What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4603672?

The tribunal order states: Victor Bradshaw must pay Linda Kew Parsons Goodwin and Andrew Duncan

How much money was awarded in case 4603672?

Compensation: Power Usage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ranch Slider Lock: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stove Top: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4603672?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4603672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9351792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4603672?

The tribunal order states: Victor Bradshaw must pay Linda Kew Parsons Goodwin and Andrew Duncan

How much money was awarded in case 4603672?

Compensation: Power Usage: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Ranch Slider Lock: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stove Top: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4603672?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4603672?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9351792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Harbour View Terrace, Cass Bay, Lyttelton 8082 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4603672 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4603672 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Power usage	$50.00	Power usage
Compensation: Stove top	$250.00	Stove top
Compensation: Ranch slider lock	$200.00	Ranch slider lock
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Green represented the landlord. Ms Goodwin represented the tenants.

The tenants had one-year fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 25 May 2022. Rent was agreed at $400 per week and a bond of $1600 was paid. The tenants were not living in the premises between early June 2022 and 12 September 2022. Ms Goodwin said that they were living in other premises in Christchurch to be closer to her brother who was in end-of-life care.

The tenancy ended on 9 January 2023, when the landlord agreed to release the tenants from the tenancy on 28 days’ notice, and the tenants applied for compensation totalling $18,288.00 for: failure by the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition; failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; failure to provide adequate locks; and breach of their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. They also applied for reimbursement of the fee they paid to have the premises tested for methamphetamine.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition?

Ms Goodwin claims that when they arrived at the premises on the first day of the tenancy they could not move in because it was not clean. They contacted the property management company who arranged for a professional cleaner to clean the premises and the tenants moved in the following day.

Ms Green denies that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition, and they had the additional cleaning done simply to make the tenants happy.

I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to establish their claim that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition. They did not provide any additional evidence, such as photographs, to support their claim. On the other hand, the evidence provided by the landlord, in particular the pre tenancy report and photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy, do not support that the areas claimed by the tenants as being unclean were unclean.

This claim is therefore dismissed. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. What is a reasonable state of repair is to be assessed according to the age and character of the premises.

Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once the tenants notified the landlord or the landlord otherwise became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner.

The tenants claim that the landlord is in breach of this obligation by not remedying the following at all or within a reasonable time: • Stove top glass (cracked) • Mould in the shower • Smell in the house Shower ‘mould’

The tenants claim that the grout between the tiles in the shower is contaminated by dangerous black mould. They claim that the property manager acknowledged the mould when they signed the tenancy agreement and told them that it would be addressed. Ms Goodwin provided in support a copy of the detailed pre tenancy report where she wrote “black mould in grout” beside the property managers comments “grout is starting to show discoloration”. She also wrote “landlord to ensure mould free before tenancy” on the report. She claims that she left the annotated pre tenancy inspection report on the bench for the landlord to collect during the July 2022 inspection. She therefore claims that the landlord knew about the problem at the tenancy commencement but did nothing about it. Ms Goodwin followed up her concerns with the grout (and other issues) in an email dated 28 September 2022. Ms Goodwin said they stopped using the shower from the end of September because of the mould.

Ms Green accepts that the grout is aging and discoloured but she denies that the discoloration is mould. She also denies that the property manager acknowledged the mould or that the annotated pre tenancy report was left on the bench for collection. However, she said that after receiving Ms Goodwins 28 September email the landlord arranged to have the shower tiles regrouted. The work commenced on 10 October and was completed sometime around 28 October.

I dismiss the claim for compensation for the issues with the grouting. I am not satisfied that the tenants have established that it was more likely than not that the discoloration with the grouting was black mould. I also am not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence that the annotated pre tenancy report was left for the landlords to collect at the July inspection. I therefore find that the first time that the landlord became aware of the tenants concerns regarding the grouting was when they received Ms Goodwin’s 28 September email and I consider that the landlord remedied the issue within a reasonable time after that.

I accept that it was inconvenient for the tenants to have the work done which prevented them from using the shower for a period of time, but it is work that they requested to be done and therefore I do not consider it appropriate that the landlord be required to pay the tenants compensation for the inconvenience of having the requested work completed. However, I do consider it reasonable that the tenants be compensated for the power used by the tiler in running a dehumidifier (presumably to dry the grout). In the circumstances I consider the sum of $50.00 reasonable. Stove top

The pre tenancy report notes that the glass on the stove top was cracked. Ms Green said that it had been cracked since the Canterbury earthquakes and they believed that it was safe and it did not affect the functioning of the stove.

However, on 27 September 2022 the tenants had an electrician look at the stove and he reported back to Ms Goodwin on 29 September 2022 advising that the stove should not be used until the glass was replaced because there could be a risk of electric shock if water ingress occurs due to the crack.

The tenants stopped using the stove top and referred the electrician’s report to the landlord on 29 September. The landlord arranged for a new stove top to be installed which included the necessity to alter the kitchen joinery. The new stove top was installed, and joinery alterations were completed on 20 October.

The tenants claim that the landlord should have had the stove top checked by an electrician before the tenancy commenced and if it had done so, it would have been replaced before the tenancy commenced and they would not have been without a working stove top for three weeks.

I agree and I consider this a breach of the obligation in section 45(1)(b) of the Act to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and an award of compensation is appropriate.

Taking into account all of the circumstances, including that the tenants were not living in the premises from soon after its commencement until 12 September and they had the use of the stove top until 29 September, I consider $200.00 reasonable compensation. Smell in the house

When the tenants moved back into the property in September they said that they were “overwhelmed” by a bad smell in the entrance hallway but particularly in the laundry.

Ms Green said that no smell was detected by her or by the contractor who had been to the property several times to complete maintenance.

I am not satisfied that the tenants have provided evidence to establish where the smell they detected was coming from or, in particular, whether it was because of a problem with the property itself. As Ms Green said, it may well have been because it is an older property that been shut up for several months while the tenants were living elsewhere.

The claim for compensation for the smell is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide adequate locks?

Section 46(1) of the Act provides that the landlord must provide and maintain such locks as are necessary to ensure the premises are reasonably secure.

The tenants claim that the landlord did not provide adequate locks for the ranch slider door and for the door between the premises and the neighbouring premises.

The ranch slider door did not have a door lock rather it was secure by a pole/tube that was inserted in the door track which prevented the door from being opened unless the pole/tube was removed. Ms Goodwin requested that the situation be remedied in her 28 September email. However, the situation with the door was noted in the pre tenancy report and subsequent inspection reports. The landlord therefore was aware of the issue from the tenancy commencement. A lock was installed on the door on 31 October 2022.

While I consider that the ranch slider was “reasonably secure” (it could not be opened from the outside unless the pole/tube was removed) I consider that the failure to install a working door lock was a breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act (failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair) and I consider that an award of compensation for the breach is appropriate. Taking into account all the circumstances I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable.

The tenants also claim that the door between the tenancy premises and the neighbouring premises did not have an adequate lock to ensure the premises are reasonably secure and this resulted in them loosing possessions.

The two premises were separated by an internal door. The occupier of the other property was a lady called Annie. The door could be locked on Annie’s side by a ‘push’ button type lock on the doorknob. On the tenants’ side the door could be locked by a bolt type lock.

Annie unfortunately died and had no next of kin in New Zealand. Arrangements were made for the SPCA to come and collect any of her goods that they wanted. This occurred on or about 16 December 2022 when the tenants were not at the property. It seems that the person who was engaged by SPCA to collect the goods was able to go through the door between the two premises and, likely not being aware that the premises were separate, took some of the tenants goods (including beds). The tenants were able to get some of their possessions back from the SPCA but some had been sold.

The tenants claim that the bolt on their side of the door was faulty and could not be pushed all the way into the shaft. They believe that this meant that the SPCA worker was able to get through the door by “jiggling” the door.

Ms Green denies that the lock is faulty. She believes that the tenants simply left the door unbolted. She refers to the statement by SPCA dated 17 December 2022 in which the writer states “all doors inside were unlocked and not secured”.

On the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the tenants have established their claim that the lock was faulty or the lock did not make the premises reasonably secure. I find, again on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the tenants left the door unbolted at the time the SPCA was collecting Annie’s goods.

This claim is therefore dismissed.

The tenants also claim compensation for failure by the landlord to provide window stays on windows in the bedroom. However, while I accept that window locks/stays may be beneficial there is no obligation on a landlord to have them installed. Nonetheless, I note that the landlord did install the stays after the tenants asked him to do so. Did the landlord or his agents breach the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment?

The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act.

The tenants claim that their right to quiet enjoyment was interfered with by having to “manage” repairs and the inconvenience of having contractors at the property doing repairs or maintenance.

However, the tenants wanted the work to be done and I have taken into account any inconvenience in the compensation that I have awarded for breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act.

The tenants also claims that their right to privacy was interfered with when the landlord gave Bunnings Ms Goodwin’s name and phone number as a contact for the purchase/delivery of the new stove top. Ms Goodwin said that Bunnings phoned her and told her that there was a fault with her credit card that had been provided for payment of the new stove top.

Ms Green said that the landlord (owner) purchased the stove top and Ms Goodwin’s phone number and name was given to Bunnings simply to enable Bunnings to phone to arrange delivery of the stove. She believes Bunnings made an error recording Ms Goodwin as the customer and thinking it was Ms Goodwin’s credit card that was to be used.

I do not consider the giving of Ms Goodwin’s phone number and the call by Bunnings regarding the credit card is a breach of section 38(2). Ms Goodwin gave her phone number as a contact number in the tenancy agreement and I it seems that Ms Goodwin did not object to another contractor of the landlord phoning her. I also accept that it is likely that the phone call from Bunnings about the credit card was an error on the part of Bunnings. However even if the giving of her name and phone number was a breach of section 38, I consider it to be minor and not one that requires an award of compensation.

The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is therefore dismissed. Should the tenants be reimbursed for the amount paid to have the premises tested for methamphetamine?

On 9 November 2022 the tenants had the premises tested for methamphetamine. Ms Goodwin said that they did so because of the smell from the laundry, because Ms Goodwin’s brother developed asthma after visiting, and because a plant in the garden outside the laundry window had died. The test results record that no methamphetamine was detected.

I dismiss the claim for reimbursement of the costs incurred for the testing. It is clear that the testing was done for the tenants’ peace of mind rather than because of any breach of an obligation owed to them by the landlord. Moreover, the tenants did not first ask the landlord to have the test completed. They said that they did not do so because they felt it was required to be done urgently but they are still obligated to give the landlord the opportunity before incurring the costs themselves. Tribunal application fee

The tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims and I do not consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

However, the tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims. The application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4603672 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Power usage	$50.00	Power usage
Compensation: Stove top	$250.00	Stove top
Compensation: Ranch slider lock	$200.00	Ranch slider lock
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$500.00