What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661919 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,400.00 immediately, as per below:

How much money was awarded in case 4661919?

Compensation: loss of use of dispose…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No use of HOB for a mo…: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661919?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10109305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661919 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,400.00 immediately, as per below:

How much money was awarded in case 4661919?

Compensation: loss of use of dispose…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: No use of HOB for a mo…: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661919?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10109305-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4661919 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661919 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: No use of HOB for a month	$800.00	No use of HOB for a month
Compensation: loss of use of disposer	$600.00	loss of use of disposer
Net award	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4661919 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: No use of HOB for a month	$800.00	No use of HOB for a month
Compensation: loss of use of disposer	$600.00	loss of use of disposer
Net award	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,400.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,400.00 immediately, as per below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 th February 2024. At the end of the hearing, I gave time for both parties to submit the required evidence.
As I have now received further evidence from both parties, I give my decision as follows. Claims
The tenancy was from 10 th December 2020 until 9 th October 2023.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Specifically, the tenant claimed that: a. The gas hob had been malfunctioning since the beginning of the tenancy and there was a period of around a month where the hob did not work at all; b. The dishwasher was non-operational from the beginning of the tenancy; c. The disposer was non-operational from the beginning of the tenancy; d. The kitchen area was infested with mice through the tenancy; e. The property exhibited faulty wiring and was a potential hazard; f. The windows were leaky and inadequately curtained; and g. The property failed to meet the relevant building, health and safety standards due to faulty sealing, non-functional locks and unqualified persons undertaking repairs comprising the safety and well-being of the tenant’s family.
The tenant also claimed that the termination notice was retaliatory.
I consider each claim in turn. Gas hob malfunctioning
The tenant said that the gas hob had been malfunctioning from the beginning.
Only one small burner was working out of the four burners, and it took longer for the tenant and the tenant’s flatmates to cook food as a result. It was fixed for the first time on 29 th October 2021. It got replaced entirely on 1 st September 2023 after it had stopped working completely for around a month.
The tenant provided evidence of email correspondence to prove the issues with the hob. In addition to this, the tenant had sent the landlord a 14-days’ notice on 8 th August 2023 to have the hob fixed as well.
I find that the tenant has proven that the gas hob had stopped working completely for around a month.
Although I do not consider that this warrants exemplary damages as I do not find that there was an intentional failure to maintain the gas hob on the landlord’s part, I order the landlord to compensate the tenant for the loss of use of the gas hob for a month.
I calculate the loss to equate around $200.00 per week. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $800.00. Dishwasher malfunctioning
The tenant said that the dishwasher was non-operational from the day of the tenant’s arrival at the property.
The tenant said that the dishwasher was in a dilapidated condition from the beginning and its disrepair was attributed to a block in the waste disposal system which was also not working.
The tenant said that the dishwasher was never replaced although the landlord said it would and said that she should be compensated for its loss of use.
The landlord said that the landlord had been using the dishwasher without issue for seven years prior to the tenant. The move in inspection noted no issues with the dishwasher itself. The dishwasher was looked at in June 2021 after the tenant raised an issue with the landlord in May 2021. The landlord said the issue with the dishwasher was identified as a user fault and that the positioning of the strainer was the issue that had caused the dishwasher to clog up. The landlord highlighted that the tenant had four other flatmates and said that the dishwasher could have been misused by any one of the five people living at the address.
Furthermore, the landlord said that the same dishwasher is working fine after the tenant had moved out.
The tenant said that she could never use the dishwasher but also said that it clogged up whenever she tried to use it and that it would stop after a minute of it running. I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that she “never used it” but that “it would always stop after a minute” when she did try to use it. I find that there must have been times that it did work for her to use it every now and then.
I do not find that the tenant has proven that the landlord had neglected the dishwasher and failed to maintain it to a reasonable standard. I decline to award any compensation for any dishwasher issues. Disposer malfunction
The tenant said that the disposer was non-functional from the beginning of the tenancy. There was evidence to support this in the move in report - the waste disposal unit was noted as not working in the report. There was no dispute that the disposer did not working throughout the tenancy.
Despite multiple requests, the landlord did not provide a working disposer.
I find that the tenant should be compensated for the loss of use of the disposer.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $600.00 as compensation.
I do not find that there is any public interest in exemplary damages. Kitchen area mice infestation
The tenant said that the kitchen area was infested with mice through the tenancy despite repeated complaints.
The tenant said that the landlord only applied temporary patches which proved to be ineffective in preventing infestation.
The tenant acknowledged that pest control measures were undertaken by the landlord but said that the root cause of the issue was never resolved.
The landlord provided an invoice for a specialist rodent treatment from 12 th March 2021.
The tenant did not raise the mice issue with the landlord since then.
Without raising the issue again, the tenant cannot expect the landlord to know that the issue needed attending again.
I do not find any basis for compensation in the circumstances.
This claim is dismissed. The property exhibited faulty wiring and was a potential hazard
The tenant stated that the property exhibited faulty wiring and said that it had been confirmed by multiple tradespeople before.
The tenant said that despite the potential hazards associated with the electrical issues, the landlord made no efforts to rectify them.
The landlord provided written documents confirming that there were no known electrical issues. The tenant did not have any written documents to say otherwise from the multiple tradespeople mentioned by the tenant.
The tenant said that sometimes the fuse switch tripped and some bulbs needed replacing.
I find that the tenant has not proven this claim to the required standard.
This claim is dismissed. Windows were leaky and inadequately curtained
The tenant said that the windows were leaky, inadequately curtained and in disrepair.
She said that the curtains were old, ripped, and mouldy and did not insulate the house sufficiently or keep the warmth in.
The tenant had to personally incur expenses for curtains to mitigate the adverse effects of leaky windows.
The landlord had a Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”) report from 7 th December 2020 that had noted no draught issues with the windows.
There was no evidence that the windows were leaky.
The tenant said that some of the windows were nailed shut and that some window latches were broken but had not been fixed after repeated requests.
However, I do not find that the tenant has proven that she has made repeated requests to the landlord to have the window fixed.
In relation to curtains, there is no obligation on the landlord to provide curtains and I do not find that the curtains were such that it requires compensation or exemplary damages.
I dismiss this claim. Property failed to meet the relevant building, health and safety standards
The tenant said that the property did not meet the relevant building, health, and safety standards due to faulty sealing, non-functional locks and unqualified persons undertaking repairs compromising the safety and well-being of the tenant’s family.
The landlord said that despite the premises’ HHS compliance date being 1 st July 2025, the landlord had obtained an HHS report on 7 th December 2020.
The HHS noted that the premises failed due to not having ground vapour barrier, draught issues on the door and that the smoke alarms were not meeting compliance.
The landlord provided invoices dated 13 th July 2021 for insulation for the ceiling and underfloor including the ground vapour barrier.
The tenant also said that there was a large ceiling opening near the laundry hallway that let in stale cold air from the attic into the house.
The landlord said that they stayed there for seven years with the same setup and that the hole could not be covered as it was for the gas cylinder and they had been told that by the plumber and gas fitter.
There was a time when the main door lock did not work on 8 th July 2023. After two days, the tenant had to resort to replace the lock at the tenant’s own cost due to the landlord not repairing it quickly. Since then, the tenant had been reimbursed the amount she had paid.
There was no other issue raised with the door locks at the hearing.
Regarding non-qualified persons attending jobs, there are no requirements for registered tradespeople to attend to jobs unless they are jobs reserved only for registered tradespeople.
There was no evidence provided by the tenant that the premises failed to meet the relevant building, health and safety standards.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
On 2 nd August 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA 1986.
In the notice, the landlord stated that the whole roof needed to be repaired or replaced.
The tenant said that the termination notice was in retaliation of the tenant telling the landlord that the hob and the rangehood light were not working and needed repairs.
The tenant said that the landlord had previously threatened eviction verbally when the tenant raised issues with the landlord. There was no evidence provided to support this.
The landlord said that the landlord did start work as indicated and provided quote for the work for the roof dated 4 th November 2023. The quote included mobile scaffolding, heavy moss treatment and installing new gutters. The landlord had a screenshot of the payment made and there were photos of ongoing renovation.
I do not find that the tenant has proven that the termination notice was retaliatory. The tenant had previously raised issues with the landlord regarding maintenance and the landlord had attended to the maintenance as required.
I dismiss this claim.
Finally, I do not grant any other amounts for compensation for any mental stress claimed by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661919 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661919 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions