What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4711170 about?

The tribunal order states: Hawkes Bay Rental Management Limited - As Agent For Flying Eagle

How much money was awarded in case 4711170?

Compensation: Breach of reasonable m…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9878264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4711170 about?

The tribunal order states: Hawkes Bay Rental Management Limited - As Agent For Flying Eagle

How much money was awarded in case 4711170?

Compensation: Breach of reasonable m…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9878264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4711170 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4711170 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of reasonable maintenance obligation	$500.00	Breach of reasonable maintenance obligation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its employees Mrs O’Sullivan and Mrs Hintz.

The tenant seeks compensation for the following breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): a. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically in relation to a leaking ceiling, broken garage roller door and driveway fence. b. Increasing the rent twice within 12 months. c. Failing to provide a physical address for service. d. Failing to provide adequate notice of inspections.

The tenant withdrew the majority of the claims on the day of the hearing on the basis that a resolution has been reached between the parties. The remaining items for consideration at the hearing include 2a with regard to the leaking ceiling and 2c in terms of the lack of a physical address for service for the landlord. I consider each of the claims separately below.

In considering the claims I bear in mind the evidential standard of proof, that being the balance of probabilities, in other words, what is more likely than not. A considerable amount of evidence was provided in this matter. I have not referred to it all in this decision for obvious reasons of practicality, however the parties can be assured it has all been considered. Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations in relation to the leaking ceiling?

Unfortunately, after the [City] floods in 2019, the tenant’s ceiling began to leak. The tenant raised the issue with the landlord’s agent repeatedly during inspections. The tenant’s photographs with his application in October 2023 show the ceiling being held up by duct tape.

The tenant states that he is appalled with the lack of repair or communications from the landlord’s agent in relation to the matter despite his repeated requests over the course of over four years.

The landlord’s agent claims to have acted immediately and that the delays are due to a number of events including, contractor availability, delays in receiving quotes and work completed due to the floods, the Covid19 pandemic and Cyclone Gabrielle.

The landlord’s agent inspection photographs show the sag in the ceiling progressively getting worse over time. The landlord’s agents photograph dated January 2024 shows tenant’s duct tape repair.

The landlord’s agent explained during the hearing that they have now changed builders due to the repeated delays and that the work was booked to be completed with urgency. At the time of completing this decision, the landlord’s agent has provided photographic evidence of the ceiling having now been repaired. This means that a work order at this point would be nugatory.

There is no dispute that the landlord’s agent acted when the tenant first raised the issue of the leak in late 2019 / early 2020. However, the tenant does not consider that he has been dealt with fairly in terms of communications or resolution of the issue within a reasonable period of time. The tenant seeks compensation for having to live with the leak in his home for many years. The tenant says that he was embarrassed to have friends or family to visit.

Section 45 of the RTA details the landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Having considered the evidence in detail, I am satisfied that the ceiling was not reasonably well maintained which is a breach of section 45(1)(b) RTA. The tenant raised the issue with the landlord’s agent in late 2019 / early 2020 and the landlord’s agent did not dispute that the work needed to be done. I agree that the work should have been done more quickly. Whilst the delays were partly due to contractor availability, it is abundantly clear that the contractor was ineffective, and this is confirmed by the landlord’s agent’s recent decision to change contractors. The landlord’s agent must take care to act more quickly to fix maintenance problems. It is not acceptable, despite the unfortunate events that have taken place, for the tenant to have waited years for a resolution which has now been resolved rather swiftly.

I have awarded the tenant nominal compensation of $500.00. I have not considered whether an award of exemplary damages is appropriate as the tenant has made no such claim.

Has the landlord breached their obligation to provide an address for service?

The tenant claims the landlord’s agent has not provided a physical contact address for the landlord. The tenant states that this became an issue when he sent the landlord’s agent a 14-day notice in relation to the leaking ceiling in July 2023. The tenant sent the notice to a Post Office Box address which is noted on the footer of correspondence from the landlord’s agent, and it was returned on account of the Post Office Box being closed. The tenant states that the inability to communicate the formal notice with the landlord exacerbated his concerns in terms of the issue with the leaking ceiling.

The tenancy agreement provided by the tenant in the application notes the previous agent’s details. The landlord’s agent states that they would have provided an update with their address when the agency changed but no evidence of this was provided. The landlord’s agent explained that the Post Office Box was closed but their footer was not updated due to human error until the matter was bought to their attention by the tenant’s application. The landlord submits that the tenant is one of two tenants on their books that does not communicate via email which is their preferred and main method of communicating the tenants.

Under section 13A(1)(a) of the RTA, every tenancy agreement must include the full name and contact address of the landlord.

Section 13AB(2) of the RTA, states that whenever a party is required to give an address for service, the party must give an address of a physical place in New Zealand; and may in addition, specify a Post Office box number, email address, or facsimile number as one of the party’s addresses for service.

Having considered the evidence before me I am satisfied that the landlord breached its obligation under section 13AB of the RTA. However, I consider that the compensation awarded to the tenant in relation to the reasonable maintenance breach adequately addresses the loss suffered by the tenant. Filing fee

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and award suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. T Lee-Lewis 24 January 2024

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4711170 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach of reasonable maintenance obligation	$500.00	Breach of reasonable maintenance obligation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its employees Mrs O’Sullivan and Mrs Hintz.

The tenant states that he is appalled with the lack of repair or communications from the landlord’s agent in relation to the matter despite his repeated requests over the course of over four years.

I have awarded the tenant nominal compensation of $500.00. I have not considered whether an award of exemplary damages is appropriate as the tenant has made no such claim.

Has the landlord breached their obligation to provide an address for service?

Under section 13A(1)(a) of the RTA, every tenancy agreement must include the full name and contact address of the landlord.

Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and award suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. T Lee-Lewis 24 January 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711170 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711170 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached their obligation to provide an address for service?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord breached their obligation to provide an address for service?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions