What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4708470 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4708470?

Property Damage: $7,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: driveway and retaining…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gas Bottles: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Letting Fee: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no water at start of t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Sewer/ Drain Issues: $5,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Tanks: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4708470?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4708470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10261241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4708470 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4708470?

Property Damage: $7,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: driveway and retaining…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Gas Bottles: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Letting Fee: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: no water at start of t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Sewer/ Drain Issues: $5,200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water Tanks: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4708470?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4708470?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10261241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

119 Top Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4708470 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4708470 — net $20,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: no water at start of tenancy	$500.00	no water at start of tenancy
Compensation: sewer/ drain issues	$5,200.00	sewer/ drain issues
Compensation: gas bottles	$600.00	gas bottles
Compensation: water tanks	$3,500.00	water tanks
Compensation: no electricity storm damage	$600.00	no electricity storm damage
Compensation: letting fee	$200.00	letting fee
Compensation: breach of obligation to maintain/ repair	$7,500.00	breach of obligation to maintain/ repair
Compensation: driveway and retaining wall work	$2,500.00	driveway and retaining wall work
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$20,620.44
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20,620.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4708470 — net $20,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: no water at start of tenancy	$500.00	no water at start of tenancy
Compensation: sewer/ drain issues	$5,200.00	sewer/ drain issues
Compensation: gas bottles	$600.00	gas bottles
Compensation: water tanks	$3,500.00	water tanks
Compensation: no electricity storm damage	$600.00	no electricity storm damage
Compensation: letting fee	$200.00	letting fee
Compensation: breach of obligation to maintain/ repair	$7,500.00	breach of obligation to maintain/ repair
Compensation: driveway and retaining wall work	$2,500.00	driveway and retaining wall work
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$20,620.44
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20,620.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Roger Su must pay [The tenant/s] $20,620.44 immediately calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] Bond
A bond of $3,000.00 was paid and is held at the Bond Centre. The tenant seeks payment of the bond.
The landlord intends to bring a claim against the tenant but had not done so by the date of this hearing.
Section 22B(2) provides that, “If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim”.
No such application having been filed, the bond must be paid to the tenant. The Agreements
The first tenancy agreement between the parties was entered into for a fixed term from 2 September 2017 to 1 September 2018. A second agreement was then signed for a further term ending on 6 October 2019.
After expiry of that second fixed term, the agreement became a periodic tenancy which continued until it was ended by notice of termination given by the landlord to the tenant when the property was to be sold.
The tenant remained in occupation through the sale process and until the sale was settled. The tenancy ended on 24 September 2022. The Application
This application was filed by the tenant on 16 October 2023, more than 12 months after the tendency had ended.
In his claim the tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages for a significant number of alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations during the tenancy. Principles
As pointed out to the tenant during the hearing, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages in respect of a claim made later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act complained of or, in respect of some specific unlawful acts, more than 12 months after the date of termination of the tenancy (s.109(2)).
The tenant’s claims for exemplary damages must therefore be dismissed.
It is also a feature of the tenant’s application that many of the claims seek reimbursement for work undertaken by the tenant without specific notice to the landlord or with the landlord’s consent.
It seems clear from the evidence that the tenant went ahead and did a lot of day to day work on the property without specific reference to the landlord and the landlord, who only visited the property rarely during the tenancy, was happy to let the tenant do so.
The intent of the of the RTA is not that tenants be able to expend money or effort of their own choosing on the premises and then, long after the tenancy has ended, seek large compensatory payments for that expenditure.
In particular, the Tribunal cannot award compensation where s.42 applies. That provision provides that “The tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises or make any renovation, alteration or addition of or to the premises except - in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord”.
Section 45(1)(d) also has relevance. That provision requires that, “The landlord shall.....(d) compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— (i) the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii) the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so” (my emphasis).
The application of unjust enrichment principles and those provisions of the RTA mean, in my view, that claims such as these, made well after the event, can only properly be upheld where: (a) there is clear evidence of a need for repair, of the landlord having been given notice of the need for repair and opportunity being given to the landlord to undertake the repairs himself: or (b) there is clear evidence of the landlord having received a benefit from the work undertaken by the tenant, in circumstances where it would be unjust to allow the landlord to retain that benefit without compensating the tenant. Letting fee
The tenant claims compensation for payment of a letting fee when the tenancy began, which the tenant says could not lawfully be charged. He says a fee of $950.00 was charged when the first agreement was signed.
Section 17 RTA as formulated when the first agreement was signed, provided that landlords could not require the payment of key money in respect of the grant of a tenancy. “Key money” was defined in s.2 as, “...any sum of money demanded by way of... consideration for the grant... of a tenancy agreement.”
The agreement required payment of a bond of $3,000.00 and one week’s rent in advance of $750.00. Bank records provided by the tenant show an initial payment to the landlord of $3,950.00 on 16 August 2017.
There is no evidence to suggests that $750.00 of that sum was other than payment of one week’s rent in advance, which is usual. $3,000.00 was the bond.
The tenant says that the additional $200.00 was payment of the landlord’s advertising charges. The evidence persuades me on balance that the landlord did make a charge of $200.00 for what was at the time defined as key money. The landlord was not entitled to charge that amount and it should be refunded. Water Supply Issues
The tenant’s evidence is that when he and his family moved into the premises, there was no water available for their use for several days, due to the pump having been taken and the tanks emptied. That is not disputed by the landlord, who points out that immediate steps were taken to reinstate the water supply.
Nevertheless, the landlord was in breach of his obligation under section 45(1)(ca) to ensure that, “....if the premises do not have a reticulated water supply adequate means are provided for the collection and storage of water.”
The tenants are entitled to compensation for that inconvenience which I assess at $500.00.
The tenant says that when the tenancy began there were two large water tanks of approximately 15,000 litres capacity each, to provide water to the premises. One concrete and one plastic. He says that during 2021 the concrete tank developed a leak and as a result additional storage was needed to maintain an adequate supply. The tenant says that because the landlord would not install a new tank he bought and installed 2 smaller 5,000 litre tanks to ensure there was an adequate supply of water.
The landlord’s evidence is that when the tenancy began there was only one concrete water tank on the property which developed a leak in 2021. He says that he then bought and install a new plastic water tank to replace it, thus maintaining the same water supply capacity as was there at the start of the tenancy.
As this matter was in dispute, opportunity was given to both parties to provide additional evidence about that issue after conclusion of the hearing. The tenant provided photographs which he says were taken from the advertising materials before the tenancy began, which show a plastic water tank outside a bedroom window at the property.
The landlord provided copies of communication with a water tank supply business in 2021, inquiring about the supply and installation of a large plastic water tank.
The tenant acknowledges those communications may have occurred but says that they only show that the landlord made enquiries. He says that the landlord decided not to proceed with the purchase, which was why he had to buy tanks himself.
As this is the tenant’s claim the onus is on the tenant to provide evidence to prove the facts necessary to support the claim, on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal must rely on the best evidence available.
If I accept the tenant’s evidence that the photographs provided were taken before the tenancy began, there is direct evidence that the large plastic water tank in question was located on the property when the tenancy began.
The evidence provided by the landlord proves that enquiries were made by him in 2021 regarding the purchase and installation of a plastic tank but is not evidence that the purchase and installation in fact occurred.
The evidence persuades me on balance that: a. 2 large water tanks were installed for the supply of water to the premises at the start of the tenancy; b. that storage capacity was appropriate to ensure an adequate supply of water to the premises; c. the failure of the older concrete tank required the installation of a replacement tank; d. The landlord had the opportunity to complete that necessary work but did not do so; e. The tenant was justified in installing replacement tanks himself;
I therefore find that the criteria in s.56(1)(d) are met, and the tenant is entitled to compensation for the cost of providing replacement tanks.
The tenant has provided evidence showing the amount spent on purchase of the tanks ($3,098.00). The additional sums claimed, for his time and effort in installing the tanks are not supported by any evidence from the time the installation took place, or since. Those additional claims are declined.
In assessing fair compensation, I take into account: a. the cost of the water tanks as proved by the invoices provided by the tenant; b. that the landlord and new owner did not require the tanks, so the tenant was able to retain them for his own use; c. that before the tenant bought the tenant bought those new tanks there were increased costs in buying water to keep an adequate supply due to loss of water from the concrete tanks d. there will necessarily have been some installation costs in addition to the tank purchases. Septic Tank issues
Around two months into the tenancy the tenants experienced difficulties with the septic tank. The sewer drains were backing up and discharging wastewater onto the property. The pump was replaced but again failed. The tenant says this was because the pipes to the dispersal field were blocked and the pump burned out trying to pump the waste through the blocked pipes. The landlord arranged for a for the tank to be emptied and this then needed to be done approximately every four weeks. The problem with the pipes continuing to back up continued until the system was replaced around 12 months after the problem first became apparent.
During that time, the tenant says that the at his daughter became sick, probably through having eaten eggs contaminated by the waste. He says that the nature of his daughter’s illness meant that they were reported for having exposed their daughter to a notifiable disease which was stressful for all the family.
The landlord’s position is that having been notified about the difficulty he took responsible steps to try and have the problem fixed but that it took some time to be clear about the causes and the appropriate remedy. He says that the tenant was not always cooperative with the tradespeople who were sent to the site to remedy the problem.
Having heard both parties I'm satisfied that there was a problem with the waste reticulation which was the landlord’s responsibility, and which had a significant impact on the tenants use and enjoyment of the premises, for which the tenant should be compensated.
Even had exemplary damages been available, my view is that the landlord was reasonably responsive to the situation and an award of exemplary damages would have been unlikely.
In assessing appropriate compensation, I take into account that the impacts on the tenant and his family of the problems with the drains would have been intermittent and more intrusive and offensive at sometimes than others. In my view a compensation of $100 per week for the period from when the problem became apparent to when the problem was fixed would be just. Gas bottles
The gas supply to the premises was by way of gas bottles. The tenants paid all charges, both for rental of the bottles and the gas used.
Section 39 RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises, that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
That means that the tenant is responsible for the cost of gas used at the premises but is not responsible for the cost of providing the means for the gas supply (in the same way that a landlord is responsible for fixed water charges, but the tenant is responsible for the water consumption).
The tenant has provided evidence which satisfies me that the rental charges for the gas bottles, which were the landlords responsibility, was $10.00 per month through the tenancy. The tenant is entitled to have those payments reimbursed. Sleepout
Outside the main dwelling was a sleep out made from a converted garage, in poor condition. The tenant intended that his daughter be able to occupy it.
He says that the sleepout had exposed wiring and leaked to the extent that the ceiling caved in. The poor condition of the sleepout is apparent from photographic evidence provided.
In January 2022 the tenant paid for repairs to replace windows, adjust framing and replace rotten gib board to make this sleepout habitable. He claims compensation for the cost of those renovations.
The landlord’s position is that the sleep out was never intended for occupation on a full time basis and was only an outbuilding for auxiliary use.
In terms of the renovation costs, there is no evidence of the tenant having notified the landlord that he considered the sleepout needed repair to be habitable in terms of the parties’ agreement. The elements for compensation to be claimed under s,45(1)(d) are not established. The situation is covered by s.42 as unauthorised renovations and the evidence does not persuade me that the landlord received a quantifiable benefit from renovation of the sleepout which it would be inequitable for the landlord to retain.
As to whether the tenant should be compensated for the condition of the sleepout, I accept the tenant’s evidence that the sleepout had been fitted out for occupation and residential use but was not able to be occupied for that purpose. That means the tenant did not have the utility of using the sleepout as part of the rent paid. The tenant seeks compensation of $100.00 per week for the whole of the tenancy. In my view that overstates the intended utility of the sleepout which was essentially a potential extra bedroom. I note too that the sleepout was used as accommodation for 6 months during the warmer months.
In my view in this situation whether the amenity/ habitability of the sleepout will have differed over time and in different seasons, a global compensatory award is appropriate to recognise that it was not provided or kept in a suitable state of repair. That compensation is included in the global award made for breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations (below). Spouting/ Guttering work
The tenant says that throughout the tenancy, he undertook maintenance work to clear the guttering and spouting. The tenant claims $2,000.00 for clearing the gutters twice a year for 5 years.
It seems to me likely from the evidence that the landlord was not at all proactive in ensuring the property was kept maintained.
I do not find it proved though, that the landlord as given notice of the requirement for that to be done before the tenant simply went ahead and did it. The elements of s,45(1)(d) are not established in respect of that claim. Storm Damage
The landlords tenant states that in November 2018 a storm caused significant damage to the property. He says that a large portion of the roof to the rear of the house blew off and the ceiling inside was saturated and needed replacing. The landlord was advised.
The landlord asked the tenant to repair the damage as he was struggling to find anyone else to undertake their repairs. The tenant says that he told the landlord the cost of the work would be approximately $4800.00 but the landlord could only afford $2000.00.
For whatever reason come on the parties seem to have agreed that the tenant would do the repair work and the landlord would pay $2000.00. The tenant says that the work was worth more than that and he suspects the landlord received and retained an insurance payment for more than that amount.
Five and a half years after the event, the Tribunal would need very clear evidence of a basis for overturning what was essentially a commercial contract between the parties. That evidence is not provided.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that as a consequence of the storm, the premises were without power for four days. The tenant is entitled to compensation, as the provision of such services was the landlord’s responsibility whether or not the landlord was at fault for any interruption to those services.
Compensation at $150.00 per day for those four days is appropriate Healthy homes report/ Maintenance and repair
The tenant says that the landlord wanted to arrange for a healthy homes assessment of the premises, but no such assessment was done. The tenant arranged for an assessment to be done himself and claims reimbursement for the cost of the assessment.
The report is dated 27 March 2024. It assesses the premises as failing to meet Healthy Homes standards for insulation, for moisture ingress, for draught stopping, for ventilation and for heating. It met the standard for drainage.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 prescribe the various standards that premises are required comply with. They also set out the dates at which different types of residential tenancies are required to comply.
This tenancy began before 1 July 2021 and was not renewed thereafter. Schedule 2 to the Regulations specifies 1 July 2025 as the date by which the landlord was required to ensure that the premises complied with Healthy Home standards. That requirement did not arise during the tenancy.
The landlord has therefore not breached his obligation to ensure that the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards during the tenancy. That being so, the tenant has not established a basis for requiring the landlord to reimburse the cost of the report.
Nevertheless, the content of the report contains evidence which the Tribunal is entitled to rely on in assessing the landlord’s compliance with his obligation under s.45(1) to ensure that the premises were provided and maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
The evidence contained in that report satisfies me that: a. the landlord did not meet his obligation to ensure that the premises met the insulation requirements, which predate the Healthy Homes regulations; and b. the photographs of the gaps around joinery and failing wallboards and reports of, “holes in walls from moisture and previous leaks and cracks in ceiling from moisture and previous leaks” show that the landlord did not meet his obligation to ensure the premises were adequately maintained.
Those breaches are unlawful acts. For the reasons given earlier, the tenant is unable to claim exemplary damages so long after the breach.
I find that the tenant is however entitled to some compensation for those breaches which together will necessarily have added to the cold and damp in the premises and difficulties in heating it. This long after the event, with limited evidence of direct loss, a modest (given the duration of the tenancy) award of general damages is appropriate.
The award of compensation is assessed taking those factors into account as well as taking into account the clear inadequacies in the maintenance and repair of the sleepout as well as of the main dwelling. General maintenance
The tenant also claims $15,000.00 for miscellaneous work done on the property.
Again, while the evidence suggests that the landlord was not forthcoming when it came to maintenance and repair of the property, the evidence does not establish specific breaches of the landlord’s obligations in relation to that maintenance/ repair work, or that the landlord was given notice of the need for that work to be done before the tenant went ahead and completed it. Driveway and Retaining Wall
The tenant claims compensation for the costs of having employed a contractor to clear the driveway and fill potholes after a flooding event and to build a retaining wall to protect the bank from further flooding.
Evidence provided by the tenant satisfies me on balance that the work that was undertaken was required and that the landlord was unwilling to pay for it.
The work was necessary to meet a responsibility of the landlord and the landlord has benefitted from the work being done, which the landlord would otherwise have to have paid for himself.
The tenant’s claim to the out of pocket expense to hire contractors to do the work to clear the driveway after flooding ($1000.00) and build a retaining wall to prevent further flooding ($1500.00) is proved by invoice. I do not approve the payment of the tenant’s invoice for his time, which is not a proved loss. Notice of termination
The tenant claims that the notices of termination given were inappropriate because they were given before the property was sold. The tenant says that advice he received was that the landlord could not give notice until the property had been sold and vacant possession was required.
That is not correct. Under s. 51(2), “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if—(a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition; or (b) the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession”.
I do not find any breach of the landlord’s obligation to give appropriate notice of termination.
In terms of section 48(3) a tenant is required to a give reasonable access to the premises for the purposes of the premises being shown to prospective purchasers. The evidence provided by the tenant does not establish an entitlement to compensation for having provided that access that when the property was being marketed. Chicken Run and Beehive
Finally, the tenant claims compensation for the cost of a chicken run and beehive that were left on the property when the tenancy ended.
The tenant says that the ground was too wet to allow him to remove those items before the tendency ended. The new owner denied the tenant access to the property to remove those items after the sale had been completed.
The tenant says that the landlord benefited from those items having been left there because the chicken run was advertised as part of the sale and therefore added to the sale price.
The landlord denies that.
The tenant’s claims are not supported by corroborating evidence.
It is a fundamental obligation on tenants to remove all their property from the premises on termination of the tenancy. Very clear evidence of a benefit having been received by the landlord from his having left those items there would be necessary to support a compensation claim against the landlord.
It seems to be that the tenant’s proper recourse, if any, was against the new owner.
Because [The tenant/s] has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4708470 — Property damage at 119 Top Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4708470 — Property damage at 119 Top Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

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