What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4711831?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4711831?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711831?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9947173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4711831?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4711831?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711831?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9947173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 329 Bealey Avenue, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4711831 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist and Ms Benge represented the landlord.

The tenant, Ms Leyton, has a tenancy of the premises which consists of an old villa. The tenancy commenced on 2 February 2018. Rent was agreed at $260.00 and remained at that rate until 23 October 2023 when it was increased to $360.00 per week.

Ms Leyton applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for failure by the landlord to repair the premises in a timely manner, in particular: repair a suspected leak in the shower and rotten boards around shower; repair or replace detached and bent carpet bar between the kitchen and bedroom; repair two cracked floorboards in the lounge; address the issue with the “dropping” of the bathroom door. Ms Leyton also applied for a declaration that the rent increase of $100.00 per week (from $260.00 to $360.00 per week) that took effect from 29 October 2023 is unreasonable.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations regarding maintenance and repairs?

Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. When determining “reasonable” state of repair, the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes is relevant.

Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant here. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once Ms Leyton notified the landlord or the landlord became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to within a reasonable time. What time frame is reasonable 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 may be.

A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) may entitle the tenant to compensation. It is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.

The landlord accepts that the maintenance issues raised by Ms Leyton required remediation. However, they claim that Ms Leyton did not make them aware of the need to address the issues until September 2023 (after they issued a notice to increase the rent) and all the issues were then remedied within a reasonable time (all were remedied by December 2023).

Ms Leyton was employed by Irelands Real Estate Ltd from 1 August 2021 until mid-September 2021 and then again from 5 January 2022 until 7 March 2022. During that time she managed her tenancy herself and she said that she regularly liaised with the landlord on issues regarding her tenancy. She said that she told the landlord about the maintenance issues but she accepted his explanation that he was waiting for settlement of his earthquake damage claim which created uncertainties as to what will happen to the property (whether it will be repaired or demolished). She also said that she was happy to accept the property as it was because the rent was low. She was therefore essentially wearing two hats during that time – she was the tenant, and she was also the property manager for the tenancy and the landlords’ agent. She can therefore not now complain that maintenance or repair issues that came to her attention either during or before she was managing the tenancy were not dealt with at all or in a timely manner.

In any event, the evidence does not establish that Ms Leyton told the landlord or Irelands about the need to address the maintenance issues before her September 2023 email. There were several lengthy emails from Ms Leyton to the property managers over the years detailing other maintenance or repair issues but none of the written correspondence put in evidence mentions the issues Ms Leyton now complains of (until the September 2023 email). I also accept Ms Oquist’s evidence that had she had done so, the landlord would have addressed the matters in a timely manner, as they had for other matters Ms Leyton brought to their attention.

Ms Leyton claims that the Irelands must have become aware of the issues from routine property inspections. While some maintenance issues may be obvious during a general property inspection, not all are so obvious particularly in an old villa that has sustained earthquake damage. Moreover, there is evidence (an email from Ms Leyton to Ms Oquist dated 28 July 2022) in which it is stated that the parties agree that Ms Leyton “will report/email you [Ms Oquist] directly regarding any maintenance issues and/or tenancy matters at this address to avoid any future misunderstandings.” There is no evidence of any report or email directly to Ms Oquist regarding the issues claimed.

I therefore find that the landlord first became aware of the need to complete the claimed maintenance issues in September 2023, and I am satisfied that the repairs were completed within a reasonable time after that.

The claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages is therefore dismissed.

Is Ms Leyton entitled to a declaration that the rent increase is unreasonable?

The Tribunal can make an order reducing the rent but only if the tenant establishes that “the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount ...”: section 25 of the Act.

Ms Leyton does not claim that the rent increase to $360.00 per week exceeds market rent for the premises. She simply claims that it is unfair or unreasonable given the history of the premises and that she has been a long-term good tenant. However, The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the rent is unreasonable or unfair, it can only consider whether it exceeds market rent.

The claim for a declaration regarding the rent increase is therefore also dismissed. Suppression

Ms Leyton applied, in her application, for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

However, Ms Leyton has been wholly unsuccessful in her claim. Her application for name suppression is therefore not granted.