How much money was awarded in case 4586350?

3. Mr Anop Shall Pay The Landlord: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586350?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9557915-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4586350?

3. Mr Anop Shall Pay The Landlord: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586350?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9557915-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

208C Murphys Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4586350 — Leaks

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4586350 about?

The tribunal order states: Name suppression has been requested and the Tribunal declines an Order for

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4586350. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. Mr Anop shall pay the Landlord	$20.44		3. Mr Anop shall pay the Landlord

Name suppression has been requested and the Tribunal declines an Order for suppression of Mr Anop’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 208C Murphys Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 is terminated, and possession is granted to Madeg Trust (Trustees: Gordon & Ema Brkic), immediately.

Mr Anop shall pay the Landlord $20.44 immediately.

Mr Anop’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Mr Anop has applied for work orders, compensation, exemplary damages, breach of Healthy Home Standards and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Landlord has applied for termination, possession of the property and reimbursement of the filing fee.

This was a property that was built approximately four years ago and was brand new when Mr Anop moved in. It was a periodic tenancy that started on 1 August 2019. Mr Anop was served with a notice to terminate the tenancy on 27 May 2023. They were to vacate by 26 August 2023 but he refused to claiming this was a retaliatory termination.

It is noted Mr Anop filed further submissions after the hearing on 2 September 2023. These were not requested by the Tribunal and all evidence is to be provided by the parties at the time of the hearing, not after the hearing, unless the Tribunal has requested it.

For these reasons, I have not considered Mr Anop’s evidence filed on 2 September 2023, in making the following Orders. Landlord’s claim- Termination

The Landlord has applied for termination and possession of the premises.

On 27 May 2023, the Landlord served a Notice to vacate to Mr Anop pursuant to section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) stating the tenancy would end on 26 August 2023 because the Landlord needed to undertake major repairs to the property. This included renovating the water- damaged bathroom and repairing the water-damaged ceiling in the lounge. The Landlord submitted this could take a minimum of two to three months however it was impossible to provide a definite time frame. Their estimated timeframe was based on their experience in building the house themselves which took four years and the Landlord’s husbands expertise as a structural engineer. A copy of the notice was provided to the Tribunal which was dated 27 May 2023. Tenants claim -retaliatory termination

Mr Anop disputed the Landlord’s notice for termination claiming it was in retaliation to Mr Anop filing an application to the Tribunal. They sought $15,000.00 compensation. Mr Anop submitted he did not need to vacate the property for the repairs to be completed. The ceiling would take a maximum of two days to repair, the vanity would take three days to replace and the plumbing work could be completed in two weeks. Mr Anop did not provide any evidence from an independent expert to confirm this estimation. Mr Anop referred to an email from the Landlord stating they needed to vacate because they caused damage to the property.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, Mr Anop must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by Mr Anop exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In considering the evidence, Mr Anop has not provided sufficient evidence the Landlord was motivated to terminate the tenancy because Mr Anop applied to the Tribunal or because he had made multiple claims for repairs to the property. The notice to vacate was dated 27 May 2023 and Mr Anop’s application to the Tribunal was lodged on 14 June 2023. The Landlord had attempted to attend to most of the repairs and had responded in a reasonable timeframe to the notifications for repairs. They refused to repair damages where they found there was no actual damage or Mr Anop intentionally caused the damage but refused to take responsibility. If the Landlord was motivated to avoid repairs, one would have expected to see no evidence of the Landlord sending any Tradespeople to the property. This was not the case.

For this reason, I find the Termination was not retaliatory.

The claim by the Tenant is therefore dismissed.

The claim for termination by the Landlord is proved. Tenants claim- Work Orders

Mr Anop has claimed work orders for the following repairs: a) Damaged vanity door; b) Faulty garage door remote; c) Leaky shower; d) Faulty flashing alarm unit; e) Damaged garage door; f) Broken kitchen unit door; g) Faulty bathroom plug; h) Faulty toilet float

The tenancy is terminated and so Work Orders are not required. Tenant’s claim- Failure to repair

[The tenant/s] (‘Mr Anop’) claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Mr Anop is claiming $21,010.72 in total because the Landlord failed to conduct the following repairs: a) Faulty shower- Mr Anop claimed $12,480.00 because the Landlord failed to repair the leaking shower over a period of three years. They estimated compensation costs of $80.00 per week. Mr Anop claimed he notified the Landlord of the issue when they moved into the property and text messages were provided dated 2 November 2019 indicating a tradesperson was sent by the Landlord to fix it the shower. Mr Anop submitted a builder attended with a shower repairman who adjusted the shower door but advised Mr Anop the leak was due to the door not being balanced. The bottom seal did not sit flush. A spacer was placed in the bottom seal but this did not prevent the leaks. Since then, Mr Anop submitted the shower was not adequately repaired so they had to mop-up after each shower. The seal was broken by the time the next inspection occurred in 2021. They provided 14-day notices to remedy the damages in 2021 and 2023 but the shower was still not fixed. The Landlord claimed the shower was leaking because Mr Anop was misusing it by directing water into the gap between the shower door and shower door walls. Mr Anop was also not wiping up the water that leaked on the floor after each shower. The Landlord submitted they sent a Builder to repair this when they were initially notified by Mr Anop in 2019. The Builder confirmed there was no leak but added silicone and extra sealant to ensure there were no further issues. They also readjusted the door. The Landlord also noted in 2021, the handle in the shower, soap dish and shower head were rusted. She replaced this immediately but was puzzled to see a new shower rust so quickly in all of her 20 years of experience managing properties. The Landlord also noted two months later, there were electrical issues in the bathroom. The mirror was destroyed and the light needed replacing. The heated towel rail was also broken. An electrician who fixed the light confirmed the light was slightly rusted. The Landlord subsequently discovered through the Tradespersons that all of these electrical issues were due to Mr Anop misusing the bathroom. In considering the evidence, Mr Anop has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the shower was leaking on a daily basis over the period of three years. There was no evidence from an independent expert such as a Builder to substantiate their claim that shower required fixing or re-aligning either. Mr Anop submitted a 14-day notice to repair dated 2021 and 2023 but no other specific evidence such as emails or text messages to show there was constant notifications to the Landlord of the issues and that the Landlord failed to respond in a reasonable manner. For this reason, the claim is dismissed. b) Broken vanity - Mr Anop claimed the vanity in the main bathroom was rotten from the shower water leakage resulting in the top of the three drawers falling out in August 2023. The hinges were rusted. Mr Anop notified the Landlord in April 2023 and the Landlord replied that she did not want to be fixing a vanity every 2-3 years however sent a Builder to place silicone on the vanity. She told Mr Anop to mop up the water from the floor each time they had a shower. A photograph was provided of the vanity which appeared slightly expanded on the side and bottom with rusted drawer railings. The Landlord submitted that the damage to the vanity door was due to Mr Anop extensively washing the whole bathroom with excessive water. As a result, the wood from the vanity expanded and the hinges became rusty. When the Property Manager did an inspection in April 2023, they found the bathroom was absolutely wet from top to bottom as if it had been hosed down. Mr Anop said they had just finished cleaning the bathroom. Two weeks later, the Landlord sent a Plumber to the property to attend to the cistern issue. The Plumber found everything was soaking wet again. An email from a builder named ‘Kevin’ dated 16 September 2023 was provided which stated that the whole bathroom was soaking wet when he visited the property and he had never seen anything like it before. He did not see any leakage from the shower, vanity or sink mixer. He also did not see water leaks from the ceiling so was puzzled as to why the bathroom door was water damaged. Mr Anop denied using excessive water to clean the bathroom. He submitted they washed the bathroom with a sponge and squeeze mop. In considering the evidence, Mr Anop claimed the vanity was rotting due to the water leakage from the shower that was never repaired by the Landlord. The photograph of the vanity showed water damage along the left hand side of the vanity and rusted drawer railings on the inside of the drawers. If the vanity was damaged due to water leakage then one would expect the vanity to mainly be damaged from the bottom. There was damage on the side of the vanity. The only way this could have occurred is if the shower door were left open during the shower allowing water to wet it or the leakage caused knee deep flooding in the bathroom. I do not find this is the case. From the photographs provided and Tradespersons evidence, I am satisfied that the bathroom was extensively washed in water which caused the damage. For these reasons, the claim by Mr Anop is dismissed. c) Damaged bathroom electrical socket- Mr Anop claimed $400.00 for the damaged bathroom electrical socket for the heated towel rail. Mr Anop deposed he found the plug protruding out of the wall on or about 14 April 2023. They provided a photograph of this damage which they attempted to minimise by placing celotape around it. The plug was specifically designed for the heated towel rail only. Mr Anop deposed the exposed wires could cause an electrical fire and endanger the life and property. Mr Anop referred to other places such as ‘Loafers lodge’ in Wellington and ‘Simms metal products’ which had fires. The Landlord submitted that the damage to the plug appeared as if it was caused forcefully. The plastic covering was screwed to the wall and was broken. The plug was specifically for the heated towel rail and could not be used for any other electrical appliance. The Landlord refused to repair it because it appeared to be damaged by Mr Anop. The Landlord also deposed in 2020, some of the plugs in the property were not working properly so she sent an Electrician to repair them. Six months later, Mr Anop advised her 5-6 more plugs were damaged. He stated they were broken because they were cheap plugs. The Landlord sent an Electrician again to fix it. The damage this time appeared to be caused intentionally. In considering the evidence, the photographs indicate that the plug was forcefully pulled out. It could not have just fallen out as Mr Anop claims or used accidentally for another appliance. The damage appeared intentional. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed by Mr Anop. d) Leak in the dining /lounge ceiling- Mr Anop claimed the Landlord failed to repair the ceiling leak in the lounge which Mr Anop stated was due to Cyclone Gabrielle in January 2023. A photograph was provided of the water bubble in the ceiling and buckets on the floor of the lounge. The Landlord claimed the leak was due to the water leakage in the bathroom caused by Mr Anop. The area where it was leaking was directly below the bathroom, in the middle of the lounge. There were no signs of a pipe leaking either. In considering the evidence, the location of the leak in the ceiling right above the bathroom, suggests it is more likely than not that the leakage from the bathroom caused this. If it had been damage from Cyclone Gabrielle, one would have expected other signs of damage to the property as well. This was not the case. The claim is dismissed. e) Fire alarm unit in garage- Mr Anop claimed $560.00 because the fire alarm unit in the garage constantly flashed despite there being no fire. A photograph of the unit showed the ‘defect’ button was flashing. A Technician attended and replaced the battery in October 2022 but Mr Anop stated it continued to flash. This was a health and safety issue which Mr Anop wanted fixed immediately. The Landlord claimed the alarm battery was changed on or about 15 September 2022. An invoice was provided to substantiate the alarm was in ‘defect’ mode because of the faulty battery but it was then reset and in good working order. The Landlord claimed the alarm was triggered by Mr Anop perhaps from the hot air in the bathroom or cooking food. Mr Anop needed to just reset it. In considering the evidence, Mr Anop provided a photograph which showed the alarm was in ‘defect’ mode however it was not date stamped. The Landlord repaired it in September 2022 and provided an invoice to substantiate it. The photograph could have been taken prior to that repair. Mr Anop has not proved their claim that the alarm remains defective. The claim is dismissed. f) Jamming garage door- Mr Anop has claimed $400.00 for the garage door constantly jamming when they attempted to open it. The door had to be restarted to get the door to close properly and there was a huge noise. Mr Anop consulted with the neighbour who had the same problem and a door technician was sent. They sent a video to the Landlord to show them the issue. This was not provided to the Tribunal. The Landlord submitted Mr Anop advised them around April 2023, the garage door was making noise but did not disclose that it jammed. The Landlord advised Mr Anop to use CRC to reduce the noise and they would reimburse the costs afterwards. In considering the evidence, Mr Anop has not provided evidence that the garage door would jam when they operated it. They have not provided evidence from the neighbour of their garage door having similar issues either. There was no video of the garage door presented at the hearing. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. g) Broken kitchen cabinet door- Mr Anop claimed $2080.00 for the broken kitchen unit door which was never repaired by the Landlord. Mr Anop provided a photograph of a kitchen corner cupboard with no door. The Landlord submitted this was a new kitchen when Mr Anop moved in and the damage to the door was not wear and tear. It was damaged intentionally by Mr Anop. In considering the evidence, Mr Anop provided a photograph of the unit without a door so it was difficult to ascertain whether this was wear or tear or intentional damage. There was no evidence from an independent Builder either to suggest how this damage was caused either. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. h) Toilet seat cracks- Mr Anop claimed $160.00 for the Landlord failing to repair the cracked toilet seat over 8 weeks which Mr Anop deposed was made of cheap plastic. Mr Anop provided a 14-day notice to repair this on 4 May 2023. The Landlord submitted this was a good quality toilet seat and the only way it would have damaged would have been by someone intentionally slamming down on the seat or misuse. Mr Anop never notified the Landlord of this damage until the application was made to the Tribunal. In considering the evidence, Mr Anop never provided a clear photograph of the cracks to the toilet seat to substantiate the damage and indicate the cause which could have been wear and tear or intentional. The claim is dismissed. i) Toilet cistern- Mr Anop claimed $200.00 for the Landlord failing to repair the toilet cistern. Mr Anop submitted they had a video of the leaky toilet float but did not provide this at the hearing. The Landlord submitted they were not aware of this issue and it was never mentioned in the most recent inspection. In considering the evidence, Mr Anop has not provided any proof to the Tribunal that the toilet cistern is defective. The Landlord has submitted they were not notified until this application was lodged with the Tribunal. A Tenant must notify the Landlord of any damages to the property so that the Landlord can repair them as soon as possible. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. j) No front door key- Mr Anop claimed $3920.00 because the Landlord failed to provide them with a front door key during the whole tenancy. As a result of this, they could not visit their friends who lived across the road or enjoy a walk along the main road. They were only provided a copy of the front door key in April 2023 which they had duplicated at their own expense. They claimed $19.98 for the key cut. The Landlord submitted the Tenant was given a key for the front door at the start of the tenancy and an email from a Property Manager was provided to substantiate this along with a photograph of the keys given. The keys provided was photographed and annexed to the Tenancy Agreement which Mr Anop signed. In considering the evidence, I do not accept that the lack of a front door key prevented Mr Anop from visiting his neighbours or taking neighbourhood walks. This would suggest they had no other access outside the property. The Landlord also provided photographic evidence to prove they were provided with a key. I find it more likely than not that Mr Anop received this key at the start of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. k) Cleaning costs- Mr Anop claimed $500.00 for cleaning the property when he first moved in. He claimed it was filthy and dusty. The windows were dirty and grimy. Mr Anop vacuumed, cleaned, scrubbed and water blasted the property. He did not provide an invoice for the cleaning. The Landlord submitted they paid for a cleaner to attend the property. In considering the evidence, it is noted Mr Anop did not raise the issue of the house being untidy in the ingoing inspection report. There were no photographs of what required cleaning either. For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Tenants claim- exemplary damages

Mr Anop claims that the landlord discriminated against them.

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Mr Anop claimed the Landlord discriminated against them by charging him $50.00 per week more in rent than his two neighbouring tenants who were of Chinese descent. He submitted he was discriminated against because he was South African. The neighbouring Tenants were also offered a double garage with four bedrooms whereas he was offered a smaller unit. Mr Anop sought $11,055.00 compensation.

The Landlord submitted the Mr Anop was the first Tenant to inspect the property in 2019 and his property was the first to be completed. The rent offered was the current market rent at the time and they determined rent based on the size of the unit, the number of people renting and sometimes this was varied due to compassionate grounds. The neighbouring units were finished several months later and they were rented out to Tenants of various backgrounds which included Indian, Maori, Samoan and African people. The Landlord rented out to whoever could afford the rent. They were offended by Mr Anop’s claim of racism.

Furthermore the Landlord never raised the rent for Mr Anop in four years. She understood the financial impact of COVID on her Tenants so she did not increase the rent. She lost $90,000.00 because she did not raise the rent. She then explained the units were all different in size and configuration with different numbers of people living in them which affected how much rent was charged.

In considering the evidence, I do not find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The Landlord rented out to various Tenants based on the size, configuration, number of Tenants and sometimes due to their financial circumstances. Mr Anop has not provided evidence that the Landlord was behaving in a racist manner towards him because he was of South African descent.

The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim- Healthy Home Standards

Mr Anop has claimed the Landlord was in breach of the Healthy Home Standards by failing to provide a clean house at the start of the tenancy. Mr Anop did not specify exactly which standards Mr Anop was breaching but merely pointed to the property being untidy.

Because Mr Anop has failed to clarify his claim under the Healthy Home Standards, the claim is dismissed.

As Mr Anop has not succeeded with his application, name suppression is not granted.

As the Landlord has succeeded with their claim, Mr Anop must reimburse their filing fee. The Landlord has not sought name suppression so this has not been granted.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4586350. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. Mr Anop shall pay the Landlord	$20.44		3. Mr Anop shall pay the Landlord