What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4600269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4600269?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600269?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9632949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4600269 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4600269?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4600269?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4600269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9632949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4600269 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600269 — net $970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for unlawful entry	$800.00	Compensation for unlawful entry
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46002692 Compensation for bathroom le	$150.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46002692 Compensation for bathroom le
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$970.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s two co-tenants are removed from the application.
Awaroha Holdings Limited is added to the application as a respondent.
Central Rentals Limited and Awaroha Holdings Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $970.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Subject to the tenant producing good evidence that the main bathroom continues to suffer from leaking through the ceiling (such as a recent photograph showing leaking), the landlord must repair the water leak from the roof into the main bathroom of the premises so that there is no further leaking into the bathroom. Further leaking must be prevented within three weeks of receipt of the evidence.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 5, the landlord must pay the tenant $20 per week for each week during which water leaks into the bathroom after the time allowed for repairing the leak.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Parties and Attendances

The tenant’s application named all three tenants as applicants and Central Rentals Limited (the agent) as the respondent.
The other two tenants have made it clear that they do not want to be parties to the application and so I have removed them.
The agent was named in the tenancy agreement as the landlord without any statement that they were, in fact, the agent. The tenant was therefore entitled to make this application against them as the landlord.
The owner and true landlord is Awaroha Holdings Limited (the landlord), and they have consented to be added as a respondent to the application and I have therefore done so.
The tenant attended the hearing. Val Aitken attended for the agent. Phillip McGoldrick attended for the landlord. Background
This tenancy began on 16 August 2022 for a one-year fixed term.
On moving in, the tenant noticed discoloration of the carpet in the wardrobe of the bedroom she occupied. On lifting the carpet in there and the carpet abutting the wardrobe she saw discoloration of the floor and the underside of the bedroom carpet. She informed the agent.
The discoloration was the result of a leak from the next-door bathroom shower that had occurred sometime before the tenancy, and which had been remediated. But the discoloration had not been removed or the carpet replaced.
The tenant also noticed that the lights in the rangehood were not working. At the beginning of March 2023, the rangehood stopped working completely. It could not be repaired, and it was replaced on 13 June.
From the end of March 2023, water began leaking into the main bathroom from the ceiling when it rained. Despite attempts by the landlord to locate and repair the leak, it seems that water is continuing to leak into the bathroom when it rains.
The tenant seeks work orders in relation to the leak and the wardrobe and bedroom floor. She also claims compensation in relation to them and the rangehood.
The tenant also claims compensation for three incidents when, she says, the landlord and the agent entered the premises unlawfully.
I will deal with each of these claims in turn. First, I set out the relevant law. Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, the Tribunal may make an order for the landlord to carry out remedial work.
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance under section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Claims Rangehood
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord acted reasonably to replace the rangehood after being informed that it had stopped working. I accept that its small size meant that it had to be sourced from overseas and it took time for it to be delivered and installed. It took three months to replace it which would normally be an excessive length of time but the circumstances of this case it was justifiable.
I don’t accept that when the lights stopped working on the range hood that the landlord did not have an obligation to repair it, if that was possible. Lights above the cooker are not required by the Healthy Homes Regulations but where a landlord has provided an appliance, they have an obligation to maintain it in good working order.
But the inconvenience of being without the rangehood lights would have been minimal and does not warrant an award of compensation. The claims relating to the rangehood are therefore dismissed. Bedroom Floor and Carpet
The bedroom the tenant occupied had suffered a water leak and part of the floor and the carpet were discoloured. The tenant said that there was mould in the affected area, and that because she is allergic to mould, her eczema was aggravated, and she had to seek medical attention. There was no medical evidence produced to support that.
It is likely that the water leak did result is mould forming where the carpet and floor were made damp from the water. That is the most likely explanation for the discolouration. But, by the time the tenant occupied the bedroom, the area was dry and so any mould present would be inactive. That might not make it safe, but there is no evidence either that it was unsafe.
Carpet in the room itself showed no visible sign of mould and any mould that existed or still exists was under the carpet. It seems unlikely that any mould under the carpet would be dispersed into the air to affect the tenant.
The evidence of mould in the wardrobe was more obvious and the possibility of it affecting the tenant was, possibly, greater. The discoloration itself was noted on the ingoing condition report and it did not constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Without some scientific evidence, I am not able to conclude that the discoloration of the carpet and the floor posed a significant risk to the tenant’s health. It was not an ideal situation, but the tenant has not proved that there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligation or any effect on her that would warrant an award of compensation. This claim is therefore also dismissed. Bathroom Leak
The roof above the bathroom has been leaking since the end of March, a period of over six months. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they have made various attempts to locate and fix the leak including resealing around the skylight. I also accept that roof leaks can be difficult to locate and fix. It can be a trial-and-error process. I note that it would have been helpful for the landlord to have produced the invoices for various roof repairs.
Where the time taken to repair a defect is, on the face of it, longer than it should reasonably take complete the repair, the onus is on the landlord to provide evidence to prove that they have taken all reasonable steps to complete it. I am not satisfied that the landlord has done that in this case.
I note that other apartments belonging to the landlords in the development have suffered roof leaks and they have been repaired. That does beg the question, why has that not been possible in this case?
I also rely, to the extent necessary, on s85 of the Act which requires the Tribunal to determine cases according to the substantial merits and justice of the case. The bathroom has been usable and so there is no basis on which rent can be abated. But the leaking into the bathroom has meant that using the bathroom has been inconvenient and unpleasant at times. Given how long this has been going on, the substantial merits and justice of the case favour awarding the tenant some compensation.
Considering that the leaking has occurred only when it has been raining and that the landlords are entitled to a reasonable time to complete a repair, I find that compensation in the sum of $150 is reasonable. Work Order
I have, made a work order in respect of the bathroom leak subject to the tenant producing good evidence that the leak is continuing. I have given the landlord three weeks to complete a repair and ordered the landlord to pay the tenant compensation if the leaking continues after that time. Unlawful Entry
I am satisfied that the three incidents that the tenant complains of involved unlawful entry by the agent or the landlord.
On 21 February 2023, the agent entered for an inspection. The tenant was home, and she was alarmed by the sound of someone trying to enter the premises because she was not expecting anyone. The agent said that notice of the inspection had been sent to the tenants but the evidence of that was unsatisfactory. The agent did not produce a copy of an email sending the notice.
On 14 March the agent entered with an electrician to measure up for the rangehood. She had run into the electrician on site, and she assumed that he had arranged a visit with the tenants. He hadn’t. Again, the tenant was surprised and alarmed when they entered the premises. There was no notice, and the agent should have checked with the electrician and not entered without the tenant’s consent.
On 4 September the agent, Mr McGoldrick, the project manager and the builder entered the premises to inspect the bathroom. They had the tenants’ consent to do so. While they were there, they chose to inspect the tenant’s bedroom and wardrobe. They did not have consent to do so.
The tenant’s consent was limited to inspecting the bathroom and anything beyond that was unlawful. The agent could not, for example, have taken the opportunity to carry out a general inspection. Entering the tenant’s bedroom without notice or consent was a breach of her privacy. The tenant was not present, but she had a camera in her bedroom which recorded the entry.
I accept that there was no malice or any improper motive on the part of the landlord or agent. But the tenant was entitled to privacy in the premises, and she was alarmed by the first two incidents. The third incident was a breach of her privacy and in my view is more serious than the other two incidents.
I award compensation of $200 for each of the first two incidents and $400 for the third incident.
The total award of compensation is therefore $800. Filing Fee
The tenant has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee. Suppression
The tenant has had significant success and so I have granted her request for name suppression. Apportionment
I have not apportioned the award between the landlord and agent. As a matter of law, the landlord is responsible for the actions of the agent. In any case, my impression is that they will be able to resolve any issue of apportionment between them.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4600269 — net $970.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for unlawful entry	$800.00	Compensation for unlawful entry
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46002692 Compensation for bathroom le	$150.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46002692 Compensation for bathroom le
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$970.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$970.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s two co-tenants are removed from the application.
Awaroha Holdings Limited is added to the application as a respondent.
Central Rentals Limited and Awaroha Holdings Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $970.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Subject to the tenant producing good evidence that the main bathroom continues to suffer from leaking through the ceiling (such as a recent photograph showing leaking), the landlord must repair the water leak from the roof into the main bathroom of the premises so that there is no further leaking into the bathroom. Further leaking must be prevented within three weeks of receipt of the evidence.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 5, the landlord must pay the tenant $20 per week for each week during which water leaks into the bathroom after the time allowed for repairing the leak.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

Parties and Attendances

The tenant’s application named all three tenants as applicants and Central Rentals Limited (the agent) as the respondent.
The other two tenants have made it clear that they do not want to be parties to the application and so I have removed them.
The agent was named in the tenancy agreement as the landlord without any statement that they were, in fact, the agent. The tenant was therefore entitled to make this application against them as the landlord.
The owner and true landlord is Awaroha Holdings Limited (the landlord), and they have consented to be added as a respondent to the application and I have therefore done so.
The tenant attended the hearing. Val Aitken attended for the agent. Phillip McGoldrick attended for the landlord. Background
This tenancy began on 16 August 2022 for a one-year fixed term.
On moving in, the tenant noticed discoloration of the carpet in the wardrobe of the bedroom she occupied. On lifting the carpet in there and the carpet abutting the wardrobe she saw discoloration of the floor and the underside of the bedroom carpet. She informed the agent.
The discoloration was the result of a leak from the next-door bathroom shower that had occurred sometime before the tenancy, and which had been remediated. But the discoloration had not been removed or the carpet replaced.
The tenant also noticed that the lights in the rangehood were not working. At the beginning of March 2023, the rangehood stopped working completely. It could not be repaired, and it was replaced on 13 June.
From the end of March 2023, water began leaking into the main bathroom from the ceiling when it rained. Despite attempts by the landlord to locate and repair the leak, it seems that water is continuing to leak into the bathroom when it rains.
The tenant seeks work orders in relation to the leak and the wardrobe and bedroom floor. She also claims compensation in relation to them and the rangehood.
The tenant also claims compensation for three incidents when, she says, the landlord and the agent entered the premises unlawfully.
I will deal with each of these claims in turn. First, I set out the relevant law. Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, the Tribunal may make an order for the landlord to carry out remedial work.
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance under section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Claims Rangehood
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord acted reasonably to replace the rangehood after being informed that it had stopped working. I accept that its small size meant that it had to be sourced from overseas and it took time for it to be delivered and installed. It took three months to replace it which would normally be an excessive length of time but the circumstances of this case it was justifiable.
I don’t accept that when the lights stopped working on the range hood that the landlord did not have an obligation to repair it, if that was possible. Lights above the cooker are not required by the Healthy Homes Regulations but where a landlord has provided an appliance, they have an obligation to maintain it in good working order.
But the inconvenience of being without the rangehood lights would have been minimal and does not warrant an award of compensation. The claims relating to the rangehood are therefore dismissed. Bedroom Floor and Carpet
The bedroom the tenant occupied had suffered a water leak and part of the floor and the carpet were discoloured. The tenant said that there was mould in the affected area, and that because she is allergic to mould, her eczema was aggravated, and she had to seek medical attention. There was no medical evidence produced to support that.
It is likely that the water leak did result is mould forming where the carpet and floor were made damp from the water. That is the most likely explanation for the discolouration. But, by the time the tenant occupied the bedroom, the area was dry and so any mould present would be inactive. That might not make it safe, but there is no evidence either that it was unsafe.
Carpet in the room itself showed no visible sign of mould and any mould that existed or still exists was under the carpet. It seems unlikely that any mould under the carpet would be dispersed into the air to affect the tenant.
The evidence of mould in the wardrobe was more obvious and the possibility of it affecting the tenant was, possibly, greater. The discoloration itself was noted on the ingoing condition report and it did not constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Without some scientific evidence, I am not able to conclude that the discoloration of the carpet and the floor posed a significant risk to the tenant’s health. It was not an ideal situation, but the tenant has not proved that there has been a breach of the landlord’s obligation or any effect on her that would warrant an award of compensation. This claim is therefore also dismissed. Bathroom Leak
The roof above the bathroom has been leaking since the end of March, a period of over six months. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they have made various attempts to locate and fix the leak including resealing around the skylight. I also accept that roof leaks can be difficult to locate and fix. It can be a trial-and-error process. I note that it would have been helpful for the landlord to have produced the invoices for various roof repairs.
Where the time taken to repair a defect is, on the face of it, longer than it should reasonably take complete the repair, the onus is on the landlord to provide evidence to prove that they have taken all reasonable steps to complete it. I am not satisfied that the landlord has done that in this case.
I note that other apartments belonging to the landlords in the development have suffered roof leaks and they have been repaired. That does beg the question, why has that not been possible in this case?
I also rely, to the extent necessary, on s85 of the Act which requires the Tribunal to determine cases according to the substantial merits and justice of the case. The bathroom has been usable and so there is no basis on which rent can be abated. But the leaking into the bathroom has meant that using the bathroom has been inconvenient and unpleasant at times. Given how long this has been going on, the substantial merits and justice of the case favour awarding the tenant some compensation.
Considering that the leaking has occurred only when it has been raining and that the landlords are entitled to a reasonable time to complete a repair, I find that compensation in the sum of $150 is reasonable. Work Order
I have, made a work order in respect of the bathroom leak subject to the tenant producing good evidence that the leak is continuing. I have given the landlord three weeks to complete a repair and ordered the landlord to pay the tenant compensation if the leaking continues after that time. Unlawful Entry
I am satisfied that the three incidents that the tenant complains of involved unlawful entry by the agent or the landlord.
On 21 February 2023, the agent entered for an inspection. The tenant was home, and she was alarmed by the sound of someone trying to enter the premises because she was not expecting anyone. The agent said that notice of the inspection had been sent to the tenants but the evidence of that was unsatisfactory. The agent did not produce a copy of an email sending the notice.
On 14 March the agent entered with an electrician to measure up for the rangehood. She had run into the electrician on site, and she assumed that he had arranged a visit with the tenants. He hadn’t. Again, the tenant was surprised and alarmed when they entered the premises. There was no notice, and the agent should have checked with the electrician and not entered without the tenant’s consent.
On 4 September the agent, Mr McGoldrick, the project manager and the builder entered the premises to inspect the bathroom. They had the tenants’ consent to do so. While they were there, they chose to inspect the tenant’s bedroom and wardrobe. They did not have consent to do so.
The tenant’s consent was limited to inspecting the bathroom and anything beyond that was unlawful. The agent could not, for example, have taken the opportunity to carry out a general inspection. Entering the tenant’s bedroom without notice or consent was a breach of her privacy. The tenant was not present, but she had a camera in her bedroom which recorded the entry.
I accept that there was no malice or any improper motive on the part of the landlord or agent. But the tenant was entitled to privacy in the premises, and she was alarmed by the first two incidents. The third incident was a breach of her privacy and in my view is more serious than the other two incidents.
I award compensation of $200 for each of the first two incidents and $400 for the third incident.
The total award of compensation is therefore $800. Filing Fee
The tenant has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee. Suppression
The tenant has had significant success and so I have granted her request for name suppression. Apportionment
I have not apportioned the award between the landlord and agent. As a matter of law, the landlord is responsible for the actions of the agent. In any case, my impression is that they will be able to resolve any issue of apportionment between them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600269 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4600269 — Tenancy dispute

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