What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4680649?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.00 (3450730-005) to Siupolu Olive

How much money was awarded in case 4680649?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9573962-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4680649?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.00 (3450730-005) to Siupolu Olive

How much money was awarded in case 4680649?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9573962-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

224 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4680649 — Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.00 (3450730-005) to Siupolu Olive immediately.
The Rent Shop Limited must pay Siupolu Olive $1,759.56 immediately, as calculated in the following table.

Reasons

Betsy Mahoni, a freelance property manager, attended the hearing as the tenant’s representative. The tenant’s daughter, Tatupu Olive, who lived with the tenant, also attended. The tenant herself did not attend the hearing. She is 95 years of age and is currently in hospital. Tatupu holds an enduring power of attorney over her mother’s affairs.
Blair Botherway, Alex Watson, and Ruari Clark (who was the property manager) attended for the landlord’s agent, The Rent Shop Ltd.
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy, failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair, failed to ensure the tenancy agreement included required information, and breached their duty of care to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the tenant.
The landlord claims modest outstanding rent and water arrears. Background
The house has a floor area 130m 2 and has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and two garages, and is situated on a 675m 2 section.
The tenancy began on 26 August 2006 and ended on 26 May 2023, a period of almost 17 years.
In July of 2018, the hot water cylinder leaked. The tenant’s power bill for that month was $810.34 for that month, but only $352.45 for the following month, and $271.71 for the next month.
On 27 January 2023, during Auckland Anniversary weekend, the Auckland region suffered historically intense rainfall.
The house’s roof leaked, flooding the third bedroom of the house where the tenant’s grandchildren often stayed. The house’s roof needed replacing. However, the roof was not repaired during the tenancy and the bedroom remained uninhabitable from the time of the rains.
On 5 April 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a termination notice based on wanting to live in the premises. However, he withdrew the notice the next day.
The landlord returned from Australia and spent three nights sleeping in his caravan which her parked outside a garage at the premises. He also spent some time living at the premises after the tenant had moved out.
The landlord sold the property in August of 2023.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? b. Should the tenant be compensated for excess power costs due to the hot water cylinder malfunctioning? c. Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy? d. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace? e. Does the tenant owe the landlord for rent and water?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00: s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 1 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 2 “...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 might be...” 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15].
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 3 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Discussion
The third bedroom was uninhabitable from 27 January 2023 to the end of the tenancy due to the water damage.
The bedroom’s damp carpet and underlay were removed about two weeks later on 9 February 2023. Damp Gib was not removed until after the tenancy ended.
A temporary repair was made to the roof on 27 February 2023. However, the repairer would not warranty the work because of the roof’s age and poor condition.
The damaged bedroom could not be reinstated until the roof was fully repaired because of the risk of further leaks. The landlord’s agents obtained several quotes for the roof repair. It was established that the roof needed replacing at a cost of between about $29,000.00 to $40,000.00, an amount that the landlord did not immediately have the funds for.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord paid a roofing contractor’s deposit for repairs to commence. However, the tenant had already given notice by then. Conclusion and remedies
The landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant should be compensated for the bedroom being uninhabitable and also the dampness and draught coming from the bedroom that would have affected the rest of the house.
The floor area of the bedroom was approximately 10 per cent of the house’s total floor area.
I set the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises at 15 per cent of the weekly rent. The eligible period for compensation is from 27 January to 26 May 2023.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages where “the Tribunal is satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally”. 4 3 See n 1. 4 RTA, s 109(3).
I am not satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Contractors attended the premises within two days of the flood, the wet flooring was removed within two weeks. It is plausible that the landlord did not have sufficient funds to pay for a re-roof straight away. A considerable sum was required. Many people would struggle to find such a large amount, including landlords. It has not been proven that the landlord’s explanation about the delay in repairing the roof was untrue.
It follows, exemplary damages are not available.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant $1,440.00 in compensation for her loss of amenity.

Compensation for excess power costs?

The tenant claimed for the excess power costs incurred in 2018.
The landlord did not dispute that the hot water cylinder was leaking, which was the probable cause of the excess power costs the tenant had to pay.
The cause of the tenant’s loss was due to a maintenance issue which was a landlord responsibility as has been discussed above.
It is appropriate to award compensation in favour of the tenant, which I set at $500.00.

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Under s 60AA of the RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching that duty without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. 5
On 5 April 2023, Mr Clark sent the tenant a termination notice based on the landlord requiring the premises as his principal residence within 90 days of the end of the tenancy. However, the very next day, Mr Clark sent an email saying the notice was withdrawn because the landlord would not be living in the property. 5 RTA, s 60AA and Schedule 1A.
Mr Clark says that the landlord told him that he would be returning to live in the premises and do repairs, which is why the notice was given. However, the next day the landlord said that he could not make suitable travel arrangements and the notice was promptly withdrawn.
Despite the notice being withdrawn, the tenant was made to feel the tenancy was insecure. Her daughter Tatupu Olive immediately began searching for a new place to live, which is how the Olives met Ms Mahoni, who helps tenants in need.
The landlord’s agents say that the landlord later returned from Australia where he had been living for the past 17 years and did live in the premises for a while before he succeeded in selling the property.
That the landlord lived in the property and sold it demonstrates that the landlord genuinely intended to deal with the property in ways that provided grounds for a termination notice.
The landlord’s sudden withdrawal of the notice is perplexing. Mr Clark said the landlord told him he could not make travel arrangements for that period of time, which seems an odd explanation. Notwithstanding that, the evidence does not show that the landlord was disingenuous when he told Mr Clark he wanted to move back into the premises and do repairs.
It has not been proved that the termination notice was unlawful.
This claim is dismissed. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace?
A landlord must not interfere with their tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in their use of the premises. 6
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 7
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 8
The landlord returned from Australia and stayed in a caravan parked outside the garage area he had reserved to himself for three days. 6 RTA, s 38(2). 7 RTA, s 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 8 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord’s presence was an interference to the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. That interference that did reach the aggravated level of amounting to harassment, however.
By way of compensation, the tenant’s rent for those three days is to be refunded. The tenant did not have the full enjoyment of the premises free from interference. The daily rent was $80.00.
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant $240.00 in compensation.

Does the tenant owe rent and water costs?

The landlord’s agent provided water and rent records which proved the amount owing for these.
The tenant accepts the modest amounts outstanding.
An order is made in favour of the landlord for these. Filing fee
The Tribunal orders the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the filing fee because she has been substantially successful in the proceedings. Bond
The bond is to be returned to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680649 — Rent arrears at 224 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680649 — Rent arrears at 224 Shirley Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Compensation for excess power costs?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Does the tenant owe rent and water costs?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Compensation for excess power costs?

Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenancy?

Does the tenant owe rent and water costs?

Property management