What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098792?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5439586-014) to Ronald

How much money was awarded in case 5098792?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Rent: $620.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098792?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11397418-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098792?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5439586-014) to Ronald

How much money was awarded in case 5098792?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Of Rent: $620.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098792?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11397418-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19A Etherton Drive, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098792 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098792 — net $647.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of rent	$620.00	Refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$647.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$647.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5439586-014) to Ronald Michael Chandra and Lorein Lata immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Ronald Michael Chandra and Lorein Lata at 19A Etherton Drive, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 is reduced and now ends on 27 October 2024.
Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Rita Reshmika Vinod must pay Ronald Michael Chandra and Lorein Lata $647.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy was to begin on 27 October 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 25 October 2025.
The tenant applied to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. The landlord applied for the tenant to pay the rent until a new tenancy commences. Landlord application
When the tenant did not move into the tenancy the landlord re-advertised the tenancy. It was advertised on 12 November 2024 and while the next tenant signed the tenancy agreement in November, the new tenancy did not commence until 8 January 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears of $5,845.71 up to 7 January 2025, which takes account of the one week rent ($620) paid by the tenant on 17 September 2024 together with the bond, the day that the tenancy agreement was signed.
Given the reduction of the fixed term tenancy as set out below I make no award for rent arrears. Instead, I order that the landlord must reimburse the tenant for the one-week rent paid in advance.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant obtained the keys to the premises on Friday 25 October 2024 and planned to begin moving in, including a new fridge that had been purchased.
Upon arriving at the tenancy, the tenant found the premises in an unclean state. He messaged the Property Manager saying he was not happy with the condition including, “...the sink bench is still not fixed, even the lawns not done, kitchen floor looks ugly n cockroach are all over the place..., even the carpet looks dirty.” The text was accompanied by photographs of the cockroaches and other issues. The tenant further texted, “...there’s no lid in one of the bins, plus there’s no food bin, some of the light bulbs not working, spider webs are all outside the house, lawns should have been done upon handing over to new tenants...carpets are so old and they haven’t even been cleaned and kitchen counter tops are almost falling apart.”
While the tenant had viewed the premises prior to signing the tenancy agreement, the previous tenants were still living there and present. He said that the place was a mess and he had asked the agent to receive the house in a reasonable condition.
Given the state of the premises the tenant asked to withdraw from the tenancy. The following day (26 October 2024) the Property Manager replied by saying, “Before signing the contract you have viewed the house and I never told you that house will be renovated, full cleaning, curtains will be washed and new deck will be done prior to your moving in.” The Property Manager reminded the tenant that they had signed a fixed term tenancy so were liable to pay the rent. She also said that contractors had done the cleaning, pest control, painted the ceiling and the landlord was looking for a new kitchen replacement, but it may take some time due to the time of year.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 25 October 2024.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenancy was not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states, “The landlord shall provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness”.
The photographs show that the carpet is not clean, the lino is not clean and has paint spills on it, the lawn is unmown, there are cockroaches in several places, the drawers and cupboards are not clean, and the kitchen bench is damaged from water. I consider that the unclean state of the premises is an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
The tenant had asked to meet with the Property Manager and the owner to discuss what could be done to rectify the situation, but this did not occur. There was a lack of communication from the Property Manager, especially on the day that the tenants were trying to move in.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. As the home was not ready for the tenant to move in, and the Property Manager would not communicate or meet with him, he had to quickly find new accommodation. A new tenancy was found for a higher rent and that tenancy began on 3 November 2024. Before that date the tenant managed to stay at their previous tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord’s agent did not provide any evidence as to any hardship that the landlord would suffer.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Given that the landlord was at fault at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant did not move into the premises I make no award for compensation to the landlord.
I note that when the tenants did not move in the landlord carried out work at the premises including replacing the kitchen (cabinets, bench, stove top and oven), the lino in the kitchen and bathroom and fixed the broken access door to under the house. It is my view that some of this work should have been carried out before the tenancy commenced or at least communicated with the tenant that this work was planned.
At a minimum at the beginning of this tenancy the flooring (carpet and lino) should have been clean, the property free of cockroaches and the lawn mown.
Because Ronald Michael Chandra, Lorein Lata has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord had asked for suppression but as the landlord was not successful with its application I make no order for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098792 — net $647.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of rent	$620.00	Refund of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$647.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$647.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5439586-014) to Ronald Michael Chandra and Lorein Lata immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Ronald Michael Chandra and Lorein Lata at 19A Etherton Drive, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 is reduced and now ends on 27 October 2024.
Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Rita Reshmika Vinod must pay Ronald Michael Chandra and Lorein Lata $647.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy was to begin on 27 October 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 25 October 2025.
The tenant applied to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. The landlord applied for the tenant to pay the rent until a new tenancy commences. Landlord application
When the tenant did not move into the tenancy the landlord re-advertised the tenancy. It was advertised on 12 November 2024 and while the next tenant signed the tenancy agreement in November, the new tenancy did not commence until 8 January 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears of $5,845.71 up to 7 January 2025, which takes account of the one week rent ($620) paid by the tenant on 17 September 2024 together with the bond, the day that the tenancy agreement was signed.
Given the reduction of the fixed term tenancy as set out below I make no award for rent arrears. Instead, I order that the landlord must reimburse the tenant for the one-week rent paid in advance.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant obtained the keys to the premises on Friday 25 October 2024 and planned to begin moving in, including a new fridge that had been purchased.
Upon arriving at the tenancy, the tenant found the premises in an unclean state. He messaged the Property Manager saying he was not happy with the condition including, “...the sink bench is still not fixed, even the lawns not done, kitchen floor looks ugly n cockroach are all over the place..., even the carpet looks dirty.” The text was accompanied by photographs of the cockroaches and other issues. The tenant further texted, “...there’s no lid in one of the bins, plus there’s no food bin, some of the light bulbs not working, spider webs are all outside the house, lawns should have been done upon handing over to new tenants...carpets are so old and they haven’t even been cleaned and kitchen counter tops are almost falling apart.”
While the tenant had viewed the premises prior to signing the tenancy agreement, the previous tenants were still living there and present. He said that the place was a mess and he had asked the agent to receive the house in a reasonable condition.
Given the state of the premises the tenant asked to withdraw from the tenancy. The following day (26 October 2024) the Property Manager replied by saying, “Before signing the contract you have viewed the house and I never told you that house will be renovated, full cleaning, curtains will be washed and new deck will be done prior to your moving in.” The Property Manager reminded the tenant that they had signed a fixed term tenancy so were liable to pay the rent. She also said that contractors had done the cleaning, pest control, painted the ceiling and the landlord was looking for a new kitchen replacement, but it may take some time due to the time of year.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 25 October 2024.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenancy was not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states, “The landlord shall provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness”.
The photographs show that the carpet is not clean, the lino is not clean and has paint spills on it, the lawn is unmown, there are cockroaches in several places, the drawers and cupboards are not clean, and the kitchen bench is damaged from water. I consider that the unclean state of the premises is an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
The tenant had asked to meet with the Property Manager and the owner to discuss what could be done to rectify the situation, but this did not occur. There was a lack of communication from the Property Manager, especially on the day that the tenants were trying to move in.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. As the home was not ready for the tenant to move in, and the Property Manager would not communicate or meet with him, he had to quickly find new accommodation. A new tenancy was found for a higher rent and that tenancy began on 3 November 2024. Before that date the tenant managed to stay at their previous tenancy.
At the hearing the landlord’s agent did not provide any evidence as to any hardship that the landlord would suffer.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Given that the landlord was at fault at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant did not move into the premises I make no award for compensation to the landlord.
I note that when the tenants did not move in the landlord carried out work at the premises including replacing the kitchen (cabinets, bench, stove top and oven), the lino in the kitchen and bathroom and fixed the broken access door to under the house. It is my view that some of this work should have been carried out before the tenancy commenced or at least communicated with the tenant that this work was planned.
At a minimum at the beginning of this tenancy the flooring (carpet and lino) should have been clean, the property free of cockroaches and the lawn mown.
Because Ronald Michael Chandra, Lorein Lata has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord had asked for suppression but as the landlord was not successful with its application I make no order for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098792 — Tenancy dispute at 19A Etherton Drive, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098792 — Tenancy dispute at 19A Etherton Drive, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions