What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4634550 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4634550?

Compensation: $910.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4634550?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4634550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9507368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4634550 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4634550?

Compensation: $910.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4634550?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4634550?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9507368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22A Masters Avenue, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4634550 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4634550 — net $2,430.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages failure to maintain	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages failure to maintain
Compensation loss of amenity	$910.00	Compensation loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,430.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,430.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4634550 — net $2,430.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages failure to maintain	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages failure to maintain
Compensation loss of amenity	$910.00	Compensation loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,430.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,430.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Climber Property Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $50.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing. Ms Waugh attended as property manager of Climber Property limited.
The tenants applied for damages, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord filed a cross application for compensation for flea treatments and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy ended on 8 August 2023 and the bond was refunded in full to the tenants following an end of tenancy inspection. Burden of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities. Compensation
The District Court has confirmed that when there are multiple claims for a breach under a single section (section 45 here), then only one order of exemplary damages can be made. I will therefore address the claims for exemplary damages for breaches of section 45 below. Garage leak.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It was not disputed that on 20 December 2020 there was a heavy downpour of rain and the garage leaked. Photographs were provided of water at the door, inside on the floor and down one wall.
The tenants used the garage to sit and watch movies on a projector. They said that 3 couches, the washing machine,3 heaters and a laptop were either destroyed or damaged in the flood. Compensation was claimed for these items but there was not enough evidence supplied establishing that all the items were in the garage at the time, what the value of the items were and the cost to repair, replace or destroy. The claim for compensation is dismissed.
The tenants notified the landlord of the garage leak and say they were told to watch it and if it happened again to let the landlord know.
A copy of the landlord’s reply to the tenant’s concern about the leak was dated 12 May 2023, and was provided from the [Property maintenance software] application which was used by the property managers as a tool for the tenants to notify them of maintenance issues. The reply said ‘Due to extreme weather the gutter probably is overloaded which cause the rain to runs into the roof and come out from gaps on the wall and ceiling. If this is the situation, then we do not need to worry too much. Could you please help to keep an eye on it and if it keeps leaking dripping water, please let me know.’
The landlord said that because of the time of year they were unable to get someone out to assess the problem. The gutters were cleaned on 14 January 2023.The landlord relied on the premises being Healthy Homes compliant and that it was a severe weather event to support their delay in attending the premises.
I find that a wait of 25 days before someone attended the premises is too long and a breach of section 45. The evidence showed the floor of the garage covered in about an inch of water. The result was that the tenants never used the garage again and only stored items off the floor, including the washing machine, or in watertight containers.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The claim for compensation for the leak in the hallway is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Bedroom wall leak and hole.
Bedroom 1 at the premises had an obvious plaster repair on the wall at the start of the tenancy. During the tenancy the tenants said that there was a leak in the room that required a bucket under it and they informed the landlord about this.
The tenants, while sleeping, they knocked the wall which revealed wet, rotten and mouldy boards behind it. Photographs were provided.
The tenant first alerted the landlord to this on 16 June 2023 and provided a photograph of the hole and mould under the previously plastered wall. They then sent a 14 day notice on 30 June 2023 to attend to the leaks in the garage, hallway and bedroom.
The notice gave the landlord 14 days to comply but erroneously gave the date of 14 August 2023 to comply, being 45 days after the initial notice. This date was after the tenancy ended.
The landlord replied on 5 July that they would get a handyman to attend to it. The landlord said that the hole was fixed after the tenancy ended and before the expiration of the 14-day notice date that the tenant gave them.
The photographs of the hole show a very damp rotten wall with clear mould throughout.
I do not find it a defence to the requirement to maintain the premises that the handy man thought it would be easier to repair this damage after the tenants left and the landlord agreed as they would still be within the notice period given by the tenants.
The landlord has an overriding responsibility to maintain and black mould is serious and dangerous. The tenant did not use this room after the hole appeared.
I find they have committed an unlawful act. Insulation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said that the premises were very damp and cold resulting in them being unwell for a large part of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement stated that the ceiling insulation was inspected on 3 September 2022, when the tenancy began before that date on 29 July 2022.The landlord had no explanation for this discrepancy.
The landlord provided a copy of a healthy homes report dated 3 September 2020 that recorded the home was insulated to standard at that date and said that this would not have changed by the time the tenants rented the premises. This report also confirmed that the house had a moisture barrier installed under the floor compliant with the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenants had no supporting evidence that the premises were not insulated, and this claim is dismissed.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord knew about the garage leak and mouldy wall and took some time to attend to these issues. I find that a landlord cannot rely on the dates given in a 14 day notice or that it is easier to fix issues when a tenant has left the premises. The tenant has a right to live in a warm, safe, and healthy environment that complies with the RTA and healthy homes regulations.
The effect of not attending to maintenance issue promptly are that the health and belongings of the tenants can be put at risk as well as the landlord’s own property.
It is in the public interest that landlords know and comply with the requirements of the RTA.
I have found two breaches of section 45 of the RTA and find it just to award $1500.00 in damages.
The tenants claimed that the premises smelled of cat pee at the start of the tenancy to the point that they used candles and incense to be able to sleep there. There was no evidence provided to support this or that they had notified the landlord of their concerns. This claim is dismissed. Compensation for loss of amenity.
The tenant claimed for reimbursement of half the rent paid due to the cold damp conditions at the premises.
The tenants established that the garage was flooded and said that they did not use the garage after the flood. I have taken into consideration that a garage is usually used for storage of items and not as a living space. There was no evidence provided that this area was promoted by the landlord as an extra living area. The tenants moved out of the bedroom after the mould was found.
This was a three bedroomed property with two tenants so other spaces were available to sleep in, however rent was paid on the basis that these two areas could be used and I award $750.00 for loss of use of the bedroom for 6.9 weeks and $160.00 for the compromised use of the garage for 32 weeks. The landlords claim

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claimed for reimbursement for flea treatment of the carpets after the tenants left the premises. The new tenancy began on 5 September 2023 and the tenants complained about a flea issue that was not solved by them using over the counter flea bombs.
The landlord engaged a professional pest control company S.W.A.T Pest control; on 20 September 2023.
The landlord sought reimbursement of all the costs to treat for fleas based on the tenants having 3 cats at the premises which were permitted and a compliance with a Cat Clause contained in the agreement.
The clause specified that the tenants were to pay for any cat damage, to pay for general pest control and commercially clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants confirmed that they rug doctored the bedroom floors but did not use pest control as they did not have any trouble with fleas.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the final inspection the landlord told the tenants that everything was okay and refunded the bond in full.
The landlord said that it is hard to find evidence of fleas and they were only made aware of it by the new tenants at the start of the next tenancy.
The tenants deny that they caused this because they did clean the bedroom carpets and had no problems themselves with fleas. They raised that the next tenancy started just over a month after they ended theirs and this could have been when the flea problem began.
They highlighted that in the tenancy agreement clause 29 the landlord was to ‘ensure that the property remained free from the presence of fleas....for a period of one month after the tenant took possession..’
A tenant is required to leave a premises reasonable clean and tidy when the tenancy ends. I do not find that this responsibility carries on for a month after the tenancy ended. The landlord was unable to provide evidence that the flea problem was present during or at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed.
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Both parties requested suppression. The tenants were substantially successful, and suppression is awarded by right.
The landlord was unsuccessful and applied for suppression and therefore not entitled to it by right. Having weighted up the interest of the landlord versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order suppression. I decline to make any suppression orders in relation to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4634550 — State of repair at 22A Masters Avenue, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4634550 — State of repair at 22A Masters Avenue, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions