What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4378381 about?

The tribunal order states: I order suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4378381?

Compensation: : inconvenience betwee…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4378381?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4378381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9338272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4378381 about?

The tribunal order states: I order suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4378381?

Compensation: : inconvenience betwee…: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4378381?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4378381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9338272-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4378381 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4378381 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: : inconvenience between 15 September 2022 to 23 January 2023	$750.00	: inconvenience between 15 September 2022 to 23 January 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44

Order

I order suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $770.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties were present at the hearing on 22 August 2023.
[Landlord’s agent] appeared before me as the agent for the property owner. [Landlord’s agent] told me she has been managing the same property for 18 years.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] appeared before me as the tenants. In the previous hearings, only [Tenant 2] appeared.
For detailed facts, please refer to my previous decisions dated 09 November 2022 and 27 February 2023. I do not intend to repeat the facts here.
The burden of proof rests with [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2]. They must satisfy me that they suffered a loss on the balance of probabilities because of flooding on the driveway.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] did not suggest that there was flooding in the main living area. The flooding was only on the driveway. I acknowledge some water got into the garage, but the photos submitted by the tenant did not suggest extensive damage to anything other than inconvenience.
I acknowledge that the tenant chose to rent the property in September 2021 because of its proximity to the Hospital. The reason for this decision was both work-related and medical care. History of this file
On 7 November 2022, I heard the parties’ submissions and considered the evidence submitted. I adjourned the hearing to give [Landlord’s agent] sufficient time to take instructions from her client on how he wants to address drainage and compensation issues.
On 27 February 2023, [Landlord’s agent] updated the tenant and me on how her client was trying to address the issue with the assistance of an expert [Landlord’s agent] asked for time to see if cleaning gutters and flushing downpipes addressed the issue. By consent, I adjourned the hearing. Has the landlord addressed/mitigated the tenant’s concern after two adjournments? The landlord’s position
[Landlord’s agent] submitted that her client made efforts to address the concern. During the hearing held on 27 February 2023, [Landlord’s agent] submitted evidence that the recommended remedial work had been completed.
[Landlord’s agent] submitted that her client did provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
[Landlord’s agent] submitted that there were problems with rainwater taking time to recede before any remedial works were done. She has since observed that the rainwater now recedes at a reasonable pace. However, she could not provide specific information on how quickly it recedes.
[Landlord’s agent] did not accept any liability after 29 January 2023 (unpredictable change of weather patterns such as extreme rainfall and Cyclone Gabrielle) because her client did maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and could not control what the weather would be like.
In summary, [Landlord’s agent] acknowledged that rainwater accumulated on the driveway did not recede fast enough. However, this issue was remedied after her client followed the expert recommendation. For instance, clean the gutters and downpipes. The tenant’s position
The tenant informed the landlord that there is a recurring issue of rainwater collecting on the driveway, causing flooding after rainfall.
The tenant submitted that this issue started shortly after they moved into the property on 15 September 2021. While the tenant acknowledged that the [Landlord’s agent] had attempted to address the flooding problem, they claim that it persists even after her efforts.
The tenant submitted that the landlord has not successfully resolved the issue with the driveway flooding. The tenant supported the submissions by showing me the photos in their phone ([Landlord’s agent] was aware of the photos because the tenant emailed her) below: a. 9 May 2023 at 9.57 am – water remained on the driveway after the rain stopped the night before. b. 10 May 2023 at 8.44 am – water remained towards the end of the driveway. c. 16 June 2023 at 1.40 pm – water did not go inside the garage. Some rainwater remained on the driveway. d. 18 June 2023 at 4.35 pm – Some rainwater remained on the driveway. Finding of facts
The tenant provided photos and video footage to support their claim that the driveway was flooded.
The tenant persuaded me that the driveway was flooded after rainfall between 15 September 2022 (the tenancy commencement date) and 7 November 2022 (the first hearing date).
I am not persuaded that the driveway was flooded after the remedial work. I find the water level on the driveway can be described as a puddle. A puddle is a small accumulation of water. There were puddles on the driveway.
I have observed that there is less water on the driveway after the landlord's remedial work. This indicates that the work has been effective, although it may not meet the tenant's expectations. For instance, a completely dry driveway.

Did the landlord breach section 45 RTA?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(5) RTA, premises includes facilities. Under section 2 RTA, facilities include any land intended for parking motor vehicles.
The landlord’s legal responsibility is to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. What is reasonable state of repair is an objective assessment, not a subjective assessment.
[Landlord’s agent], on behalf of the landlord, submitted evidence of instructing an expert to inspect the complaint, receiving expert opinion, carrying out the remedial work, and seeking an adjournment to assess the effectiveness of the remedial work.
I understand that the tenant is claiming that rainwater still collects on the driveway despite the remedial work. However, after considering all the evidence submitted, my view is that the landlord has discharged his obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 15 September 2022 to 28 January 2023
In my view, the tenant's ability to peacefully and comfortably use the premises was disrupted between 15 September 2022 and 28 January 2023 (I took this date because [Landlord’s agent] accepted the liability up to this date).
The interference relates to the rainwater on the driveway after heavy rainfall. At times, some water went into the garage. See a photo in my decision dated 09 November 2022.
However, the tenant has not pursuaded me, based on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord intentionally harassed them.
I find the landlord did not commit an unlawful act.
The period between 15 September 2022 and 28 January 2023 did not involve a complete loss of access to the driveway. However, the build-up of rainwater up to the point of remedial work was inconvenience for the tenant.
It is the inconvenience to the tenant that I consider a general compensation of $750 is appropriate. 29 January 2023 onwards
I do not accept the rainwater on the driveway after rainfall was “flooding”. There were puddles on the driveway.
What are the losses, if any, to the tenant if water accumulates on the driveway after rainfall? There is no evidence before me of how long the water takes to recede after the remedial work has been completed.
Based on the submissions and evidence before me, the tenant has not satisfied me that puddles have resulted in any actual losses to them. There is no evidence before me how long the rainwater would stay on the driveway after rainfall.
It is unlikely that puddles would fully disappear after rainfall, especially considering the property is not new.
The presence of puddles on the driveway following rainfall does not meet the requirement of proving actual losses.
Accordingly, I do not consider awarding a general compensation is appropriate. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] have partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
It is not in the public's interest to disclose the names or identifying details of either party involved. The landlord fulfilled his obligation as required by section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Upon objective assessment, the tenant's concerns were addressed to a reasonably acceptable level.
Therefore, I am ordering that the names and identifying details of the parties be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4378381 — net $770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: : inconvenience between 15 September 2022 to 23 January 2023	$750.00	: inconvenience between 15 September 2022 to 23 January 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$770.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$770.44

Order

I order suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $770.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties were present at the hearing on 22 August 2023.
[Landlord’s agent] appeared before me as the agent for the property owner. [Landlord’s agent] told me she has been managing the same property for 18 years.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] appeared before me as the tenants. In the previous hearings, only [Tenant 2] appeared.
For detailed facts, please refer to my previous decisions dated 09 November 2022 and 27 February 2023. I do not intend to repeat the facts here.
The burden of proof rests with [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2]. They must satisfy me that they suffered a loss on the balance of probabilities because of flooding on the driveway.
[Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] did not suggest that there was flooding in the main living area. The flooding was only on the driveway. I acknowledge some water got into the garage, but the photos submitted by the tenant did not suggest extensive damage to anything other than inconvenience.
I acknowledge that the tenant chose to rent the property in September 2021 because of its proximity to the Hospital. The reason for this decision was both work-related and medical care. History of this file
On 7 November 2022, I heard the parties’ submissions and considered the evidence submitted. I adjourned the hearing to give [Landlord’s agent] sufficient time to take instructions from her client on how he wants to address drainage and compensation issues.
On 27 February 2023, [Landlord’s agent] updated the tenant and me on how her client was trying to address the issue with the assistance of an expert [Landlord’s agent] asked for time to see if cleaning gutters and flushing downpipes addressed the issue. By consent, I adjourned the hearing. Has the landlord addressed/mitigated the tenant’s concern after two adjournments? The landlord’s position
[Landlord’s agent] submitted that her client made efforts to address the concern. During the hearing held on 27 February 2023, [Landlord’s agent] submitted evidence that the recommended remedial work had been completed.
[Landlord’s agent] submitted that her client did provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
[Landlord’s agent] submitted that there were problems with rainwater taking time to recede before any remedial works were done. She has since observed that the rainwater now recedes at a reasonable pace. However, she could not provide specific information on how quickly it recedes.
[Landlord’s agent] did not accept any liability after 29 January 2023 (unpredictable change of weather patterns such as extreme rainfall and Cyclone Gabrielle) because her client did maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and could not control what the weather would be like.
In summary, [Landlord’s agent] acknowledged that rainwater accumulated on the driveway did not recede fast enough. However, this issue was remedied after her client followed the expert recommendation. For instance, clean the gutters and downpipes. The tenant’s position
The tenant informed the landlord that there is a recurring issue of rainwater collecting on the driveway, causing flooding after rainfall.
The tenant submitted that this issue started shortly after they moved into the property on 15 September 2021. While the tenant acknowledged that the [Landlord’s agent] had attempted to address the flooding problem, they claim that it persists even after her efforts.
The tenant submitted that the landlord has not successfully resolved the issue with the driveway flooding. The tenant supported the submissions by showing me the photos in their phone ([Landlord’s agent] was aware of the photos because the tenant emailed her) below: a. 9 May 2023 at 9.57 am – water remained on the driveway after the rain stopped the night before. b. 10 May 2023 at 8.44 am – water remained towards the end of the driveway. c. 16 June 2023 at 1.40 pm – water did not go inside the garage. Some rainwater remained on the driveway. d. 18 June 2023 at 4.35 pm – Some rainwater remained on the driveway. Finding of facts
The tenant provided photos and video footage to support their claim that the driveway was flooded.
The tenant persuaded me that the driveway was flooded after rainfall between 15 September 2022 (the tenancy commencement date) and 7 November 2022 (the first hearing date).
I am not persuaded that the driveway was flooded after the remedial work. I find the water level on the driveway can be described as a puddle. A puddle is a small accumulation of water. There were puddles on the driveway.
I have observed that there is less water on the driveway after the landlord's remedial work. This indicates that the work has been effective, although it may not meet the tenant's expectations. For instance, a completely dry driveway.

Did the landlord breach section 45 RTA?

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(5) RTA, premises includes facilities. Under section 2 RTA, facilities include any land intended for parking motor vehicles.
The landlord’s legal responsibility is to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. What is reasonable state of repair is an objective assessment, not a subjective assessment.
[Landlord’s agent], on behalf of the landlord, submitted evidence of instructing an expert to inspect the complaint, receiving expert opinion, carrying out the remedial work, and seeking an adjournment to assess the effectiveness of the remedial work.
I understand that the tenant is claiming that rainwater still collects on the driveway despite the remedial work. However, after considering all the evidence submitted, my view is that the landlord has discharged his obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. 15 September 2022 to 28 January 2023
In my view, the tenant's ability to peacefully and comfortably use the premises was disrupted between 15 September 2022 and 28 January 2023 (I took this date because [Landlord’s agent] accepted the liability up to this date).
The interference relates to the rainwater on the driveway after heavy rainfall. At times, some water went into the garage. See a photo in my decision dated 09 November 2022.
However, the tenant has not pursuaded me, based on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord intentionally harassed them.
I find the landlord did not commit an unlawful act.
The period between 15 September 2022 and 28 January 2023 did not involve a complete loss of access to the driveway. However, the build-up of rainwater up to the point of remedial work was inconvenience for the tenant.
It is the inconvenience to the tenant that I consider a general compensation of $750 is appropriate. 29 January 2023 onwards
I do not accept the rainwater on the driveway after rainfall was “flooding”. There were puddles on the driveway.
What are the losses, if any, to the tenant if water accumulates on the driveway after rainfall? There is no evidence before me of how long the water takes to recede after the remedial work has been completed.
Based on the submissions and evidence before me, the tenant has not satisfied me that puddles have resulted in any actual losses to them. There is no evidence before me how long the rainwater would stay on the driveway after rainfall.
It is unlikely that puddles would fully disappear after rainfall, especially considering the property is not new.
The presence of puddles on the driveway following rainfall does not meet the requirement of proving actual losses.
Accordingly, I do not consider awarding a general compensation is appropriate. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] have partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
It is not in the public's interest to disclose the names or identifying details of either party involved. The landlord fulfilled his obligation as required by section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Upon objective assessment, the tenant's concerns were addressed to a reasonably acceptable level.
Therefore, I am ordering that the names and identifying details of the parties be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4378381 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4378381 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach section 45 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach section 45 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions