What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609009?

The tribunal order states: Elliot Dillon-Herzog and Erika Rodriguez must pay Christopher Joseph Doyle

How much money was awarded in case 4609009?

Compensation: Loss of chattels dispo…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609009?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10046472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609009?

The tribunal order states: Elliot Dillon-Herzog and Erika Rodriguez must pay Christopher Joseph Doyle

How much money was awarded in case 4609009?

Compensation: Loss of chattels dispo…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; LandlordTenant: $1,700.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609009?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10046472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

231 Waitakere Road, Taupaki, RD 2, Taupaki 0782 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609009 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609009 — net $1,300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 May 2023 (consent	$1,000.00		Rent arrears to 29 May 2023 (consent
Window repairs (consent	$400.00		Window repairs (consent
LandlordTenant		$1,700.00	LandlordTenant
Compensation: Loss of chattels disposed of by landlord		$1,000.00	Loss of chattels disposed of by landlord
Total award	$1,400.00	$2,700.00
Net award		$1,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,300.00

Order

Elliot Dillon-Herzog and Erika Rodriguez must pay Christopher Joseph Doyle $1,300.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application for rubbish removal costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Dillon-Herzog represented the landlord. I have amended the application to show both he and Ms Rodriguez as the landlord parties to reflect the tenancy agreement. Mr Dillon-Herzog confirmed that Ms Rodriguez (his partner) was aware of the hearing and did not need to be separately served with the notice of hearing.
The tenancy stared on 20 May 2022 and was a fixed term tenancy until 20 May 2023. By agreement, the tenancy ended on 29 May 2023.
Parts of Auckland (and other areas) were hit by severe flooding over the weekend of 28/29 January 2023 and then again on 14 February.
The premises Mr Doyle rented were affected. The garage was flooded as was the house. That meant that the underfloor insulation had to be removed and the garage wall linings taken down. Fibre base boards on the house also had to be removed and were stored in the garage. When Mr Doyle had them tested, they showed the presence of asbestos.
Mr Doyle moved his flood damaged chattels outside and covered them with a tarpaulin (as instructed by his insurer). After being assessed by an insurance assessor his insurer said it would not accept his claim and advised him to withdraw it.
When Mr Doyle vacated the tenancy, he did not remove all his goods, as was his statutory responsibility. There was some text communication between the parties. The landlord gave him time to remove his goods. His friends took some things away such as garden furniture and a pool table but left other stuff behind. Mr Doyle waited about two weeks and disposed of the remaining goods which he considered were rubbish.
Shortly after that Mr Doyle applied to the Tribunal for compensation of $30,000.00 for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the consequences of the flooding, exposure to asbestos, and the disposal of his goods by the landlord.
Mr Dillon-Herzog cross applied. He sought order for rent arrears, the repair of windows, and rubbish removal costs including his labour. Issues
The Tribunal must decide: •Has Mr Doyle proved entitlement to compensation for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, loss of his chattels, and exposure to asbestos? If so, how much should the Tribunal award? •Has Mr Dillon-Herzog established his claims for rent arears, the repair cost of windows, and rubbish removal costs? Relevant legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a landlord for proven losses due to a tenant’s breach of their statutory responsibilities. Has Mr Doyle proved entitlement to compensation for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, loss of his chattels, and exposure to asbestos?

If so, how much should the Tribunal award?

Mr Doyle experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy following the flooding events. The removal of the underfloor insulation, the removal of the base boards, the restricted use of the garage and the period when he did not have a working heat pump all impacted on his enjoyment of the tenancy.
The landlord provided some compensation, via his insurer, for the cost of running a dehumidifier to dry out the house and for skip hire ($4,800.00) but these other less tangible losses were not compensated.
This is not a case where the premises became uninhabitable, so I do not need to discuss the law as it relates to the destruction of premises making them partly or fully uninhabitable.
I accept from the evidence presented that the tenant suffered an objective loss of enjoyment of the tenancy because of the flooding events and for that he should receive compensation. Compensation is not punitive. It simply recognises loss. I award him $1,700.00. This equates to rent relief of about $100.00 per week.
I make no separate award for exposure to asbestos. That there was a building material that contained asbestos does not establish any breach by the landlord. Asbestos building materials have been widely used in New Zealand historically. The presence of such materials does not of itself establish harm. It is the landlord’s response to potential harm, once identified, that matters.
Mr Dillon-Herzog explained that the testing that Mr Doyle arranged took place on 15 May 2023 (the boards were removed on 12 May). The report confirming the presence of asbestos is dated 18 May. The tenancy ended on 29 May.
Mr Doyle presented no evidence that he suffered any ill effects from the presence of the fibre cement baseboards or their removal and storage. The period during which this was a known issue was just over 2 weeks.
The tenant also seeks compensation for the disposal of his goods after he vacated the tenancy. His goods, moved outside and covered with a tarpaulin at his insurer’s suggestion, were left at the premises when he vacated.
The evidence the landlord presented shows that he made all reasonable efforts to have the tenant remove the goods left behind.
The tenant’s friends removed some goods, such as garden furniture and a pool table, but they left other goods under the tarpaulin.
The landlord’s last communication with the tenant was on 31 May 2023, when the tenant said he would organise a skip. When the goods were not removed, the landlord dumped them after about 2 weeks.
Both parties are at fault here. Mr Doyle had a statutory responsibility to remove all his goods when he vacated the tenancy. But Mr Dillon-Herzog had a responsibility to store any goods not removed by the tenant and to then apply to the Tribunal for a disposal of goods order.
Mr Dillon-Herzog said he considered that the goods left behind were rubbish. The photos produced in evidence support that assessment to an extent, but some of the goods were likely to be of value and certainly were to Mr Doyle. But the goods were already damaged; that is why the tenant made an insurance claim and moved them outside under the tarpaulin.
The tenant produced no evidence on which the Tribunal could undertake an objective assessment of the actual value of the goods left behind. I have decided to award the tenant compensation of $1000.00 for the loss of his chattels, and the landlord’s removal of them, which is the best I can do from the evidence produced. Has Mr Dillon-Herzog established his claims for rent arears, the repair cost of windows, and rubbish removal costs?
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for rent arrears and the repair of windows. I allow those claims by consent.
The landlord sought costs of $850.40 for disposing of the tenant’s goods (truck hire, dump fees), and for his time.
I dismiss this claim. To award the landlord compensation would be to endorse his actions when, as I have noted, he was in breach of his statutory responsibility to store the tenant’s goods (if they could not reasonably be returned to the tenant) and to apply to the Tribunal for a disposal of goods order. Result
The tenant’s claims are successful in the amount of $2,700.00. The landlord’s claims are successful (by consent) in the amount of $1,400.00. The landlord will therefore pay the tenant $1,300.00. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. I make no name suppression orders in this case. Neither party has been wholly or mostly successful – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609009 — net $1,300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 29 May 2023 (consent	$1,000.00		Rent arrears to 29 May 2023 (consent
Window repairs (consent	$400.00		Window repairs (consent
LandlordTenant		$1,700.00	LandlordTenant
Compensation: Loss of chattels disposed of by landlord		$1,000.00	Loss of chattels disposed of by landlord
Total award	$1,400.00	$2,700.00
Net award		$1,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,300.00

Order

Elliot Dillon-Herzog and Erika Rodriguez must pay Christopher Joseph Doyle $1,300.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application for rubbish removal costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Dillon-Herzog represented the landlord. I have amended the application to show both he and Ms Rodriguez as the landlord parties to reflect the tenancy agreement. Mr Dillon-Herzog confirmed that Ms Rodriguez (his partner) was aware of the hearing and did not need to be separately served with the notice of hearing.
The tenancy stared on 20 May 2022 and was a fixed term tenancy until 20 May 2023. By agreement, the tenancy ended on 29 May 2023.
Parts of Auckland (and other areas) were hit by severe flooding over the weekend of 28/29 January 2023 and then again on 14 February.
The premises Mr Doyle rented were affected. The garage was flooded as was the house. That meant that the underfloor insulation had to be removed and the garage wall linings taken down. Fibre base boards on the house also had to be removed and were stored in the garage. When Mr Doyle had them tested, they showed the presence of asbestos.
Mr Doyle moved his flood damaged chattels outside and covered them with a tarpaulin (as instructed by his insurer). After being assessed by an insurance assessor his insurer said it would not accept his claim and advised him to withdraw it.
When Mr Doyle vacated the tenancy, he did not remove all his goods, as was his statutory responsibility. There was some text communication between the parties. The landlord gave him time to remove his goods. His friends took some things away such as garden furniture and a pool table but left other stuff behind. Mr Doyle waited about two weeks and disposed of the remaining goods which he considered were rubbish.
Shortly after that Mr Doyle applied to the Tribunal for compensation of $30,000.00 for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the consequences of the flooding, exposure to asbestos, and the disposal of his goods by the landlord.
Mr Dillon-Herzog cross applied. He sought order for rent arrears, the repair of windows, and rubbish removal costs including his labour. Issues
The Tribunal must decide: •Has Mr Doyle proved entitlement to compensation for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, loss of his chattels, and exposure to asbestos? If so, how much should the Tribunal award? •Has Mr Dillon-Herzog established his claims for rent arears, the repair cost of windows, and rubbish removal costs? Relevant legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenant’s compensation claims are for actual losses and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a landlord for proven losses due to a tenant’s breach of their statutory responsibilities. Has Mr Doyle proved entitlement to compensation for his loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, loss of his chattels, and exposure to asbestos?

If so, how much should the Tribunal award?

Mr Doyle experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy following the flooding events. The removal of the underfloor insulation, the removal of the base boards, the restricted use of the garage and the period when he did not have a working heat pump all impacted on his enjoyment of the tenancy.
The landlord provided some compensation, via his insurer, for the cost of running a dehumidifier to dry out the house and for skip hire ($4,800.00) but these other less tangible losses were not compensated.
This is not a case where the premises became uninhabitable, so I do not need to discuss the law as it relates to the destruction of premises making them partly or fully uninhabitable.
I accept from the evidence presented that the tenant suffered an objective loss of enjoyment of the tenancy because of the flooding events and for that he should receive compensation. Compensation is not punitive. It simply recognises loss. I award him $1,700.00. This equates to rent relief of about $100.00 per week.
I make no separate award for exposure to asbestos. That there was a building material that contained asbestos does not establish any breach by the landlord. Asbestos building materials have been widely used in New Zealand historically. The presence of such materials does not of itself establish harm. It is the landlord’s response to potential harm, once identified, that matters.
Mr Dillon-Herzog explained that the testing that Mr Doyle arranged took place on 15 May 2023 (the boards were removed on 12 May). The report confirming the presence of asbestos is dated 18 May. The tenancy ended on 29 May.
Mr Doyle presented no evidence that he suffered any ill effects from the presence of the fibre cement baseboards or their removal and storage. The period during which this was a known issue was just over 2 weeks.
The tenant also seeks compensation for the disposal of his goods after he vacated the tenancy. His goods, moved outside and covered with a tarpaulin at his insurer’s suggestion, were left at the premises when he vacated.
The evidence the landlord presented shows that he made all reasonable efforts to have the tenant remove the goods left behind.
The tenant’s friends removed some goods, such as garden furniture and a pool table, but they left other goods under the tarpaulin.
The landlord’s last communication with the tenant was on 31 May 2023, when the tenant said he would organise a skip. When the goods were not removed, the landlord dumped them after about 2 weeks.
Both parties are at fault here. Mr Doyle had a statutory responsibility to remove all his goods when he vacated the tenancy. But Mr Dillon-Herzog had a responsibility to store any goods not removed by the tenant and to then apply to the Tribunal for a disposal of goods order.
Mr Dillon-Herzog said he considered that the goods left behind were rubbish. The photos produced in evidence support that assessment to an extent, but some of the goods were likely to be of value and certainly were to Mr Doyle. But the goods were already damaged; that is why the tenant made an insurance claim and moved them outside under the tarpaulin.
The tenant produced no evidence on which the Tribunal could undertake an objective assessment of the actual value of the goods left behind. I have decided to award the tenant compensation of $1000.00 for the loss of his chattels, and the landlord’s removal of them, which is the best I can do from the evidence produced. Has Mr Dillon-Herzog established his claims for rent arears, the repair cost of windows, and rubbish removal costs?
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for rent arrears and the repair of windows. I allow those claims by consent.
The landlord sought costs of $850.40 for disposing of the tenant’s goods (truck hire, dump fees), and for his time.
I dismiss this claim. To award the landlord compensation would be to endorse his actions when, as I have noted, he was in breach of his statutory responsibility to store the tenant’s goods (if they could not reasonably be returned to the tenant) and to apply to the Tribunal for a disposal of goods order. Result
The tenant’s claims are successful in the amount of $2,700.00. The landlord’s claims are successful (by consent) in the amount of $1,400.00. The landlord will therefore pay the tenant $1,300.00. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. I make no name suppression orders in this case. Neither party has been wholly or mostly successful – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609009 — Rent arrears at 231 Waitakere Road, Taupaki, RD 2, Taupaki 0782

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609009 — Rent arrears at 231 Waitakere Road, Taupaki, RD 2, Taupaki 0782

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

If so, how much should the Tribunal award?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

If so, how much should the Tribunal award?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions