What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4741630 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Shah, Sarika & Himanshu must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4741630?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Weeks And 3 Days- 21/09/21 To 23/06/…: $914.29 awarded to tenant; Weeks And 5 Days- 27/03/22 To 07/04/…: $3,222.86 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741630?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10281160-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4741630 about?

The tribunal order states: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Shah, Sarika & Himanshu must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4741630?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Weeks And 3 Days- 21/09/21 To 23/06/…: $914.29 awarded to tenant; Weeks And 5 Days- 27/03/22 To 07/04/…: $3,222.86 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741630?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10281160-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4741630 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741630 — net $4,157.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
weeks and 5 days- 27/03/22 to 07/04/23	$3,222.86	weeks and 5 days- 27/03/22 to 07/04/23
weeks and 3 days- 21/09/21 to 23/06/23	$914.29	weeks and 3 days- 21/09/21 to 23/06/23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,157.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,157.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741630 — net $4,157.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
weeks and 5 days- 27/03/22 to 07/04/23	$3,222.86	weeks and 5 days- 27/03/22 to 07/04/23
weeks and 3 days- 21/09/21 to 23/06/23	$914.29	weeks and 3 days- 21/09/21 to 23/06/23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,157.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,157.50

Order

Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Shah, Sarika & Himanshu must pay [The tenants] $4,157.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
29 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $4,157.50 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $4,157.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and for breaches of the healthy homes standards as well as reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 23 June 2023.
The tenancy commenced on 19 June 2021 and ended on 23 June 2023. It ended by the giving of notice by the tenants, they say because the leak in the ensuite shower had not been remedied for over a year and the master bedroom and bedroom 4 had wet carpet that was also causing a musty smell and mould to grow in parts of the master bedroom’s wardrobe. Failure to meet several of the landlord’s s45 RTA obligations to the tenants
[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b), a “landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes” and under section 45(1)(c) a landlord must “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises” and under section 45(1)(bb) a landlord must “comply with the healthy homes standards”. The tenants claim the landlord failed to comply with these three obligations during the tenancy.
Breaching any of these obligations 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants as a result of the landlord’s breaches of any of these subsections of section 45 of the RTA. Failure to maintain
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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 might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 . 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 may 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 . A. Waste disposal unit
The tenants gave evidence that the waste disposal unit in the kitchen leaked and was not working and that they raised this in their first property inspection in September 2021 with the property manager. They say the property manager got this temporarily fixed but it broke again almost immediately, and the plumber informed both parties the waste disposal needed replacement and could not be fixed.
The tenants showed photographs of a bucket they had to put under the sink to catch any leaks from the sink where the waste disposal was. They stated that they raised this issue at every property inspection throughout their tenancy.
The tenants stated the waste disposal caused a bad odour in the kitchen they could not get rid of.
The current property managers confirmed at today’s hearing that the landlord had not replaced the waste disposal by the time the tenants’ tenancy ended on 23 June 2023 (1 year and 9 months after the issue was first raised by the tenants), it was incapable of repair and the tenants had lost this amenity for this period. They stated the landlord couldn’t decide whether to remove it completely or replace it and so in a state of indecision had done nothing.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had the loss of amenity of the waste disposal unit that they expected to be able to use during their tenancy. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $10.00 per week for the period 21 September 2021 to 23 June 2023 (91 weeks and 3 days). 10 x 91 =$910.00. $10.00 divided by 7days x 3 days = $4.29. $4.29 plus $910.00= $914.29 rent rebate ordered. B. Ensuite shower leak
The tenants gave evidence that they first raised the issue with the property manager on 27 March 2022 about the leak from the ensuite shower. They say the leak was evident between the master bedroom and bedroom 4 as it had caused wet carpet in both bedrooms and wet shelving in the master bedroom wardrobe. It had also ruined the master bed and mattress.
The tenants produced an email from the property manager, dated 20 April 2022, that showed: 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. a. She had sent a plumber to investigate the leak that day (nearly one month after the issue had been raised by the tenants); b. The plumber had investigated the leak and considered the leak to be coming from the mixer or pipes behind the shower wall and stated to the tenants that the shower would need to be pulled out to identify where the leak was coming from as it was not from anywhere accessible without removal of the shower wall; c. The plumber had provided the property manager with a quote for $2,000.00 to fix the leak; and d. The property manager had indicated that the landlord wasn’t prepared to pay that amount and wanted a second opinion/quote.
The tenants confirmed the property manager asked them to stop using the ensuite shower until she got a second opinion/quote. The tenants abided by this request as they did not want to have water leaking through the house ruining their personal possessions.
The tenants produced a text message that showed the property manager had sent a second plumber to investigate the shower on 6 May 2022 and that plumber had indicated the issue was internal behind the shower wall and that the waste disposal needed to be replaced as it could not be fixed.
The tenants say they raised the issue with the ensuite shower leak every 3 months at each property inspection, but the property manager did nothing further to address the issue.
The property managers produced a 17 March 2023 property inspection report at today’s hearing that note “bedroom 1 is clean and tidy. Walk in wardrobe damp” and “bedroom 4 is clean and tidy. Damp carpet-query leak”. It also notes “waste master is not working”. This supports the tenants’ evidence that the ensuite shower was still leaking and the carpet in 2 rooms was damp and musty. It is also highly probable, given the amount of time the carpet, wall and underlay had been left wet that mould would be growing in the underlay and potentially behind the shower wall.
The property managers produced two quotes to fix the shower leak. One is dated 3 March 2023 and the other 4 April 2023. They also produced an invoice dated 7 April 2023 from Go Flo Plumber for $309.06 for replacing the shower’s easy clean waste and silicon sealant. The internal mixer and pipes were not investigated nor any behind the shower wall remedial work carried out.
By early April 2023, the tenants say they had suffered the inconvenience of damp musty carpet in the master bedroom and wardrobe and in bedroom 4 and were reluctant to use the ensuite shower for fear of exacerbating the issues. In desperation they called Auckland Council. They produced an email report from the Council that acknowledged their complaint and that they had contacted the property manager on 5 April 2024 requesting that the landlord fix the ensuite shower leak and address the damp mouldy and musty carpet. The report also notes that the Council contacted the property manager again on 22 April 2023 and came to inspect the house on 8 June 2023. On 8 June 2023, the Council found the carpet was still damp and musty and causing the tenants to live in an unhealthy environment.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not fix the leak in a timely manner, nor did the landlord take steps to remove the damp carpet and underlay from the master bedroom and bedroom 4 even though the leak had been ongoing for a lengthy period and the carpet was still damp and musty on 17 March 2023. This left the tenants living and sleeping in a damp mouldy house for 53 weeks and 5 days (if I accept the ensuite shower leak was fixed on 7 April 2023 as the property managers have claimed. They stated they have property inspection reports from June 2023 to the current date that show no dampness or mould in the master bedroom of bedroom 4 despite the ensuite shower being used by the new tenants. I did not view these reports.
I am also satisfied that the landlord was aware of the unlawful conditions in which the tenants were living and paying full rent to do so. In addition, on 1 May 2023 the landlord put the rent up by $20.00 to $900.00 per week. I find that the landlord intentionally refused to have the remedial work to the shower undertaken and left the tenants living in conditions that are also in breach of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, which state a house must be free of dampness.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have not applied for exemplary damages, so none have been ordered. Had they done so, exemplary damages would have been awarded.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had to live in substandard damp mouldy conditions. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $60.00 per week for the period 27 March 2022 to 7 April 2023 (53 weeks and 5 days). 60 x 53 =$3,180.00. $60.00 divided by 7days x 5 days = $42.86. $42.86 plus $3,180.00= $3,222.86 rent rebate ordered. A leak is a serious matter and must be repaired promptly. As determined by Adjudicator J Robson in Frampton v Property Brokers Limited TT 4117238, 4122927, 20 Feb 2018, leaks go to the very essence of a tenant’s right to the use and enjoyment of the premises in consideration of the rent that the tenant pays. A leak is not a mere inconvenience; it creates an undesirable and unhealthy living environment. The landlord knew of the impact of the ensuite leak on the tenants’ living conditions and refused to remedy this. The rent rebate awarded reflects this. Breach of healthy homes standards
The tenants claim the landlord was in breach of the healthy homes standards.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard is the only one that could potentially apply.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
There was no evidence produced by the tenants to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises did not meet this standard. The tenancy agreement provides a statement that claims the premises meet all of the healthy homes standards, including the moisture ingress and drainage standard. Consequently the tenants claim for breaches of the healthy homes standards is dismissed. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741630 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741630 — Tenancy dispute

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