What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739713 about?

The tribunal order states: Harcourts Udy Realty Ltd must pay the tenants $1,252.44 immediately, being

How much money was awarded in case 4739713?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,232.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739713?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276622-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739713 about?

The tribunal order states: Harcourts Udy Realty Ltd must pay the tenants $1,252.44 immediately, being

How much money was awarded in case 4739713?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $1,232.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739713?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276622-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Crestview Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4739713 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739713 — net $1,252.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of Amenity	$1,232.00	Loss of Amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,252.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,252.44

Order

Harcourts Udy Realty Ltd must pay the tenants $1,252.44 immediately, being compensation and the filing fee as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with the assistance of the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants have lodged an application in respect of the shower at the premises. When they first rented the property there were two bathrooms – a master bathroom and a guest bathroom.
The tenants were living there with their adult son (3 people in total). The guest bathroom had a shower. The leaking came from the shower box of the guest shower.
The tenants claim that not having the shower working properly was a significant inconvenience to them as a family. The tenant provided photographs taken on 29 June 2023 in support of their application clearly showing water leaking down the wall.
The tenants say that after the repair on 29 June they did not use the shower and that the landlord had told them not to use the shower. They say that they had to wait for the insurance assessor.
The tenants claim loss of amenity for not being able to use the shower for the period 29 June 2023 to 20 October 2023. They say their claim for compensation is based on the significant inconvenience directly associated with this.
The landlord says that the leak was fixed straight away. The landlord says that on 29 June 2023 the plumber attended to make sure there were no issues with the pipes.
The shower installer was also called to apply silicon around the shower box to stop the leaking. The landlord confirmed that the shower box may not have been installed correctly in the first place. The landlord says that everything appeared fine when she met the tenant in July with the insurance assessor.
The landlord says the tenants mentioned in September 2023 that the shower was still leaking. On 6 October 2023 the landlord says a handyman contacted the tenant to look at the shower. The landlord accepted during the hearing that the shower had not been installed correctly in the first place.
The tenants moved out of the property on 24 November 2023.
The tenant says that the shower box was installed on or about 8 April 2022. They say that just after the shower was installed it leaked water on the bathroom floor. This caused one of the tenants to slip over in the bathroom.
On 2 May 2022 the shower leaked again. The contractor attended and used silicon to try and fix the problem. A plumber also attended. The tenants say that the leaking continued up until June 2023. By that stage the leaking had made its way to the downstairs area via the wall. They say that the contractors looked at it and all agreed that because the shower was not installed correctly it could not be fixed.
The tenants are claiming compensation for the period from 29 June 2023 to 19 October 2023 (16 weeks). The landlords say that the tenants also asked for compensation for the 3 bedrooms.
The landlord offered total compensation of $400 ($25 per week x 16 weeks). They base this on the current rental market. The tenants rejected this offer. The tenants are claiming $385 per week as compensation. Loss of amenity:
I accept the tenants’ evidence in respect of the shower. I find this to be a significant inconvenience and loss of amenity for the tenants. The tenants adult son could not shower properly during this period which in turn had a negative impact on their wider family. In considering this, I allow the tenants’ claim for an abatement and award 10% of their rent for 16 weeks to be reasonable in the circumstances and based on the evidence received in support. While I accept that the landlord did what they could to resolve the shower issue, the time taken to remedy has caused significant inconvenience to the tenants.
Accordingly, I award the tenants $1,232.00 for this loss of amenity and inconvenience.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond has been returned in full to the tenants.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenants have applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as the application is successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4739713 — net $1,252.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of Amenity	$1,232.00	Loss of Amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,252.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,252.44

Order

Harcourts Udy Realty Ltd must pay the tenants $1,252.44 immediately, being compensation and the filing fee as set out below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with the assistance of the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants have lodged an application in respect of the shower at the premises. When they first rented the property there were two bathrooms – a master bathroom and a guest bathroom.
The tenants were living there with their adult son (3 people in total). The guest bathroom had a shower. The leaking came from the shower box of the guest shower.
The tenants claim that not having the shower working properly was a significant inconvenience to them as a family. The tenant provided photographs taken on 29 June 2023 in support of their application clearly showing water leaking down the wall.
The tenants say that after the repair on 29 June they did not use the shower and that the landlord had told them not to use the shower. They say that they had to wait for the insurance assessor.
The tenants claim loss of amenity for not being able to use the shower for the period 29 June 2023 to 20 October 2023. They say their claim for compensation is based on the significant inconvenience directly associated with this.
The landlord says that the leak was fixed straight away. The landlord says that on 29 June 2023 the plumber attended to make sure there were no issues with the pipes.
The shower installer was also called to apply silicon around the shower box to stop the leaking. The landlord confirmed that the shower box may not have been installed correctly in the first place. The landlord says that everything appeared fine when she met the tenant in July with the insurance assessor.
The landlord says the tenants mentioned in September 2023 that the shower was still leaking. On 6 October 2023 the landlord says a handyman contacted the tenant to look at the shower. The landlord accepted during the hearing that the shower had not been installed correctly in the first place.
The tenants moved out of the property on 24 November 2023.
The tenant says that the shower box was installed on or about 8 April 2022. They say that just after the shower was installed it leaked water on the bathroom floor. This caused one of the tenants to slip over in the bathroom.
On 2 May 2022 the shower leaked again. The contractor attended and used silicon to try and fix the problem. A plumber also attended. The tenants say that the leaking continued up until June 2023. By that stage the leaking had made its way to the downstairs area via the wall. They say that the contractors looked at it and all agreed that because the shower was not installed correctly it could not be fixed.
The tenants are claiming compensation for the period from 29 June 2023 to 19 October 2023 (16 weeks). The landlords say that the tenants also asked for compensation for the 3 bedrooms.
The landlord offered total compensation of $400 ($25 per week x 16 weeks). They base this on the current rental market. The tenants rejected this offer. The tenants are claiming $385 per week as compensation. Loss of amenity:
I accept the tenants’ evidence in respect of the shower. I find this to be a significant inconvenience and loss of amenity for the tenants. The tenants adult son could not shower properly during this period which in turn had a negative impact on their wider family. In considering this, I allow the tenants’ claim for an abatement and award 10% of their rent for 16 weeks to be reasonable in the circumstances and based on the evidence received in support. While I accept that the landlord did what they could to resolve the shower issue, the time taken to remedy has caused significant inconvenience to the tenants.
Accordingly, I award the tenants $1,232.00 for this loss of amenity and inconvenience.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The bond has been returned in full to the tenants.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenants have applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as the application is successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739713 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Crestview Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739713 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Crestview Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

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