What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4568072 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited as agent for H&H homes Limited must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4568072?

Compensation: $2,550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4568072?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4568072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9708444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4568072 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited as agent for H&H homes Limited must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4568072?

Compensation: $2,550.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4568072?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4568072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9708444-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

41 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4568072 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4568072 — net $2,570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,550.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,570.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,570.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Robin Phang and Blair Botherway.

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants claim that the landlord breached this their obligation because: a. The downstairs of the house leaked regularly and became damp and mouldy; b. The HRV system stopped working; c. The hot water cylinder started leaking; and d. The hose under the kitchen sink started leaking.

The tenancy property was a four bedroom home in Te Atatu, with basement garaging underneath. The tenancy began on 25 March 2022 and ended on 25 May 2023 (a period of just over 60 weeks). The rent was $850.00 per week.

I accept that the hot water cylinder and kitchen sink started leaking towards the end of the tenancy but these were not repaired partly because the tenants were already moving out by this stage. I do not consider that any compensation is warranted in respect of these two issues.

The leaking downstairs began early in the tenancy however and the HRV stopped working shortly after that. The tenants explained that the effect was that they had to deal with the constant stress of knowing that water was coming in almost every time it rained, the slate stairs would become wet and a tripping hazard, and their possessions stored against the wall became mouldy. They would constantly have to mop up water and clean the large area of mould that began to grow on the wall.

The tenants provided photos of the affected areas and the HRV panel showing that it was not working. They also provided numerous records of them having raised both issues (initially with the previous property manager, Frank, and including at inspections).

It appears that the issues were communicated to the owner but that no action was taken. The lack of maintenance led to the tenants moving out, which caused considerable inconvenience.

It appears from the tenancy agreement that the owner intends to demolish the property, but this does not absolve the landlord from their responsibility to maintain the property. The landlord has breached their obligations.

Having considered all of the evidence I am of the view that the tenants are entitled to some compensation. I accept that the affected area was not in a living area but the tenants were paying rent for the entire property and were entitled to have it maintained in accordance with the provisions of the RTA. The fact that the HRV stopped working meant that there was ongoing dampness in the home.

It is difficult to be precise when calculating loss of amenity for matters that are intermittent. It appears that the flooding was intermittent but the mould and damp were more of an ongoing problem.

Having considered the size of the property, the area affected, the intermittent nature of the problem, and the impact on the tenants I consider that compensation of three weeks rent to be appropriate to compensate the tenants or the loss of amenity of their home, which amounts to $2,550. This amounts to just over $40 per week for the duration of the tenancy.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants have been the successful party and are entitled to name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA. I have not suppressed the tenancy address.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4568072 — net $2,570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,550.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,570.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,570.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Robin Phang and Blair Botherway.

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

It appears that the issues were communicated to the owner but that no action was taken. The lack of maintenance led to the tenants moving out, which caused considerable inconvenience.

It is difficult to be precise when calculating loss of amenity for matters that are intermittent. It appears that the flooding was intermittent but the mould and damp were more of an ongoing problem.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants have been the successful party and are entitled to name suppression pursuant to Section 95A RTA. I have not suppressed the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4568072 — Tenancy dispute at 41 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4568072 — Tenancy dispute at 41 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

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