What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684809 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord is to pay $2,520.44 to the tenant immediately as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 4684809?

Compensation: Flood: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry Agent: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unlawful entry tradesp…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9929772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4684809 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord is to pay $2,520.44 to the tenant immediately as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 4684809?

Compensation: Flood: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Entry Agent: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: unlawful entry tradesp…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9929772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4684809 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4684809 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: flood	$1,500.00	flood
Compensation: unlawful entry tradesperson	$500.00	unlawful entry tradesperson
Compensation: unlawful entry agent	$500.00	unlawful entry agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,520.44

Order

The landlord is to pay $2,520.44 to the tenant immediately as set out in the table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation: flood $1,500.00 Compensation: unlawful entry tradesperson $500.00 Compensation: unlawful entry agent $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $2,520.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,520.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has made an application to the Tribunal for compensation for: a. The inconvenience, lack of quiet enjoyment, illness and consequent loss of income caused by a flood in the property and the necessary repairs. See section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. The unlawful entry of a tradesperson. See section 48(2)(d) RTA. c. The unlawful entry by the landlord’s agent. See section 48(2)(b) RTA. d. Failure to keep the premises secure by allowing the landlord’s contractor to retain a key to the premises. See section 46 RTA. e. Failure to maintain the property by fixing a leak under the sink and removing the related odour. See section 45(1)(b) RTA.
In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Flood claims
There was a flood at the property on 12 March 2023 that caused water damage to the kitchen, lounge and a bedroom in the two-bedroom unit.
The carpets were lifted and industrial driers and dehumidifiers installed. While the contractor’s invoice indicates that a charge was made for a lesser period, I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were on the property for more than a week.
The property was considered sufficiently dried out and the floors had been sanded so that the carpets were re-laid on 7 April 2023. The doors in the property were re-hung on 11 April 2023.
The tenant’s occupation of the property was significantly impacted by the flood and its consequences. The only alternative to the tenant remaining in the property was for the tenant to have moved into alternative accommodation, if it were available on such short notice. With the landlord’s consent, she continued to occupy the property. If she had moved out, she would not have been liable for the rent during the period required for repairs – a period of just over four weeks.
The tenant believes that the dampness and the sanding of the floors made her very unwell and caused her to lose two days’ work. She has claimed a sum for her loss of earnings and the fee charged by her doctor.
The tenant did not provide evidence from her doctor of the nature of her illness or confirming that the conditions in the flat were directly responsible. In the absence of such evidence, the tenant’s claim must be dismissed.
It is appropriate that the tenant be compensated for her inability to enjoy the use of her flat and put up with the significant inconvenience involved in remediating it. The landlord has already reimbursed the tenant for the cost of power during this period.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of less than four weeks’ rent in compensation. This reflects the fact that the tenant still had the benefit of accommodation and that the condition of the property was largely restored once the carpets were re- laid. The sum recognises the significant discomfort and inconvenience that the tenant suffered. Tradesperson’s unlawful entry
The tenant gave evidence that while she was in the shower, one of the carpet drying tradespersons came into the property unannounced. Upon leaving the shower and undressed, she found the tradesperson in the property.
While the tradesperson had telephoned and knocked on the door, he had not received any response from the tenant. The tenant had not therefore received notice of his arrival.
The landlord responsibly acknowledged the tenant’s version of events.
The appearance of a stranger at such a vulnerable moment undoubtedly caused the tenant significant distress. It is to avoid just such situations that the notice requirements in section 48 RTA are so specific.
It is appropriate that the tenant receive compensation and I have awarded a sum that recognises the seriousness of the breach to the tenant. Agent’s unlawful entry
The tenant provided evidence that the landlord’s agent asked to carry out a routine inspection on 26 July 2023. The tenant responded that this date did not suit and so the landlord’s agent accepted that the inspection would take place on 31 July 2023.
The tenant provided evidence that the landlord’s agent accessed the property on 26 July 2023 and took photographs of the property. This was accepted by the landlord.
The entry by the landlord’s agent was an unauthorised and unlawful entry of the property as the agreed date for the inspection was changed to 31 July 2023 by mutual consent.
It is appropriate that the tenant be compensated for this breach of the RTA provisions relating to entry of the property and the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property.
The landlord remains primarily responsible for the actions of its agent The landlord’s property manager was not a party to this application. The landlord may decide to seek compensation from its agent for the loss he has caused the landlord. Failure to secure the property
The tenant advised that a key to the property was secured in a lock box outside the property. With the tenant’s consent, the combination was made available to the landlord’s contractors to facilitate access.
The tenant gave evidence that the key was taken from the lock box, presumably retained by the contractor, and not returned for approximately a week.
The landlord’s obligation is to keep the property “reasonably secure”. It is a question of fact in each case whether premises are reasonably secure.
While I accept the tenant’s personal vulnerability around issues of her personal security, the fact that the key was in the possession of the landlord’s contractor does not mean that the property was not reasonably secure. There is no suggestion that the key was used by anyone other than the landlord’s contractors.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed. The consequences of the contractor having the key have been adequately addressed in ordering compensation to the tenant for his unlawful entry to the property. Failure to maintain
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not repair a leak under the sink and an associated smell within a reasonable period.
The landlord explained that the tenant complained of a smell under the sink upon moving in. The landlord investigated it and took steps to eradicate the smell but could not find evidence of a leak.
The tenant raised the issue with the landlord’s agent some months later and the landlord’s plumber inspected on 19 May 2023. While the tenant believes a leak was repaired at that time, the landlord gave evidence that he did not believe a leak was found. The landlord provided evidence of communication in a rental app that the tenant advised the landlord’s agent that the issue was resolved. This caused a misunderstanding. The tenant explained that while the leak was fixed, the smell continued. She conveyed this to the landlord on 27 October 2023 by text.
The landlord sealed and painted the shelf and it appears that the issue has been resolved.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it appears that the landlord has responded to the tenant’s notification of the issues in a reasonable timeframe and has attended to the required repairs. While there was a period where the smell continued, the only evidence before the Tribunal is that the landlord was only made aware that this remained an issue in late October and was then promptly fixed.
The tenant’s claim for a breach of the landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is therefore dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4684809 — net $2,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: flood	$1,500.00	flood
Compensation: unlawful entry tradesperson	$500.00	unlawful entry tradesperson
Compensation: unlawful entry agent	$500.00	unlawful entry agent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,520.44

Order

The landlord is to pay $2,520.44 to the tenant immediately as set out in the table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation: flood $1,500.00 Compensation: unlawful entry tradesperson $500.00 Compensation: unlawful entry agent $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $2,520.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,520.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has made an application to the Tribunal for compensation for: a. The inconvenience, lack of quiet enjoyment, illness and consequent loss of income caused by a flood in the property and the necessary repairs. See section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. The unlawful entry of a tradesperson. See section 48(2)(d) RTA. c. The unlawful entry by the landlord’s agent. See section 48(2)(b) RTA. d. Failure to keep the premises secure by allowing the landlord’s contractor to retain a key to the premises. See section 46 RTA. e. Failure to maintain the property by fixing a leak under the sink and removing the related odour. See section 45(1)(b) RTA.
In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: “... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Flood claims
There was a flood at the property on 12 March 2023 that caused water damage to the kitchen, lounge and a bedroom in the two-bedroom unit.
The carpets were lifted and industrial driers and dehumidifiers installed. While the contractor’s invoice indicates that a charge was made for a lesser period, I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were on the property for more than a week.
The property was considered sufficiently dried out and the floors had been sanded so that the carpets were re-laid on 7 April 2023. The doors in the property were re-hung on 11 April 2023.
The tenant’s occupation of the property was significantly impacted by the flood and its consequences. The only alternative to the tenant remaining in the property was for the tenant to have moved into alternative accommodation, if it were available on such short notice. With the landlord’s consent, she continued to occupy the property. If she had moved out, she would not have been liable for the rent during the period required for repairs – a period of just over four weeks.
The tenant believes that the dampness and the sanding of the floors made her very unwell and caused her to lose two days’ work. She has claimed a sum for her loss of earnings and the fee charged by her doctor.
The tenant did not provide evidence from her doctor of the nature of her illness or confirming that the conditions in the flat were directly responsible. In the absence of such evidence, the tenant’s claim must be dismissed.
It is appropriate that the tenant be compensated for her inability to enjoy the use of her flat and put up with the significant inconvenience involved in remediating it. The landlord has already reimbursed the tenant for the cost of power during this period.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of less than four weeks’ rent in compensation. This reflects the fact that the tenant still had the benefit of accommodation and that the condition of the property was largely restored once the carpets were re- laid. The sum recognises the significant discomfort and inconvenience that the tenant suffered. Tradesperson’s unlawful entry
The tenant gave evidence that while she was in the shower, one of the carpet drying tradespersons came into the property unannounced. Upon leaving the shower and undressed, she found the tradesperson in the property.
While the tradesperson had telephoned and knocked on the door, he had not received any response from the tenant. The tenant had not therefore received notice of his arrival.
The landlord responsibly acknowledged the tenant’s version of events.
The appearance of a stranger at such a vulnerable moment undoubtedly caused the tenant significant distress. It is to avoid just such situations that the notice requirements in section 48 RTA are so specific.
It is appropriate that the tenant receive compensation and I have awarded a sum that recognises the seriousness of the breach to the tenant. Agent’s unlawful entry
The tenant provided evidence that the landlord’s agent asked to carry out a routine inspection on 26 July 2023. The tenant responded that this date did not suit and so the landlord’s agent accepted that the inspection would take place on 31 July 2023.
The tenant provided evidence that the landlord’s agent accessed the property on 26 July 2023 and took photographs of the property. This was accepted by the landlord.
The entry by the landlord’s agent was an unauthorised and unlawful entry of the property as the agreed date for the inspection was changed to 31 July 2023 by mutual consent.
It is appropriate that the tenant be compensated for this breach of the RTA provisions relating to entry of the property and the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property.
The landlord remains primarily responsible for the actions of its agent The landlord’s property manager was not a party to this application. The landlord may decide to seek compensation from its agent for the loss he has caused the landlord. Failure to secure the property
The tenant advised that a key to the property was secured in a lock box outside the property. With the tenant’s consent, the combination was made available to the landlord’s contractors to facilitate access.
The tenant gave evidence that the key was taken from the lock box, presumably retained by the contractor, and not returned for approximately a week.
The landlord’s obligation is to keep the property “reasonably secure”. It is a question of fact in each case whether premises are reasonably secure.
While I accept the tenant’s personal vulnerability around issues of her personal security, the fact that the key was in the possession of the landlord’s contractor does not mean that the property was not reasonably secure. There is no suggestion that the key was used by anyone other than the landlord’s contractors.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed. The consequences of the contractor having the key have been adequately addressed in ordering compensation to the tenant for his unlawful entry to the property. Failure to maintain
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not repair a leak under the sink and an associated smell within a reasonable period.
The landlord explained that the tenant complained of a smell under the sink upon moving in. The landlord investigated it and took steps to eradicate the smell but could not find evidence of a leak.
The tenant raised the issue with the landlord’s agent some months later and the landlord’s plumber inspected on 19 May 2023. While the tenant believes a leak was repaired at that time, the landlord gave evidence that he did not believe a leak was found. The landlord provided evidence of communication in a rental app that the tenant advised the landlord’s agent that the issue was resolved. This caused a misunderstanding. The tenant explained that while the leak was fixed, the smell continued. She conveyed this to the landlord on 27 October 2023 by text.
The landlord sealed and painted the shelf and it appears that the issue has been resolved.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it appears that the landlord has responded to the tenant’s notification of the issues in a reasonable timeframe and has attended to the required repairs. While there was a period where the smell continued, the only evidence before the Tribunal is that the landlord was only made aware that this remained an issue in late October and was then promptly fixed.
The tenant’s claim for a breach of the landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) RTA is therefore dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684809 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684809 — 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