What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103070?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Upston and Geoff Upston must pay Anu Elsa Raj and Sujith John

How much money was awarded in case 5103070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103070?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11561665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103070?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Upston and Geoff Upston must pay Anu Elsa Raj and Sujith John

How much money was awarded in case 5103070?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103070?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11561665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 523 Cranford Street, Redwood, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103070 — Compensation

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Thompson and Ms Millar represented the landlords.

The tenants, Mr John and Ms Raj, applied for compensation for failure by the landlords’ to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, in particular, providing premises which had an ant infestation.

The tenants had a tenancy of the premises (Cranford Street) commencing on 29 November 2024. Rent was agreed at $610.00 per week and a bond of $2,440.00 was paid. Immediately upon moving in Mr John and Ms Raj noticed issues with ants. They contacted the landlord and a pest control contractor visited the premises the next day. It was found that the infestation was serious and required treatment which would require the tenants to move out for a period of time (particularly because Mr John and Ms Raj’s son’s allergies). They requested to be released from the tenancy and the landlord’s agreed. They vacated on 2 December 2024 and the landlord refunded in full the rent and bond paid by them.

Mr John and Ms Raj claim additional compensation for other losses they say they suffered as a result of the infestation. They said that they agreed with the landlord of their previous tenancy (Harewood Road) to a short-term tenancy for two weeks at a rent of $620.00 per week, while they looked for another long term tenancy. They said that they found another tenancy in Wigram within the week which meant that they were required to pay for two tenancies for that week ($620.00 for Harewood Road and the rent payable for the Wigram tenancy). They also said that they paid $638.25 to a moving company to move into Cranford Street and $667.00 to move their possessions into the Wigram tenancy (they stored their belongings in the garage at Cranford Street until they found another tenancy), and they claim these costs from the landlords. Mr John and Ms Raj claimed other costs, including lost wages while looking for another tenancy but they were unable to establish the loss suffered as a result. These claims are therefore dismissed.

Mr Thompson and Ms Millar accept that the premises had a serious problem with ants. I accept their evidence that they were unaware of the problem until told by the tenants. As mentioned, the landlords released the tenants from the tenancy when requested and refunded rent paid in full.

However, I consider it reasonable that the landlords compensate the tenants for the additional rent they were required to pay while looking for another tenancy. I also consider it reasonable that the landlords pay the cost incurred to move out of Cranford Street into the Wigram tenancy. I dismiss the claim for the cost to move into Cranford Street because this is a cost they would have incurred regardless of whether the landlords had breached their obligations.

I therefore find the landlords liable to pay to the tenants the sum of $1,314.00 being additional rent they were required to pay ($10.00 for the first week and $620.00 for the second week), plus the cost ($667.00) to move their possessions from Cranford Street to the Wigram tenancy.

The tenants have been mostly successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Thompson and Ms Millar represented the landlords.

The tenants have been mostly successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103070 — Compensation at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 523 Cranford Street, Redwood,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103070 — Compensation at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 523 Cranford Street, Redwood,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions