What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661429 about?

The tribunal order states: Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Shades Of Wyvenhoe Ltd must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4661429?

Compensation: for the leaking bathro…: $7,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS breach extractor f…: $270.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661429?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9796681-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661429 about?

The tribunal order states: Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Shades Of Wyvenhoe Ltd must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4661429?

Compensation: for the leaking bathro…: $7,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: HHS breach extractor f…: $270.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661429?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9796681-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4661429 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661429 — net $7,290.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for the leaking bathroom - 70 weeks from 16 March 2022 - 18 July 2023	$7,000.00	for the leaking bathroom - 70 weeks from 16 March 2022 - 18 July 2023
Compensation: HHS breach extractor fan - 13 weeks late	$270.00	HHS breach extractor fan - 13 weeks late
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,290.44
Bond	$2,440.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,290.44

Order

Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Shades Of Wyvenhoe Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,290.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Billing and Ms McEwan.
Tenant 1 moved the lower flat in March 2022. There was a change of tenants and the two other tenants moved in on 19 March 2023. This tenancy ended on 18 July 2023 after a flood at the end of May made one of the bedrooms unliveable. The tenant who lived in the flood affected room moved out at the end of June and there was a separate $200 rent reduction agreement between her and the landlord.
All the tenants have made this application for compensation and exemplary damages because the house was damp, and draughty and needed maintenance. They are concerned there were breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. Finally, they are concerned the landlord and tradespeople entered without giving proper notice and that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment when dealing with Ms Billing at the end of the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain? • Did people go into the flat without giving proper notice? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations 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 tenants had problems with the heatpump throughout the tenancy. The landlord described this as an intermittent fault. I have considered the correspondence, the work orders, and the invoices. In January 2023 a technician said the heatpump was tested and working. On 22 June 2023 the technician reported that a missing clip was causing the fault code and the operating problems. The cover was replaced on 27 June and the heatpump was “working well”. Much as an intermittent fault can be frustrating, I do not find the tenants have proved there was a breach here. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants described how the windows were old and draughty and how this was never fixed. Draught stopping often needs to be attended to during the tenancy as the house shifts and ages and new draughts appear. This means tenants need to advise the landlord when draughts arise. The earliest notification I can find is from May 2023. Given that the tenancy ended soon after I do not find there was a breach by the landlord. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants said there were problems with the gutters and water would waterfall from the top storey over the lower flat’s entry door. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have looked at the correspondence and the invoices and I am satisfied the landlord attended to the gutters as required. This claim is dismissed.
I have read the report provided by the landlord about the flood in May 2023. I note that the flood was most likely caused by storm water drains on the street being overloaded, meaning water from the roof could not go down the gutter and instead entered the lower flat through a wall. It seems most likely to me this was not caused by a lack of maintenance, or the landlord’s guttering or drains. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenants also consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard because the kitchen extractor fan was installed late. The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 13 June 2022 (90 days after a tenancy that started between 1 July 2021 and 1 August 2022). The extractor was finally installed on 14 September 2022 which was 13 weeks late. This was a breach of the landlord’s obligations. I find the landlord should pay compensation in the amount of $20 a week for those 13 weeks because there was a loss of amenity.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA which sets out that landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants have asked for compensation for these breaches.
I have considered the correspondence, the photos provided by the tenants, the work orders and the invoices and reports given by tradespeople. I find the shower leaked badly for the whole tenancy and this caused damp and mould. The landlord received advice at the start of this tenancy that a new bathroom should be installed in order to fix the leaks. This was never done. This meant the tenants were constantly wiping up water after showering and constantly cleaning mould. The water leaked under the lino and also affected the vanity. I allow $100 a week as compensation for the entire tenancy because there was a clear loss of amenity as well as the stress and inconvenience of having to manage the problem.
I do not find the tenants have proved any other breach of the duty to repair and maintain because there are work orders and invoices which show the work was attended to. I have also taken the rent reduction already allowed for the damaged bedroom into account.

Did people go into the flat without giving proper notice?

The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(1), (2), (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants have asked for exemplary damages. The breach relates to the owner going into the house on 22 June 2023 with the heatpump technician. The landlord had given proper notice for the technician to be in the flat but the tenants were not aware the owner would be there as well.
I find the landlord had given proper notice. The owner was there because there had been ongoing issues with heatpump. I accept it was easier for the owner and the technician to look at the heatpump together to try and resolve the problems. This seems completely reasonable to me. I do not find there was an unlawful entry by the owner.
The tenants referred generally to other tradespeople turning up without proper notice, but I have not been given specific information about this. I note that any of the tenants could have consented to a tradesperson entering even if there was not proper notice. I do not find the tenants have proved there was a breach here and this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38 RTA.
This claim relates specifically to a telephone call and subsequent emails between one of the tenants and the property manager Ms Billing. This happened towards the end of the tenancy. The context of the call was that one of the tenants was moving out because of the water damaged bedroom and the parties were trying to work out what that meant for the other two tenants, the tenancy agreement and the flat. I heard the evidence and I have read the emails. While I acknowledge it must have been very stressful for everyone, I am not persuaded there was a breach of quiet enjoyment and a breach of the RTA. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
An order is made for the bond to be released to the tenants. I have sent the request to the Bond Centre today.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party.
The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there was a significant breach of the duty to repair and there is public interest in the names being published. See 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661429 — net $7,290.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: for the leaking bathroom - 70 weeks from 16 March 2022 - 18 July 2023	$7,000.00	for the leaking bathroom - 70 weeks from 16 March 2022 - 18 July 2023
Compensation: HHS breach extractor fan - 13 weeks late	$270.00	HHS breach extractor fan - 13 weeks late
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,290.44
Bond	$2,440.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,290.44

Order

Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent For Shades Of Wyvenhoe Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,290.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Billing and Ms McEwan.
Tenant 1 moved the lower flat in March 2022. There was a change of tenants and the two other tenants moved in on 19 March 2023. This tenancy ended on 18 July 2023 after a flood at the end of May made one of the bedrooms unliveable. The tenant who lived in the flood affected room moved out at the end of June and there was a separate $200 rent reduction agreement between her and the landlord.
All the tenants have made this application for compensation and exemplary damages because the house was damp, and draughty and needed maintenance. They are concerned there were breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. Finally, they are concerned the landlord and tradespeople entered without giving proper notice and that there was a breach of quiet enjoyment when dealing with Ms Billing at the end of the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain? • Did people go into the flat without giving proper notice? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations 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 tenants had problems with the heatpump throughout the tenancy. The landlord described this as an intermittent fault. I have considered the correspondence, the work orders, and the invoices. In January 2023 a technician said the heatpump was tested and working. On 22 June 2023 the technician reported that a missing clip was causing the fault code and the operating problems. The cover was replaced on 27 June and the heatpump was “working well”. Much as an intermittent fault can be frustrating, I do not find the tenants have proved there was a breach here. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants described how the windows were old and draughty and how this was never fixed. Draught stopping often needs to be attended to during the tenancy as the house shifts and ages and new draughts appear. This means tenants need to advise the landlord when draughts arise. The earliest notification I can find is from May 2023. Given that the tenancy ended soon after I do not find there was a breach by the landlord. This claim is dismissed.
The tenants said there were problems with the gutters and water would waterfall from the top storey over the lower flat’s entry door. This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have looked at the correspondence and the invoices and I am satisfied the landlord attended to the gutters as required. This claim is dismissed.
I have read the report provided by the landlord about the flood in May 2023. I note that the flood was most likely caused by storm water drains on the street being overloaded, meaning water from the roof could not go down the gutter and instead entered the lower flat through a wall. It seems most likely to me this was not caused by a lack of maintenance, or the landlord’s guttering or drains. This part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenants also consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard because the kitchen extractor fan was installed late. The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 13 June 2022 (90 days after a tenancy that started between 1 July 2021 and 1 August 2022). The extractor was finally installed on 14 September 2022 which was 13 weeks late. This was a breach of the landlord’s obligations. I find the landlord should pay compensation in the amount of $20 a week for those 13 weeks because there was a loss of amenity.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the RTA which sets out that landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants have asked for compensation for these breaches.
I have considered the correspondence, the photos provided by the tenants, the work orders and the invoices and reports given by tradespeople. I find the shower leaked badly for the whole tenancy and this caused damp and mould. The landlord received advice at the start of this tenancy that a new bathroom should be installed in order to fix the leaks. This was never done. This meant the tenants were constantly wiping up water after showering and constantly cleaning mould. The water leaked under the lino and also affected the vanity. I allow $100 a week as compensation for the entire tenancy because there was a clear loss of amenity as well as the stress and inconvenience of having to manage the problem.
I do not find the tenants have proved any other breach of the duty to repair and maintain because there are work orders and invoices which show the work was attended to. I have also taken the rent reduction already allowed for the damaged bedroom into account.

Did people go into the flat without giving proper notice?

The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(1), (2), (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants have asked for exemplary damages. The breach relates to the owner going into the house on 22 June 2023 with the heatpump technician. The landlord had given proper notice for the technician to be in the flat but the tenants were not aware the owner would be there as well.
I find the landlord had given proper notice. The owner was there because there had been ongoing issues with heatpump. I accept it was easier for the owner and the technician to look at the heatpump together to try and resolve the problems. This seems completely reasonable to me. I do not find there was an unlawful entry by the owner.
The tenants referred generally to other tradespeople turning up without proper notice, but I have not been given specific information about this. I note that any of the tenants could have consented to a tradesperson entering even if there was not proper notice. I do not find the tenants have proved there was a breach here and this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38 RTA.
This claim relates specifically to a telephone call and subsequent emails between one of the tenants and the property manager Ms Billing. This happened towards the end of the tenancy. The context of the call was that one of the tenants was moving out because of the water damaged bedroom and the parties were trying to work out what that meant for the other two tenants, the tenancy agreement and the flat. I heard the evidence and I have read the emails. While I acknowledge it must have been very stressful for everyone, I am not persuaded there was a breach of quiet enjoyment and a breach of the RTA. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
An order is made for the bond to be released to the tenants. I have sent the request to the Bond Centre today.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party.
The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because there was a significant breach of the duty to repair and there is public interest in the names being published. See 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661429 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661429 — Leaks

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

Did people go into the flat without giving proper notice?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was there a beach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and maintain?

Did people go into the flat without giving proper notice?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions