What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614192 about?

The tribunal order states: Zhen Li must pay [The tenant/s] $100.00 immediately, being compensation for

How much money was awarded in case 4614192?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614192?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9588243-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614192 about?

The tribunal order states: Zhen Li must pay [The tenant/s] $100.00 immediately, being compensation for

How much money was awarded in case 4614192?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614192?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9588243-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Pinewood Grove, Botany Downs, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614192 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Only the tenant attended the hearing, represented by [representative] (as representative).

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord initially advised the tenant that they have a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

At the hearing I was advised that the landlord has recently sent the bond refund form to the tenant, but the tenant is away and unable to sign it and so wishes to proceed with the hearing.

The tenant also has two claims for compensation from the landlord, as follows: a. Compensation for failure to repair garage door; and b. Failure to insulate in accordance with Healthy Homes Standards. Bond

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

The landlord has not filed a counter claim. I order that the bond be refunded to the tenant. Failure to maintain

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to repair and maintain the garage door.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant’s representative provided evidence of correspondence showing that once the tenancy began the landlord explained that the garage door was getting old and shouldn’t really be used. They then placed a sticker over the switch for the door. The tenant requested that the door be fixed on a number of occasions but the landlord failed to do so. As a result, the tenant was unable to park their car on the garage and had to park in an uncovered area outside the garage door.

The tenant has requested compensation of $100.00 which I consider to be appropriate and order accordingly. Insulation

The tenant has also claimed that the landlord is in breach of their obligations to insulate to the required standard.

The tenant provided a photograph of the ceiling insulation together with a ruler showing the insulation to be to a depth of 8.5mm which they say is below the required R-value. The insulation appears to be polystyrene or similar.

The property is in Auckland and so falls into Zone 1, where ceiling insulation of R 2.9 is required.

Ceiling insulation installed prior to 1 July 2016 must be at least 120mm thick. However ceiling insulation that is less than 120mm thick is acceptable if the insulation’s R-value met the minimum R-values when it was installed, and the insulation’s thickness has not degraded by more than 30%.

At the hearing I did not have sufficient information to make any determination. All I have been provided with is the photograph referred to above.

The tenant’s representative explained that she had consulted with a professional who advised that the insulation was not up to standard. However that person was not called to give evidence and did not provide any written report or determination.

Due to the lack of available evidence this claim is not proven and is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee

As the tenant has been substantially successful he is entitled to name suppression (pursuant to Section 95A RTA) and to reimbursement of the filing fee of $20.44.