What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4327666 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4327666?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,428.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $420.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4327666?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4327666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8574312-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4327666 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4327666?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,428.57 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $420.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4327666?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4327666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8574312-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

71 Kimihia Road, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4327666 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4327666 — net $1,398.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,428.57		Rent arrears
Water rates	$420.38		Water rates
Compensation		$450.00	Compensation
Total award	$1,848.95	$450.00
Net award	$1,398.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,398.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
to pay from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Both the landlord and tenant attended an in-person hearing on 5 October 2022. the tenant’s partner also attended. A telephone hearing was also held on 26 January 2023 which the landlord attended. I telephoned the tenant that day however the phone went to voicemail on two occasions. I continued in her absence as notice of the hearing has been sent.
The tenant has made an application for compensation and alleging that the landlord has failed to comply with work orders 2f, 2g, 2h, and 2m, made with the consent of the landlord on 20 May 2021 under application 4295157.
The tenancy ended on 14 May 2022. The work orders alleged to have been breached – from application 4295157
[The tenant/s] says the landlord has not complied with the below work orders: 2f. Repair all plumbing leaks (including from the bath into the garage) – by
00pm on Friday 28 May 2021; 2g. Repair any holes or leaks from the guttering or downpipes and ensure that water is not running under the house – by 6.00pm on Friday 28 May 2021; 2h. Repair the rotten window frame and broken glass in the window near the front door – by 6.00pm on Friday 4 June 2021; 2m. Undertake the following internal remedial work by 6.00pm on Friday 23 July 2021: a. Replace the ceiling, fully dry or replace the carpet, and replace or patch (or treat and repaint if it is reasonable to do so) any damp affected walls in the bedroom affected by the leak; b. Replace, or patch and repair, all areas of wall, ceiling, or floor (including replacing carpet if required) that have been damaged by mould or damp in the lounge (caused by the leaks from the chimney or windows, or elsewhere); c. Replace, (or treat and repaint if it is reasonable to do so) areas in the bathroom and hot water cupboard that are mouldy or affected by damp. Applications to enforce work orders
A party may make an application to the Tribunal to enforce a work order; section 108 RTA. The Tribunal may vary or discharge the work order or make a new one; s108(1) RTA.
A person who, without reasonable excuse, breaches a work order commits an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I made orders at the same time as the work orders, that authorised the tenant to do any of the work that she considered had not been done, and to deduct the cost of that work (up to a set limit) off the rent. The limit for work orders 2f, 2g, 2h was $1,000.00 for each item of work, and the limit for order 2m was work up to $5,000.00; see orders 3 and 4 on order 4295157. My decision on this application
The parties provided photographs, oral evidence, reports and invoices from contractors who had worked at the premises, an insulation statement dated 17 September 2021, a copy of a final inspection report completed by the property management company on 12 May 2022 with comprehensive photographs, and a report dated 27 September 2022 by a compliance company as to compliance of the premises with the Healthy Homes Standards after the remedial work had been completed. 1
After hearing and considering all of the evidence available from both parties, my decision is that the tenant has not proved that the landlord has failed to comply with work orders 2f, 2g, or 2h. In particular:- a. Order 2f: the tenant says that not all plumbing leaks were repaired however provided no evidence to show ongoing leaks. The landlord provided plumbing invoices showing work has been done and plumbing checked. b. Order 2g: the tenant says that the guttering or drainage still allowed water under the house however there was no evidence to show ongoing problems. The landlord supplied an invoice from a plumber showing that guttering was repaired on 27 May 2021. c. Order 2h: the tenant said that the wooden window frame repair was not successful however there is no evidence to show this.
In regard to order 2g, the tenant says that a friend did some drainage work and had photos showing what looks to be a trench for a drainage pipe dug through the lawn. [The tenant/s] has not made a claim for any cost of this and said that 1 The HHS are contained in the Residential Tenancies Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019. The HHS do not apply to this tenancy because the tenancy started before 1 July 2021. she did not wish to do so. The landlord may wish to check the work that has been done (since it is on his property).
Order 2m: The landlord acknowledged in the hearing that internal remedial repairs in the lounge and front bedroom were only partially completed. This work was to be done after the most significant task which was the replacement or repair of the roof of the house 2 . The roof of the house was replaced in the first week of July 2021.
The evidence satisfies me that:- a. The work to replace water-affected ceilings and parts of walls in the lounge and bedroom was not done until on or about 8 October 2021. This is 78 days (11 weeks) after the due date of 23 July 2021 in order 2m(a) and (b). This is a breach of the work order. b. The carpet in the lounge and front bedroom was not lifted or otherwise checked for mould or degradation underneath. However, there was no evidence (either from the tenant or in the final inspection report completed by the property manager) that the carpet or floor was not fully dry or was mouldy after the remedial work had been done. c. The work order 2m did not require the new sections of ceiling and wall to be plastered or painted during the tenancy. I accept that this would have been preferable for the tenants however it is not a breach by the landlord. d. I accept the landlord’s submission that the work to replace and remediate the bathroom and hot water cupboard could not be completed until after the tenancy had terminated (order 2m,c) due to the level of disruption to the tenant. This was the subject of a previous order under this application by Adjudicator Prowse on 27 April 2022.
The landlord says that he did his best to comply with work order 2m on time. I accept his explanation that there were supply problems with builders and building materials due to the level 3 and 4 Covid-19 lockdowns across the Waikato (from 17 August 2021 until November 2021) which delayed the replacement of damaged ceiling and wall panels. I find that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because he had a reasonable excuse for the delays.
The tenant did have the option of engaging her own builder to do the work and to deduct the cost of this from the rent; see order 4 of 4295157. However, given the covid-19 lockdowns, it was unlikely she would have been able to find someone to do the work. 2 Work order 2k in order 4295157 dated 20 May 2021.
The landlord is not at fault for the delays however the fact is the tenant did not have the full use of the premises while she was waiting for the ceiling and wall replacement. I consider that it is fairest to award additional compensation.
The front bedroom could not be used while it was still mouldy or damp and the tenant described moving belongings around the house to allow for the repairs, and an issue with water coming through the building paper at one point.
In my previous order, I assessed the value of the front bedroom at a rate of $25.00 per week and awarded a rent refund up until the end of June 2021 (the date of that order).
I consider it fair to apply this same calculation from 1 July 2021 until 8 October 2021 (when the mouldy and wet-affected ceiling and walls were replaced). This is 14 weeks. I award $350.00 compensation which is $25 per week x 14 weeks.
I award an additional $100.00 for the delay to repairs in the lounge. This is a total of $450.00 compensation. Bond
The parties agreed at the end of the hearing that they also both wanted me to make final orders about the refund of the bond.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger and water rates invoices to prove that there is $1,428.57 in rent still to pay and $420.38 of water rates (up to the reading on 15 February 2021). I cannot award more because the landlord did not have evidence of a final meter reading taken at the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have been awarded compensation, so I make no order about the filing fee.
The bond will be refunded in accordance with the monetary awards.
I suppress both parties’ names as both have been successful in their claims.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4327666 — net $1,398.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,428.57		Rent arrears
Water rates	$420.38		Water rates
Compensation		$450.00	Compensation
Total award	$1,848.95	$450.00
Net award	$1,398.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,398.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
to pay from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Both the landlord and tenant attended an in-person hearing on 5 October 2022. the tenant’s partner also attended. A telephone hearing was also held on 26 January 2023 which the landlord attended. I telephoned the tenant that day however the phone went to voicemail on two occasions. I continued in her absence as notice of the hearing has been sent.
The tenant has made an application for compensation and alleging that the landlord has failed to comply with work orders 2f, 2g, 2h, and 2m, made with the consent of the landlord on 20 May 2021 under application 4295157.
The tenancy ended on 14 May 2022. The work orders alleged to have been breached – from application 4295157
[The tenant/s] says the landlord has not complied with the below work orders: 2f. Repair all plumbing leaks (including from the bath into the garage) – by
00pm on Friday 28 May 2021; 2g. Repair any holes or leaks from the guttering or downpipes and ensure that water is not running under the house – by 6.00pm on Friday 28 May 2021; 2h. Repair the rotten window frame and broken glass in the window near the front door – by 6.00pm on Friday 4 June 2021; 2m. Undertake the following internal remedial work by 6.00pm on Friday 23 July 2021: a. Replace the ceiling, fully dry or replace the carpet, and replace or patch (or treat and repaint if it is reasonable to do so) any damp affected walls in the bedroom affected by the leak; b. Replace, or patch and repair, all areas of wall, ceiling, or floor (including replacing carpet if required) that have been damaged by mould or damp in the lounge (caused by the leaks from the chimney or windows, or elsewhere); c. Replace, (or treat and repaint if it is reasonable to do so) areas in the bathroom and hot water cupboard that are mouldy or affected by damp. Applications to enforce work orders
A party may make an application to the Tribunal to enforce a work order; section 108 RTA. The Tribunal may vary or discharge the work order or make a new one; s108(1) RTA.
A person who, without reasonable excuse, breaches a work order commits an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I made orders at the same time as the work orders, that authorised the tenant to do any of the work that she considered had not been done, and to deduct the cost of that work (up to a set limit) off the rent. The limit for work orders 2f, 2g, 2h was $1,000.00 for each item of work, and the limit for order 2m was work up to $5,000.00; see orders 3 and 4 on order 4295157. My decision on this application
The parties provided photographs, oral evidence, reports and invoices from contractors who had worked at the premises, an insulation statement dated 17 September 2021, a copy of a final inspection report completed by the property management company on 12 May 2022 with comprehensive photographs, and a report dated 27 September 2022 by a compliance company as to compliance of the premises with the Healthy Homes Standards after the remedial work had been completed. 1
After hearing and considering all of the evidence available from both parties, my decision is that the tenant has not proved that the landlord has failed to comply with work orders 2f, 2g, or 2h. In particular:- a. Order 2f: the tenant says that not all plumbing leaks were repaired however provided no evidence to show ongoing leaks. The landlord provided plumbing invoices showing work has been done and plumbing checked. b. Order 2g: the tenant says that the guttering or drainage still allowed water under the house however there was no evidence to show ongoing problems. The landlord supplied an invoice from a plumber showing that guttering was repaired on 27 May 2021. c. Order 2h: the tenant said that the wooden window frame repair was not successful however there is no evidence to show this.
In regard to order 2g, the tenant says that a friend did some drainage work and had photos showing what looks to be a trench for a drainage pipe dug through the lawn. [The tenant/s] has not made a claim for any cost of this and said that 1 The HHS are contained in the Residential Tenancies Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019. The HHS do not apply to this tenancy because the tenancy started before 1 July 2021. she did not wish to do so. The landlord may wish to check the work that has been done (since it is on his property).
Order 2m: The landlord acknowledged in the hearing that internal remedial repairs in the lounge and front bedroom were only partially completed. This work was to be done after the most significant task which was the replacement or repair of the roof of the house 2 . The roof of the house was replaced in the first week of July 2021.
The evidence satisfies me that:- a. The work to replace water-affected ceilings and parts of walls in the lounge and bedroom was not done until on or about 8 October 2021. This is 78 days (11 weeks) after the due date of 23 July 2021 in order 2m(a) and (b). This is a breach of the work order. b. The carpet in the lounge and front bedroom was not lifted or otherwise checked for mould or degradation underneath. However, there was no evidence (either from the tenant or in the final inspection report completed by the property manager) that the carpet or floor was not fully dry or was mouldy after the remedial work had been done. c. The work order 2m did not require the new sections of ceiling and wall to be plastered or painted during the tenancy. I accept that this would have been preferable for the tenants however it is not a breach by the landlord. d. I accept the landlord’s submission that the work to replace and remediate the bathroom and hot water cupboard could not be completed until after the tenancy had terminated (order 2m,c) due to the level of disruption to the tenant. This was the subject of a previous order under this application by Adjudicator Prowse on 27 April 2022.
The landlord says that he did his best to comply with work order 2m on time. I accept his explanation that there were supply problems with builders and building materials due to the level 3 and 4 Covid-19 lockdowns across the Waikato (from 17 August 2021 until November 2021) which delayed the replacement of damaged ceiling and wall panels. I find that the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because he had a reasonable excuse for the delays.
The tenant did have the option of engaging her own builder to do the work and to deduct the cost of this from the rent; see order 4 of 4295157. However, given the covid-19 lockdowns, it was unlikely she would have been able to find someone to do the work. 2 Work order 2k in order 4295157 dated 20 May 2021.
The landlord is not at fault for the delays however the fact is the tenant did not have the full use of the premises while she was waiting for the ceiling and wall replacement. I consider that it is fairest to award additional compensation.
The front bedroom could not be used while it was still mouldy or damp and the tenant described moving belongings around the house to allow for the repairs, and an issue with water coming through the building paper at one point.
In my previous order, I assessed the value of the front bedroom at a rate of $25.00 per week and awarded a rent refund up until the end of June 2021 (the date of that order).
I consider it fair to apply this same calculation from 1 July 2021 until 8 October 2021 (when the mouldy and wet-affected ceiling and walls were replaced). This is 14 weeks. I award $350.00 compensation which is $25 per week x 14 weeks.
I award an additional $100.00 for the delay to repairs in the lounge. This is a total of $450.00 compensation. Bond
The parties agreed at the end of the hearing that they also both wanted me to make final orders about the refund of the bond.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger and water rates invoices to prove that there is $1,428.57 in rent still to pay and $420.38 of water rates (up to the reading on 15 February 2021). I cannot award more because the landlord did not have evidence of a final meter reading taken at the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have been awarded compensation, so I make no order about the filing fee.
The bond will be refunded in accordance with the monetary awards.
I suppress both parties’ names as both have been successful in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4327666 — Rent arrears at 71 Kimihia Road, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4327666 — Rent arrears at 71 Kimihia Road, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions