What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758882 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4758882?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758882?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10543146-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758882 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4758882?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758882?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10543146-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758882 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks the following: (a) Compensation of $4,000.00 for shared power. (b) Exemplary damages for the landlord terminating the tenancy without grounds.
The onus is on the tenant to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. Power
By virtue of section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenants’ occupation of the premises or the tenants’ use of the facilities, including electricity.
Therefore, the intention of the RTA is clear that tenants are only liable for power they actually use.
In this case, the tenant paid for power of 2 rooms which were used by the church for Sunday school on an ad hoc basis. The landlord says the power use by the church was minimal and the tenant paid less than half market rent for the majority of this lengthy tenancy (17 years).
Under section 11(1) of the RTA, any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with any provisions of the Act is of no effect. While the tenant initially agreed to the power arrangement, such an arrangement is inconsistent with section 39 of the RTA and accordingly is of no effect (s.11(3) RTA). Subsections (2) and (3) of section 11 of the Act presuppose that tenants are in an unequal bargaining position when negotiating with landlords. They allow landlords to contract out of the terms of the Act to their detriment but not tenants (Robinson v Auckland City Council, HC Auckland 70/95, 29 September 1995).
I find that the landlord was in breach of section 39 RTA. However, there is a difficulty in assessing any loss the tenant may have suffered. The tenant was unable to provide any evidence in this regard, such as power bills. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the tenant should not have been paying for any other power than her own, I agree the loss was likely minimal and I am unable to make any award of compensation.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA.
Under section 60AA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord gave her a notice for major renovations but only painting and flooring was to be done. She believes the family could have remained living there while the renovations were done.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds. I accept the landlord’s evidence that it was not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain while the work was being done because of health & safety concerns as the whole property had to be repainted, all flooring replaced, and electrical upgrades completed. The landlord also found leaks in the kitchen and laundry and significant building work had to be done in these areas and also in the bathrooms. The work started on 1 May, it is due to be completed by the end of July, and the total costs are estimated to be around $35,000.00.
The tenant has not proven this part of the claim so it must be dismissed.
At the end of the hearing the tenant raised issues around the landlord failing to maintain the premises and breach of her quiet enjoyment. The tenant was unable to provide any evidence in support and stated that she was not seeking compensation for these matters in any event.
The landlord agreed that he locked off part of a shared grassed area as he had concerns for children playing in that area. The landlord apologised and acknowledged he made a mistake. Name Suppression
The landlord was successful in their defence of this claim, so they are entitled to name suppression as of right.
The tenant applied for name suppression. This is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion and I grant name suppression for the tenant.
Both parties’ names will not be published.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks the following: (a) Compensation of $4,000.00 for shared power. (b) Exemplary damages for the landlord terminating the tenancy without grounds.
The onus is on the tenant to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities. Power
By virtue of section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), tenants are responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenants’ occupation of the premises or the tenants’ use of the facilities, including electricity.
Therefore, the intention of the RTA is clear that tenants are only liable for power they actually use.
In this case, the tenant paid for power of 2 rooms which were used by the church for Sunday school on an ad hoc basis. The landlord says the power use by the church was minimal and the tenant paid less than half market rent for the majority of this lengthy tenancy (17 years).
Under section 11(1) of the RTA, any agreement or arrangement that is inconsistent with any provisions of the Act is of no effect. While the tenant initially agreed to the power arrangement, such an arrangement is inconsistent with section 39 of the RTA and accordingly is of no effect (s.11(3) RTA). Subsections (2) and (3) of section 11 of the Act presuppose that tenants are in an unequal bargaining position when negotiating with landlords. They allow landlords to contract out of the terms of the Act to their detriment but not tenants (Robinson v Auckland City Council, HC Auckland 70/95, 29 September 1995).
I find that the landlord was in breach of section 39 RTA. However, there is a difficulty in assessing any loss the tenant may have suffered. The tenant was unable to provide any evidence in this regard, such as power bills. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the tenant should not have been paying for any other power than her own, I agree the loss was likely minimal and I am unable to make any award of compensation.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA.
Under section 60AA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord gave her a notice for major renovations but only painting and flooring was to be done. She believes the family could have remained living there while the renovations were done.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds. I accept the landlord’s evidence that it was not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain while the work was being done because of health & safety concerns as the whole property had to be repainted, all flooring replaced, and electrical upgrades completed. The landlord also found leaks in the kitchen and laundry and significant building work had to be done in these areas and also in the bathrooms. The work started on 1 May, it is due to be completed by the end of July, and the total costs are estimated to be around $35,000.00.
The tenant has not proven this part of the claim so it must be dismissed.
At the end of the hearing the tenant raised issues around the landlord failing to maintain the premises and breach of her quiet enjoyment. The tenant was unable to provide any evidence in support and stated that she was not seeking compensation for these matters in any event.
The landlord agreed that he locked off part of a shared grassed area as he had concerns for children playing in that area. The landlord apologised and acknowledged he made a mistake. Name Suppression
The landlord was successful in their defence of this claim, so they are entitled to name suppression as of right.
The tenant applied for name suppression. This is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion and I grant name suppression for the tenant.
Both parties’ names will not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758882 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758882 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions