What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720851 about?

The tribunal order states: Bradybunch Investments Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,520.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4720851?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720851?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10108989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720851 about?

The tribunal order states: Bradybunch Investments Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,520.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4720851?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720851?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10108989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720851 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720851 — net $7,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$6,000.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$1,500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement (tenant	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (tenant
Net award	$7,520.44
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,520.44

Order

Bradybunch Investments Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation hearing.
The landlord sought a possession order after a notice to terminate had completed. This was ordered previously.
The tenant sought compensation for loss of amenity and the landlord’s failure to maintain.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Loss of amenity
The premises suffered from an extended roof leak. It was mutually agreed by the parties that the impacted period was approximately one year between 2022 and 2023. The result was that the tenant was unable to use the fourth bedroom during this period. This too was mutually agreed.
It is therefore appropriate to compensate the tenant for the loss of that bedroom during this period. It is also apparent that the impact of water ingress extended beyond that bedroom.
I make an award of $6000.00 compensation for the loss of amenity and related impacts of the ongoing leaks during this period. This sum was based on the loss of the fourth bedroom, determined by a comparison of rent in the area between three and four bedroom homes, with an uplift for further impact on the tenant. Failure to maintain
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
A tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. The challenge for the tenant has been to evidence both the extent of the impact as well as any failure by the landlord to respond in a timely manner when appropriately notified.
The tenant was assisted by an external assessment report after an inspection was carried out during April 2023. However, while that report formed part of the submissions and evidence today it appears that report was not made available to the landlord in a timely manner after inspection. That means that a number of issues raised in the report were not presented for consideration and/or remedial action by the landlord.
I consider there were further instances established with the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. Such consideration is balanced by what was a low rent for a sustained period of time. If the rent had been higher, and/or the tenant could better establish timely communication of failures, the compensation may have been higher. Balancing the two considerations, I have determined a further compensation figure of $1500.00 should be awarded to the tenant. This is general compensation for all other impacts from the landlord’s failure to maintain during this tenancy. Application filing fee
Because Bradybunch Investments Ltd has substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. I make no order regarding the landlord filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720851 — net $7,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$6,000.00	Loss of amenity
Compensation: Failure to maintain	$1,500.00	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement (tenant	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (tenant
Net award	$7,520.44
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,520.44

Order

Bradybunch Investments Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $7,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation hearing.
The landlord sought a possession order after a notice to terminate had completed. This was ordered previously.
The tenant sought compensation for loss of amenity and the landlord’s failure to maintain.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Loss of amenity
The premises suffered from an extended roof leak. It was mutually agreed by the parties that the impacted period was approximately one year between 2022 and 2023. The result was that the tenant was unable to use the fourth bedroom during this period. This too was mutually agreed.
It is therefore appropriate to compensate the tenant for the loss of that bedroom during this period. It is also apparent that the impact of water ingress extended beyond that bedroom.
I make an award of $6000.00 compensation for the loss of amenity and related impacts of the ongoing leaks during this period. This sum was based on the loss of the fourth bedroom, determined by a comparison of rent in the area between three and four bedroom homes, with an uplift for further impact on the tenant. Failure to maintain
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
A tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. The challenge for the tenant has been to evidence both the extent of the impact as well as any failure by the landlord to respond in a timely manner when appropriately notified.
The tenant was assisted by an external assessment report after an inspection was carried out during April 2023. However, while that report formed part of the submissions and evidence today it appears that report was not made available to the landlord in a timely manner after inspection. That means that a number of issues raised in the report were not presented for consideration and/or remedial action by the landlord.
I consider there were further instances established with the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. Such consideration is balanced by what was a low rent for a sustained period of time. If the rent had been higher, and/or the tenant could better establish timely communication of failures, the compensation may have been higher. Balancing the two considerations, I have determined a further compensation figure of $1500.00 should be awarded to the tenant. This is general compensation for all other impacts from the landlord’s failure to maintain during this tenancy. Application filing fee
Because Bradybunch Investments Ltd has substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. I make no order regarding the landlord filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720851 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720851 — State of repair

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