What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4598310 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4598310?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598310?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9635647-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4598310 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4598310?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598310?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598310?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9635647-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Nelson Street, Hawarden 7385 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4598310 — State of repair

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 13 September 2023. I heard both applications, but the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to provide further evidence or submissions in relation to “unlawful premises” - s78A Residential Tenancies Act. Both parties have done so, and I now make a final decision on all matters.
This was a very short tenancy of 3 days. The tenants were moving from the North Island to North Canterbury for Mr Wilson’s “dream job”. All negotiations regarding the tenancy were done on-line and the tenants did not view the premises before the tenancy started. The landlord sent photographs and a description of the property.
Mr & Mrs Wilson paid two weeks in advance prior to arriving at the property.
Mr Wilson said that, when his family arrived at the property, it was not as they expected. He described it as “unliveable” and “filthy”. Rather than contact the landlord and attempt to resolve any concerns, Mr & Mrs Wilson decided to forgo Mr Wilson’s “dream job” and move on.
They left the property after three days. They stopped by the landlord’s property on their way out of town. The evidence in relation to this visit differs but it is common ground that Mr Wilson asked for reimbursement of the rent paid and Mrs Walker refused. She also asked him to leave the property and called the police. I accept her evidence that she was fearful of Mr Wilson.
The tenants then made an application to the Tribunal for $4,891 in compensation and reimbursement of $1,000 rent paid in advance.
The landlord made a cross application for $1,000 rent in lieu of notice, cleaning and lock replacement costs and compensation of $5,000 for stress following Mr Wilson’s visit to their home.
In each instance, the applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. They must provide the evidence necessary to establish their claims. Tenant Claims
Mr Wilson claimed that the tenants were misled about the condition of the property. He described it as unliveable, dirty and in significant need of repair. He also claimed that it did not meet Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. This tenancy did not last for 120 days, so there can be no claim in relation to HHS. That aspect of the claim is dismissed.
Mr & Mrs Wilson also claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The obligation to repair is not absolute, rather a landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe of knowledge of the need to carry out repairs.
This tenancy was for a home that had just been relocated onto the property. Mr & Mrs Wilson were the first tenants. Mr Wilson played a video which he says show the poor state of the property. There was a stark contrast between Mr Wilson’s calm demeanour at the hearing and the anger and aggression displayed on the video.
Mr Wilson claims that the condition of the property entitled the tenants to leave the tenancy immediately and be reimbursed for the rent they had paid. He is not correct.
While the video and other evidence does show that some areas of the property could have been improved, it does not establish that the home was dirty or unliveable. There was some minor finishing work and tidying to be done when the tenant’s arrived at the property. More significantly, the evidence does not establish that the landlord failed to comply with its repair and maintenance obligations. The tenants did not raise their concerns with the landlord. Rather, they took the extreme and inexplicable decision to abandon a “dream job” and move on without any discussion with the landlord.
The District Court has recently confirmed that there is an obligation on the tenant to give notice to the landlord to undertake necessary repairs, prior to leaving tenancy on basis of repairs required. Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed. Landlord Claims
The landlord claimed that the tenant was required to give 28 notice to terminate the tenancy, and that it is entitled to a further two weeks rent ($1,000) in lieu of notice. The landlord is correct.
However, I have weighed that entitlement against the Mr Walker’s conduct in contacting Mr Wilson’s proposed employer, the fact that there was some minor work to do at the property and applied s85 RTA to conclude that the overall merits and justice of the case result in both parties simply “walking away” from this tenancy.
The landlord also claimed cleaning and lock replacement costs but did not establish those claims. They are dismissed.
The landlord claimed compensation of $5,000 for stress suffered as a result of Mr Wilson’s visit to their property. As noted, the evidence in relation to that visit differs and, while I accept that it was a traumatic event for Mrs Walker, the landlord did not establish that it is more likely than not that Mr Wilson breached any of a tenant’s obligations in relation to that visit. That claim is also dismissed. Unlawful Premises
During the hearing, Mr Wilson said that the dwelling does not have a Code Compliance Certificate. His evidence led me to consider whether this may be an unlawful residential premise as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
I adjourned the hearing for both parties to provide further evidence on that issue. Both have done so.
The evidence establishes that the premises did not have a Code Compliance Certificate when this tenancy started. However, it does not establish that the premises were non-complaint in any respect. Rather, the landlord was waiting on documentation from its contractors in order to make the application. As noted, that dwelling had just been relocated to this site.
The evidence does not establish that the premises or tenancy were “unlawful”.
As neither party was successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee.

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 13 September 2023. I heard both applications, but the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to provide further evidence or submissions in relation to “unlawful premises” - s78A Residential Tenancies Act. Both parties have done so, and I now make a final decision on all matters.
This was a very short tenancy of 3 days. The tenants were moving from the North Island to North Canterbury for Mr Wilson’s “dream job”. All negotiations regarding the tenancy were done on-line and the tenants did not view the premises before the tenancy started. The landlord sent photographs and a description of the property.
Mr & Mrs Wilson paid two weeks in advance prior to arriving at the property.
Mr Wilson said that, when his family arrived at the property, it was not as they expected. He described it as “unliveable” and “filthy”. Rather than contact the landlord and attempt to resolve any concerns, Mr & Mrs Wilson decided to forgo Mr Wilson’s “dream job” and move on.
They left the property after three days. They stopped by the landlord’s property on their way out of town. The evidence in relation to this visit differs but it is common ground that Mr Wilson asked for reimbursement of the rent paid and Mrs Walker refused. She also asked him to leave the property and called the police. I accept her evidence that she was fearful of Mr Wilson.
The tenants then made an application to the Tribunal for $4,891 in compensation and reimbursement of $1,000 rent paid in advance.
The landlord made a cross application for $1,000 rent in lieu of notice, cleaning and lock replacement costs and compensation of $5,000 for stress following Mr Wilson’s visit to their home.
In each instance, the applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. They must provide the evidence necessary to establish their claims. Tenant Claims
Mr Wilson claimed that the tenants were misled about the condition of the property. He described it as unliveable, dirty and in significant need of repair. He also claimed that it did not meet Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. This tenancy did not last for 120 days, so there can be no claim in relation to HHS. That aspect of the claim is dismissed.
Mr & Mrs Wilson also claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The obligation to repair is not absolute, rather a landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe of knowledge of the need to carry out repairs.
This tenancy was for a home that had just been relocated onto the property. Mr & Mrs Wilson were the first tenants. Mr Wilson played a video which he says show the poor state of the property. There was a stark contrast between Mr Wilson’s calm demeanour at the hearing and the anger and aggression displayed on the video.
Mr Wilson claims that the condition of the property entitled the tenants to leave the tenancy immediately and be reimbursed for the rent they had paid. He is not correct.
While the video and other evidence does show that some areas of the property could have been improved, it does not establish that the home was dirty or unliveable. There was some minor finishing work and tidying to be done when the tenant’s arrived at the property. More significantly, the evidence does not establish that the landlord failed to comply with its repair and maintenance obligations. The tenants did not raise their concerns with the landlord. Rather, they took the extreme and inexplicable decision to abandon a “dream job” and move on without any discussion with the landlord.
The District Court has recently confirmed that there is an obligation on the tenant to give notice to the landlord to undertake necessary repairs, prior to leaving tenancy on basis of repairs required. Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332.
The tenants’ claims are dismissed. Landlord Claims
The landlord claimed that the tenant was required to give 28 notice to terminate the tenancy, and that it is entitled to a further two weeks rent ($1,000) in lieu of notice. The landlord is correct.
However, I have weighed that entitlement against the Mr Walker’s conduct in contacting Mr Wilson’s proposed employer, the fact that there was some minor work to do at the property and applied s85 RTA to conclude that the overall merits and justice of the case result in both parties simply “walking away” from this tenancy.
The landlord also claimed cleaning and lock replacement costs but did not establish those claims. They are dismissed.
The landlord claimed compensation of $5,000 for stress suffered as a result of Mr Wilson’s visit to their property. As noted, the evidence in relation to that visit differs and, while I accept that it was a traumatic event for Mrs Walker, the landlord did not establish that it is more likely than not that Mr Wilson breached any of a tenant’s obligations in relation to that visit. That claim is also dismissed. Unlawful Premises
During the hearing, Mr Wilson said that the dwelling does not have a Code Compliance Certificate. His evidence led me to consider whether this may be an unlawful residential premise as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
I adjourned the hearing for both parties to provide further evidence on that issue. Both have done so.
The evidence establishes that the premises did not have a Code Compliance Certificate when this tenancy started. However, it does not establish that the premises were non-complaint in any respect. Rather, the landlord was waiting on documentation from its contractors in order to make the application. As noted, that dwelling had just been relocated to this site.
The evidence does not establish that the premises or tenancy were “unlawful”.
As neither party was successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598310 — State of repair at 12 Nelson Street, Hawarden 7385

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598310 — State of repair at 12 Nelson Street, Hawarden 7385

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions