What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4757074 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the landlord must carry out the following work to the premises,

How much money was awarded in case 4757074?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757074?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10212529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4757074 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the landlord must carry out the following work to the premises,

How much money was awarded in case 4757074?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757074?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10212529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4757074 — Cleanliness

Order

By consent, the landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 17 May 2024: a. Arrange for an assessment to determine whether to instal a non-slip coating or other product to the deck and the front step and to assess whether the 2 concrete tiles from the entry to the front door need stabilising. b. Arrange for an assessment of the front door to see whether it requires adjustment to close properly and to ensure the locking mechanism works correctly without causing damage to the frame. c. Have the carpet assessed to see whether pink batt fibres are present and need to be removed and if so, how that can best be done.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The balance of the tenant’s application is referred to mediation with the agreement of the parties.
A further hearing can be scheduled if the matter is not resolved.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach by the tenant keeping a second dog at the premises.
The tenant has applied for work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The landlord company has re-branded. I have changed the proceedings to reflect the correct legal entity of the landlord.
The landlord’s representative said she had not received disclosure of the tenant’s application. Possibly that was affected by the landlord’s rebrand and change of email address.
The landlord agreed that the Tribunal could hear part of the tenant’s application, the application for work orders. The landlord’s application
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has a second dog at the premises, [Dog 2]. At the start of the tenancy, the landlord approved the tenant keeping [Dog 1].
The tenant said the tenancy agreement allowed her to keep pets without specifying the number. She said she got [Dog 2] because [Dog 1] was stressed and anxious with the move to a new house and [Dog 2] helped calm him.
The landlord allowed the tenant to keep a dog on the understanding that the tenant would remedy or pay for all damage caused by her pet.
I gave an oral decision today on this issue. I explained that with the ever- increasing number of people who will now always rent rather than own property, the Tribunal’s view has shifted. A total exclusion of pets (not the case here) would in many instances now be seen as a breach of a tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Recently, the government has announced proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) due to be introduced to the House in May. Tenants will be allowed to keep pets but will be liable for all damage caused, whether careless or intentional. They will also be required to pay a pet bond.
In this case, nothing really changed when the tenant got [Dog 2] as a companion for [Dog 1]. Any damaged caused by either dog will be her responsibility. That is what the parties agreed.
Had the tenant decided to start breeding dogs, keeping several at the premises, the landlord might have had a valid claim to terminate the tenancy. But that is not what happened.
I find that the keeping of 2 small dogs does not amount to a breach of the tenancy agreement, which allowed for pets to be kept, given the agreement between the parties about liability for damage.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy. The tenant’s application Work orders
The tenant described matters that she considers require fixing. They include the front doorstep and the exterior decking becoming slippery which has resulted in injury to her and her children. She also mentioned 2 concrete tiles from the entry to the front door that have slipped.
Although the landlord has had the areas cleaned, that has not resolved the problem. The landlord’s representative agreed to have the areas assessed to see whether some kind of non-slip product can be applied.
The tenant said the front door, which has a digital door lock, does not close properly because the door and the frame do not seem to align causing rubbing. The landlord’s representative agreed to have the door assessed to identify any problem and have it repaired.
The tenant said that fibreglass from the ceiling batts came from a hole in the ceiling before it was temporarily fixed, and the fibres have gone into the carpet and throughout her linen. The landlord’s representative agreed to have the carpets assessed to see whether any remedial cleaning is required.
I have made work orders by consent for this work to be done. Because the order is by consent, I need not make any consequential money orders for non- compliance. Other issues
The tenant raised other issues – the ventilation system, the venting of the dryer, the installation of a safety latch on an upstairs window, and a security latch on a gate so her dogs can get access outside (which she is prepared to pay for).
The parties agreed to discuss those matters and try and reach a resolution between themselves. The Tribunal was not persuaded to make work orders for those matters now.
The tenant has claims for compensation and exemplary damages. Previously, she had an unsatisfactory relationship with her property manager. But she and her current property manager communicate well, and several outstanding issues have already been resolved.
The parties therefore agreed to attend mediation to try and resolve the outstanding issues on the tenant’s application. I have made an order referring the remainder of the application to mediation with the consent of the parties. Name suppression
To preserve the confidential nature of the mediation process, I have ordered suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757074 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757074 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions