What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4619110?

The tribunal order states: Terra Rosa Limited must pay Emaline Jane Carr $2,151.14 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4619110?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9775642-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4619110?

The tribunal order states: Terra Rosa Limited must pay Emaline Jane Carr $2,151.14 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4619110?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9775642-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

476 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4619110 — Property damage

Order

Terra Rosa Limited must pay Emaline Jane Carr $2,151.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,360.00 (3769284-003) to Emaline Jane Carr immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by two directors.
This tenancy started in 2013. The tenant brought her claim after the end of the tenancy because the parties could not agree on how the bond should be refunded. Her claims relate to breach of quiet enjoyment and maintenance during the tenancy. The landlord filed a cross application for the cost of clean up and repairs and for the refund of the bond.
The questions the Tribunal has to decide are: • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain? • Did the tenant leave the premises in a reasonable condition? • Is the tenant responsible for the cost of repairs and loss of rent?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant has claimed exemplary damages because there was breach of quiet enjoyment when the house was painted and reroofed during the tenancy. Exemplary damages can be allowed where there is the landlord has harassed the tenant.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant did not tell the landlord during the painting process that she felt harassed by the painters and in particular the painters’ use of their toilet. This means the landlord never had the chance to make changes. The tenant submitted that the landlord was in breach for even suggesting the painters could use the toilet. However, section 109(3) RTA requires me to consider the landlord’s intention before allowing exemplary damages, and I am not persuaded the landlord acted intentionally here to harass the tenant.
I do find the landlord should have considered a rent reduction for the three months the painters were there. The tenant’s submission they found the scaffolding difficult, and their privacy compromised was persuasive. I allow a rent reduction of 10% for the three months.

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

There is a claim the landlord did not comply with Healthy Homes moisture ingress Standard. I note the landlord was not required to comply with this standard because the tenancy started in 2013. I can consider this as a maintenance claim.
Landlords have obligations under section 45 of the RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant has claimed compensation in the amount of $1560.
The first claim relates to the house being damp and mouldy during the tenancy because of leaks in the garage and because the back bedrooms had earth against the weather boards outside. The tenant was also concerned that cracked pipes were not repaired properly. The landlord submitted the garage always leaked because of a concrete retaining wall and that it had the cracked pipes repaired. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I am not more persuaded by the tenant’s evidence which means this claim is dismissed.
The second claim relates to the unsafe shower base. I have seen photos and heard from both parties. I have no doubt the shower base should have been replaced because it was unhygienic and unsafe. I find the landlord breached the duty to repair and maintain. $1000 seems reasonable for this breach.
Part of the french doors separating the lounge from the dining room fell out during the tenancy. It is agreed evidence one of the directors said he would repair the doors but he never got around to it. I find there was a breach by the landlord and $560 seems reasonable compensation for this breach.

Did the tenant leave the premises in a reasonable condition?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claimed over $1000 in cleaning. The tenant said cleaned and she paid a cleaner. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. The landlord did not provide me with any photographs showing the need for further cleaning. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
There is a claim for rubbish removal. The landlord had good photos showing what was removed. I allow the amounts claimed for labour and for the tip fee because these seems reasonable to me. The claim for the trailer is not allowed because there was no actual cost for using the trailer. The claim for the second trip to the hospice shop is not allowed because all those items could have gone to the tip.
There is a claim for $300 for attempting to remove a number of stains from the lounge carpet. The tenant agreed she was responsible for the stains. The landlord did not have an invoice from a carpet cleaner but said he had spent many hours with different products trying to remove the stains. That amount is more than I would usually see for similar claims in the Tribunal. I allow $150 as a reasonable amount, in the absence of the usual invoices.
There is a claim for a replacement key. The tenant said they never used the key for that door because there were bolts top and bottom. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The property condition report from the start of the tenancy does not specify what keys the tenant was given. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed the cost of repairing two patches of the wall where the plaster had been damaged. I have considered the photos and it seems most likely to me this was fair wear and tear because the patches are small and the general condition of the walls is average. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for damage to two windows. The tenant said she was not aware of a crack in the door pane when the tenancy ended. The landlord did not have a photo proving the claim, or an invoice to show it had been repaired. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
The second claim is for a broken window where the door stop was broken and consequently the door handle went through a window pane. One of her children broke the window. The tenant submitted this was an accident rather than careless damage, because she was not aware the door stop was not functional until the window broke. I am not persuaded the damage was careless. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has mostly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond is refunded to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619110 — Property damage at 476 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619110 — Property damage at 476 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Did the tenant leave the premises in a reasonable condition?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair and maintain?

Did the tenant leave the premises in a reasonable condition?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management