What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594151 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant shall pay the Landlord $715.83 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4594151?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Leak: $550.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.25 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9606886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594151 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant shall pay the Landlord $715.83 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4594151?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Leak: $550.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.25 awarded to landlord

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9606886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4594151 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4594151 — net $715.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Removal of glass clippings	$45.00	Lawns and Garden work: Removal of glass clippings
Rubbish removal: Garden disposal bag	$40.25	Rubbish removal: Garden disposal bag
Lawns and Garden work: Weed removal	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work: Weed removal
Repairs: Leak	$550.14	Repairs: Leak
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$715.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$715.83

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4594151 — net $715.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Removal of glass clippings	$45.00	Lawns and Garden work: Removal of glass clippings
Rubbish removal: Garden disposal bag	$40.25	Rubbish removal: Garden disposal bag
Lawns and Garden work: Weed removal	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work: Weed removal
Repairs: Leak	$550.14	Repairs: Leak
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$715.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$715.83

Order

The Tenant shall pay the Landlord $715.83 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord claimed compensation, termination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tenant claimed work orders, breach of Healthy Home Standards and compensation.
The tenancy began on 14 January 2023 and is fixed to 13 January 2024.
The parties must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Grass clippings

The Landlord claimed $45.00 for removing grass clippings from the lawns on 19 May 2023. The Tenant arranged for the lawns to be mowed on 16 May 2023 but left the grass clippings behind after being advised by the gardener it was beneficial for the grass. The Landlord requested the grass clippings be removed on 17 May 2023. They then arranged for someone to collect the grass clippings themselves on or about the 18 May 2023 and provided an invoice to substantiate the clippings were collected.
The Tenant disputed this because after they were told by the Landlord to collect the grass clippings, they arranged for a gardener to do this on 18 May 2023. When the Tenant’s gardener arrived to the property, they found the clippings were removed. The Landlord then sent an email on 19 May 2023 confirming she had organised removal of the clippings and would invoice the Tenant. The Tenant submitted she should not have to pay this because she had to pay the gardener for attending the property on 18 May 2023. She paid $41.99 and provided an invoice for this. The grass clippings could have been disposed of in the bin, the disposal bag or the clippings could have been spread around the lemon tree. The Landlord should have also communicated she was going to send her own Tradesperson to do this.
The Tenant submitted a number of other reasons why the mulch should not have been removed which have been considered however the issue is the lawn being kept clean and tidy as per the Tenancy Agreement.
The Landlord refuted the Tenant’s invoice of $41.99 submitting it was actually a booking for the grass to be mowed on 29 May 2023 and not the grass clippings to be collected. The law
The Tenancy Agreement stipulated the following: “The tenant agrees to keep the premises and lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from rubbish and papers.....The Tenant agrees to keep lawns mowed once per fortnight and the gardens weeded and in a generally tidy condition. The Tenant shall be responsible for removal of garden waste”
In considering the evidence, I find that it is more likely than not that the Tenant did not arrange to remove the grass clippings as they did not provide an invoice which stated this. The Landlord arranged for the clippings to be removed and provided an invoice. Regardless of whether the gardener advised the Tenant it was best for the lawn to retain the glass clippings, there was an obligation upon the Tenant in the Tenancy Agreement to ensure they removed the garden waste.
The amount ordered is proved. Garden disposal bag
The Landlord claimed $40.25 for one third of the costs of the garden waste disposal bag. As the mulch was disposed into this bag, the Landlord was claiming reimbursement. An invoice was provided for the bag.
The Tenant disputed this stating that they had paid for their own gardener to remove it so there was no need for a garden bag. The mulch also only took up a tiny amount of the bag.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has proven that it is more likely than not, that the mulch needed to be disposed into the garden disposal bag.
The amounts ordered are proved. Removal of weeds
The Landlord claimed $60.00 to remove the weeds on 25 September 2023 after a routine inspection on 17 July 2023. The weeds were starting to grow into the outdoor air-conditioner and could potentially cause damage. The Landlord sent a 14 day notice to remedy the weeds on 17 July 2023 and the Tenant gave different reasons as to why the Tenant should not maintain the grounds. Photographs were provided of the weeds in the pavement on 15 September 2023 which were extensive. There was also multiple email reminders from the Landlord to the Tenant provided which date throughout the tenancy. They repeatedly asked for the Tenant to remove the weeds. An invoice for the weed removal was provided.
The Tenant disputed the need for removal of the weeds citing reasons such as it was not good for the grass, the Landlord needed to remove the rotten vegetation first, the Landlord needed to replace the wooden structures and the Landlord did not care about the appearance of the lawns.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not removed the weeds and should reimburse the Landlord for their costs to do so. The Tenancy Agreement clearly refers to the removal of the weeds being part of the Tenant’s obligations. The photographs of the weeds, the multiple emails and the invoice are all persuasive of the Landlord’s case.
The amount ordered is proved. Water leak
The Landlord claimed for the call-out of various Tradespersons to check the leak in the lounge. The Tenant notified the Landlord on 15 May 2023 that there was water coming into the living room from the roof. On 16 May 2023, the Landlord sent a roofer to inspect the newly installed roof and they found no leaks. On 17 May 2023, the Tenant advised the carpet was still wet and that water was coming from the French doors. On 19 May 2023, the Landlord sent a Tradesperson to attend the property. They dried the carpet then water tested the French doors and windows from outside the property. There were no signs of a leak found. On 22 May 2023, the Tenant advised the carpet was wet again. On 23 May 2023, a Tradesperson attended the property and dried the carpet. They inspected the windows and found no signs of leak. They placed silicone and putty on the window as requested by the Tenant to provide her with peace of mind. On 24 May 2023, the Tenant emailed advising the carpet was damp again but she could not tell where the problem was coming from. On 25 May 2023, the Tenant emailed a request for a carpet drying service.
On 26 May 2023, the Landlord spoke to their Tradesperson who advised because it had not rained in their area, the issue maybe unrelated to the property structure or leaks. The Landlord relayed this to the Tenant and suggested she obtain her own Tradesperson to assess the issue. If it was a fault of the Landlord, then they were willing to reimburse her for the costs. The Landlord submitted the Tenant did not contact their own Tradesperson. On 6 June 2023, the Tenant requested the Landlord make an insurance claim for the wet carpet as this may have been caused by a weather event.
At the Tenants request, the Landlord attended the property on 17 July 2023 to look at the carpet. The Landlord attended and said the carpet was dry despite the Tenant insisting it was wet. The Tenant said she could not use the living room because of the wet carpet.
Again the Landlord suggested the Tenant hire her own contractor to inspect and repair the wet carpet issue. They advised the Landlord would cover the costs if it was a property leak. The Tenant declined and requested another Tradesperson to dry her carpet.
The Landlord suggested the wetness could have been due to the Tenant’s cat urine.
The Landlord also submitted this was one of many of the Tenants unfounded claims for repair. In the three months prior to this, the Tenant had requested over 30 maintenance jobs and a Tradesperson was sent nearly every two days with many coming back stating there was no issue.
The Landlord gave evidence of the Tenant complaining the heat pump did not turn on in February 2023. This was a newly installed heat-pump on 12 November 2022.The Landlord sent a technician and they found nothing wrong with the heat- pump. The Tenant complained a smoke alarm was beeping for no reason so she removed it from the hallway ceiling. She said all of the upstairs smoke alarms were beeping. The Landlord did an onsite test with the Tenant present and the smoke alarm had no issues.
The Tenant submitted the Tradespersons never went up on top of the roof to check any leaking, they never pulled the carpet and underlay fully to see the full extent of the water damage and all they did was dry the carpet. The Tenant provided photographs of the carpet, underlay and curtains which were stained or had mould.
The Tenant submitted they had spoken to an independent tradesperson who confirmed the following: “The state of the curtain, carpet and underlay, and the pattern of staining, suggest there have been numerous separate water-ingress events, possibly going back a long time. The pattern of the staining, and the extent of it, do not support condensation or humidity as an explanation. There is clearly an issue with the structure of the building and its maintenance that almost certainly predates the current tenancy. The poor state of the guttering may or may not be a contributing factor”.
The Tenant’s father also gave evidence confirming he found the carpet wet on a number of occasions he attended the property but it was not cat urine. It did not smell.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has proved it more likely than not that they attended to the repair of the leak. They provided an invoice which confirms they sent a Tradesperson multiple times to investigate the issue. They then attended the property and found the carpet was not wet. The Tenant did not provide adequate evidence from their independent tradesperson as they did not identify who they were and what their qualifications were to make this assessment. They also did not attend the hearing to have their evidence tested.
For these reasons, the amount ordered is proved. Termination of the tenancy
The Landlord has claimed termination pursuant to section 56 being that they provided a 14-day notice to remedy a breach and the Tenant failed to. The Landlord submitted the breach of failing to maintain the lawns and garden was ongoing. Multiple emails and 14-day notices had been exchanged requesting the Tenant to attend to the lawns. The Landlord also submitted the Tenant had made over 30 requests for repairs in three months. It was constant requests and many were unfounded. Now the Tenant was claiming for a rent due to a leak that the Landlord failed to repair.
The Tenant attempted to negotiate the lawn maintenance by advising they would keep the edges trimmed and attend to the lawn maintenance at the end of the tenancy. The Tenant also gave religious beliefs and a number of other reasons why they should not maintain the lawns. The law
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
In considering the evidence, I find that a termination would be a disproportionate response to the Tenants breach.
Although the Tenant raised requested multiple repairs within a short span of the tenancy starting and some were found to be unnecessary, the breach in this instance, was the Tenant failing to maintain the lawns and garden. The Tenant was given 14-day notices to remedy and follow-up email requests to attend to them, however these were not all remedied within the time frame or met with resistance. The Landlord was professional, patient and polite in her emails to the Tenant. The Tenant gave multiple reasons, why she did not believe the lawns should be mowed and weeded which included that it was contrary to her religious beliefs. I find from the multiple reasons she gave, that she deliberately breached the Tenancy Agreement. In assessing her behaviour throughout the tenancy and her reasons for breaching, I find that she is likely to breach again.
I do not find however that the breach of failing to mow the lawns and weed is serious enough to warrant a termination. Whilst it is not keeping the property clean and tidy as per the Tenancy Agreement, it is not causing substantial damage to the property. For this reason only, I find it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
The claim is dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Work Orders

The Tenant claimed work orders for the leak to be fixed and the carpet to be dried. They provided photographs of the wet carpet. The Tenant claimed it was still wet at the date of the hearing however there was no evidence of the carpet being wet on that day.
I refer to the previous paragraphs 21-31 which also addresses this claim and find that the Landlord has adequately attended to these repairs and a work order is not required. The Landlord provided evidence of an invoice to confirm there were multiple visits by a Tradesperson inspecting the issue. The Landlord also attended the property personally and confirmed the carpet was dry. The Tenant found the carpet was wet after this visit. Because there had been no rain, the Tenant was given consent from the Landlord to find their own Tradesperson to inspect the carpet and the leak. The Tenant has not done so.
For these reasons, the claim for work Orders is dismissed. Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant claimed the Landlord breached the Healthy Home Standards because of the ongoing leak and wet carpet which had mould on it. The Tenant submitted the wet carpet and mouldy curtains was evidence of a moisture ingress issue and drainage issue that was not properly investigated or repaired by the Landlord. They deposed the basement was covered in mould however no photographs were provided of this.
The Landlord provided a Healthy Homes Certificate completed in 2020 which confirmed the property was compliant. The leak was an issue that arose since the Healthy Homes Assessment was made.
In considering the evidence, there is insufficient proof from the Tenant to prove that the property was non-compliant. Firstly, compliant properties can still have maintenance issues which does not automatically render them non- compliant. Secondly, there was no evidence of a Healthy Homes assessment provided by the Tenant to prove the home was not compliant. Thirdly, the Tenant did not provide adequate evidence to prove this was an ongoing unresolved issue after the Tradespersons attended in May 2023.
For these reasons, the property is not in breach of the Healthy Homes standards.
The claim is dismissed. Increased power bill
The Tenant claimed $150.00 for the increased power bill over three months due to the running of the heat pump, dehumidifier and the heat and energy recovery ventilation system to dry the carpet. A power bill graph showing the average use of the Tenant each month was provided to indicate how they estimated their increased useage. The Tenant first noticed the carpet being wet on 15 May 2023.
The Landlord disputed the increased power bill stating that when they attended the property in July 2023, the carpet was dry. They provided their invoice from the Tradespersons in May 2023, to prove that there was no longer an issue with the leak or wet carpet. If the carpet was wet, it was fixed within a week in May 2023.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant did not prove there was an ongoing leak issue to justify the increased power over five months because the Landlords evidence from the Tradespeople indicated the problem was resolved in May 2023.
The claim is dismissed. Rent reduction
The Tenant claimed a rent reduction of $250.00 over five months for the loss of use of the living room.
The Landlord submitted they had repaired the leak and dried the carpet in May 2023. They submitted again, if the Tenant deposed it was not able to be used, they should have provided their own Tradesperson to fix the issue.
Again, in considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has not proved the leakage was ongoing or to such an extent they could not use the lounge.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants costs
The Tenant claimed for costs to prepare for the hearing and their documents. She submitted that this took over her life and it was not her normal job. She did not charge for the time she took off work. The law
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: (1) Except in a case to which any of subsections (2), (4), or (5) apply, the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it. (2) The Tribunal may make an order of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the following cases: (a)where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought: (b)where any of the parties was represented by counsel: (c)where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter in dispute ought reasonably to have been settled before the Tenancy Mediator but that the party against whom the order is to be made refused, without reasonable excuse, to take part in proceedings before a Tenancy Mediator or acted in any such proceedings in a contemptuous or improper manner: (d)where any applicant to the Tribunal, after receiving notice of the hearing, fails to attend the hearing without good cause.
Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Tribunal can award costs. Sections 102(2) and (3) provide that that where any of the parties is represented by counsel, the Tribunal may order a party to pay the reasonable costs of another party. Generally costs cannot be awarded by the Tribunal.
In Body Corporate No 209774 v Wu [2018] NZDC 19792, the District Court held that this provision does not entitle a successful non-represented party to claim costs against a legally represented party, even where they have incurred legal costs prior to the hearing.
In French v Ryan (DC Auckland, CIV-2012-004-000711, 29 November 2012) the District Court held the Tribunal can consider the costs that would have been awarded under the appropriate category in the District Court Rules 2009). In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 143, the High Court held that ‘reasonable costs’ means a reasonable contribution and not a mere gesture. It considered that a contribution in the range of 40% to 70% would likely satisfy this requirement.
In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that these proceedings were frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought. There was no legal representatives in this hearing. There is no evidence that the matter ought to have been settled in mediation and that the Landlord refused to attend without reasonable excuse. Both parties attended the hearing.
For these reasons, the Tenants claim is dismissed.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord.
The Tenant did not seek name suppression. An Order has not been made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594151 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594151 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions