What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742110 about?

The tribunal order states: Rainbow Trustee 2019 Limited Rosalind Song must pay [The tenant/s] $4,243.79

How much money was awarded in case 4742110?

Award From TT Order 4523629: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $3,075.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of HH As…: $148.35 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742110?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10634900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742110 about?

The tribunal order states: Rainbow Trustee 2019 Limited Rosalind Song must pay [The tenant/s] $4,243.79

How much money was awarded in case 4742110?

Award From TT Order 4523629: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $3,075.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reimbursement of HH As…: $148.35 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742110?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10634900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

692 East Coast Road, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4742110 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742110 — net $4,243.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Award from TT order 4523629	$1,000.00	Award from TT order 4523629
Compensation: Reimbursement of HH Assessment Report fee	$148.35	Reimbursement of HH Assessment Report fee
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$3,075.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,243.79
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,243.79

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742110 — net $4,243.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Award from TT order 4523629	$1,000.00	Award from TT order 4523629
Compensation: Reimbursement of HH Assessment Report fee	$148.35	Reimbursement of HH Assessment Report fee
Compensation: Loss of amenity	$3,075.00	Loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,243.79
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,243.79

Order

Rainbow Trustee 2019 Limited Rosalind Song must pay [The tenant/s] $4,243.79 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by counsel, Mr Rajendram who filed helpful and comprehensive written submissions in support.
The tenants have the burden to prove their respective claims. The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of “on the balance of probabilities.” Put another way, each party must persuade me that what they say is more likely than not to be the case. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than not.
In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all 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.
The tenant has filed a number of claims which can be summarised as follows: a. Breach of previous work order $1,000.00 b. Rent refund of 15% c. Reimbursement of Oncore assessment fee $148.35 d. Exemplary damages s38(3) for breach of quiet enjoyment e. Exemplary damages s45(1A) for failing to maintain f. Exemplary damages s47(3) for failing to advise tenants when premises put on market.
I wish to note at the outset that some of the claims have been previously considered and decided in an earlier decision by this Tribunal. For sake of clarity I do not intend to reconsider claims that have been decided in an earlier decision.
The tenants’ chief complaint relates mostly to the condition of the premises when they took over the tenancy. The problems snowballed after the Auckland severe weather events in January and February 2023.
The parties have previously been before the Tribunal for compensation in respect of the same property. See TT 4523629 dated 19 July 2023. In that decision the landlord was directed with a work order as follows:
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 13 September 2023: a. Arrange for the garage door (the East Coast Road wooden door) to be assessed and repaired and, if necessary, replaced. b. Arrange for the metal garage door to be assessed and if necessary repaired. c. Arrange for a new assessment of the roof by a qualified roofer to assess whether it can be repaired or requires replacement d. Arrange for the premises to be assessed for the presence and the cause of any mould and to make any required repairs to prevent the presence of mould. e. Have the premises assessed again for Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliance to ensure that the work undertaken to date meets the HHS and if not, to have additional work completed to ensure HHS compliance. f. Have the smoke alarms assessed to ensure compliance with the required standards both as to the placement of the alarms and the type of smoke alarms installed
As an alternative to compliance with Order 3, the landlord must pay the tenants $1,000.00 immediately after 13 September 2023 provided however that the landlord may apply for a time extension if there are delays beyond its control.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 3 or 4 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $3,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Counsel submits that the landlord has not complied with the previous order. He says the landlord has not complied with the HHS compliance assessment and smoke alarm assessment.
Counsel says that these two points of the order were not addressed by the landlord. Furthermore, counsel says that the landlord provided an old report.
The landlord stated that the premises comply however the tenants dispute this. The tenants obtained their own independent report dated 16 November 2023 from Oncore. The Oncore assessment found several issues with the property.
The landlord says she completed all the assessments as required. The landlord says that she has submitted evidence in the form of an email from Panda Solutions dated 12 September 2023 confirming that they have undertaken a further assessment and that premises comply. They also took photos inside of the property.
The landlord says that the property complied as at 12 September 2023. She says that the tenants have removed smoke alarms. She did a final inspection and noticed that 2 smoke alarms had been removed. The tenants say that they kept going off in the early hours of the morning.
In an email dated 17 April 2024 Panda Solutions confirmed that the smoke alarms were working properly. The landlord says that the issues raised by Oncore have been remedied and that she has confirmation from Panda confirming that on reassessment in September the property complied.
Having reviewed the material before me I am satisfied that the landlord did not fully address the requirements as set out in the work order dated 19 July 2023. The roofing specialist did not attend until 18 September 2023. New smoke alarms were installed on 21 September 2023. I see no evidence of the landlord having requested an extension of time.
Accordingly, the landlord must pay the tenants the amount of $1000.00 as per the previous order. Putting premises on market:
The tenant says that landlord breached her obligations by putting the premises on the market and not notifying them.
The tenants were advised by the landlord’s lawyer on 20 February 2024 that the premises had been sold and that settlement was to take place at the end of March 2024.
The tenants say that this is in breach of s47(1) RTA which states: If, at any time after entering into a tenancy agreement, the landlord puts the premises on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition, the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give written notice of that fact to the tenant.
The landlord says that she gave the tenants notice on 1 November 2023 to terminate the tenancy so that she could undertake renovations. The landlord says that an agent from Barfoot and Thompson approached her in February 2024 to sell the property however she says that it was not formally listed. She says the agent advised her that he had a potential buyer for her property. The landlord then signed a formal Sale and Purchase Agreement. The tenants were advised of the sale on 20 February 2024.
The tenants do not agree with the landlord’s position. Counsel says that the tenants should have been advised earlier.
Based on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached her obligations in this regard. There is no evidence that the landlord took active steps to circumvent her obligations in this regard. This claim was also not pleaded in the original application as lodged on 7 December 2023.
The claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment:
This claim was covered in the previous order. Counsel for the tenant discontinues this claim. Breach of Healthy Home Standards:
Counsel submits that under section 45 RTA the landlord has breached her obligations.
The tenants rely on the Oncore assessment for this claim. The tenants are seeking a part rent refund of 15% off the weekly rent amount of $750.00 for the final 10 months of the tenancy period.
The tenants are also seeking exemplary damages for this.
The landlord says that the failure related to the smoke alarms which the tenants had removed. The Oncore report dated 16 November 2023 highlights that the premises did not comply with ventilation and draught stopping.
The landlord says that she was not informed about this assessment. The landlord says that she relied on Panda’s reassessment from September 2023 confirming that the premises complied. The tenants say that there was never a second formal assessment or report undertaken by Panda. The tenants say that Panda was simply relying on their first assessment in March 2023 for their reassessment in September 2023
This claim was considered and discussed in detail by the Tribunal in the previous order. I agree with the finding of the Tribunal in that although the landlord did not complete the original tenancy agreement accurately in respect of the Healthy Home statement she did not act with the required intention of breaching the rules surrounding this. It is also abundantly clear from the evidence that the landlord became overwhelmed by the aftermath of the Auckland weather events in early 2023.
The claim is dismissed. Oncore HH Assessment Fee:
The tenants are claiming the Oncore HH assessment fee of $148.35. I have sighted the invoice from Oncore in support of this clam.
The claim is allowed. Failure of landlord to provide premises in a clean and reasonable state of repair:
The tenant says that the premises were not in a clean state when they moved in. The tenant also says that there was an issue with the roof when they moved in. Counsel refers to the roofing evidence filed in support of the application. They say that the roof was not in a fit state of repair when the tenants moved in.
Counsel says that the termination notice confirms that the premises were not in a proper state of repair and believed the termination notice was based on the landlord needing to undertake repairs after the tenants moved. The roof repairs were then undertaken while the tenants were living there causing a lot of inconvenience.
The landlord says that the issue of cleanliness was raised in the first hearing. She says that the tenants viewed the property in the beginning and did not have an issue with the state of the premises. They insisted on moving in as soon as possible as they needed a place to stay. The landlord allowed them to move in earlier than what she was intending on doing. The landlord paid the tenants $30.00 per hour for some cleaning which the tenants undertook. The landlord deducted this off their rent.
The landlord says that the broken window glass was repaired within two days. There was also a wall which had been damaged by the previous tenant. The previous tenant repaired the wall but did not paint the wall. The wall was then repainted. The landlord says the roof was fixed in February 2023.
On 31 October 2023 the tenants contacted the landlord to say that the roof was leaking again. Eden Homes Development Ltd assessed the roof and determined that it needed replacement. The landlord says that the roof was replaced on 17 November 2023.
The tenants say that there were nails left around the premises. The tradesman went to the property on 17 November to clean up and remove debris such as nails. He arrived but could not get in through the gate. He revisited the premises later that afternoon on the 17 th as the gate was unlocked. He then noticed that all the nails had been cleared.
I find that the tenants have already been compensated for this by the landlord when they initially moved into the premises. This was in the form of a rent reduction for the cleaning work undertaken. The issue was also discussed in the previous order.
I do not intend to revisit this issue as I find that the tenants have already been compensated.
This claim is also dismissed. Smoke alarms:
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed with the requirements of smoke alarms under s45(1)(a) from the start of the tenancy. The landlord says that the premises did in fact comply.
On 19 April 2024 the landlord submitted additional evidence in respect of the entire application. The landlord installed 3 further smoke alarms in September 2023 which had been taken down by the tenants. Counsel also referred to the previous Tribunal order referring to smoke alarms.
The Tribunal awarded exemplary damages against the landlord in the earlier decision. The tenants have been compensated for this breach. In my view it would be wrong for me to order further compensation in this regard.
The claim is dismissed. Loss of amenity:
The tenants seek compensation under section 77(2)(n) RTA, namely a refund of part of the rent paid for breaches of HHS, failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair and cleanliness, interferences with privacy and quiet enjoyment and other ongoing failures.
I consider that the tenants should have an award for loss of amenity for the significant inconvenience and negative impact on their lives in respect of the leaking roof. I have calculated the loss of amenity at $75.00 per week for 41 weeks. In awarding this amount I have taken account of the stress that this situation has caused the tenants and the inconvenience of having to live through the repairs while residing at the premises.
This claim is allowed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 applied for a name suppression order. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742110 — Tenancy dispute at 692 East Coast Road, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742110 — Tenancy dispute at 692 East Coast Road, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

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