Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4646450 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 1, 118 Paihia Road, One Tree Hill, Auckland 1061
Decided 23 Feb 2024 · Published 23 Feb 2024 · Application 4646450
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.
- Lvg Property Management Iv Limited must pay the Tenants the sum of $3200 now, as per the table below. Lvg Property Management Iv Limited must also pay the filing fee of $20.44 to the tenants.
Reasons
- The hearing was attended by the applicant and by Ms Gibson, on behalf of the new landlord, not a party to this proceeding. There was no appearance for Lvg Property Management Iv Limited, the previous landlord.
- This tenancy was for a fixed term of one year commencing on 10 February 2023.
- When the tenants moved in, they noticed a number of issues with the property. These issues are summarised in the table they supplied to the Tribunal below: Description of the damage or required maintenanceCost of repair($) Date of damage, or date it was discovered several windows within the kitchen area that are rotted out, unusable & creating a severe draft 24/02/2023 pipes under main kitchen sink duck tapped down leading to leaked water everywhere 24/02/2023 carpet in kids bedroom stinks of dog urine24/02/2023 wardrobe doors unusable and needing new runners24/02/2023 lack of heating surrounding the main lounge space24/02/2023 older fossettes [sic] require change in washers to stop constant leaking 24/02/2023
- They initially raised these issues verbally with the landlord, and then when nothing was done, they began recording their concerns in writing.
- Various contractors attended at the property to provides quotes but no work was ever done to repair the issues.
- It was not until the management of the property was taken over by a new landlord in early September 2023, that work finally began to address the tenants’ concerns.
- The only remaining issues now outstanding are the problems with the windows and the faucets.
- The tenants’ evidence is that the windows in the living area are either bolted shut or do not close properly. Either way, this fault causes cold air to enter the property. Even with the heat pump in the living area on, the property remained cold. Further, that meant their power bills were higher in winter. They have a child and this is of concern to them. The tenants submit that the only way to address the issue is to replace all the window frames.
- The problem with the faucets is in the bathroom. The taps are very hard to turn off.
- All other issues were fixed around a month and a half to a month ago, as a result of the new landlord promptly addressing the tenant’s concerns.
- Ms Gibson had initially sought an adjournment of the application, but the evidence I heard made it clear that there was no basis for a claim against her employer, the new landlord. She explained that as of early September, her employer has taken over management of a number of tenancies from the landlord and that this property was one of them. She does not have any authority to appear for the respondent and so cannot speak on its behalf.
- The tenant’s claims lie against the respondent, which did not appear. Further, the tenants confirmed they are not seeking any remedy against the new landlord as they are satisfied their concerns are being addressed by that party. They have now been released from their tenancy and are moving out in two weeks. The new landlord has acted responsibly towards them.
- I considered whether it would be necessary to join the new landlord as a party to the application but I find there to be no evidential basis currently to do so. On that basis, the application for an adjournment was also declined. Compensation against the landlord
- Under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
- The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 1 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 2 The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 3
- Here, the tenants have indeed notified the landlord of their concerns back in February when they moved in, but nothing was done to fix the issues raised. Many of the concerns raised are issues that could have been remedied in a few weeks, for instance, the carpet clean of the room that stank of dog urine and was infested with fleas. This could have quickly been arranged, but it wasn’t. This was not remedied until the new landlord came on board. 1 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 2 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15]
- I find that the landlord has adopted a casual approach towards its obligations under the RTA.
- I accept the unchallenged evidence of the tenants about the condition of the premises and I find that the landlord was in reach of its obligations under the RTA in the respects alleged by the tenants.
- I am satisfied that the compensation ordered above is reasonable. It reflects the length of time the tenants had to ensure these faults (approximately 7 months, for the issues that were repaired) and the gravity of the faults.
- Because [the tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.