What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4532529 about?

The tribunal order states: Golzar Limited must pay [The tenants] $4,708.09 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4532529?

Compensation: Council File: $68.17 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- B…: $4,714.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- n…: $180.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $285.26 awarded to landlord; Fence Post: $23.84 awarded to landlord; Resulting Mould For The Period 28 Ma…: $34.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532529?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10945085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4532529 about?

The tribunal order states: Golzar Limited must pay [The tenants] $4,708.09 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4532529?

Compensation: Council File: $68.17 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- B…: $4,714.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- n…: $180.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $285.26 awarded to landlord; Fence Post: $23.84 awarded to landlord; Resulting Mould For The Period 28 Ma…: $34.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532529?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10945085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4532529 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532529 — net $4,708.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (based on the 20% rent reduction awarded	$285.26		Rent arrears (based on the 20% rent reduction awarded
Repairs: Fence post	$23.84		Repairs: Fence post
Compensation: Failure to maintain- Bathroom leaks and		$4,714.29	Failure to maintain- Bathroom leaks and
resulting mould for the period 28 May 2021 to 1 July 2023		$34.29	resulting mould for the period 28 May 2021 to 1 July 2023
Compensation: Failure to maintain- no power for the		$180.00	Failure to maintain- no power for the
Compensation: Council file		$68.17	Council file
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$309.10	$5,017.19
Net award		$4,708.09
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,708.09

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4532529 — net $4,708.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (based on the 20% rent reduction awarded	$285.26		Rent arrears (based on the 20% rent reduction awarded
Repairs: Fence post	$23.84		Repairs: Fence post
Compensation: Failure to maintain- Bathroom leaks and		$4,714.29	Failure to maintain- Bathroom leaks and
resulting mould for the period 28 May 2021 to 1 July 2023		$34.29	resulting mould for the period 28 May 2021 to 1 July 2023
Compensation: Failure to maintain- no power for the		$180.00	Failure to maintain- no power for the
Compensation: Council file		$68.17	Council file
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$309.10	$5,017.19
Net award		$4,708.09
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$4,708.09

Order

Golzar Limited must pay [The tenants] $4,708.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 October 2024.
The hearing was to rehear both parties’ applications. The landlord added a couple of new claims to his application, which I allowed.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation for careless damage to the driveway and a fence post, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord is also claiming that the tenants breached his privacy by recording his conversations with them, refusing to allow him access to the property, and failing to advise the landlord of maintenance issues.
The tenants made a cross application for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the property, breach of the Healthy Homes Standards, for being rented an unlawful residential premise and a breach their quiet enjoyment. They have also made a claim for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Why am I rehearing these matters?

The original hearing was held on 7 June 2023. An Order was issued on 13 June 2023. The tenants were awarded: a. Compensation for the Council file of $68.17; b. Exemplary damage for Breach s45 HHS of $2,400.00; c. Rent reduction of 20% of $2,356.00; d. Filing fee of $20.44; and e. Reimbursement of the $1,980.00 bond.
On 17 June 2023 the landlord filed an application for rehearing and stay of proceedings.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord was granted a rehearing on the papers.
In error the Adjudicator overlooked the application of a stay of proceedings.
On 28 June 2023, Principal Adjudicator Robson granted the landlord a stay of proceedings, pending the outcome of the rehearing, to preserve the position of the parties.
By the time the stay was granted, the tenants had already received their full bond of $1,980.00 from the Bond Centre. The tenants confirmed receipt of this at the 3 October 2024 hearing and say they received the bond not long after the original 13 June 2023 Order. None of the monies awarded to the tenants have been paid to them, but the tenants continued to pay the reduced rent of $496.00 per week until the end of their tenancy on 1 July 2023.
On 12 July 2023, the Adjudicator issued a further Order quashing her 19 June 2023 order and granting the landlord a rehearing consideration hearing. In this Order the Adjudicator clarifies that she “incorrectly sent an order out granting a rehearing on the substantive matters, rather than for a rehearing consideration hearing to consider whether there were grounds to justify granting the landlord’s application for a rehearing”.
On 14 April 2024 a rehearing was granted to the landlord, and the original 13 June 2023 Order set aside.
When the Tribunal rehears a matter, it is not bound by the originating Order and has the jurisdiction to substitute that Order with the remedies it considers are justified, after having reheard the matter and considered all the evidence produced by the parties, including any new evidence. Therefore, the remedies set out in the Order section above differ from those in the originating 13 June 2023 Order. I will set out below the reasons for the remedies I have awarded. Background:
The landlord says he purchased the property in November/December 2020. When he purchased it, there were two houses on the property. One was the original 1930’s bungalow and the other was a house that had been relocated onto the property by previous owners.
The tenants provided the real estate agents advertising material to the Tribunal regarding the property when it was for sale. The advertisement stated that the property is the original farmhouse that had been converted into a cosy 4- bedroom dwelling, but that it was an unconsented property.
The parties confirmed that prior to the landlord purchasing the property, the prior owner had lived in the 1930’s bungalow and the other house on the property was rented to other tenants. The owner was legally allowed to live in the unconsented premise under the existing rights of use provisions set out in sections 10, 10A and 20A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).
The landlord confirmed to me at the 3 October 2024 hearing that he understood the rental premise was not consented at the time he purchased the property but did not consider this to be an issue as the 1930’s farmhouse legally had a “right to its existing use” as a house and did not require a building consent. This is because the house was built prior to any of the legislation coming into effect that creates requirements for certain building standards to be met. The only requirement the owner of the 1930’s farmhouse had to prove was that the house met contemporary safety and sanitary standards. This proof had to be submitted to the local Council in the form of a safety and sanitary report.
The landlord confirmed he carried out repairs to the property by replacing most of the roof, repainting, fixing damage inside and replacing the electrical wiring. He had obtained a Safe and Sanitary Building Report (“S&SR”), dated 10 December 2020, which confirmed the structural integrity of the building was sound and there were no structural or design defects. The S&SR also confirms the timber weatherboards were in good condition and that the house could serve its purpose for many years to come. The report writer recommended borer treatment. The S&SR also confirmed that the materials and construction of the house are consistent with the standard and bylaws at the time of construction. It was believed that a permit would have been given at the time of construction if it had been applied for. Therefore, the conclusion was that the house was both safe and sanitary and fit for purpose.
The tenancy commenced on 28 May 2021. The tenants say they had seen an advertisement from the previous tenants seeking a new tenant to take over their fixed term tenancy. The fixed term tenancy had commenced on 23 January 2021 and was due to end on 23 January 2022.
The tenants confirmed they met the landlord and took over the fixed term tenancy by signing a reassignment of tenancy form that replaced the old tenants’ names with their names. This reassignment form confirms that all the terms and conditions in the original tenancy agreement will continue to apply to the tenancy. The landlord confirms that he did not disclose to the tenants that the premise was unconsented.
The tenants have produced evidence that shows, after the initial fixed term expired, they signed an extension to the original tenancy agreement. This extension committed them to a further twelve-month fixed term tenancy. Although there was the standard annual rent increase recorded in the extension of tenancy document, there were no significant modifications to the term and conditions of the tenancy. This extension ran from 24 January 2022 to 23 January 2023.
The tenants also produced evidence that they signed a further extension to the original tenancy agreement that committed them to a further twelve-month fixed term tenancy from 24 January 2023 to 23 January 2024. Again, there was the standard annual rent increase recorded in the extension of tenancy document, but there were no significant modifications to the term and conditions of the tenancy.
The tenants say they had various repair and maintenance issues during their tenancy that never got resolved and that these issues caused them significant stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. They began to question whether the premise was a healthy home for them and their son and started to research what they could find about the premise. As part of their research, the tenants became aware of the advertisement the real estate agents had used when the landlord purchased the property in 2020. This advertisement stated the farmhouse they rented was unconsented. The tenants contacted the Auckland City Council (“the Council”) about the present status of the building. The Council reply, which has been provided to the Tribunal, confirmed the property was classified as “derelict” and unconsented.
The Council provided the tenants with documents relating to the property. In the documents was a letter dated 12 August 2002 from Jeremy Lawton Designs to Rodney District Council advising that the kitchen in the derelict building had been removed and that it would not be used as a dwelling in future.
The Council also advised the tenants in writing that due to the properties status the landlord does not pay rates on the property.
The Council was unable to assist the tenants with their inquiries about the safe and sanitary condition of the property as they did not have a copy of that report. They were directed to contact Regulatory Support for advice.
The tenants say they were only made aware of the “derelict building” information well after the start of the tenancy and were concerned they were living in an unlawful premise and wanted a safe and healthy home for themselves and their young son.
At the 7 June 2023 hearing, the parties agreed that the tenancy would come to an end by agreement at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 September 2023 or earlier by the giving of one week’s notice. The tenants moved out on 1 July 2023, after the giving of the requisite notice.
The primary reason for the landlord’s application for a rehearing succeeding was that he was not made aware of the email the tenants had obtained from the Council stating the rental premise was classified as “derelict” and unconsented.
The landlord says he was not given the opportunity to defend the tenants claim that the rental premise was unlawful, based on the email information they had obtained from the local Council, that he had not been served prior to the 7 June 2023 hearing.
After receiving the email, the tenants relied on to prove the rental premise was unlawful, the landlord took steps to prove the rental premise has building consent, is lawful and that he is legally entitled to rent it out.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

Section 78A RTA provided that the Tribunal can determine if the premises are unlawful residential premises. That term is defined in the Act as: “For the purpose of this act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but- a. That cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and, as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation. b. Where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H (2) (c) or 66I (1) (c)”
The landlord produced an apology email from the local Council, dated 23 June 2023, for the email in which one of compliance officers had stated the property is an unlawful residential premises as it was listed as a “derelict building” and unconsented by Council. The email goes on to say that there is no such classification under the Building Act or its predecessors and explains the error as having occurred due to the building at [address suppressed] not being consented for use as a dwelling and the owner having only been paying ne set of rates for the property. It goes on to say “Because the building was constructed prior to 1991, the Safe and Sanitary Report you have submitted will be sufficient to satisfy Council that no action need be taken under any building legislation”. Further, it says, “The continued existence of the kitchen and the S&S Report will be recorded on your property file as voluntary disclosure of unauthorised building work- pre Building Act”. Lastly, the email also confirms “the use of the property for two dwellings is however a breach of the Resource Management Act 1991 and Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and will need to be addressed by you. In the absence of a resource consent, you are only permitted to have one dwelling on the property. Please be advised that a case file will be opened for my team to ensure compliance with this requirement”.
The landlord also produced an email, dated 4 July 2022, from Rates@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz that confirms the landlord had objected to the 2021 rating valuation for the property as a single dwelling site and notes “our valuers have reviewed the objection and corrected the error in or valuation roll under section 14 provision and I confirm we are now recording the property as a 2 dwelling site”. The landlord confirmed that he back paid the rates for the 2022/2023 year and from 2023/2024 year he has been rated on two dwellings, even though the 1930’s farmhouse does not have Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) consent.
The landlord subsequently received a confirmation email from Council, dated 6 July 2023, that confirms the farmhouse now has the “status of building consent issued” on the basis it has a “third party report for building works before 1 July 1992”. On 6 August 2924, the tenants received an email from Auckland Council confirming it “had received a Resource consent application from the property owner of [address suppressed], on the 14th of February 2024, that the resource consent application was for legitimising the use of the original 1930s dwelling for worker accommodation and that the property owner was sent a rejection letter for the Resource consent application on the 26th of February 2024”. The email goes on to say “the reason for the rejection letter was that the application did not demonstrate that the proposed activity meets the definition of “Workers' accommodation” (as opposed to being a second dwelling) and the property owner was advised to make use of the councils pre application advice and submit a new application”. The email concludes with “As of today, the property owner is breaching the RMA by having 2 dwellings on the property. Specifically: a. Section 9(2) of the RMA states that no person may use land in a manner that contravenes a regional rule unless the use is expressly allowed by a resource consent. The regional rule that has been breached is: Activity Table H19.8.1(A27) of the AUP(OP), which states that minor dwellings in a Rural Production Zone are a restricted discretionary activity and require a resource consent. b. Section 9(3) states that no person may use land in a manner that contravenes a district rule unless the use is expressly allowed by a resource consent. The district rule that has been breached is: Activity Table H19.8.2(A74) of the AUP(OP), which states that two dwellings per site where the site is less than 40ha is a non-complying activity and requires a resource consent. c. There is no resource consent for either the minor dwelling or the second dwelling”.
On 18 August 2024, the tenants were also advised by the Council that it had sent an abatement notice to the landlord that day and that he had been informed he had to disestablish the second dwelling and the caravan dwelling, or, apply for a resource consent and he had three months to comply.
The landlord confirmed he has since made another application for resource management consent in late September 2024 and that the reason the first application was rejected was because Council required additional information his planning experts had not thought would be required to support the first application. He produced an email from Council confirming this. The landlord says he is confident that the second application will result in him receiving resource consent.
The Tribunal does not have expertise in the areas of building consents and the RMA and does not purport to.
I am however satisfied that on the plain reading of s78A “an unlawful premise” being defined as a residential premise that “cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person...” that the rental premise could not, under the RMA, be lawfully occupied by the tenants, but could be lawfully occupied by the owner.
I am satisfied that the landlord knew at the time of purchasing the property that it was an unconsented in that it did not have building consent or RMA consent and that the landlord was aware of these facts when he rented the premise to the tenants.
I find the premises are an unlawful residential premises, for the purpose of being rented to tenants, pursuant to this being a breach of the landlord’s obligations under the RMA as well as the regional and district rules.
On considering all the evidence, I am satisfied this is a technical breach that has not caused the tenants any quantifiable loss.
The tenants say their relationship has become so strained during the process of addressing the unlawful nature of the rental premise and the other breaches of the landlord’s obligations to them, that they have separated, and their young son no longer lives with his two parents in a happy and safe home environment.
While I accept the issues that have brought both parties to the Tribunal have been protracted and stressful, I do not accept that the breakdown of the tenants love relationship can be solely attributable to the landlord not having RMA consent to have two dwellings and a caravan on the property, nor that I could place a monetary value on such a loss. I find it more appropriate to address the losses suffered by the tenants under the repairs and maintenance section of this Order.
The rental premise has been proven to have passed the building consent standards and at all times during the tenancy was deemed habitable, pursuant to the 10 December 2022 Safe and Sanitary Report. In addition, the only reason the premise was not recorded as having building consent at the time the tenants began their private investigation of the status of the premise and property with the Council, was because of an administrative error by the Council. It had not recorded receipt of the original 10 December S&S Report and only found its error when the landlord raised a complaint about the email that was sent to the tenants describing the rental premise as “derelict” and “unconsented”.
The tenants also raised concerns that if the premise does not have RMA consent, then their contents insurance may have been invalidated and that could have led to losses if there had been a fire or the like. I do not accept that a house that has building consent would not be able to be insured for house and contents insurance or that if a party tried to make a claim on such insurance, the insurer would decline the claim based on no RMA consent. Anyway, no such issue arose during the tenancy and no losses were experienced by the tenants because of the property’s RMA status.
For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the tenant’s claims for compensation for having lived in an RMA unconsented premise for the duration of the tenancy, even though the landlord was aware of this when he rented the premise to them. Other miscellaneous tenant claim for reimbursement
At the original hearing the parties agreed that the tenants should be compensated for the cost involved in obtaining Council documents relating to the status of the premises. The landlord agreed to pay the tenants $68.17 for the cost of the Council documents.
At the 3 October 2024 hearing, the landlord confirmed again that he was prepared to compensate the tenants for obtaining the Council documents on the status of the premise.
I have awarded the landlord pay this compensation to the tenants accordingly. Section 45(1) of the RTA breaches
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Compensation may also be awarded for breaches of the landlords s45(1) obligations in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants or reimbursement for actual costs incurred by the tenant that should not have been borne by him/her/they. A.Failure to maintain the premises
[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and to comply with relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The tenants claim that during their tenancy, they have had issues with leaks around the window in the master bedroom, old mouldy and rotten windowsills, a one and a half inch gaps around the door in the master bedroom leading to the outside, high moisture reading in the bathroom, leaking roof, no ventilation in the kitchen and serious electrical issues.
The tenants explained that they wanted a premises close to [suburb supressed], where their child attends school. They advised that there are few residential properties for rent in this semi-rural small town. They sought a semi-rural environment and had hoped to stay at the property for some while. As such, they continued to extend their fixed term tenancy, despite the continual repair and maintenance issues they experienced during their 109 week and 4-day tenancy. Leaks in the bathroom
The tenants described and produced evidence to support their claim that there were ongoing issues with leaks in the bathroom ceiling that were continually investigated but never fully repaired or the repairs that were done never fixed the issue.
The landlord says each leak was a new problem and that overtime the leak moved across the bathroom and was never in the same place. This made it hard to isolate and remedy the cause of the leak(s).
The tenants confirmed they raised the issue of a leaking bathroom ceiling on the first day of the tenancy, being 28 May 2021. They say the issue has continued throughout the tenancy, despite the landlord attempting to resolve the problem with his roofer and that roof requires further replacement of the old iron on parts of it.
The landlord confirmed that, in November 2020, he had all the roof, except the bathroom roof, replaced with colour steel when he renovated the premise. He says he did not replace the bathroom roof at that time as the builder that did the renovations confirmed the rook was in good condition and did not need replacing at that time. He accepted the advice of the licenced building practitioner (“LBP”) he used. The LBP gave him a warranty on the roof.
After the tenants raised issues and concerns with the bathroom, the landlord conducted a Moisture Testing Report by The Auckland Home Check Company on the property dated 9 March 2023. The moisture reading in the bathroom was extreme at 99.9%. All the other moisture readings throughout the house were all within acceptable levels of 18%. The conclusion of the report was the bathroom roof was iron and rusted. It recommended replacing all existing old roof iron.
The report writer concluded that the high moisture in the bathroom appeared to be caused by several leaks in the bathroom roof iron. The remedy was to remove and replace the old roof iron.
The landlord says he had conducted his own moisture reading tests on 17 December 2022, which he says showed readings of 18.5 – 9.2 in the bathroom. The landlord stated that the moisture readings had increased significantly between December 2022 and March 2023, and he attributes this to the tenants not looking after the place properly and not advising him that the leaks had been ongoing. The tenants strongly disputed both assertions.
The landlord also claims the wet weather events in Auckland in January, February and May of 2023 were one in a hundred-year events and the roof leaks were a result of these events and were outside of his control. In addition, he says that tradesmen were difficult to get at that time due to the widespread damage the wet weather events had caused to numerous Auckland properties.
The tenants produced text messages that proved they raised issues with the leaking roof on 28 May 2021, the day their tenancy first commenced, and the landlord got an additional piece of iron placed on the roof to stop the leak.
The tenants proved a second bathroom leak occurred on 7 October 2021 and that they had a dehumidifier running constantly to try and dry the house out and keep the house free from dampness from the ongoing bathroom leaks that had not been resolved. The tenants confirmed that where the leak came into the bathroom changed over time and that it slowly went from the left-hand side to the right-hand side of the bathroom. The landlord says this is proof that there were separate distinct leaks that were resolved, and new ones developed. I do not agree. The evidence shows the roof had a continuous issue and that as various attempted fixes were made, the track the water took varied slightly.
The landlord says the leak was fixed on 11 October 2021, by the installation of a 250mm pipe flashing being added to the iron roof. The tenants say that this did not stop the increasing dampness and mould that was developing in the bathroom and that they were running the dehumidifier in the bathroom, and it was requiring emptying 3 times a day. The tenants produced a text message dated 20 November 2021 that proves they informed the landlord on the ongoing dampness and mould issue and that nothing further was done to address these issues.
On 17 December 2022 a third leak occurred. This showed the source of the issue had not been found and the issue not fixed.
The tenants produced further text messages date 11 and 18 March 2023 confirming the bathroom leaks are still dripping after Bob Hodges had made the latest improvements and that the tenants were concerned about the time taking to resolve the source of their damp and mouldy bathroom.
The landlord confirmed that on 7 July 2023, a new roof was fabricated for that area of the house and installed. The tenants had moved out on 1 July 2023.
I am satisfied that the landlord was aware on the ongoing bathroom ceiling leaks and although he took steps to try to locate and remediate the leaks, all attempts were unsuccessful and as a result the moisture readings in the bathroom continued to increase as the room became damper and mould started to grow on the ceilings and walls.
I find it appropriate to award the tenants compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the bathroom leaks and the resulting dampness and mould the tenants ended up living with as a result, in addition to the additional power costs they incurred for running a dehumidifier constantly to try and dry the room and house out. I award the tenants compensation for the period 28 May 2021 to 1 July 2023 at $40.00 rent reduction each week for 109 weeks and 4 days. Electrical issues
The tenants described two separate electrical events where the power board “blew” up twice causing loss of power and damaged household appliances.
The tenants say on 4 January 2023, a power point in their son’s bedroom blew up and then straight afterwards the asbestos power box inside the lounge exploded. The tenants were left without power.
The tenants claimed that the landlord was away from Auckland when these issues arose, and when they contacted him, he did little to nothing to assist them to remedy the situation they were in.
The tenants called Vector and they sent someone out at 1am on 5 January 2024. Vector informed the tenants it could do nothing to help them and that they needed to contact their power provider.
The tenants say they were without power for a week until they found an electrician themselves by going on to a community page on Facebook and asking for an emergency electrician. An electrician contacted them from this enquiry, and he came on 10 January 2023 and put the power on bypass after getting permission to do so. The landlord say he paid for this service, but the tenants say the electrician told them he was happy to help them out and did not charge them anything.
After this power surge, the tenants discovered that the heat pump no longer worked, nor did the lights in the garage nor did the blown power point. The electrician also informed the tenants and the landlord that the power meter and power board both urgently needed replacing. The electrician also confirmed that the wiring in the power meter was asbestos insulated that was Vector’s responsibility to remedy. He said that the house also needed rewiring with modern RCD’s and a surge protector as well as replacement of the power meter and that he could assist with that.
The tenants say that by 12 January 2023, they still had the work around power solution, and nothing further had been done to remedy the electrical issues, not all of which had been caused by the power surge. They say the wiring in the house had been in urgent need of modernising and upgrading. The fuse box and power meter were still not fixed and nor were the garage lights, the heat pump, or the power point.
The landlord confirmed to me that subsequentially Vector energy accepted responsibility for power surges at the property from 4 to 7 January 2023. He produced written evidence of this. He also confirmed to the tenants that they could have made a claim against Vector for any losses they incurred because of these two surges as he had given them the information to the tenants that they would require to support any such claims.
The tenants described and produced text messages that prove the power meter was unable to be fixed until the isolation fuse had been done that were dated 20 to 23 January 2023.
The tenants say that on 13 February 2023, another power surge occurred.
On 13 February 2023, the tenants’ text the landlord asking for permission to get the electrician to undertake the work he could do and to liaise with Vector. The landlord gave them his consent.
The landlord says he was happy with the electrician’s work and engaged to underwork on three other power boxes on other houses.
On 19 February 2023, the tenants issued a 14-day notice to the landlord requiring him to fix the heat pump, power points and garage lights.
On 26 February 2023, the tenants were informed that until the power meter was replaced the electrician could not address these issues and the electrician had to wait for Vector to put in a new power meter. After waiting some time for Vector to do this, Trust Power told the electrician that Vector did not like the asbestos insulation on the wires. Eventually the landlord agreed to ay to get these wires removed so a new the power meter could be installed.
I find that, despite the two one in a hundred-year wet weather events that caused issues outside of the landlord’s control, like the power surges, the landlord did not have the power issues investigated and remediated in a reasonable timeframe, in all the circumstances.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the tenants compensation for the landlord’s failure to assist the tenants to restore the power for a whole week leaving them without power for the period 4 to 10 January 2023. I award them $40.00 rent reduction each week for 6 days they were without power. This comes to a total rent rebate of $34.29.
I also grant the tenants compensation for the landlord’s failure to repair the other electrical issues in a timely manner for the period 10 January 2023 to 12 March 2023 at $20.00 rent reduction each week for 8 weeks and 5 days. This comes to a total rent rebate of $180.00. B.Healthy Homes Standards Breaches
[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
[The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard, the draught stopping standard and the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenancy commenced on 25 May 2021, prior to the 1 July 2021 healthy homes standards requirements coming into effect.
The tenancy was never renewed, and no new tenancy agreement was ever signed by the parties after 28 May 2021. Therefore, the original tenancy agreement, signed by the prior tenants and reassigned to the tenants on 28 May 2021, establishes the date on which the landlord’s healthy homes obligations can be assessed. The tenancy commenced prior to 1 July 2021, as such the following healthy homes standards apply to this tenancy: (a)From 1 July 2019 it was compulsory for all landlords to: (ii)Have ceiling and underfloor insulation, where it is reasonably practicable to install. If it not reasonably practicable, the landlord must record in the tenancy agreement that it has an exemption and why; (iii)Include a signed statement of its intent to comply with the healthy homes standards as part of any new tenancy agreements; (iv)Include in any new tenancy agreement an additional signed statement that details what insulation the property has, where it is, and what type it is; (v)Keep records that demonstrate its compliance with any healthy homes standards that applied at the start of the tenancy or will apply during the tenancy. (b)From 1 December 2020, it was also compulsory for all landlords to include a statement of their current level of compliance with the healthy homes standards in new or renewed tenancy agreements.
The parties only ever extended the original 1 January 2021 tenancy agreement. The original tenancy agreement was never renewed or a new tenancy agreement signed by the parties. Therefore, the 1 July 2019 and the 1 December 2020 landlord obligations apply to this tenancy. The 1 July 2021 landlord obligations would not have applied to the tenancy until 1 July 2025. The tenancy ended on 1 July 2024.
I dismiss the tenants’ claims that the landlord breached its healthy homes standards obligations, for the reasons outlined above, and acknowledge that the landlord proved it not only met the 2019 and 2020 obligations, but it also installed a new externally vented rangehood on 22 January 2023 and a new heat pump after the existing one was damaged by a power surge in January 2023. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenants claim the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment by the landlord and his family always being at the property.
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.
This is a 9.2-hectare property with two dwellings on it, it has a shared driveway, sheds, and cattle stops, and four horses. The landlord explained that he only came onto the other parts of the property and never the area around the tenant’s property. He explained that he must do regular maintenance on the property such as gorse and weed spraying. The landlord also has some sheds on the property that he stores items needed for the property maintenance. The landlord leases his paddock out for grazing of horses. His daughter has permission from the owners of the horses to ride and care for the horses.
For these reasons the landlord comes regularly to the property, but not the tenant’s portion.
I agree with Adjudicator Northwood that the landlord has not breached the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment. I dismiss the tenants claim for breach of quiet enjoyment accordingly for lack of evidence to uphold their claim on the balance of probabilities.
I also note that both parties confirmed to me that neither party disputed this finding by Adjudicator Northwood as set out in the original 13 June 2023 Order. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended by agreement on 1 July 2023. From the date of the original 13 June 2023 Tribunal Order, the tenants paid rent at the ordered reduced weekly rent of $496.00 per week.
The landlord provided rent records which prove that after the 13 June 2023 Order was set aside, the tenants should have paid the full $620.00 per week rent.
The landlord issued two 14-day notices for rent arrears when the tenants failed to pay the full rental amount set out in the extended tenancy agreement.
The rent records show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $285.65.
The tenants have proven they have an equitable offset to the amount claimed and as such, there are no rent arrears owing.
I have recorded the amount deducted from the full rent payable as I have reassessed the rent rebate that I consider justifiable based on the evidence heard by me at the 3 October 2024 hearing and not to record this deduction from the set aside order would lead to double dipping by the tenants for that period 13 June 2023 to 1 July 2023.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says the tenants damaged a fence post by using it for target practice with an air rifle and caused damage to the driveway by parking in a place that they had been asked not to and that caused the other users of the driveway to churn up the gravel driveway adjacent to where the tenants’ van was parked next to the “cowshed”.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord produced photographs that showed the fence post that had been damaged during the tenancy where it had been intentionally used for target practice. The tenants accepted responsibility for this damage during the hearing. The $23.84 claimed by the landlord was accepted by the tenants and has been awarded to the landlord.
The landlord produced receipts that proved it had the driveway resurfaced with mixed metals and levelled out at the beginning of February 2022 and that it had needed to have the driveway re levelled and resurfaced again in October and November 2023 in the area near the “cowshed” where the tenants had parked their white van. The landlord also produced photographs and videos of the tenants’ van parked in an area the landlord claims it forbade the tenants to park to stop the churning up of the driveway around that area.
The tenants produced a text message from the landlord that supports their assertion it granted them permission to park in that area in the winter months as the designated areas were too muddy for them to park in.
The landlord accepts it gave such permission but claims the shed it was referring to was next to the landlord’s shed and not next to the “cowshed” and that the permission was for the winter months and the tenants parked there all year around.
On reviewing the text message communication between the parties, I find that the shed the tenants were parked in on the Monday referred to in the text was sufficiently unclear that it could have meant either shed. Therefore, I am satisfied the tenants acted under the reasonable belief that they had been given permission to park next to the “cowshed” over the winter months and that the landlord did not issue them with any 14-day notices regarding them parking in there. Until very late in the tenancy
I find that any damage to the driveway was fair wea and tear and that the tenants did not carelessly or intentionally cause damage to the driveway by parking on the grass next to the “cowshed”. I am also satisfied that the tenants have disproved liability for the damage as they have proven that a number of other persons drive over the driveway causing fair wear and tear, that the text message giving permission to them to park next to shed was sufficiently unclear as to which shed, the tenants car was not parked on the driveway, but on the grass and and that the landlord did not issue prompt 14 day notices telling the tenants not to park there at all. I dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly. Breach of the landlord’s privacy
The landlord claims that the tenants have breached his privacy be recording and videotaping him and his tradespeople who come to access issues with the premises.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine “privacy” breaches of this nature, such as recording conversations between parties.
The tenants claimed that they had security camera around the outside of the property for security. The tenants have a classis vehicle of some value that is housed in a garage/carport on the property. Plus, they live in an isolated rural property where security is important.
I do not find the tenants have breached the landlord’s privacy.
The landlord claims the tenants have refused him access to the property and failed to advise him of maintenance issues.
I acknowledge the evidence shows the relationship between the parties has become very strained. Both parties have proven they are very decent people that have become frustrated and anxious with the situation they find themselves in.
The landlord and tenant describe an incident where the landlord was asked to leave the property. There is dispute about what each says happened, but the outcome is that the landlord feels he cannot go to the property.
I do not find that the tenants have refused the landlord access to the property. The difficulties have been a recent thing. The tenancy is to end soon and so hopefully any ongoing contact can be had without incident.
The landlord claims that the tenants failed to advise him of maintenance issues, specifically the ongoing issues with the leaking roof. The landlord claimed that failure to advise him and allow him to remedy has exacerbated the problems causing him more money to remedy.
The tenants dispute this claim and say they have always contacted the landlord about the roof situation. They claim that there have been phone calls as well as the text messages they have produced to the Tribunal and some emails regarding issues.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the tenants alleged failure to tell him of maintenance issues for failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove his claims. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claims. I dismiss his claims for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532529 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532529 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Why am I rehearing these matters?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

How much is owed for rent ?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Why am I rehearing these matters?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

How much is owed for rent ?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions