What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4630650?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4630650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630650?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9264241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4630650?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4630650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630650?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9264241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 38 North Avon Road, Richmond, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630650 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
By declaration, a notice purporting to terminate the tenancy dated 26 June 2023 was not given in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and has no effect.
Professionals Christchurch Limited as Agent for Andrew & Anne Kipa must pay Peter Heron $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on Mr Heron’s application.
The landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the bathroom flooring is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for an order regarding the validity of a notice to terminate the tenancy and, if he is required to move, compensation for moving costs.
The landlord has applied for compensation for repairs to the bathroom floor. Notice to Terminate the Tenancy.
The tenancy is for a fixed term to 17 August 2023.
On 26 June 2023, the landlord purported to give notice to terminate the tenancy, with an end date of 25 September 2023. See sections 60A and 50(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
From 11 February 2021, landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA.
Section 51(2) provides: (2) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— (a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition; or.... (f) extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date;
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available.
The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy by email dated 26 June 2023. The reason given for termination was as follows: “the property you are presently renting, is having significant repairs made to the bathroom. In accordance with section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and its Associated Amendments, I am legally bound to give you 90 days’ notice to vacate.”
The reference to s51(2)(a) was incorrect. The notice should have referred to s51(2)(f) RTA, as the reason for the notice was bathroom repairs. The reference to s51(2)(a) has not prejudiced the tenant, both parties treated the notice has if it was given under s51(2)(f) and understood that the reason for termination was bathroom repairs. I have considered the tenant’s application on that basis.
The tenant challenged the notice and said that he should not be required to vacate the premises for the repairs to be done. The Tribunal can determine the validly of the notice (see s77(2)(f) RTA).
At the time the notice was issued, there is no evidence regarding the extent of the repair required or the timeframe for repair. The landlord referred me to evidence from a contractor, in July 2023, after the notice was issued which sets out a scope of work and provides a quote (or estimate).
Significantly, an email from the contractor dated 5 July 2023 sets out damage on the bathroom floor, notes that the structure appears OK and records that the repair is to replace the bathroom flooring and flooring substrate and reseal the floor. There is also a suggestion in the contractor’s quote that a vanity will need to be replaced.
The landlord advised that the contractor had told her that the repairs could take 3 to 6 weeks. She took a conservative view and considered that they may take up to 10 weeks. The tenant submitted that the floor repair should take a couple of days and said that a replacement vanity was not required. There was no objective evidence to corroborate either parties’ assessment of the repair timeframe.
Significantly, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s assertion of a 3-to-10- week timeframe or to support a conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the repairs are being done. As noted above, there was no corroborative evidence regarding scope or timeframe for repairs at the time the notice was issued.
I find that the notice purporting to terminate the tenancy was not authorised by any provision of the RTA and is invalid. The notice has no effect.
As the notice is invalid, I am not required to consider the tenant’s claim for moving costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed compensation for repair costs to fix the bathroom floor. Both parties agree that there is damage or spongey-ness to the bathroom floor, but they disagree as to the cause.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claims that the thin substrate layer under the vinyl flooring has been damaged during the tenancy and that both the substrate and vinyl need to be replaced. The landlord also claims that the vanity has been water damaged and requires repair.
The landlord referred to correspondence from a contractor, photos of the vinyl flooring and communications with the tenant. The tenant says the degradation occurred within 5 months of him moving him and is, at least in part, an historic issue. He also says that, other than one spill from the bath, he has not caused any excessive water on the bathroom floor. He also says that there was no sealant between the vinyl flooring and the bath. Mr Heron notified the landlord of issues when he observed them and feels that he is being penalised for doing so.
A tenant should be able to use a bathroom in a usual manner without degradation or decay occurring. The evidence did not establish that there was anything unusual in the way Mr Heron used the bathroom. There is nothing untoward in a mop being stored in the bathroom or the shower curtain occasionally falling outside the bath. The landlord acknowledged that the last time any sealant would have been applied to junctions between the floor and bath or walls would have been when earthquake repairs were carried out in 2012 or 2013.
The extent of the damage was not clearly established, nor was the cause of the damage. While some damage has occurred during the tenancy, I find that it was not carelessly or intentionally caused by the tenant. The application for repair costs is dismissed.
As the tenant was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of his filing fee.
For completeness, I note that the tenant raised issues with exterior flooding during this hearing. Those issues did not form part of the claims currently before me and I have not considered them.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
By declaration, a notice purporting to terminate the tenancy dated 26 June 2023 was not given in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and has no effect.
Professionals Christchurch Limited as Agent for Andrew & Anne Kipa must pay Peter Heron $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on Mr Heron’s application.
The landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the bathroom flooring is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for an order regarding the validity of a notice to terminate the tenancy and, if he is required to move, compensation for moving costs.
The landlord has applied for compensation for repairs to the bathroom floor. Notice to Terminate the Tenancy.
The tenancy is for a fixed term to 17 August 2023.
On 26 June 2023, the landlord purported to give notice to terminate the tenancy, with an end date of 25 September 2023. See sections 60A and 50(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
From 11 February 2021, landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA.
Section 51(2) provides: (2) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— (a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition; or.... (f) extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date;
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available.
The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy by email dated 26 June 2023. The reason given for termination was as follows: “the property you are presently renting, is having significant repairs made to the bathroom. In accordance with section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and its Associated Amendments, I am legally bound to give you 90 days’ notice to vacate.”
The reference to s51(2)(a) was incorrect. The notice should have referred to s51(2)(f) RTA, as the reason for the notice was bathroom repairs. The reference to s51(2)(a) has not prejudiced the tenant, both parties treated the notice has if it was given under s51(2)(f) and understood that the reason for termination was bathroom repairs. I have considered the tenant’s application on that basis.
The tenant challenged the notice and said that he should not be required to vacate the premises for the repairs to be done. The Tribunal can determine the validly of the notice (see s77(2)(f) RTA).
At the time the notice was issued, there is no evidence regarding the extent of the repair required or the timeframe for repair. The landlord referred me to evidence from a contractor, in July 2023, after the notice was issued which sets out a scope of work and provides a quote (or estimate).
Significantly, an email from the contractor dated 5 July 2023 sets out damage on the bathroom floor, notes that the structure appears OK and records that the repair is to replace the bathroom flooring and flooring substrate and reseal the floor. There is also a suggestion in the contractor’s quote that a vanity will need to be replaced.
The landlord advised that the contractor had told her that the repairs could take 3 to 6 weeks. She took a conservative view and considered that they may take up to 10 weeks. The tenant submitted that the floor repair should take a couple of days and said that a replacement vanity was not required. There was no objective evidence to corroborate either parties’ assessment of the repair timeframe.
Significantly, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s assertion of a 3-to-10- week timeframe or to support a conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the repairs are being done. As noted above, there was no corroborative evidence regarding scope or timeframe for repairs at the time the notice was issued.
I find that the notice purporting to terminate the tenancy was not authorised by any provision of the RTA and is invalid. The notice has no effect.
As the notice is invalid, I am not required to consider the tenant’s claim for moving costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed compensation for repair costs to fix the bathroom floor. Both parties agree that there is damage or spongey-ness to the bathroom floor, but they disagree as to the cause.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claims that the thin substrate layer under the vinyl flooring has been damaged during the tenancy and that both the substrate and vinyl need to be replaced. The landlord also claims that the vanity has been water damaged and requires repair.
The landlord referred to correspondence from a contractor, photos of the vinyl flooring and communications with the tenant. The tenant says the degradation occurred within 5 months of him moving him and is, at least in part, an historic issue. He also says that, other than one spill from the bath, he has not caused any excessive water on the bathroom floor. He also says that there was no sealant between the vinyl flooring and the bath. Mr Heron notified the landlord of issues when he observed them and feels that he is being penalised for doing so.
A tenant should be able to use a bathroom in a usual manner without degradation or decay occurring. The evidence did not establish that there was anything unusual in the way Mr Heron used the bathroom. There is nothing untoward in a mop being stored in the bathroom or the shower curtain occasionally falling outside the bath. The landlord acknowledged that the last time any sealant would have been applied to junctions between the floor and bath or walls would have been when earthquake repairs were carried out in 2012 or 2013.
The extent of the damage was not clearly established, nor was the cause of the damage. While some damage has occurred during the tenancy, I find that it was not carelessly or intentionally caused by the tenant. The application for repair costs is dismissed.
As the tenant was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of his filing fee.
For completeness, I note that the tenant raised issues with exterior flooding during this hearing. Those issues did not form part of the claims currently before me and I have not considered them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630650 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 38 North Avon Road, Richmond, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630650 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 38 North Avon Road, Richmond, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions