What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650491 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $886.44

How much money was awarded in case 4650491?

Compensation: $866.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650491?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10180127-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650491 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $886.44

How much money was awarded in case 4650491?

Compensation: $866.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650491?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10180127-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4650491 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650491 — net $886.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$866.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$886.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$886.44

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] appeared for the tenants, and Ms Maturan-Abuid appeared on behalf of the landlord, Kāinga Ora.

This is a re-hearing of an earlier hearing held by telephone on 7 December 2023 by Adjudicator Woodhouse. Only the tenant attended this hearing, as the landlord could not be contacted at the scheduled time. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenants $932.00 in compensation plus the filing fee, resulting in a total award of $952.44. The landlord was to also arrange a commercial cleaner to clean any mould arising from the water leak.

The landlord applied for a re-hearing, which the Tribunal granted, to ensure the landlord was given the opportunity to be heard.

Following the second hearing (the re-hearing) the tenants were given additional time to consider and comment on the landlord’s detailed evidence. The tenants provided further documents and written comments, and the hearing then concluded. Background

This tenancy began on 1 April 2021. The rent is $233.00 per week. The landlord states the premises was built in 2021 and the market rent is $730.00 per week.

The tenants have applied for compensation arising from water leaks at the premises, including damage to a dining table, problems with the repairs, and the need to move out of the premises. [Tenant 1] has highlighted issues with the quality of the repair work. He wants the landlord to transfer his family to another property that is more suited to their needs. He has also raised the issue of the presence of mould in the premises.

This is a two-storey house. The water leak occurred in July 2023. Water leaked from the upstairs shower, through a light fitting located above the tenant’s dining table.

The landlord, once informed, made arrangements for the repair work. Tradespeople attended, and some work was carried out, however, it became apparent that the initial work did not resolve the problem. The landlord’s evidence is that a builder then had to attend and open the lounge ceiling for the plumber to carry out further work. An electrician was also involved.

The tenant was concerned about continuing to live in the premises and the effect of the water leak on his family’s health and wellbeing. The landlord has provided details regarding its communication with the tenant about alternative arrangements while the repairs were being carried out.

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed the account given at the previous hearing and as noted in the Tribunal order. He states that no further cleaning was done by the landlord, however, they have attended to the cleaning themselves. He notes his concern regarding the standard of repair work, stating that he feels it was not fixed properly. However, he accepts there are no more water leaks.

The landlord has detailed the steps taken to resolve the issues but accepts that the tenant and his family were without a functioning shower and the use of the ceiling lights for four days. The landlord notes that further issues of leaking were reported in August 2023, which again resulted in tradespeople (plumber, builder, electrician) attending, on multiple occasions. The landlord states that since 22 August 2023, there have been no further complaints about the upstairs bathroom leaking. Legal principles

In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the tenants must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.”

In the context of this application, the Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.

The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. 4 Analysis

One of the issues raised by the tenants is their request for a new tenancy. In this regard, I agree with Adjudicator Woodhouse that the Tribunal does not have the power to require the landlord to provide the tenants with another premises. Therefore, this part of their claim is dismissed. 1 Section 45(1)(b) 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d) 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085

However, the balance of the claim regarding compensation arising from the water leak can be determined. I have had the benefit of evidence and submissions from both parties. They have each produced oral, documentary, and photographic evidence in support.

Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the landlord did attend to the repairs within a reasonable timeframe, once notified of the issue. The landlord has provided detailed evidence concerning the attempts made to investigate and resolve the bathroom/ceiling leak. I note from the landlord’s evidence that a tradesperson was arranged to attend on the day the problem was reported. However, it is apparent that further work was required and so the issue was not immediately resolved. The fact that there was a need for multiple visits is also accepted.

However, despite the landlord’s efforts, it is also apparent that the tenants and their family were affected by the issues, including not having a functioning shower. Therefore, they ought to be compensated for the inconvenience arising from the issue, and their need to move elsewhere. They are also to be compensated for damage to their dining table, and the additional cleaning they had to undertake as a result of the leak. The tenants’ concerns regarding the quality of the repair work are also noted.

When determining the level of compensation, the length and duration of the problem must be considered. In relation to the dining table, the tenant’s evidence is that this is a large dining table that seats eight people, and was purchased in 2016 for $4,500 (from [furniture company]). The tenant has noted that prior to the leak, it was in good condition and afterwards, it was swollen. The landlord accepts that there ought to be some compensation for its repair, since it was still being used, although fair wear and tear also needed to be factored in.

The tenants have also raised the issue of mould. The landlord’s evidence is that mould from the water leak was not detected. The tenant has explained that because of concerns for their son’s health, they attended to cleaning of areas affected by the water leak, so there is currently no mould arising from the water leak. The landlord has also provided evidence to show that the premises complies with the Healthy Homes Standards.

Taking all these factors into account, including the acknowledgement by the landlord that there is a four week period for which compensation can be applied, and the landlord’s view that only a portion of the rent (20% to 30%) should be compensated, I consider that the tenants ought to be compensated in the amount of $866.00. This is made up of 50% of the weekly rent (of $233.00) for the four week period for the inconvenience and impact of the water leak ($466.00), and an additional $400.00 for damage to the dining table and the additional cleaning the tenants undertook to remove mould arising from the water leak (noting this was previously ordered as work the landlord ought to carry out). Filing fee

As the tenants have been substantially successful, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Name suppression

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the tenants. In view of the tenants being substantially successful in the proceedings, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650491 — net $886.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$866.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$886.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$886.44

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] appeared for the tenants, and Ms Maturan-Abuid appeared on behalf of the landlord, Kāinga Ora.

The landlord applied for a re-hearing, which the Tribunal granted, to ensure the landlord was given the opportunity to be heard.

This tenancy began on 1 April 2021. The rent is $233.00 per week. The landlord states the premises was built in 2021 and the market rent is $730.00 per week.

This is a two-storey house. The water leak occurred in July 2023. Water leaked from the upstairs shower, through a light fitting located above the tenant’s dining table.

As the tenants have been substantially successful, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee. Name suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650491 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650491 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions