsibilities to the landlord. Section 40 does not create an obligation on the landlord to remedy disputes between tenants, as the tenant claims.
The agreement in place prior to 12 August 2024 (when Ms Porter raised Mr Garcia’s conduct with the property manager) was between Ms Porter and Mr Garcia, as tenants, and the landlord. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute between tenants.
In relation to the tenant’s concerns regarding keys, during the hearing the landlord’s agents confirmed Mr Garcia returned the key and garage remote to 1 s.2 RTA definition of “landlord”. 2 s.2 RTA definition of “tenant”. the property on or around 25 September 2024. Ms Faa’atau was not able to advance the tenant’s claims regarding the cost of changing locks. Ms Faa’atau did not provide evidence of which locks were changed, why the locks needed to be changed, any communication with the landlords requesting a change of locks, nor details of when the locks were changed or the cost actually incurred.
I make no orders in relation to the return of keys or compensation for changing the locks. Remaining claim by tenant:
At the hearing, Ms Faa’atau stated Ms Porter had complained to the property managers about the fan in the ensuite bathroom making a loud noise. Ms Faa’atau sought a work order to have the bathroom fan fixed.
With her application, Ms Porter filed a copy of an email sent on 2 September 2024 asking Ms Hu to send someone to the house to come take a look at it. Ms Faa’atau stated Ms Porter’s instructions were that no one has come to inspect the fan, and it is not working.
For the landlord, Ms Han stated that when Ms Porter reported the issue, the property manager asked Ms Porter to take a video of the fan to demonstrate the noise it made. They say Ms Porter did not do that. Ms Han stated that on 24 September 2024 she went to the property for an inspection and checked the fan herself. She said she turned it on and it appeared to be working and was not making a noise. Ms Han says on 30 September 2024, a handyman was sent to the premises to fix the gate.
I am not satisfied the tenant has proven the bathroom fan is not working. The landlord’s agents stated during the hearing that if the bathroom fan is not functioning properly, the tenant should take a video and email or text it to the property managers.
I dismiss the application for a work order in relation to the bathroom fan. Filing fee:
The landlord sought reimbursement of the filing fee paid for the cross- application.
Given I have dismissed both parties’ claims, each party is responsible for their own filing fee and I dismiss the application for reimbursement made by the landlord.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s cross-application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Porter was represented by Ms Faa’atau, a support worker from Te Puna Hauora. Ms Hu And Ms Han appeared as the landlord’s agents. Background:
The premises are currently occupied by Ms Porter, and her children.
From 27 April 2024 to 23 September 2024, the premises were occupied by Ms Porter and her children, and a flatmate, Mr Garcia. A tenancy agreement was signed by the landlord and tenants, with both Ms Porter and Mr Garcia named as tenants. The tenancy agreement commenced 27 April 2024.
In late August, following some issues between the flatmates, Mr Garcia gave the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy agreement. The landlord agreed to Ms Porter remaining as a tenant and a new tenancy agreement with only Ms Porter named as tenant was signed. The new tenancy agreement commenced 24 September 2024 and remains in place. Tenant’s application:
On 23 September 2024, the tenant made an application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking the following orders: a. Work orders: i. To fix a faulty gate; and ii. To fix the bathroom fan which was noisy. b. Exemplary damages for: i. Failing to provide a signed tenancy agreement; ii. The landlord permitting, or failing to stop, the tenant (Mr Garcia) using the premises for an unlawful purpose (drug use); iii. The landlord permitting, or failing to stop, a tenant (Mr Garcia) harassing another tenant; iv. The landlord failing to ensure the number of residents did not exceed the maximum.
At the hearing, the tenant’s representative stated the gate had been fixed, but a work order in relation to the bathroom fan was sought.
The tenant’s representative stated exemplary damages were not sought in relation to the other issues, however the tenant was concerned for her safety in the house and sought compensation for the cost of changing the locks.
The tenant also asked that the Tribunal make an order that Mr Garcia return the keys to the premises as the tenant was concerned for her and her children’s safety.
The question of jurisdiction arises as the Tribunal can only deal with disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises. Landlord’s cross-application:
On 17 October 2024, the landlord made a cross-application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking the following orders: a. Termination: i. For breach of the tenancy agreement (failure to pay rent); b. Rent arrears.
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed the rent arrears had been paid and, on that basis, the landlord no longer sought termination.
I dismiss the landlord’s application for termination and rent arrears. Jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim:
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes. There are some exclusions, listed in s5 of the Act.
A tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means: the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent...
A landlord, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 1
A tenant, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 2
Section 77 of the RTA provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine (in accordance with the RTA) any dispute that: (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
The legislation is clear that the Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes between a landlord and tenant(s). There is no jurisdiction to consider disputes between tenants or flatmates. Analysis in relation to tenant’s claim:
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to determine the tenant’s claim(s) related to the conduct of her flatmate, Mr Garcia.
The tenant’s representative referred me to s40 of the RTA as the basis for Ms Porter’s claim. Section 40 sets out the tenant(s) responsibilities to the landlord. Section 40 does not create an obligation on the landlord to remedy disputes between tenants, as the tenant claims.
The agreement in place prior to 12 August 2024 (when Ms Porter raised Mr Garcia’s conduct with the property manager) was between Ms Porter and Mr Garcia, as tenants, and the landlord. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute between tenants.
In relation to the tenant’s concerns regarding keys, during the hearing the landlord’s agents confirmed Mr Garcia returned the key and garage remote to 1 s.2 RTA definition of “landlord”. 2 s.2 RTA definition of “tenant”. the property on or around 25 September 2024. Ms Faa’atau was not able to advance the tenant’s claims regarding the cost of changing locks. Ms Faa’atau did not provide evidence of which locks were changed, why the locks needed to be changed, any communication with the landlords requesting a change of locks, nor details of when the locks were changed or the cost actually incurred.
I make no orders in relation to the return of keys or compensation for changing the locks. Remaining claim by tenant:
At the hearing, Ms Faa’atau stated Ms Porter had complained to the property managers about the fan in the ensuite bathroom making a loud noise. Ms Faa’atau sought a work order to have the bathroom fan fixed.
With her application, Ms Porter filed a copy of an email sent on 2 September 2024 asking Ms Hu to send someone to the house to come take a look at it. Ms Faa’atau stated Ms Porter’s instructions were that no one has come to inspect the fan, and it is not working.
For the landlord, Ms Han stated that when Ms Porter reported the issue, the property manager asked Ms Porter to take a video of the fan to demonstrate the noise it made. They say Ms Porter did not do that. Ms Han stated that on 24 September 2024 she went to the property for an inspection and checked the fan herself. She said she turned it on and it appeared to be working and was not making a noise. Ms Han says on 30 September 2024, a handyman was sent to the premises to fix the gate.
I am not satisfied the tenant has proven the bathroom fan is not working. The landlord’s agents stated during the hearing that if the bathroom fan is not functioning properly, the tenant should take a video and email or text it to the property managers.
I dismiss the application for a work order in relation to the bathroom fan. Filing fee:
The landlord sought reimbursement of the filing fee paid for the cross- application.
Given I have dismissed both parties’ claims, each party is responsible for their own filing fee and I dismiss the application for reimbursement made by the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984329 — Rent arrears at 5 Sunvista Avenue, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984329 — Rent arrears at 5 Sunvista Avenue, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions