What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680992 about?

The tribunal order states: Mackys Real Estate Ltd t/as Bayleys (as agent for Simon Thomas and [The landlord/s] must pay [The party] and Annette James $1,494.91

How much money was awarded in case 4680992?

Lawns and Garden Work: $390.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $895.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680992?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138508-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680992 about?

The tribunal order states: Mackys Real Estate Ltd t/as Bayleys (as agent for Simon Thomas and [The landlord/s] must pay [The party] and Annette James $1,494.91

How much money was awarded in case 4680992?

Lawns and Garden Work: $390.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $895.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680992?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138508-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Smeath Road, Kawakawa, Kawakawa 0210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4680992 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680992 — net $1,494.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$895.09		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		34. Having regard to those factors I will award compensation of $800.00 Outcome, filing fee, bond
Compensation: Garden tidy up at start of tenancy		$390.00	Garden tidy up at start of tenancy
Compensation: Loss of amenity and damage to property lounge ceiling leak		$1,200.00	Loss of amenity and damage to property lounge ceiling leak
Compensation: Loss of amenity - toilet window not repaired		$800.00	Loss of amenity - toilet window not repaired
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	34. Having regard to those factors I will award compensation of $800.00 Outcome, filing fee, bond
Total award	$915.53	$2,410.44
Net award		$1,494.91
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,494.91

Order

Mackys Real Estate Ltd t/as Bayleys (as agent for Simon Thomas and [The landlord/s] must pay [The party] and Annette James $1,494.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (6359648-012) to Annette James and Ringa James immediately.

Reasons

Background

The Case Conference order sets out the background to the applications.
The second hearing took place at the Whangarei Court on 8 March 2024. Mr & Mrs James and Ms Swart (representing Bayleys) attended the hearing in person. Ms Hemara attended by phone.
As noted in the Case Conference order, the landlord’s claim for water rates was not disputed. The tenants’ applications raised issues relating: a. The condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. b. A leak in the ceiling in the lounge. c. A toilet window that could not be closed properly and that was not repaired or replaced during the tenancy. Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
Landlords must provide the premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” at the start of the tenancy 1 .
Ms Swart acknowledged the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of this tenancy in May 2020.
Ms Swart explained that the landlord had arranged for a cleaner but unfortunately the work was not carried out. This was at the time of COVID-19 lockdowns.
She discussed with Ms Hemara at the start of the tenancy and waived the first two weeks of rent.
Ms Hemara and Ms James submitted that the inside was dirty and there were rat droppings in some of the cupboards, but significantly more work was involved in tidying up the section.
The house is on a large section. The section slopes away to an area with fruit trees in it. The previous tenants had mowed to a line above that, and left the fruit tree area to go ‘wild’. The previous tenants also left a substantial amount of rubbish underneath the house.
Ms Hemara’s photographs show that they tidied up all of the section to a good standard.
Tidying up the wild area was a lot of work. It is not clear whether the landlord would have expected them to mow and tidy this area during the tenancy, or 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) whether they would have only expected them to mow to the existing ‘line’, the same as the previous tenants.
In any event, the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness extends to all of the premises, which (per the definition of “premises” in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986) includes “any land and appurtenances” 2 . The tenants would have been entitled to require the landlord to mow and tidy up this area as well as remove all rubbish and clean inside the house.
The cost of all of that work would almost certainly exceed the $780.00 compensation that the landlord has effectively given to date.
I will award one more week of rent as compensation to the tenants. Lounge ceiling leak
The tenants noticed the leak soon after moving in. The leak came through a cover / hatch in the lounge ceiling, where a chimney used to be. They let Ms Swart know about the leak in August 2020.
Ms Swart acknowledged that there was a delay in attending to the ceiling leak, which Ms Swart attributed to a combination of the following factors: a. The COVID-19 lockdowns. b. The tenants’ request to not have repairs or inspections during school holidays when the house was busy. c. Ms James’ request that Bayleys use their handyman, Roger, for any necessary repairs. Ms James knew Roger and she was comfortable with him coming inside the house. Unfortunately, Roger was suffering from ill health during this time.
By May 2021 it was apparent that Roger would not be able to continue as Bayleys’ preferred contractor because of his health problems.
Bayleys engaged another contractor, Chris. Chris was given a list of maintenance work to do on the property, including investigating and repairing (if possible) the roof leak.
Ms Hemara submitted that when Chris came to the property, he only carried out moisture testing and investigating the leak – he did not carry out any roof repairs.
However, Ms Swart submitted that Chris did carry out roof repairs – securing some roofing nails that had lifted – and he invoiced Bayleys for this work. 2 Section 2 RTA
Ms Hemara maintained that the lounge ceiling continued to leak after Chris did this work, but this directly contradicts the evidence that Ms James gave at the hearing. Ms James stated that she did not notice and any further leaks, and was not aware of any further leaks, after that work.
My finding is that it is not proven that the leaks continued after the repair in May / June 2021.
When the leak first occurred, the water dripped down onto Mr James’ stereo system. The leak made living conditions unpleasant for the first winter that they were in the property.
Sometimes repairing roof leaks requires a lengthy process of investigation before the fault can be found. It seems that was not the case in this instance – Bayleys’ contractor identified the problem and repaired it promptly. The delay from August 2020 to May / June 2021 was due to the factors set out above.
My finding is that the tenants are entitled to compensation for loss of amenity for the August 2020 – May / June 2021 period. There was a problem with the property during that period that impacted upon their use of the premises. Upon entering the tenancy they had a reasonable expectation that all of the habitable parts of the house would be dry and usable.
The rent at the start of the tenancy was $390.00 per week.
Having regard to: a. The period of time over which the problem persisted; and b. The fact that the leaking occurred during heavy rain, and therefore it affected their use of the lounge intermittently; and c. The tenants’ statements about how the leak affected their use of the lounge when it was raining heavily; and d. The damage to Mr James’ stereo (acknowledging that the stereo was not new, and that there are obvious evidential difficulties in proving that the stereo was damaged by water dripping from the lounge ceiling); I will award compensation of $1,200.00. Toilet window
The louvre window in the toilet would not close properly. The tenants raised this issue early in their tenancy.
As noted above the landlord’s (and tenants’) preferred handyman was increasingly unavailable during 2020 and early 2021. In May 2021 the landlord engaged a new handyman (Chris) and gave him a list of repairs to attend to, including this window.
The toilet window was not repaired or replaced when Chris attended the property in May or early June 2021. He advised Mr James to board up the window, which Mr James did.
This stopped the draught, but it meant that the toilet was not ventilated. The board remained in place for the duration of the tenancy.
Ms Swart acknowledged that this was an oversight, and that the toilet window should have been repaired or replaced.
It is appropriate to make an award of compensation to the tenants. This problem was less impactful that the lounge leak, but it was unpleasant and annoying for the tenants, and it lasted for the full three years of the tenancy.
Having regard to those factors I will award compensation of $800.00 Outcome, filing fee, bond
Both parties were successful in their applications, and both are entitled to the filing fee.
I have made the order in favour of Ms James and Ms Hemara jointly. In my view it would be artificial and practically impossible for me to attempt apportion the compensation between them.
The bond is in Mr & Mrs James’ name and it will be released to them.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680992 — net $1,494.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$895.09		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		34. Having regard to those factors I will award compensation of $800.00 Outcome, filing fee, bond
Compensation: Garden tidy up at start of tenancy		$390.00	Garden tidy up at start of tenancy
Compensation: Loss of amenity and damage to property lounge ceiling leak		$1,200.00	Loss of amenity and damage to property lounge ceiling leak
Compensation: Loss of amenity - toilet window not repaired		$800.00	Loss of amenity - toilet window not repaired
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	34. Having regard to those factors I will award compensation of $800.00 Outcome, filing fee, bond
Total award	$915.53	$2,410.44
Net award		$1,494.91
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,494.91

Order

Mackys Real Estate Ltd t/as Bayleys (as agent for Simon Thomas and [The landlord/s] must pay [The party] and Annette James $1,494.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 (6359648-012) to Annette James and Ringa James immediately.

Reasons

Background

The Case Conference order sets out the background to the applications.
The second hearing took place at the Whangarei Court on 8 March 2024. Mr & Mrs James and Ms Swart (representing Bayleys) attended the hearing in person. Ms Hemara attended by phone.
As noted in the Case Conference order, the landlord’s claim for water rates was not disputed. The tenants’ applications raised issues relating: a. The condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. b. A leak in the ceiling in the lounge. c. A toilet window that could not be closed properly and that was not repaired or replaced during the tenancy. Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
Landlords must provide the premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” at the start of the tenancy 1 .
Ms Swart acknowledged the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of this tenancy in May 2020.
Ms Swart explained that the landlord had arranged for a cleaner but unfortunately the work was not carried out. This was at the time of COVID-19 lockdowns.
She discussed with Ms Hemara at the start of the tenancy and waived the first two weeks of rent.
Ms Hemara and Ms James submitted that the inside was dirty and there were rat droppings in some of the cupboards, but significantly more work was involved in tidying up the section.
The house is on a large section. The section slopes away to an area with fruit trees in it. The previous tenants had mowed to a line above that, and left the fruit tree area to go ‘wild’. The previous tenants also left a substantial amount of rubbish underneath the house.
Ms Hemara’s photographs show that they tidied up all of the section to a good standard.
Tidying up the wild area was a lot of work. It is not clear whether the landlord would have expected them to mow and tidy this area during the tenancy, or 1 Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) whether they would have only expected them to mow to the existing ‘line’, the same as the previous tenants.
In any event, the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness extends to all of the premises, which (per the definition of “premises” in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986) includes “any land and appurtenances” 2 . The tenants would have been entitled to require the landlord to mow and tidy up this area as well as remove all rubbish and clean inside the house.
The cost of all of that work would almost certainly exceed the $780.00 compensation that the landlord has effectively given to date.
I will award one more week of rent as compensation to the tenants. Lounge ceiling leak
The tenants noticed the leak soon after moving in. The leak came through a cover / hatch in the lounge ceiling, where a chimney used to be. They let Ms Swart know about the leak in August 2020.
Ms Swart acknowledged that there was a delay in attending to the ceiling leak, which Ms Swart attributed to a combination of the following factors: a. The COVID-19 lockdowns. b. The tenants’ request to not have repairs or inspections during school holidays when the house was busy. c. Ms James’ request that Bayleys use their handyman, Roger, for any necessary repairs. Ms James knew Roger and she was comfortable with him coming inside the house. Unfortunately, Roger was suffering from ill health during this time.
By May 2021 it was apparent that Roger would not be able to continue as Bayleys’ preferred contractor because of his health problems.
Bayleys engaged another contractor, Chris. Chris was given a list of maintenance work to do on the property, including investigating and repairing (if possible) the roof leak.
Ms Hemara submitted that when Chris came to the property, he only carried out moisture testing and investigating the leak – he did not carry out any roof repairs.
However, Ms Swart submitted that Chris did carry out roof repairs – securing some roofing nails that had lifted – and he invoiced Bayleys for this work. 2 Section 2 RTA
Ms Hemara maintained that the lounge ceiling continued to leak after Chris did this work, but this directly contradicts the evidence that Ms James gave at the hearing. Ms James stated that she did not notice and any further leaks, and was not aware of any further leaks, after that work.
My finding is that it is not proven that the leaks continued after the repair in May / June 2021.
When the leak first occurred, the water dripped down onto Mr James’ stereo system. The leak made living conditions unpleasant for the first winter that they were in the property.
Sometimes repairing roof leaks requires a lengthy process of investigation before the fault can be found. It seems that was not the case in this instance – Bayleys’ contractor identified the problem and repaired it promptly. The delay from August 2020 to May / June 2021 was due to the factors set out above.
My finding is that the tenants are entitled to compensation for loss of amenity for the August 2020 – May / June 2021 period. There was a problem with the property during that period that impacted upon their use of the premises. Upon entering the tenancy they had a reasonable expectation that all of the habitable parts of the house would be dry and usable.
The rent at the start of the tenancy was $390.00 per week.
Having regard to: a. The period of time over which the problem persisted; and b. The fact that the leaking occurred during heavy rain, and therefore it affected their use of the lounge intermittently; and c. The tenants’ statements about how the leak affected their use of the lounge when it was raining heavily; and d. The damage to Mr James’ stereo (acknowledging that the stereo was not new, and that there are obvious evidential difficulties in proving that the stereo was damaged by water dripping from the lounge ceiling); I will award compensation of $1,200.00. Toilet window
The louvre window in the toilet would not close properly. The tenants raised this issue early in their tenancy.
As noted above the landlord’s (and tenants’) preferred handyman was increasingly unavailable during 2020 and early 2021. In May 2021 the landlord engaged a new handyman (Chris) and gave him a list of repairs to attend to, including this window.
The toilet window was not repaired or replaced when Chris attended the property in May or early June 2021. He advised Mr James to board up the window, which Mr James did.
This stopped the draught, but it meant that the toilet was not ventilated. The board remained in place for the duration of the tenancy.
Ms Swart acknowledged that this was an oversight, and that the toilet window should have been repaired or replaced.
It is appropriate to make an award of compensation to the tenants. This problem was less impactful that the lounge leak, but it was unpleasant and annoying for the tenants, and it lasted for the full three years of the tenancy.
Having regard to those factors I will award compensation of $800.00 Outcome, filing fee, bond
Both parties were successful in their applications, and both are entitled to the filing fee.
I have made the order in favour of Ms James and Ms Hemara jointly. In my view it would be artificial and practically impossible for me to attempt apportion the compensation between them.
The bond is in Mr & Mrs James’ name and it will be released to them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680992 — Leaks at 8 Smeath Road, Kawakawa, Kawakawa 0210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680992 — Leaks at 8 Smeath Road, Kawakawa, Kawakawa 0210

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