What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4578630 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims in relation to the roof repair/replacement and general

How much money was awarded in case 4578630?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4578630?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4578630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9712471-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4578630 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims in relation to the roof repair/replacement and general

How much money was awarded in case 4578630?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4578630?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4578630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9712471-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A Hurdley Street, West End, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4578630 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s claims in relation to the roof repair/replacement and general damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 6 November 2023.
Following the hearing I made Orders in relation to most issues arising from Ms Chamberlain’s application.
The hearing in relation to asbestos removal and general damages was adjourned for the landlord to provide further evidence in relation to the removal of roofing material in 2022.
After the hearing Ms Chamberlain also provided further evidence of dust at the property. Asbestos Removal
Ms Chamberlain asked the Tribunal to direct the landlord to test the property for asbestos contamination following the removal of asbestos containing building materials in September 2022 (roofing) and January 2023 (vinyl flooring).
The tenant is concerned that the landlord or its contractor’s did not follow correct safety procedures for the removal, handling and disposal of asbestos related materials.
The landlord has provided evidence of the safety procedures implemented when the vinyl product was removed and provided copies of clearance documents including laboratory testing. The tenant is concerned that dust created during renovation works may have contained asbestos but has no independent evidence to support that view. That landlord provided clear evidence of its safety procedures, decontamination clearance and laboratory results. There was no basis for me to question or look behind those documents. Any claim relating to the removal of vinyl and the renovation work completed in January/February 2023 was dismissed in an interim order dated 8 November 2023.
The tenant also has concerns regarding the removal of roofing material in 2022. Again, there is no independent evidence of the steps the landlord’s contractors should have taken but failed to take. I am mindful that the tenant has the onus of establishing its claims but have directed the landlord to provide copies of the safety procedures implemented when the roofing product was removed.
The landlord provided a copy of a decontamination clearance document which refers to the roofing product containing “non-friable” asbestos and provides a visual clearance. The document refers to the relevant Codes or Practice and Regulations for asbestos related work.
The landlord was also directed to provide a copy of the safety procedures implemented by its contractors for removal of the roof.The Landlord has now provided evidence of the safety controls in place for the roof removal as directed, including air testing (given the site’s proximity to a school).
The tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to the roof removal and replacement. The claim is dismissed.
It follows from my findings in relation to all matters that the tenant’s claim for general damages is also dismissed. All claims regarding breaches of health and safety obligations were dismissed. The landlord accepted that some modest repairs were required, and Ms Chamberlain proved that some kitchen repairs were also needed. Those matters do not entitle Ms Chamberlain to general damages.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 6 November 2023.

Following the hearing I made Orders in relation to most issues arising from Ms Chamberlain’s application.

The hearing in relation to asbestos removal and general damages was adjourned for the landlord to provide further evidence in relation to the removal of roofing material in 2022.

After the hearing Ms Chamberlain also provided further evidence of dust at the property. Asbestos Removal

Ms Chamberlain asked the Tribunal to direct the landlord to test the property for asbestos contamination following the removal of asbestos containing building materials in September 2022 (roofing) and January 2023 (vinyl flooring).

The tenant is concerned that the landlord or its contractor’s did not follow correct safety procedures for the removal, handling and disposal of asbestos related materials.

The landlord has provided evidence of the safety procedures implemented when the vinyl product was removed and provided copies of clearance documents including laboratory testing. The tenant is concerned that dust created during renovation works may have contained asbestos but has no independent evidence to support that view. That landlord provided clear evidence of its safety procedures, decontamination clearance and laboratory results. There was no basis for me to question or look behind those documents. Any claim relating to the removal of vinyl and the renovation work completed in January/February 2023 was dismissed in an interim order dated 8 November 2023.

The tenant also has concerns regarding the removal of roofing material in 2022. Again, there is no independent evidence of the steps the landlord’s contractors should have taken but failed to take. I am mindful that the tenant has the onus of establishing its claims but have directed the landlord to provide copies of the safety procedures implemented when the roofing product was removed.

The landlord provided a copy of a decontamination clearance document which refers to the roofing product containing “non-friable” asbestos and provides a visual clearance. The document refers to the relevant Codes or Practice and Regulations for asbestos related work.

The landlord was also directed to provide a copy of the safety procedures implemented by its contractors for removal of the roof.The Landlord has now provided evidence of the safety controls in place for the roof removal as directed, including air testing (given the site’s proximity to a school).

The tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligations in relation to the roof removal and replacement. The claim is dismissed.

It follows from my findings in relation to all matters that the tenant’s claim for general damages is also dismissed. All claims regarding breaches of health and safety obligations were dismissed. The landlord accepted that some modest repairs were required, and Ms Chamberlain proved that some kitchen repairs were also needed. Those matters do not entitle Ms Chamberlain to general damages.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4578630 — Tenancy dispute at 1A Hurdley Street, West End, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4578630 — Tenancy dispute at 1A Hurdley Street, West End, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions