What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674252 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties have applied for suppression and the Tribunal orders suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4674252?

Compensation: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Reletting Expenses: $455.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,485.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674252?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9632938-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674252 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties have applied for suppression and the Tribunal orders suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4674252?

Compensation: $540.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Reletting Expenses: $455.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,485.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674252?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9632938-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4674252 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674252 — net $21.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 October 2023	$2,485.71		Rent arrears to 12 October 2023
Reletting expenses	$455.50		Reletting expenses
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Compensation		$540.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,961.65	$540.00
Net award	$21.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21.65

Order

Both parties have applied for suppression and the Tribunal orders suppression of their names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] was terminated, and possession was granted to [The landlord/s], at 12 noon on Friday 13 October 2023.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $21.65 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy, compensation for the landlords’ breach of their maintenance obligations and for interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears, payment of the arrears, expenses associated reletting the premises and payment of the bond. Background
This tenancy began on 10 August 2023 for a one-year fixed term.
Immediately after moving in the tenants complained to the agent about the water pressure from the shower and about difficulty controlling the water temperature.
The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend. He found the water pressure to be normal for a low-pressure system, but he made some improvements. On the invoice, he described the resulting situation as “better than what it was but tenants still unhappy”.
In evidence, the plumber said that that controlling the water temperature was better but still difficult and not ideal.
The landlord obtained a quote for converting the system to a high-pressure system, but the cost was unaffordable.
The tenants told the landlord that they wanted to be released from the tenancy because the shower was, effectively, unusable. They said that they were using water from a bucket for their showers.
The landlord was willing to release the tenants but on the condition that they would pay the rent until new tenants were found and the costs of reletting the premises. The tenants were not willing to agree to that and so there was an impasse.
The tenants moved out of the premises on 13 September and handed the keys to the landlords. The premises have been vacant since then and the landlords have not taken any steps to relet them. They said that they were waiting for a decision from the Tribunal. At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 October, I confirmed that I would be terminating the tenancy and so they could get on with the reletting.
The tenants have paid rent to 13 September and the rent due from 14 September to 12 October is $2,485.71. The landlords have limited their rent claim to that amount.
The landlords claim $145 for advertising the premises and a break lease fee in the sum of $310.50 making a total of $455.50. Law
Landlords must maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair and comply with all enactments with respect to building and health and safety as they relate to the premises (s45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
Under regulation 9 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 landlords must provide an adequate means of heating water for the bath or shower.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy (Sections 55 and 56(2) of the Act).
Under s36 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, a party may cancel a contract between them if the other party makes it clear that they do not intend to perform their obligations under the contract. Discussion and Decision
The tenancy must be terminated on the landlord’s application because there are rent arrears of at least 21 days if the tenancy has continued after the tenants vacated.
The main issue for me is did the landlord repudiate the tenancy agreement by making it clear that they did not intend to perform their obligations under it (or more correctly under the Act).
The answer to that question is fact based. In this case, it depends on whether the landlords’ actions were substantially inconsistent with their obligations. That requires consideration of whether there was a breach by the landlords of their obligations and, if so, whether the breach was so substantial that it amounts to a repudiation of the entire agreement.
The tenant said that the main problem was that it was very difficult to control the temperature of the water from the shower. Slight adjustments to the mixer control would result in the water being either cold or too hot. She made the point that the tenants would not have put themselves to the trouble of moving out of the premises and finding new accommodation if the problem was not serious.
The landlord said that there were no complaints concerning the shower from the previous tenants who lived in the premises for seven years before this tenancy. The landlord produced a video of the shower running which showed an adequate flow of water. It was not evidence of the water temperature.
The plumber said that the work that he carried out improved the performance of the shower in terms of mixing the cold and hot water, but it was still difficult to control the temperature. When I asked about the possibility of replacing the mixer to improve the situation, he said that the option was not discussed with the landlord. He could not give an estimate of the cost of doing so. He did not mention the possibility because he felt that spending money on that did not seem sensible if the landlord intended, at some stage, converting to a high- pressure system.
The tenants’ evidence was that they showered using a bucket of water because it was so difficult to control the temperature of the water from the shower. That indicates that the problem was serious. It should have been possible to adjust the mixer control so the water reached the desired temperature, and it should have remained at that temperature during the shower. I note though that the tenants’ evidence is subjective and that the independent evidence from the plumber was not conclusive.
It is for the tenants to prove the breach and the seriousness of it. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that there was a breach in so far as it was problematic to adjust the shower temperature and it should not have been. An adequate means of heating water includes having a reasonable ability to control the water temperature. I am not satisfied that the water flow was no meagre as to be a breach of the landlords’ obligations.
I find that the breach was not so serious as to constitute a repudiation of the agreement and so entitled to tenants to cancel the agreement. It was one of many aspects of the landlords’ obligations to provide premises that complied with the Act and the other legal requirements relating to the premises. I accept that it is an important aspect but being in breach of it does not indicate an intention by the landlords not to perform their obligations under the agreement.
The landlord took the tenants’ complaint seriously and had it investigated. The situation was improved, and the landlord genuinely believed that the water supply to the shower was adequate. There is room for a divergence of views about that. There was no evidence that the premises were non-compliant in any other respect.
I note as well that there were other options available to the tenants. They could have served a breach notice on the landlord and applied to the Tribunal for a work order requiring the landlord to carry out work to rectify the shower. They also have their claim for compensation. I note too that the tenants could have had the shower inspected by their own plumber and provided independent evidence to support their case, but they did not do so.
It follows that there is no basis on which to release the tenants from the tenancy early and therefore they are liable for the rent to 12 October.
There is then the issue of compensation for the breach. The evidence does not prove that it was impossible to use the shower, but I have accepted that it was unduly difficult. The tenants have suffered inconvenience due to the breach. There was still hot water, and the tenants could wash themselves but not as conveniently or pleasantly as having a well-functioning shower.
Although the tenants vacated on 13 September, it is right to calculate compensation over the nine-week duration of the tenancy. I do so at the rate of $60 per week making a total of $540.
I accept that the landlords are likely to incur $455.50 expenses reletting the premises and it follows from my decision on early release that the tenants should pay that. I have therefore awarded it.
The tenant’s complaint about a couple turning up to look at the fountain in the garden of the premises is trivial and so no award is made for that. I note that the tenants could have sent them away.
The landlords have been the overall winners and so I have awarded them the filing fee.
This case has come about due to a genuine disagreement between the parties, and I can see no good reason to expose either party to publication of their names in the public interest. I have therefore granted them both name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674252 — net $21.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 October 2023	$2,485.71		Rent arrears to 12 October 2023
Reletting expenses	$455.50		Reletting expenses
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Compensation		$540.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,961.65	$540.00
Net award	$21.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21.65

Order

Both parties have applied for suppression and the Tribunal orders suppression of their names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] was terminated, and possession was granted to [The landlord/s], at 12 noon on Friday 13 October 2023.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $21.65 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy, compensation for the landlords’ breach of their maintenance obligations and for interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears, payment of the arrears, expenses associated reletting the premises and payment of the bond. Background
This tenancy began on 10 August 2023 for a one-year fixed term.
Immediately after moving in the tenants complained to the agent about the water pressure from the shower and about difficulty controlling the water temperature.
The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend. He found the water pressure to be normal for a low-pressure system, but he made some improvements. On the invoice, he described the resulting situation as “better than what it was but tenants still unhappy”.
In evidence, the plumber said that that controlling the water temperature was better but still difficult and not ideal.
The landlord obtained a quote for converting the system to a high-pressure system, but the cost was unaffordable.
The tenants told the landlord that they wanted to be released from the tenancy because the shower was, effectively, unusable. They said that they were using water from a bucket for their showers.
The landlord was willing to release the tenants but on the condition that they would pay the rent until new tenants were found and the costs of reletting the premises. The tenants were not willing to agree to that and so there was an impasse.
The tenants moved out of the premises on 13 September and handed the keys to the landlords. The premises have been vacant since then and the landlords have not taken any steps to relet them. They said that they were waiting for a decision from the Tribunal. At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 October, I confirmed that I would be terminating the tenancy and so they could get on with the reletting.
The tenants have paid rent to 13 September and the rent due from 14 September to 12 October is $2,485.71. The landlords have limited their rent claim to that amount.
The landlords claim $145 for advertising the premises and a break lease fee in the sum of $310.50 making a total of $455.50. Law
Landlords must maintain the premises is a reasonable state of repair and comply with all enactments with respect to building and health and safety as they relate to the premises (s45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
Under regulation 9 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 landlords must provide an adequate means of heating water for the bath or shower.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy (Sections 55 and 56(2) of the Act).
Under s36 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, a party may cancel a contract between them if the other party makes it clear that they do not intend to perform their obligations under the contract. Discussion and Decision
The tenancy must be terminated on the landlord’s application because there are rent arrears of at least 21 days if the tenancy has continued after the tenants vacated.
The main issue for me is did the landlord repudiate the tenancy agreement by making it clear that they did not intend to perform their obligations under it (or more correctly under the Act).
The answer to that question is fact based. In this case, it depends on whether the landlords’ actions were substantially inconsistent with their obligations. That requires consideration of whether there was a breach by the landlords of their obligations and, if so, whether the breach was so substantial that it amounts to a repudiation of the entire agreement.
The tenant said that the main problem was that it was very difficult to control the temperature of the water from the shower. Slight adjustments to the mixer control would result in the water being either cold or too hot. She made the point that the tenants would not have put themselves to the trouble of moving out of the premises and finding new accommodation if the problem was not serious.
The landlord said that there were no complaints concerning the shower from the previous tenants who lived in the premises for seven years before this tenancy. The landlord produced a video of the shower running which showed an adequate flow of water. It was not evidence of the water temperature.
The plumber said that the work that he carried out improved the performance of the shower in terms of mixing the cold and hot water, but it was still difficult to control the temperature. When I asked about the possibility of replacing the mixer to improve the situation, he said that the option was not discussed with the landlord. He could not give an estimate of the cost of doing so. He did not mention the possibility because he felt that spending money on that did not seem sensible if the landlord intended, at some stage, converting to a high- pressure system.
The tenants’ evidence was that they showered using a bucket of water because it was so difficult to control the temperature of the water from the shower. That indicates that the problem was serious. It should have been possible to adjust the mixer control so the water reached the desired temperature, and it should have remained at that temperature during the shower. I note though that the tenants’ evidence is subjective and that the independent evidence from the plumber was not conclusive.
It is for the tenants to prove the breach and the seriousness of it. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that there was a breach in so far as it was problematic to adjust the shower temperature and it should not have been. An adequate means of heating water includes having a reasonable ability to control the water temperature. I am not satisfied that the water flow was no meagre as to be a breach of the landlords’ obligations.
I find that the breach was not so serious as to constitute a repudiation of the agreement and so entitled to tenants to cancel the agreement. It was one of many aspects of the landlords’ obligations to provide premises that complied with the Act and the other legal requirements relating to the premises. I accept that it is an important aspect but being in breach of it does not indicate an intention by the landlords not to perform their obligations under the agreement.
The landlord took the tenants’ complaint seriously and had it investigated. The situation was improved, and the landlord genuinely believed that the water supply to the shower was adequate. There is room for a divergence of views about that. There was no evidence that the premises were non-compliant in any other respect.
I note as well that there were other options available to the tenants. They could have served a breach notice on the landlord and applied to the Tribunal for a work order requiring the landlord to carry out work to rectify the shower. They also have their claim for compensation. I note too that the tenants could have had the shower inspected by their own plumber and provided independent evidence to support their case, but they did not do so.
It follows that there is no basis on which to release the tenants from the tenancy early and therefore they are liable for the rent to 12 October.
There is then the issue of compensation for the breach. The evidence does not prove that it was impossible to use the shower, but I have accepted that it was unduly difficult. The tenants have suffered inconvenience due to the breach. There was still hot water, and the tenants could wash themselves but not as conveniently or pleasantly as having a well-functioning shower.
Although the tenants vacated on 13 September, it is right to calculate compensation over the nine-week duration of the tenancy. I do so at the rate of $60 per week making a total of $540.
I accept that the landlords are likely to incur $455.50 expenses reletting the premises and it follows from my decision on early release that the tenants should pay that. I have therefore awarded it.
The tenant’s complaint about a couple turning up to look at the fountain in the garden of the premises is trivial and so no award is made for that. I note that the tenants could have sent them away.
The landlords have been the overall winners and so I have awarded them the filing fee.
This case has come about due to a genuine disagreement between the parties, and I can see no good reason to expose either party to publication of their names in the public interest. I have therefore granted them both name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674252 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674252 — Rent arrears

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