What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562234 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 4562234?

Compensation: $2,350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $40.88 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562234?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9304939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562234 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 4562234?

Compensation: $2,350.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $40.88 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562234?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562234?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9304939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Kaipara Portage Road, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4562234 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562234 — net $2,890.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of amenity	$2,350.00	Compensation for loss of amenity
Compensation for failure to give proper notice	$500.00	Compensation for failure to give proper notice
Filing fee reimbursement (x2	$40.88	Filing fee reimbursement (x2
Net award	$2,890.88
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,890.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
James Coakley must pay [The tenant/s] $2,890.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 28 June 2018. The house is a single storey home at the rear of a two-dwelling site, with access down a side driveway. The house has a workshop at the rear. The property is not connected to mains water and instead has a concrete water tank for the collection and storage of water.
The tenant initially filed an application on 30 April 2023 seeking work orders for the landlord to replace a broken stove and fix a leaking water tank, together with compensation in respect of both matters and in respect of drainage issues.
The parties attended mediation on 16 May 2023 and the mediator was able to make orders, by agreement, that the landlord replace the stove and repair the water tank using silicone. The tenant’s compensation claim was to be set down for hearing by the Tribunal.
The following day however, 17 May 2023, the landlord purported to give a 90 day notice to the tenant on the basis that they intended to sell the property. The tenant filed another claim in respect of the notice on 14 June 2023 claiming that the notice was retaliatory and had not been served until 7 June 2023.
The tenant’s claims were both heard together. However by the date of the hearing the tenant had moved out of the property (on 25 July 2023).

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must (in addition to other matters): (a)provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; (b)comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and (c)provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
The tenant says that the landlord has breached these obligations because the oven and stove did not work properly, the property regularly flooded, and the concrete water tank had cracks and leaked. Stove/oven
The tenant said that she had problems with the stove/oven from early on in the tenancy. By 21 January 2019 that the main burner on the stove was not working, and the tenant advised the landlord. By 2021 the oven was not keeping a set temperature and would randomly turn off. Gradually the other burners failed until by February 2023 the stove and oven were not functional at all.
The landlord accepted at the hearing that there was difficulty with the stove and oven. He said that the problem was difficult to solve and that various electricians and gas fitters attended over the years. The landlord accepted at mediation that the stove needed to be replaced, although ultimately had it repaired following the mediation after discovering that the jets on the stove had been configured as though the gas supply was from a bottle, when the house is on mains gas.
I have reviewed the correspondence between the parties. While the landlord did engage various tradespeople to repair the stove/oven over the years it was never fully functional and in fact was not properly repaired until after work orders were made at the mediation. It is clear from the correspondence that the tenant was becoming increasingly frustrated with the situation but that the issue did not appear to be a priority for the landlord. The tenant said that in the end she purchased an air fryer.
The fact that the tenant did not have a fully functioning stove/oven for most of the tenancy, and did not have a functioning stove/oven at all for a period, is unacceptable. I find that the landlord has breached his obligation to provide the oven/stove in a reasonable state of repair. Drainage
The tenant explained that the property had problems with drainage so that when it rained the section would fill up with water, and this water would also fill up the workshop. She said that when she moved into the property the landlord told her that her son could use the workshop as a play space but this was not possible because it constantly flooded. She said that during wet weather the water in the drive was over ankle deep, and it was difficult to access the property on foot.
The tenant produced photos showing extensive flooding in the workshop and over the drive, and at the rear of the property. She also produced evidence of her correspondence with the landlord about the issue throughout the tenancy.
The landlord accepted that there were drainage issues on the property. He explained that these issues had become increasingly problematic over the last five years. He has had a drainage expert come to look at the property who suggested that a solution might be to dig a very large soak pit, which could then be filled with scoria, but that there can be no guarantee that this will solve the problem. The landlord advised that this is likely to be very expensive and he simply does not have sufficient funds to pursue this option.
Having reviewed the evidence I find that the landlord has breached his obligations to maintain the property. I appreciate that drainage is a difficult issue and can be expensive and potentially time consuming to rectify but the tenant lived at the property for just over five years and no steps were taken by the landlord to resolve the issue. Water tank
Finally, the tenant said that the concrete water tank had leaks. She produced photos showing various cracks, together with correspondence with the landlord explaining that although she had paid for the tank to be filled, water was leaking out.
In the correspondence between the parties the landlord accepted that the tank had leaks but queried whether the water loss was of any particular consequence as only 5 – 7 litres per day was being lost. The landlord did seem to investigate replacing the tank but ultimately this was not pursued.
Having reviewed the evidence I find that the landlord has breached his obligations to provide and maintain the water tank in a reasonable state of repair, and his obligation to provide adequate means for the collection of water. The tenant was paying for water and was entitled to a water tank without leaks. Compensation
The tenant is entitled to compensation. She was paying rent for a property that was not up to standard and so did not get what she should have.
The tenant suggested that the loss of amenity should be calculated from 19 January 2019 at ten dollars per week (being the date that she first notified the landlord about problems with the oven), but that from the date of service of a 14 day notice by her on 4 April 2023 the compensation should be calculated at $30 per week (an additional $20 per week).
It is often difficult to precisely calculate compensation for loss of amenity and this is particularly so when problems gradually worsen over time (the stove/oven and the water tank) and are intermittent (the drainage). I agree with the tenant that, overall, compensation of $10 per week is appropriate. I accept that the flooding and drainage issues were not always present but at times they caused significant inconvenience. The oven/stove presented ongoing problems throughout almost the entire tenancy.
However I do not agree that a further penalty should be applied from the date of the 14 day notice as the value of the loss of amenity stayed the same, even though the tenant had served a formal notice. I note that the tenant has not sought exemplary damages (damages intended to punish the landlord for an intentional breach).
I calculate compensation at $10.00 per week from 21 January 2019 to the end of the tenancy on 25 July 2023, a period of 235 weeks. The total sum ordered is $2,350.00.

Was the 90-day notice properly served?

The tenant says that the day after the mediation the landlord purportedly served her with a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on the basis that the property was to be sold.
In her application the tenant claimed that the notice was retaliatory, but at the hearing she accepted that the landlord quite genuinely needed to sell the property for financial reasons.
The tenant said however that although the landlord claimed to have sent the notice by email on 17 May 2023, she did not receive it, and in fact did not receive the notice until 7 June, when she received a copy in her mailbox (an accepted method of service pursuant to section 136(2)(a)(ii) of the RTA) and was alarmed to see that the notice stated that it has been served on 17 May 2023 by email.
The difference in service dates is significant because if the notice had been served on 17 May 2023 the tenancy would end on 15 August 2023. If the notice had been served on 7 June 2023 then the tenancy would end on 7 September 2023.
The tenant immediately contacted the landlord on receipt of the notice on 7 June 2023 to say that she had only just received the notice for the first time. She produced various correspondence with the landlord in which she repeatedly said that she had not received the email of 17 May 2023, even after carefully searching her spam folder and deleted items.
The landlord maintained that the email had been sent on the 17 May 2023 and that he had a “read receipt” and that the tenancy would end on 15 August 2023. However the landlord did not provide the tenant with a copy of either the email or the read-receipt, despite repeated requests.
Section 136(1) of the RTA provides that:
The Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenant’s email address will be used as an address for service, so if the landlord had sent a copy of the notice to the tenant then the email would have been effective service, even if the tenant had not opened the email.
However on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that an email was sent to the tenant on 17 May 2023. The landlord did not send a copy of the email to the tenant after repeated requests, and did not produce a copy of either the email or the read-receipt at the hearing.
In my view, based on the evidence before me, the notice was not properly served until it was placed in the tenant’s mailbox on 7 June 2023 and so the notice period did not end until 7 September 2023.
However the tenant has given notice in the meantime (28 days) and has moved out. She said that she did not feel she could wait for a declaration from the Tribunal give the short time frames involved. Her position is understandable.
The tenant seeks compensation on the basis that she might have been able to find a cheaper tenancy if had received the required additional 21 days notice (her new tenancy is more expensive), had to move urgently which caused additional stress and inconvenience, and incurred additional costs.
I do not consider that I have sufficient evidence before me to show that the tenant might have found a cheaper tenancy if she had received the correct notice, or has incurred additional costs, and so I am not prepared to order compensation on that basis. I do accept that the tenant should receive some compensation for the stress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of the landlord’s actions. The tenant lived at the property for over five years and had to move suddenly without receiving the required notice. I award the tenant compensation of $500.00.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with her claims I have reimbursed both filing fees paid.
The tenant has sought name suppression. As she has been substantially successful she is entitled to an order for name suppression and I order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562234 — net $2,890.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of amenity	$2,350.00	Compensation for loss of amenity
Compensation for failure to give proper notice	$500.00	Compensation for failure to give proper notice
Filing fee reimbursement (x2	$40.88	Filing fee reimbursement (x2
Net award	$2,890.88
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,890.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
James Coakley must pay [The tenant/s] $2,890.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 28 June 2018. The house is a single storey home at the rear of a two-dwelling site, with access down a side driveway. The house has a workshop at the rear. The property is not connected to mains water and instead has a concrete water tank for the collection and storage of water.
The tenant initially filed an application on 30 April 2023 seeking work orders for the landlord to replace a broken stove and fix a leaking water tank, together with compensation in respect of both matters and in respect of drainage issues.
The parties attended mediation on 16 May 2023 and the mediator was able to make orders, by agreement, that the landlord replace the stove and repair the water tank using silicone. The tenant’s compensation claim was to be set down for hearing by the Tribunal.
The following day however, 17 May 2023, the landlord purported to give a 90 day notice to the tenant on the basis that they intended to sell the property. The tenant filed another claim in respect of the notice on 14 June 2023 claiming that the notice was retaliatory and had not been served until 7 June 2023.
The tenant’s claims were both heard together. However by the date of the hearing the tenant had moved out of the property (on 25 July 2023).

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must (in addition to other matters): (a)provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; (b)comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety; and (c)provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
The tenant says that the landlord has breached these obligations because the oven and stove did not work properly, the property regularly flooded, and the concrete water tank had cracks and leaked. Stove/oven
The tenant said that she had problems with the stove/oven from early on in the tenancy. By 21 January 2019 that the main burner on the stove was not working, and the tenant advised the landlord. By 2021 the oven was not keeping a set temperature and would randomly turn off. Gradually the other burners failed until by February 2023 the stove and oven were not functional at all.
The landlord accepted at the hearing that there was difficulty with the stove and oven. He said that the problem was difficult to solve and that various electricians and gas fitters attended over the years. The landlord accepted at mediation that the stove needed to be replaced, although ultimately had it repaired following the mediation after discovering that the jets on the stove had been configured as though the gas supply was from a bottle, when the house is on mains gas.
I have reviewed the correspondence between the parties. While the landlord did engage various tradespeople to repair the stove/oven over the years it was never fully functional and in fact was not properly repaired until after work orders were made at the mediation. It is clear from the correspondence that the tenant was becoming increasingly frustrated with the situation but that the issue did not appear to be a priority for the landlord. The tenant said that in the end she purchased an air fryer.
The fact that the tenant did not have a fully functioning stove/oven for most of the tenancy, and did not have a functioning stove/oven at all for a period, is unacceptable. I find that the landlord has breached his obligation to provide the oven/stove in a reasonable state of repair. Drainage
The tenant explained that the property had problems with drainage so that when it rained the section would fill up with water, and this water would also fill up the workshop. She said that when she moved into the property the landlord told her that her son could use the workshop as a play space but this was not possible because it constantly flooded. She said that during wet weather the water in the drive was over ankle deep, and it was difficult to access the property on foot.
The tenant produced photos showing extensive flooding in the workshop and over the drive, and at the rear of the property. She also produced evidence of her correspondence with the landlord about the issue throughout the tenancy.
The landlord accepted that there were drainage issues on the property. He explained that these issues had become increasingly problematic over the last five years. He has had a drainage expert come to look at the property who suggested that a solution might be to dig a very large soak pit, which could then be filled with scoria, but that there can be no guarantee that this will solve the problem. The landlord advised that this is likely to be very expensive and he simply does not have sufficient funds to pursue this option.
Having reviewed the evidence I find that the landlord has breached his obligations to maintain the property. I appreciate that drainage is a difficult issue and can be expensive and potentially time consuming to rectify but the tenant lived at the property for just over five years and no steps were taken by the landlord to resolve the issue. Water tank
Finally, the tenant said that the concrete water tank had leaks. She produced photos showing various cracks, together with correspondence with the landlord explaining that although she had paid for the tank to be filled, water was leaking out.
In the correspondence between the parties the landlord accepted that the tank had leaks but queried whether the water loss was of any particular consequence as only 5 – 7 litres per day was being lost. The landlord did seem to investigate replacing the tank but ultimately this was not pursued.
Having reviewed the evidence I find that the landlord has breached his obligations to provide and maintain the water tank in a reasonable state of repair, and his obligation to provide adequate means for the collection of water. The tenant was paying for water and was entitled to a water tank without leaks. Compensation
The tenant is entitled to compensation. She was paying rent for a property that was not up to standard and so did not get what she should have.
The tenant suggested that the loss of amenity should be calculated from 19 January 2019 at ten dollars per week (being the date that she first notified the landlord about problems with the oven), but that from the date of service of a 14 day notice by her on 4 April 2023 the compensation should be calculated at $30 per week (an additional $20 per week).
It is often difficult to precisely calculate compensation for loss of amenity and this is particularly so when problems gradually worsen over time (the stove/oven and the water tank) and are intermittent (the drainage). I agree with the tenant that, overall, compensation of $10 per week is appropriate. I accept that the flooding and drainage issues were not always present but at times they caused significant inconvenience. The oven/stove presented ongoing problems throughout almost the entire tenancy.
However I do not agree that a further penalty should be applied from the date of the 14 day notice as the value of the loss of amenity stayed the same, even though the tenant had served a formal notice. I note that the tenant has not sought exemplary damages (damages intended to punish the landlord for an intentional breach).
I calculate compensation at $10.00 per week from 21 January 2019 to the end of the tenancy on 25 July 2023, a period of 235 weeks. The total sum ordered is $2,350.00.

Was the 90-day notice properly served?

The tenant says that the day after the mediation the landlord purportedly served her with a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on the basis that the property was to be sold.
In her application the tenant claimed that the notice was retaliatory, but at the hearing she accepted that the landlord quite genuinely needed to sell the property for financial reasons.
The tenant said however that although the landlord claimed to have sent the notice by email on 17 May 2023, she did not receive it, and in fact did not receive the notice until 7 June, when she received a copy in her mailbox (an accepted method of service pursuant to section 136(2)(a)(ii) of the RTA) and was alarmed to see that the notice stated that it has been served on 17 May 2023 by email.
The difference in service dates is significant because if the notice had been served on 17 May 2023 the tenancy would end on 15 August 2023. If the notice had been served on 7 June 2023 then the tenancy would end on 7 September 2023.
The tenant immediately contacted the landlord on receipt of the notice on 7 June 2023 to say that she had only just received the notice for the first time. She produced various correspondence with the landlord in which she repeatedly said that she had not received the email of 17 May 2023, even after carefully searching her spam folder and deleted items.
The landlord maintained that the email had been sent on the 17 May 2023 and that he had a “read receipt” and that the tenancy would end on 15 August 2023. However the landlord did not provide the tenant with a copy of either the email or the read-receipt, despite repeated requests.
Section 136(1) of the RTA provides that:
The Tenancy Agreement provides that the tenant’s email address will be used as an address for service, so if the landlord had sent a copy of the notice to the tenant then the email would have been effective service, even if the tenant had not opened the email.
However on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that an email was sent to the tenant on 17 May 2023. The landlord did not send a copy of the email to the tenant after repeated requests, and did not produce a copy of either the email or the read-receipt at the hearing.
In my view, based on the evidence before me, the notice was not properly served until it was placed in the tenant’s mailbox on 7 June 2023 and so the notice period did not end until 7 September 2023.
However the tenant has given notice in the meantime (28 days) and has moved out. She said that she did not feel she could wait for a declaration from the Tribunal give the short time frames involved. Her position is understandable.
The tenant seeks compensation on the basis that she might have been able to find a cheaper tenancy if had received the required additional 21 days notice (her new tenancy is more expensive), had to move urgently which caused additional stress and inconvenience, and incurred additional costs.
I do not consider that I have sufficient evidence before me to show that the tenant might have found a cheaper tenancy if she had received the correct notice, or has incurred additional costs, and so I am not prepared to order compensation on that basis. I do accept that the tenant should receive some compensation for the stress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of the landlord’s actions. The tenant lived at the property for over five years and had to move suddenly without receiving the required notice. I award the tenant compensation of $500.00.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with her claims I have reimbursed both filing fees paid.
The tenant has sought name suppression. As she has been substantially successful she is entitled to an order for name suppression and I order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562234 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Kaipara Portage Road, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562234 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Kaipara Portage Road, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Was the 90-day notice properly served?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant entitled to compensation?

Was the 90-day notice properly served?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions