What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4643512 about?

This case concerned a rent arrears dispute. The net award was $4,790.44.

How much money was awarded in case 4643512?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,950.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643512?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10629742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4643512 about?

This case concerned a rent arrears dispute. The net award was $4,790.44.

How much money was awarded in case 4643512?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,950.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643512?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10629742-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4643512 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643512 — net $4,790.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 September 2023	$7,950.00	Rent arrears to 8 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,790.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,790.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643512 — net $4,790.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 September 2023	$7,950.00	Rent arrears to 8 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,790.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,790.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The Landlord applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Initially they applied for compensation however this claim was withdrawn at the hearing.
The Tenant applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
This was a fixed term tenancy from 10 September 2022 to 8 September 2023. This was a four bedroom two-storey property which the Tenant occupied with his wife and young child. On 27 January 2023, torrential rain caused widespread flooding and a state of emergency in [city]. The ground floor of the property was flooded which comprised one bedroom, a lounge, kitchen, toilet and double garage. The upstairs level had three bedrooms and a bathroom. The Tenancy Agreement set rent at $795.00 per week.
When the property flooded, the downstairs carpet became wet. The Tenants immediately sought a rent reduction to $400.00 per week and the Landlord agreed. The Landlord contacted their insurance provider to claim for the flooding repairs however this process took some time to complete due to many other properties within [city] being affected. On 31 May 2023, the Landlord received confirmation from the insurance provider that they would cover some of the repairs. The Tenants then went to India on 1 April 2023 and returned on 9 May 2023 with the Tenant’s parents.
On 6 May 2023, the Tenants requested the rent be waived whilst they opted to live somewhere else temporarily at their own cost. An email was provided by the Landlord to verify this. The Landlord agreed to waive rent from 6 May 2023 to 30 June 2023.
On 3 July 2023, the Landlord submitted Tradespeople started repairing the damages caused by the floods.
On 4 July 2023, the Tenants reported an issue with the toilet. On 13 July 2023, the Tenants reported an issue with the hot water. At that point, the Landlord suspected the Tenants were still living in the property and had never moved out as advised.
On 17July 2023, the Landlord offered to reduce the rent to $595.00 from 22 July 2023 up to when the Landlord completed 50% of the repair work. They also gave notice the rent would increase on 16 September 2023 to $850.00.
On 28 July 2023, the Tenant gave two days notice that they wished to end the tenancy because the property was uninhabitable.
On 9 August 2023, the Landlord submitted all of the repair jobs due to the flooding were completed. Landlords claim for rent arrears
In order to work out the rent arrears, the date of termination must be determined first and then the issue of whether it was uninhabitable second.
The Landlord claims that this was a fixed term tenancy which ended on 8 September 2023.
The Tenants submit the tenancy ended on or about 30 July 2023 in accordance with their notice to vacate given on 28 July 2023 due to the property being ‘uninhabitable’.
The Landlord submits the property was not uninhabitable and there was no placard provided by the Council confirming this.
The Tenants submit the property was uninhabitable because they were unable to use the kitchen, hot water, laundry, the downstairs level was damaged, there was wet carpet and it was a dangerous dwelling because the power kept short circuiting. The Tenants wife was allegedly electrocuted while using an electrical cooktop. This was conveyed in an email dated 28 July 2024 from the Tenant to the Landlord which was submitted in evidence. Photographs of the condition of the property on that date were also attached.
The Landlord responded that they sent an electrician to the property on the day the electric shock incident was reported. The electrician found no issue with the power sockets. An invoice was submitted to substantiate this attendance however, there was nothing specific in the invoice to state that no issue was discovered.
The Landlord also submitted the house was not uninhabitable because the Tenant was actually cooking upstairs in one of the bedrooms. There were spatula burn marks on the carpet and oil marks on the wall. Photographs were provided of this.
In terms of the hot water, the Landlord was waiting completion of the other repairs first to then fix the hot water cylinder issue because the Tenant stated they were not living in the property at the time. The Landlord was told the Tenants were still living at the property by the contractors that attended the repairs in mid July 2023. The Landlord did not provide evidence from the contractors to substantiate the Tenants were living there at the time.

Was the premises uninhabitable?

Section 59 of Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that where premises are (completely) destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable: a) The destruction or damage must not be the result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (obvious in the cyclone cases) b) The premises must be destroyed, or so seriously damaged, as to be uninhabitable c) If so, the rent shall abate; d) Either party may give notice to terminate the tenancy (the landlord not less than 7 days; the tenant not less than 2 days).
In First Avenue Property Ltd v Malik DC Christchurch (VIC-2011-009-001539) 23 November 2011, the Court said every case should be decided on its own facts when it comes to the definition of ‘uninhabitable’. A liberal approach should be taken, the effect the damages has on the Tenants, the personal circumstances of the Tenants and whether the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
In Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd DC Christchurch (CIV-201-009- 001006) 28 November 2011 the Court said, the meaning of uninhabitable depends on the context and should be assessed in light of the prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time. The question of uninhabitability is a matter of fact and degree. In the present case the degree of damage was not so severe as to render the whole house uninhabitable.
In Mauger v Kennard Real Estate Limited DC Christchurch (CIV-2011-009- 001428) 22 November 2011 the Court said:[6] ...This was a residential house, a house to be occupied by a young family. It was a house that had no services – no water, no sewerage, no electricity. That house, in my judgment, was uninhabitable and, that being the case, the issue of rent abatement arises. It was uninhabitable for the period 11 March, when the tenancy commenced, to 25 March when Ms Calder records in diary entries that services were restored.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant had a young child and pregnant wife. This property had working sewerage, electricity and cold water. There was no evidence submitted that the rest of the neighbourhood were also without these amenities so it is difficult to place this situation into context. I find the Tenant was still cooking in the bedrooms upstairs from the photographs provided. I find the Tenant asking for the hot water cylinder and toilet repairs also support the Landlords argument that the Tenants were still occupying the house in July 2023. Despite the contractors not providing evidence, I find it more likely than not the Tenants were residing at the property. The Landlord had offered to abate the rent if this were the case.
In considering all of these factors, I find the property was not uninhabitable and the Tenants notice to vacate invalid. The end date of the tenancy was the 8 September 2023. The rent summary supports the claim for rent arrears.
The amount ordered is proved. Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant has claimed there was a breach of Healthy Home Standards due to the damage of the property. The damage was caused by a flooding event, which was outside of the Landlord’s control and so the consequence of this could possibly be breach of the Healthy Home Standards. The Tenant did not provide their own independent Healthy Home standards report to substantiate their assessment. I find however it would be unjust to assess the standards following destruction of the property caused by a natural event.
This claim is dismissed. Compensation claims- property being uninhabitable
The Tenant has claimed the property was uninhabitable. I refer to my findings at paragraph 24 and find the property was not uninhabitable.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation- Move out costs
The Tenant has claimed $2000.00 for move out costs.
The Tenant would have to pay these costs at the end of the tenancy regardless of the reason for termination.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation -Replacement of kitchen appliances
The Tenant has claimed $5000.00 to replace his refrigerator and other kitchen appliances which were damaged when he was overseas and the Landlord had organised for the kitchen to be repaired. The Tenant claimed his fridge was covered in dust.
The Tenant did not provide evidence of the purchase price for the fridge such as an invoice or evidence from a third party expert to verify it was damaged.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages- house being dangerous
The Tenant claimed the property was ‘dangerous’ after his wife suffered an electric shock when using an appliance. The Landlord provided evidence from an electrician that attended that day to verify that there was no issues with the power. Although there was nothing in the invoice to state that the property was safe, there was also nothing confirming there was an issue with the power. There was evidence of tradespeople attending the property to make repairs and the Tenants were staying at the property. I find it more likely than not that the house was not ‘dangerous’ and an unlawful act was not committed in this instance.
The claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages for hot water
The Tenant claimed exemplary damages for the lack of hot water. The Tenant did not stipulate which unlawful act this claim for exemplary damages was made under however a claim for exemplary damages must show some intention from the Landlord to commit this unlawful act.
The Landlord gave evidence that when they were advised of the lack of hot water, it made sense to complete the other repairs and renovations first. They would then attend to the hot water as the Tenants were claiming not to be residing at the property at the time.
In considering this evidence, I find the Landlord showed an intention to repair the hot water cylinder but intended to do this once the other repairs were completed as the Tenant had told them, they were living elsewhere. As there was no intention to commit the unlawful breach, the claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages for wet carpet, breach of quiet enjoyment, kitchen demolition
The Tenant claimed exemplary damages for the carpet in the ground level being wet, their quiet enjoyment being disrupted, tradespeople attending their property and the kitchen being demolished. The Tenant did not specify again which exemplary damage they were claiming under exactly.
These actions however were all the result of the property being damaged by the floods. It was not caused by an unlawful breach from the Landlord. There was no intention therefore by the Landlord to keep the carpet wet or to disrupt the Tenants peace by making necessary repairs to the property.
The claim is therefore dismissed.
As the Tenant has not been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted to the Tenant.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the landlord and the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643512 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643512 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Was the premises uninhabitable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Was the premises uninhabitable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions