What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645209 about?

The tribunal order states: Ramesh Prasad and Monita Prasad must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.44

How much money was awarded in case 4645209?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645209?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9659266-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4645209 about?

The tribunal order states: Ramesh Prasad and Monita Prasad must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.44

How much money was awarded in case 4645209?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4645209?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4645209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9659266-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Nicholson Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4645209 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645209. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being compensation for failure to repair and maintain and		$3,250.00	immediately, being compensation for failure to repair and maintain and
refund of the filing fee		$20.44	refund of the filing fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4645209. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
immediately, being compensation for failure to repair and maintain and		$3,250.00	immediately, being compensation for failure to repair and maintain and
refund of the filing fee		$20.44	refund of the filing fee

Order

Ramesh Prasad and Monita Prasad must pay [The tenant/s] $3,270.44 immediately, being compensation for failure to repair and maintain ($3,250) and refund of the filing fee ($20.44).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by her son, [name]. Both landlords appeared and were represented by Counsel, Mr Broad.
The tenancy began on friendly terms as one of the landlords, Monita Prasad, was a workmate of the tenant’s daughter. The landlords lived in a new build at the rear of the property and so the parties were neighbours. The parties entered into a formal tenancy agreement and the tenants paid a bond which was lodged with the Bond Centre. Unfortunately however issues have arisen between them as to what maintenance work was to be done on the property by the landlord which have led to the tenant filing this claim.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations: a. under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and b. under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The tenant sought work orders and compensation. However at the hearing today the parties advised that the tenancy had in fact ended on 7 October 2023, and that work orders are no longer required. The hearing therefore focussed on the tenant’s claim for compensation.
The tenant seeks compensation of $30,000 on the basis that: a. The tenant stored various rubbish at the property (metal offcuts and building materials) throughout almost the entire tenancy; b. There were holes in the walls; c. The shower did not work properly and leaked; d. There were draughts and cracks around many of the windows leading to moisture and mould and cracked paint work; e. The heat pump did not work properly; f. A fuse would often trip; g. The stove was not properly ventilated; and h. There was a hole in the carpet.
This is a tenant claim and so the onus is on the tenant to prove their claim to the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed by the parties but I have carefully considered all of the evidence filed.

Do the Healthy Homes Standards apply to this tenancy?

At the outset I note that all private rentals must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.
This tenancy began on 8 April 2021 and so compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards is not yet required
[The tenant/s]

Was the property provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

The tenant’s submissions

The tenant explained that when they went to view the property they were in a desperate situation as they had been forced to leave their existing tenancy as their previous landlord needed family members to move in. They said that they could see a number of maintenance issues, including mould, but accepted the tenancy after receiving assurances from the landlord that they would be doing renovations.
The tenant said that the house was very cold as there was a heat pump in the kitchen/dining but that it did not work properly and that the landlord was to have installed a heat pump in the lounge but never did. They said that combined with the gaps in the windows the house was very cold.
The tenant’s son explained that the tenant has health issues which means that she is home most of the time and that she has health care workers come to the house. He said that on one occasion the care workers were so concerned at how cold the house was they went next door to speak to the landlord about it, but that nothing was done.
The tenant also complained about a large pile of metal piping and offcuts that were stored by the landlord initially by the fence and then later down the side of the house and produced photos of the metal in both locations.
The tenant produced photos at the hearing primarily showing mould in various areas (dining, laundry and bathroom) and a number of gaps and cracks between many of the windows and the outside. When I queried the dates that the photos of the mould were taken the tenant showed me the photos on his phone which were dated 10 to 14 April 2021.
The tenant produced the following correspondence: a. Email from the tenant’s daughter to Monita Prasad dated 25 June 2021 setting out a list of jobs that were to have been done at the property: i. Kitchen heat pump serviced; ii. Lounge heat pump to be installed; iii. Shower leaking and mould in shower; iv. Toilet not flushing properly; v. Rangehood in kitchen not working; and vi. Metal to be removed as dangerous. b. Email from the tenant’s daughter to Monita Prasad dated 18 April 2022 expressing concern that Ramesh Prasad has promised that the following items would be sorted when the tenant moved in but hadn’t been: i. Lounge heat pump to be installed; ii. Rangehood in kitchen still not working; iii. Shower leaking and vinyl starting to smell; iv. Holes in bathroom and laundry walls; v. Metal to be removed. c. Email from the tenant’s daughter to Monita Prasad dated 1 August 2023 stating “You and Ramesh had promised a lot to us prior to us actually moving in as well and no one of those things you promised have been done...”
The tenants then engaged Solvd, Trade Specialists and Property Solutions to conduct a Healthy Homes Assessment report. This report was produced in evidence and dated 2 March 2023. The report records that the heating, ventilation, drainage, moisture, draught and smoke alarms have all failed the assessment but that the insulation has passed. The landlord’s submissions
At the hearing Mr Broad assisted the Tribunal with legal submissions and I heard from the landlords directly. They said that they had previously lived in the property and had never had any issues.
The landlord accepted that the were slow to move the metal piping and offcuts. They said that Covid lockdowns were part of the reason. They said that they did not agree to put a heat pump in the lounge and that the heat pump in the dining area was serviced before ethe start of the tenancy. They said that although there appear to be some gaps around the windows from the outside they are all in fact sealed from the inside. They said that they attended to the issue with the shower.
The landlords produced what appears to be a complete copy of all of the correspondence between the parties. There is no record of the landlord having responded to the tenant’s daughter’s emails above, disputing the maintenance work that had been agreed.
The landlord said that the did not do an inspection until nearly the end of the tenancy, so there were no inspection reports to assist the Tribunal.
The landlords obtained their own Healthy homes Assessment report from Oncore dated 24 October 2023 stating that the property complied with the Healthy Homes standards. The landlords said that the only thing they had done prior to obtaining the report was to install a moisture barrier. Analysis
It is clear that what began as a friendly tenancy between workmates has broken down considerably, to the point that the parties were unable to engage in any discussions to see if they might be able to reach a resolution of the tenant’s claims.
Regrettably the property inspection report that forms part of the tenancy agreement was not completed or signed at the start of the tenancy so there was no agreement at the outset as to the condition of the property (in addition to there being no inspection reports).
The parties both produced photos which they claimed to be from the start of the tenancy. The photos show quite different things. However ultimately I accept the tenant’s photos as being more representative of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy as I saw shown the dates on which those photos were taken and the photos were close up photos of the various issues, whereas the landlord’s photos were taken at a distance.
Having considered all of the evidence produced at the hearing and having heard from the parties I consider that there were some existing maintenance issues at the start of the tenancy that the landlord had agreed to fix but ultimately did not. The tenant raised issues on various occasions and the landlord did not dispute that these had been agreed, but then only proceeded to deal with some of the issues.
In my view the hole in the carpet is very minor, the holes in the walls and issues with the shower are relatively minor (as is the fact that a fuse would trip from time to time), but the issues of greater concern are that the house seems to have been draughty and cold. The heat pump in the dining room did not seem to work properly and was not serviced during the tenancy even though issues were raised as early as June 2021. Although it was not a Healthy Homes requirement it does appear that there had at least been a discussion about the installation of another heat pump in the lounge but this never took place. I accept that the windows may have been sealed from the inside (although the landlords provided no evidence of this) but the photos provided by the tenant clearly show some gaps, even from the inside.
The landlord raised the issue of Covid lockdowns, particularly in relation to the clearance of the metal items (which remained at the property the entire tenancy) but I consider that in the context of this tenancy of approximately two and a half years, the lockdown periods can only have delayed the clearance of these for so long. They appear to be sharp and an obvious hazard and there was no reason for them to remain on the tenant’s property for virtually the entire tenancy.
The tenant is entitled to some compensation for the loss of amenity as they were not getting what they thought they were paying for. The tenancy lasted for 130 weeks. In my view, taking into account the size and condition of the property, the rent of $650 per week, I consider that an appropriate reduction for the duration of the tenancy is $25 per week, a total of $3,250.
My assessment is based solely on the lack of maintenance as the Healthy Homes standards did not yet apply to this tenancy. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has been partially successful, and I consider that it is appropriate to award the filing fee, as the parties were unable to reach agreement on their own. I have exercised my discretion to make an order suppressing the tenant’s as she is in a vulnerable position and suffers from a serious health condition.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645209 — Property damage at 11 Nicholson Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4645209 — Property damage at 11 Nicholson Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the Healthy Homes Standards apply to this tenancy?

Was the property provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the Healthy Homes Standards apply to this tenancy?

Was the property provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions