What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5016388?

The tribunal order states: Maralyn June Stephens to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Kerry & Helen

How much money was awarded in case 5016388?

Costs To Find A New Tenant: $311.14 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.38 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,157.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11116629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5016388?

The tribunal order states: Maralyn June Stephens to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Kerry & Helen

How much money was awarded in case 5016388?

Costs To Find A New Tenant: $311.14 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.38 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,157.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11116629-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

56 Wycola Avenue, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5016388 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016388 — net $1,946.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,157.14	Rent arrears
Repairs	$451.38	Repairs
costs to find a new tenant	$311.14	costs to find a new tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,946.66
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,946.66

Order

Maralyn June Stephens to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Kerry & Helen Beveridge $1,946.66 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (5205831-012) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Kerry & Helen Beveridge: $1,946.66 Maralyn June Stephens: $213.34
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Edwards and Ms Nicholls represented the landlord.
The tenant, Ms Stephens, had a fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 21 December 2023 and ending on 22 January 2025. Ms Stephens moved out of the premises on 7 August 2024, and she filed her application on 22 August claiming refund of the bond, reduction of the term of the tenancy to 7 August, and compensation for failure by the landlord to provide the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and failure to maintain and repair the premises in a timely manner.
The landlord cross applied for rent until a new tenant was found on 22 August 2024, costs to find the new tenant, and costs to repair the walls at the premises. Ms Stephens accepts the claim to repair the walls but disputes the other claims. Reduction of the term of the tenancy, the claim for rent and costs to find another tenant
Ms Stephens asked to be released from the tenancy early because of health concerns and because her mother did not move into the premises with her (and presumably share rent costs) as was expected when she agreed to the tenancy. She said that she was offered and accepted a tenancy with Kāinga Ora which she said was cheaper and warmer.
Pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy where the applicant (here Ms Stephens) proves that: (i) there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances after the tenancy commenced; (ii) that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship if the tenancy is not ended; and (iii) the severe hardship the applicants would suffer if the term were not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
Where the Tribunal does reduce the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may, pursuant to section 66(2), order Ms Stephens to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for their loss.
The landlord agreed to Ms Stephens’ request to be released from the tenancy on the condition that she pay the costs to find a new tenant and continue to pay rent until a new tenant was found. Ms Stephens agreed and signed the agreement recording these terms.
The claim to be released from the fixed term tenancy from the date she vacated (7 August) is dismissed. Ms Stephens is bound by the agreement she made with the landlord and there is no evidence to support that that agreement should be set aside. Moreover, even if the Tribunal did set aside the agreement and find that Ms Stephens has established the criteria in section 66(1) of the Act for reducing the term of the tenancy, it is likely that the compensation ordered to be payable to the landlord for their loss (pursuant to section 66(2)) would be the costs incurred as claim, including rent until the new tenant was found on 22 August.
Ms Stephens’ failure to establish the grounds to reduce the term of the tenancy to 7 August means that she is liable for rent up until the new tenant was found. The amount of rent owing has been established by the production of a rent record.
The landlord is also entitled to the costs incurred to find the new tenant as agreed to by Ms Stephens. The tenant’s compensation claims
Section 45(1)(a) of the Act requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 45(1)(b) provides that the landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Any necessary repairs must be completed within a reasonable timeframe after the landlord becomes aware of the need for the repair.
Ms Stephens claims that the landlord is in breach of these obligations by not providing the premises in a reasonably clean condition, not removing all rubbish or trimming trees. She claims compensation for her time to complete the work herself.
Even if it were established that the landlord was in breach of the obligation in section 45(1)(a) of the Act, I do not consider that an award of compensation is appropriate here.
Ms Stephens did not dispute that she wanted to move into the premises quickly just before Christmas (21 December) and before the cleaning and rubbish removal work was completed. She also did not dispute that she was made aware that a cleaner would be coming to complete the work. A work order was issued for the cleaning work on 21 December and it appears the cleaner came soon after. However, Ms Stephens said that she could not wait because of the particular needs of her autistic son so she started the cleaning and rubbish removal work as soon as she moved in.
Similarly, I do not consider that compensation ought to be payable for Ms Stephens time to trim trees. Ms Stephens wanted the branches to be trimmed to prevent her son from climbing the trees and the landlord agreed to have the work done when the landlord returned from holiday. However, again Ms Stephens did not want to wait because of her concerns regarding her son’s safety so she completed the work (or some of it) herself.
Ms Stephens also claims that the landlord is in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition with respect to: a hole in the garage floor; wiring in the living room; and the front porch light.
The claim for compensation under this head is also dismissed. The hole in the garage floor is not a maintenance or repair issue. Rather it is a ‘mechanic’s pit’ and part of the structure of the garage. I accept that the pit had accumulated some rubbish, but the landlord acted within a reasonable time to have the rubbish removed after becoming aware of the issue.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the wires inside a cabinet in the lounge are a television aerial or cable rather than electrical wires, and the other wire complained of by Ms Stephen’s is an old phone wire that has been cut off close to the wall near the floor. I do not consider that these wires require removal to comply with the obligation in section 45(1)(b) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
After Ms Stephens advised the landlord that the porch light did not work, the landlord arranged for an electrician to investigate the cause. The electrician found that there was no cabling to the porch light but notes that there are other lights outside the porch that do work. Given there is other lighting in the area, I do not consider it reasonable to require the landlord to run cabling to the porch light, given the likely considerable cost to do so. The Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been successful in its claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. The bond
The amounts ordered are to be paid out of the bond with the remaining bond paid to Ms Stephens.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016388 — net $1,946.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,157.14	Rent arrears
Repairs	$451.38	Repairs
costs to find a new tenant	$311.14	costs to find a new tenant
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,946.66
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,946.66

Order

Maralyn June Stephens to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and Kerry & Helen Beveridge $1,946.66 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (5205831-012) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Kerry & Helen Beveridge: $1,946.66 Maralyn June Stephens: $213.34
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Edwards and Ms Nicholls represented the landlord.
The tenant, Ms Stephens, had a fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 21 December 2023 and ending on 22 January 2025. Ms Stephens moved out of the premises on 7 August 2024, and she filed her application on 22 August claiming refund of the bond, reduction of the term of the tenancy to 7 August, and compensation for failure by the landlord to provide the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and failure to maintain and repair the premises in a timely manner.
The landlord cross applied for rent until a new tenant was found on 22 August 2024, costs to find the new tenant, and costs to repair the walls at the premises. Ms Stephens accepts the claim to repair the walls but disputes the other claims. Reduction of the term of the tenancy, the claim for rent and costs to find another tenant
Ms Stephens asked to be released from the tenancy early because of health concerns and because her mother did not move into the premises with her (and presumably share rent costs) as was expected when she agreed to the tenancy. She said that she was offered and accepted a tenancy with Kāinga Ora which she said was cheaper and warmer.
Pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy where the applicant (here Ms Stephens) proves that: (i) there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances after the tenancy commenced; (ii) that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship if the tenancy is not ended; and (iii) the severe hardship the applicants would suffer if the term were not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
Where the Tribunal does reduce the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may, pursuant to section 66(2), order Ms Stephens to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for their loss.
The landlord agreed to Ms Stephens’ request to be released from the tenancy on the condition that she pay the costs to find a new tenant and continue to pay rent until a new tenant was found. Ms Stephens agreed and signed the agreement recording these terms.
The claim to be released from the fixed term tenancy from the date she vacated (7 August) is dismissed. Ms Stephens is bound by the agreement she made with the landlord and there is no evidence to support that that agreement should be set aside. Moreover, even if the Tribunal did set aside the agreement and find that Ms Stephens has established the criteria in section 66(1) of the Act for reducing the term of the tenancy, it is likely that the compensation ordered to be payable to the landlord for their loss (pursuant to section 66(2)) would be the costs incurred as claim, including rent until the new tenant was found on 22 August.
Ms Stephens’ failure to establish the grounds to reduce the term of the tenancy to 7 August means that she is liable for rent up until the new tenant was found. The amount of rent owing has been established by the production of a rent record.
The landlord is also entitled to the costs incurred to find the new tenant as agreed to by Ms Stephens. The tenant’s compensation claims
Section 45(1)(a) of the Act requires a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Section 45(1)(b) provides that the landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Any necessary repairs must be completed within a reasonable timeframe after the landlord becomes aware of the need for the repair.
Ms Stephens claims that the landlord is in breach of these obligations by not providing the premises in a reasonably clean condition, not removing all rubbish or trimming trees. She claims compensation for her time to complete the work herself.
Even if it were established that the landlord was in breach of the obligation in section 45(1)(a) of the Act, I do not consider that an award of compensation is appropriate here.
Ms Stephens did not dispute that she wanted to move into the premises quickly just before Christmas (21 December) and before the cleaning and rubbish removal work was completed. She also did not dispute that she was made aware that a cleaner would be coming to complete the work. A work order was issued for the cleaning work on 21 December and it appears the cleaner came soon after. However, Ms Stephens said that she could not wait because of the particular needs of her autistic son so she started the cleaning and rubbish removal work as soon as she moved in.
Similarly, I do not consider that compensation ought to be payable for Ms Stephens time to trim trees. Ms Stephens wanted the branches to be trimmed to prevent her son from climbing the trees and the landlord agreed to have the work done when the landlord returned from holiday. However, again Ms Stephens did not want to wait because of her concerns regarding her son’s safety so she completed the work (or some of it) herself.
Ms Stephens also claims that the landlord is in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition with respect to: a hole in the garage floor; wiring in the living room; and the front porch light.
The claim for compensation under this head is also dismissed. The hole in the garage floor is not a maintenance or repair issue. Rather it is a ‘mechanic’s pit’ and part of the structure of the garage. I accept that the pit had accumulated some rubbish, but the landlord acted within a reasonable time to have the rubbish removed after becoming aware of the issue.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the wires inside a cabinet in the lounge are a television aerial or cable rather than electrical wires, and the other wire complained of by Ms Stephen’s is an old phone wire that has been cut off close to the wall near the floor. I do not consider that these wires require removal to comply with the obligation in section 45(1)(b) to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
After Ms Stephens advised the landlord that the porch light did not work, the landlord arranged for an electrician to investigate the cause. The electrician found that there was no cabling to the porch light but notes that there are other lights outside the porch that do work. Given there is other lighting in the area, I do not consider it reasonable to require the landlord to run cabling to the porch light, given the likely considerable cost to do so. The Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been successful in its claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. The bond
The amounts ordered are to be paid out of the bond with the remaining bond paid to Ms Stephens.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016388 — Rent arrears at 56 Wycola Avenue, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016388 — Rent arrears at 56 Wycola Avenue, Hei Hei, 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