What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535610 about?

The tribunal order states: Robert Thompson and Deborah Ruth Thompson must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4535610?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,077.14 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535610?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9774403-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4535610 about?

The tribunal order states: Robert Thompson and Deborah Ruth Thompson must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4535610?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,077.14 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4535610?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4535610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9774403-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 19, 66 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4535610 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4535610 — net $1,097.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$1,077.14	Loss of amenity
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$1,097.58
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,097.58

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4535610 — net $1,097.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$1,077.14	Loss of amenity
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$1,097.58
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,097.58

Order

Robert Thompson and Deborah Ruth Thompson must pay [The tenant/s] $1,097.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants claim that the landlord breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants seek compensation for loss of amenity.
The landlord claims for reimbursement for power, costs for damage caused by the tenant and costs for loss of rent. Tenant’s application
The tenant raised three issues for the hearing in relation to the tenancy. The first relates to a leak at the front door, the second relates to a shower leak and the third relates to a broken front door lock. Front door leak
On 25 September 2021, three months after commencement of the tenancy, the tenants advised the landlord that water was entering the premises around the front door.
Inside the front door there is a row of tiles which leads to the carpeted lounge space. The tenants have produced photographs showing the rotten wood under the door sill and mushrooms growing on the carpet. The tenant’s evidence is that the leak would be worse with heavy rain and the carpet was damp with any amount of rain.
The wall at least two metres along from the door shows sign of water ingress as the skirting board is swollen and that is where the mushrooms were located.
The tenants did not discover the mushrooms until just before the tenancy ended. The landlord saw the mushrooms at the same time.
The amount of water ingress varied depending on the amount of rainfall but there were times when the tenants say the water splashed when they walked on that part of the carpet, and they would wear their shoes inside because of the water.
The water ingress issues for this premises were not new. A Tribunal order dated 12 March 2021 found that the landlord knew about a leak in the same area on 3 June 2020 and in response a significant repair was carried out and a heat pump installed. The repair involved installation of a cement screed on the exterior area in front of the door. The landlord thought the issue had been fixed after that repair.
After learning that the problem had returned the landlord arranged for a builder to replace all the wood around the door and window. That work took from 12 November 2021 until 2 February 2022.
On 7 February 2022 the tenant emailed the landlord to advise that the carpet was wet again.
From when the tenant first raised the issue of the water ingress in September 2021 the landlord advised the tenant to always run the heat pump on the dry function right up until the end of the tenancy. The landlord agreed to reimburse the tenant for extra power used to run the heat pump which she calculated to be $170.40.
The loss of amenity in relation to the front door leak is that the tenants had to live with wet carpet on and off for 53 weeks and 6 days being from the day they advised the landlord until the end of the tenancy. The work required to attempt to fix the problem took almost three months, which would have also impacted on the tenants.
While the landlord took steps to address the problem the reality is that the tenants lived with damp, wet or soaked carpet for many months. The tenants claim that this has had an impact on their health. I make no finding on that issue. I do however note that there must be moisture for fungus to grow on the carpet.
After the tenants left the tenancy, the landlords went to some expense to completely replace the door and window where the leaking occurred. It seems that this may have fixed the issue. But this is of no benefit to these tenants. Shower leak
The Building Manager employed by the Body Corporate advised the tenants that the downstairs shower was leaking into the carpark below and instructed them to stop using the shower. He instructed them to do this on several occasions, usually when the tenants were mid-way through a shower.
The landlord instructed the tenants to continue to use the shower, notwithstanding the advice they had received from the Building Manager. It seems to me that the tenants were caught in the conflict between the landlords and the Building Manager.
The landlord’s position was that until the Building Manager provided evidence that the shower from their unit was responsible for the leak, as opposed to other units, the tenants should continue to use the shower.
The landlord was upset that the tenant opened the door to the Building Manager who had a tradesman with him to investigate the leak. There is no legislation restricting the tenants from doing so. What the landlord was not happy about was that the Body Corporate sent them an invoice for part of the cost for the investigation.
At the hearing the landlord produced an email he sent to the Building Manager dated 11 July 2022. In that email the landlord warned the Building Manager to not enter any of the four units owned by them or the courtyard outside unit 19. It seems from the second half of the email that there is clearly a history to the relationship between the landlord and the Building Manager with the landlord questioning the level of work carried out by the Building Manager who is paid for by the Body Corporate.
The tenant’s evidence is that for many months they avoided using the downstairs shower which meant that they only had the use of one shower when the rent they paid was for two showers.
Between 1 and 14 July 2022 the landlords arranged for the entire downstairs shower unit to be removed and replaced. The tenants say that during this period they had no shower to use.
What I got from the landlord’s evidence was that he could not understand how the tenants could be disadvantaged from only having the use of one shower. To be clear, the tenants have paid for two showers and that is what they are entitled to. Door lock
The tenants say that there was an issue with the front door, which is the only entrance to the premises. They could not shut it properly and instead had to lift it to open and shut the door. They advised the landlord on 12 August 2022.
The landlord arranged for a locksmith to fix this but there was some difficulty in getting a locksmith and then a part needed to be ordered. This resulted in a delay for the door lock being repaired. The lock was finally repaired on 26 August 2022.
The handle had been removed but a temporary bolt was installed on the inside of the door. During the day the tenants used a bungee cord to keep the door shut and at night the bolt was used to secure the premises. The problem with this was that the bolt could only be used once all tenants were home. Therefore, there were periods at night when the door was not locked.
The landlord’s evidence was that there was no incident, and the units are in a locked, secure community and only the residents of the other 41 units would be able to access the premises. They also said that they know of no previous theft in the complex.
However, the tenant’s evidence is that they did at times feel unsafe.
Section 46(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Discussion
In paying rent tenants are entitled to expect that the landlord will adhere to basic minimum standards, undertake necessary repairs and maintenance, and to expect to live in a warm and healthy home.
In addition, landlords have clear obligations that are set out in section 45 of the Act. There are no exemptions to these obligations. These include the responsibility to ensure that premises are provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair. In this case, I find that the landlord has failed to meet their obligation to maintain and repair.
The landlord argued that they took steps to address issues and took matters such as the leak seriously. They say that they could not have done more.
I note that the landlord did not provide any commercial carpet drying assistance and instead required the tenants to use the heat pump and pay for the extra power to address the damp carpet. There is no evidence that the heat pump was sufficient for the wet carpet. Usually in flood situations that come before the Tribunal commercial carpet drying machines are used.
Damages in civil claims fall into two main categories. Compensatory damages aim to compensate any losses incurred by a party. In this case the primary loss I must focus on in deciding the amount to compensate the tenants in this case is what is referred to as a loss of amenity. That is, rather than a direct financial loss the tenants have essentially been paying for something they have not received.
In this case, there has clearly been a loss of amenity. The loss of amenity relates to disruption to the shower usage.
In addition, the tenants have been affected by the damp or wet carpet over a lengthy period of time. The tenants paid rent and in return expected a clean, dry, warm home that was properly maintained. They did not at all times receive that.
Overall, I consider a global figure to recompense the tenants for this loss of amenity and compensation for the living situation is warranted. I consider that an award of $1,077.14 is reasonable in the circumstances. That figure is calculated at $20.00 per week for the 53 weeks and 6 days from the day they reported the leak until the end of the tenancy. Landlord application Power
The landlord claims for reimbursement for power. As mentioned above the landlord reimbursed the tenants for the extra power used for the heat pump to dry the damp carpet. While this was over a lengthy period the landlord calculated the extra cost at only $170.40.
While the landlord gave the tenant this money, they now seek it back because it was given in good faith and after the tenant filed their application with the Tribunal the landlord considers that there is no longer any good faith.
The reality is that the tenants needed to use extra power to dry the carpet. It is likely that the Tribunal would reimburse the tenants for this cost. It may be that the Tribunal would calculate a reimbursement higher than $170.40 given that it was almost a year that the heat pump was used to dry the carpet.
I see no compelling reason for this money to be returned to the landlord. It is to reimburse the tenants for a cost that they should not be responsible for. Damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the front door, a sensor light, the toilet, the shower, for paintwork in the stairwell and for plumbing (charged by the Body Corporate).
The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims.
In relation to the front door the tenants claim that after the door frame had been fixed the door would catch and had to be lifted slightly to be opened and closed. They deny being responsible for the damage to the front door.
In relation to the sensor light, the tenant said that the bulb was removed from the light because it would not turn off and it was disrupting the tenants and others from being on for 24 hours each day. The tenant had also tried to adjust the direction that the light was directed toward, and this may have caused damage to the light. The tenant cannot be responsible for this because such a light is designed to be moved to change direction.
In relation to the shower the tenant said that the handle broke when the shower was being used. It was in the turned-on position. The tenants needed to take off the front plate to turn the shower off. This is why the face plate was removed as evidenced in the photograph produced by the landlord.
The landlord produced some photographs of the stairwell, but the damage was not clear. There were also no photographs produced of the stairwell before the tenancy started. I am therefore unable to determine the extent of any damage and whether it occurred during this tenancy.
The plumbing charge relates to an invoice from the Body Corporate in relation to the cost of a Plumber investigating the leak into the garage below. The landlord considers that the tenant is responsible for this cost because the tenant let the Building Manager and a Plumber into the unit to investigate the leak. This is not a cost that the tenant should be responsible for. In the circumstances the cost is a matter between the landlord and the Body Corporate. Lost rent
In the application the landlord claimed lost rent due to the tenant’s early release from the fixed term tenancy, due to charging less for rent and for the time required to have the unit painted.
It seems that there was agreement between the parties for the tenancy to end early. The landlord’s position only changed once the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal because the agreement was given in good faith. As it was agreed the landlord cannot subsequently seek costs that result from that agreement.
The landlord also gave evidence that the new tenant was unable to enter the premises due to the painting that was required. There was no evidence produced to support this and, in any event, I have not allowed the claim for compensation for damage and therefore the tenant should not be responsible for any costs due to the time taken to prepare the premises for a new tenant.
The landlord had also claimed for cleaning and the time taken to clean but again there was insufficient evidence to support this claim.
Given the reasons set out above including the lack of evidence, the landlords’ application is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because the tenants have had substantial success with their application the filing fee is reimbursed. For the same reason the tenants’ names are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535610 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 19, 66 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4535610 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 19, 66 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Auckland

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