What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4724929 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,932.44

How much money was awarded in case 4724929?

Compensation: rent abatement from 19…: $1,912.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724929?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10076220-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4724929 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,932.44

How much money was awarded in case 4724929?

Compensation: rent abatement from 19…: $1,912.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724929?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10076220-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

72 Miro Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724929 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724929 — net $1,932.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent abatement from 19 May to 15 September 2023	$1,912.50	rent abatement from 19 May to 15 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,932.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,932.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,932.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have filed a claim for compensation on the basis that part of the premises they rented from the landlord became uninhabitable during the tenancy and they should be compensated for the loss of amenity/use.
The landlord has filed a cross claim seeking costs and expenses she has incurred in responding to the tenant’s claim and compensation for harassment. Dismissal of landlord’s application
As discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal has no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings in the Tribunal except in the limited circumstances set out in section 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which do not apply here.
As also discussed at the hearing, there is no basis on which the landlord could seek compensation for harassment from the tenant under the RTA. Furthermore, the incidents she complained of do not in any event amount to harassment. For example, she claimed that the tenants asked her personal questions on one occasion which breached her privacy. That is not harassment, and the landlord was not obliged to answer any such questions. The landlord is also concerned that the tenants may “bad-mouth” her and tell others there are problems with the premises in future (which the tenants assured her at the hearing they would not do). There can be no claim regarding any future criticism or harassment and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction regarding claims from a landlord about harassment and/or defamation, particularly regarding behaviour after the tenancy has ended. Therefore, the landlord’s application is dismissed. The tenants’ application-background facts
The premises covered by the tenancy agreement included a downstairs 2- bedroom flat with a separate entrance and an upstairs 4-bedroom flat. The tenants used the upstairs flat as their home and they used the downstairs flat to run an in-home childcare service.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for the premises with a fixed term tenancy starting on 25 November 2022 and to end on 24 November 2023. The tenancy was at this stage managed by an Oxygen property management company. Weekly rent for the premises including both the flats was $850. The tenancy agreement did not apportion the total rent payable between each flat.
On or about 19 May 2023, the tenants noticed a musty smell in the downstairs flat lounge area used for the in-home childcare business. On lifting the carpet, they discovered that water had entered the area and the floor and skirting was wet and covered in mould. The wet area was spreading from the corners of the lounge towards the centre of the room.
There is no dispute from the landlord that a leak had occurred, and she confirmed at the hearing that the downstairs premises were uninhabitable and could not be used by the tenants for the remainder of the tenancy period except for storage, while she considered how to remedy the problem. She engaged her Builder/Maintenance Handyman to carry out work to temporarily stop the leaking. The builder, Bruce Clements, also gave evidence at the hearing of other permanent steps he took to remedy the leak after the tenancy ended.
The tenants say that the initial temporary work did not fix the leaking and therefore they did not use the downstairs flat for storage either. Mr Grimstrup noted that he has a lung disease and Mrs Grimstrup said that she has asthma. Accordingly, both are sensitive to mould and a mouldy damp environment is particularly detrimental to their health.
There is some evidence that a healthy homes compliance statement provided by Oxygen at the start of the tenancy and dated 15 November 2022 showed that the property did not comply with the drainage standard under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). The tenants say that Oxygen advised them that work on the drains would be completed within 90 days of the tenancy start date as required by HHS. The tenants say no work was done until 6 months into the tenancy when the landlord’s builder carried out work to construct two sumps in the front and back yards at the property. They therefore claim that the landlord was in breach of the HHS drainage standard.
The landlord produced another healthy homes compliance statement at the hearing dated 28 September 2022 which states that the premises do comply with the HHS drainage standard. However, it is not clear whether that report covers the downstairs flat.
I find after considering all the evidence that there was outstanding drainage work that required completion as per the compliance statement attached to the initial tenancy agreement.
After the leak was discovered in the downstairs flat, the landlord was concerned about the costs to remedy and decided to terminate Oxygen’s appointment as property manager and manage the tenancy herself. In the meantime, discussions took place in which Oxygen advised the tenants that if they could not use the separate downstairs flat, they would essentially be losing the use of five rooms and should expect a weekly rent reduction of $300.
The landlord did not agree to a weekly rent rebate of $300 and said that she could only afford to drop the weekly rent by $100. She also agreed to pay the tenants a contribution of $150 towards some resources for the childcare business that were damaged by the leak, and she covered some power costs of $180 for dehumidifiers being run to dry out the downstairs flat.
The landlord suggested that she release the tenants from their fixed term tenancy and change the tenancy agreement to a periodic tenancy which could be terminated by the tenants at any time on giving 28 days’ notice in writing. The landlord prepared a new tenancy agreement naming her as the landlord and to start on 14 July 2023. The agreement provided for weekly rent of $750 and recorded “The Basement floor is not fit for human habitation. It may be minor storage facilities.”
The tenants tried to negotiate the rent rate, asking the landlord to reduce the weekly rent by $300 to $550 and backdate it to 19 May 2023. The landlord said that she could not afford to do what they asked and offered to reduce the weekly rent by $100 to $750/week from 19 May 2023 onwards. The tenancy agreement was amended to reflect the landlord’s offer. The tenants say that they felt they had no choice but to sign the new tenancy agreement agreeing to pay rent of $750 from 19 May 2023 onwards. However, they argue that they did not agree that this adequately compensated them for the loss of the full use of the downstairs flat. They seek compensation of $300/week for every week that they were unable to use the downstairs flat since 19 May 2023 until the date the tenancy terminated on 15 September 2023. Applicable Law
While the tenants have couched their claim for compensation on the basis of a breach by the landlord of the healthy homes standards, there was insufficient evidence to determine the cause of the leak and/or whether it resulted from a breach by the landlord of the HHS or some other cause. There was a suggestion that waterproofing work done by a Builder in September 2022 was defective. However, there was a leak which resulted in the downstairs flat being uninhabitable. This is accepted by the landlord. On the evidence, I find that the situation is covered by section 59(4) RTA which provides that 59 Destruction of premises (4) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and.... Discussion and findings
I accept that by signing the new tenancy agreement prepared by the landlord, the tenants were not agreeing to a rent reduction of $100/week from 19 May 2023 in full and final settlement of their claim for compensation for the loss of the downstairs flat. They simply agreed to pay rent of $750 which was the amount the landlord was willing to charge. The tenancy agreement is not an agreement to settle a claim for compensation and nowhere in the agreement does it state that the parties are agreeing to settle any claim for compensation. They tenants also say that they simply signed the new tenancy agreement to preserve the tenancy, fearful that the landlord might otherwise terminate their tenancy. To that extent they did not understand that they were not obliged to sign a new tenancy agreement; they did not understand that any attempt by the landlord to terminate the tenancy could have been challenged by them in the Tribunal. Accordingly, I am satisfied that in the absence of the parties agreeing on compensation/rent rebate for the loss of use of the downstairs flat, the tenants may apply to the Tribunal for a determination of the appropriate rent rebate.
The issue to determine is what rent abatement is appropriate in this case.
As noted, the downstairs flat comprises two bedrooms, open plan lounge and kitchen areas and a bathroom. It was a fully self-contained flat that the tenant was using for an in-home childcare business and which she could not continue to use for that purpose. The business had to operate from upstairs which was inconvenient and disruptive during business hours. I also accept that the downstairs flat was not suitable for storage pending the leak being fixed permanently which did not happen until after the tenancy ended.
Taking all matters into consideration, my assessment is that the rent should abate by 25%. This is a rent reduction of $212.50 per week for the 17-week period that the downstairs flat was unavailable for use from 19 May to 15 September 2023.This is an extra rebate over what the landlord paid of $112.50 for 17 weeks which totals $1912.50.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord applied for suppression of her name and identifying details. Because the landlord has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings, she is not entitled to suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724929 — net $1,932.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: rent abatement from 19 May to 15 September 2023	$1,912.50	rent abatement from 19 May to 15 September 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,932.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,932.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $1,932.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have filed a claim for compensation on the basis that part of the premises they rented from the landlord became uninhabitable during the tenancy and they should be compensated for the loss of amenity/use.
The landlord has filed a cross claim seeking costs and expenses she has incurred in responding to the tenant’s claim and compensation for harassment. Dismissal of landlord’s application
As discussed at the hearing, the Tribunal has no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings in the Tribunal except in the limited circumstances set out in section 102 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which do not apply here.
As also discussed at the hearing, there is no basis on which the landlord could seek compensation for harassment from the tenant under the RTA. Furthermore, the incidents she complained of do not in any event amount to harassment. For example, she claimed that the tenants asked her personal questions on one occasion which breached her privacy. That is not harassment, and the landlord was not obliged to answer any such questions. The landlord is also concerned that the tenants may “bad-mouth” her and tell others there are problems with the premises in future (which the tenants assured her at the hearing they would not do). There can be no claim regarding any future criticism or harassment and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction regarding claims from a landlord about harassment and/or defamation, particularly regarding behaviour after the tenancy has ended. Therefore, the landlord’s application is dismissed. The tenants’ application-background facts
The premises covered by the tenancy agreement included a downstairs 2- bedroom flat with a separate entrance and an upstairs 4-bedroom flat. The tenants used the upstairs flat as their home and they used the downstairs flat to run an in-home childcare service.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for the premises with a fixed term tenancy starting on 25 November 2022 and to end on 24 November 2023. The tenancy was at this stage managed by an Oxygen property management company. Weekly rent for the premises including both the flats was $850. The tenancy agreement did not apportion the total rent payable between each flat.
On or about 19 May 2023, the tenants noticed a musty smell in the downstairs flat lounge area used for the in-home childcare business. On lifting the carpet, they discovered that water had entered the area and the floor and skirting was wet and covered in mould. The wet area was spreading from the corners of the lounge towards the centre of the room.
There is no dispute from the landlord that a leak had occurred, and she confirmed at the hearing that the downstairs premises were uninhabitable and could not be used by the tenants for the remainder of the tenancy period except for storage, while she considered how to remedy the problem. She engaged her Builder/Maintenance Handyman to carry out work to temporarily stop the leaking. The builder, Bruce Clements, also gave evidence at the hearing of other permanent steps he took to remedy the leak after the tenancy ended.
The tenants say that the initial temporary work did not fix the leaking and therefore they did not use the downstairs flat for storage either. Mr Grimstrup noted that he has a lung disease and Mrs Grimstrup said that she has asthma. Accordingly, both are sensitive to mould and a mouldy damp environment is particularly detrimental to their health.
There is some evidence that a healthy homes compliance statement provided by Oxygen at the start of the tenancy and dated 15 November 2022 showed that the property did not comply with the drainage standard under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). The tenants say that Oxygen advised them that work on the drains would be completed within 90 days of the tenancy start date as required by HHS. The tenants say no work was done until 6 months into the tenancy when the landlord’s builder carried out work to construct two sumps in the front and back yards at the property. They therefore claim that the landlord was in breach of the HHS drainage standard.
The landlord produced another healthy homes compliance statement at the hearing dated 28 September 2022 which states that the premises do comply with the HHS drainage standard. However, it is not clear whether that report covers the downstairs flat.
I find after considering all the evidence that there was outstanding drainage work that required completion as per the compliance statement attached to the initial tenancy agreement.
After the leak was discovered in the downstairs flat, the landlord was concerned about the costs to remedy and decided to terminate Oxygen’s appointment as property manager and manage the tenancy herself. In the meantime, discussions took place in which Oxygen advised the tenants that if they could not use the separate downstairs flat, they would essentially be losing the use of five rooms and should expect a weekly rent reduction of $300.
The landlord did not agree to a weekly rent rebate of $300 and said that she could only afford to drop the weekly rent by $100. She also agreed to pay the tenants a contribution of $150 towards some resources for the childcare business that were damaged by the leak, and she covered some power costs of $180 for dehumidifiers being run to dry out the downstairs flat.
The landlord suggested that she release the tenants from their fixed term tenancy and change the tenancy agreement to a periodic tenancy which could be terminated by the tenants at any time on giving 28 days’ notice in writing. The landlord prepared a new tenancy agreement naming her as the landlord and to start on 14 July 2023. The agreement provided for weekly rent of $750 and recorded “The Basement floor is not fit for human habitation. It may be minor storage facilities.”
The tenants tried to negotiate the rent rate, asking the landlord to reduce the weekly rent by $300 to $550 and backdate it to 19 May 2023. The landlord said that she could not afford to do what they asked and offered to reduce the weekly rent by $100 to $750/week from 19 May 2023 onwards. The tenancy agreement was amended to reflect the landlord’s offer. The tenants say that they felt they had no choice but to sign the new tenancy agreement agreeing to pay rent of $750 from 19 May 2023 onwards. However, they argue that they did not agree that this adequately compensated them for the loss of the full use of the downstairs flat. They seek compensation of $300/week for every week that they were unable to use the downstairs flat since 19 May 2023 until the date the tenancy terminated on 15 September 2023. Applicable Law
While the tenants have couched their claim for compensation on the basis of a breach by the landlord of the healthy homes standards, there was insufficient evidence to determine the cause of the leak and/or whether it resulted from a breach by the landlord of the HHS or some other cause. There was a suggestion that waterproofing work done by a Builder in September 2022 was defective. However, there was a leak which resulted in the downstairs flat being uninhabitable. This is accepted by the landlord. On the evidence, I find that the situation is covered by section 59(4) RTA which provides that 59 Destruction of premises (4) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and.... Discussion and findings
I accept that by signing the new tenancy agreement prepared by the landlord, the tenants were not agreeing to a rent reduction of $100/week from 19 May 2023 in full and final settlement of their claim for compensation for the loss of the downstairs flat. They simply agreed to pay rent of $750 which was the amount the landlord was willing to charge. The tenancy agreement is not an agreement to settle a claim for compensation and nowhere in the agreement does it state that the parties are agreeing to settle any claim for compensation. They tenants also say that they simply signed the new tenancy agreement to preserve the tenancy, fearful that the landlord might otherwise terminate their tenancy. To that extent they did not understand that they were not obliged to sign a new tenancy agreement; they did not understand that any attempt by the landlord to terminate the tenancy could have been challenged by them in the Tribunal. Accordingly, I am satisfied that in the absence of the parties agreeing on compensation/rent rebate for the loss of use of the downstairs flat, the tenants may apply to the Tribunal for a determination of the appropriate rent rebate.
The issue to determine is what rent abatement is appropriate in this case.
As noted, the downstairs flat comprises two bedrooms, open plan lounge and kitchen areas and a bathroom. It was a fully self-contained flat that the tenant was using for an in-home childcare business and which she could not continue to use for that purpose. The business had to operate from upstairs which was inconvenient and disruptive during business hours. I also accept that the downstairs flat was not suitable for storage pending the leak being fixed permanently which did not happen until after the tenancy ended.
Taking all matters into consideration, my assessment is that the rent should abate by 25%. This is a rent reduction of $212.50 per week for the 17-week period that the downstairs flat was unavailable for use from 19 May to 15 September 2023.This is an extra rebate over what the landlord paid of $112.50 for 17 weeks which totals $1912.50.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord applied for suppression of her name and identifying details. Because the landlord has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings, she is not entitled to suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724929 — Tenancy dispute at 72 Miro Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724929 — Tenancy dispute at 72 Miro Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions