What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4764237 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Richard Ian Johnson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4764237?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4764237?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4764237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9860125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4764237 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Richard Ian Johnson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4764237?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4764237?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4764237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9860125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4764237 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4764237 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2024	$1,400.00	Rent arrears to 24 January 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Richard Ian Johnson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5.00pm on Wednesday 24 January 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Richard Ian Johnson must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant applied for the following: -Compensation of $1,999.99 for the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premises, and -An order to set aside a 90-day notice as retaliatory and exemplary damages; and -Exemplary damages for no insulation statement, and harassment.
The landlord filed a cross application and applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, and refund of the bond.
Both parties attended initially, but the tenant left the hearing room part way through. The Tribunal heard evidence from the tenant relating to the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premises. However, during the landlord’s response, the tenant interrupted and called the landlord a liar, he raised his voice and became angry, and he then left the hearing room.
The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
As the onus is each party to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities, the tenant’s remaining claims are not proven and must be dismissed. However, I did hear sufficient evidence to make a determination on the issue of alleged failure to maintain the premises.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The property is an older style which was probably built in or around the 1950’s. The landlord’s obligations must be seen in this context as the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes are relevant under section 45.
The tenant says he was unable to open a window in the lounge as it was nailed shut, he put in some base boards on the exterior of the premises to stop draughts, the roof leaked in the lounge and kitchen, the laundry was outside on the deck which caused his machine to deteriorate, and a back step off the deck was rotten which caused an injury to the tenant.
I do not find sufficient evidence that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. On the tenant’s own evidence, he knew from the outset that one of the older lounge windows could not be opened. I accept the landlord’s evidence that there are other windows in the lounge which provide sufficient ventilation and replacement of all the windows is part of the forthcoming planned renovations.
Both parties claim they attached the base boards. In a situation such as this where each of the parties gives subjective evidence that directly opposes the other’s, in order to reach the required standard of proof they will need to provide some kind of objective evidence that supports their position. As no further evidence has been forthcoming, I am unable to conclude the landlord failed to properly maintain the exterior of the premises.
On the tenant’s own evidence, the landlord came out to investigate the cause of the roof leaks in 2020/2021, he carried out repairs, and despite record rainfall in 2023, no further leaks have occurred. Although I agree that the lounge ceiling is cracked and slightly dipped, I do not find that the landlord has failed to properly maintain. I accept his evidence that the roof is old and again part of the planned renovations.
I find no breach in respect of the washing machine. The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 say there must be adequate provision for washing clothes. The provision for a washing machine outside underneath a covered deck is sufficient to satisfy the Regulations therefore this part of the claim is not proven.
With regards to the steps off the deck, the landlord provided photographs from the start of the tenancy which show that there were no steps in this area. The landlord says they did not put in any steps during the tenancy as there was no requirement to do so. Accordingly, the tenant has been unable to prove the steps were the responsibility of the landlord.
I have also taken into account a letter from the tenant dated 20 October 2022. The tenant states he has always had excellent service from the landlord in relation to repairs and maintenance. He describes a plumbing issue fixed within a day, taps being replaced, a dehumidifier being provided, the fireplace being investigated, and a heat pump provided as requested.
The tenant also raised health and safety concerns around a power connection from the premises to the sleepout which is used by the landlord for storage and work materials. The tenant says the landlord’s father carried out the connection himself and it is unsafe. The tenant says there was an agreement that the landlord would pay him $8.00 if the landlord stayed overnight in the sleepout and used his electricity, but no payment has been made despite the landlord being there. The tenant says he has seen lights on in the sleepout but not often.
The landlord says his father did not carry out this work and it was the same when they purchased the premises in or around 2017. The landlord says he paid $8.00 to the tenant for using electricity on one occasion when he was doing work on the roof, and any other power use has been minimal as they have visited the sleepout in daylight hours.
By virtue of section 39 of the 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. This means that the tenant should not be sharing power with the sleepout unless it can be separately measured.
However, I decline to make any order in this regard. The tenant did not provide any quantifiable loss, and I accept the evidence of the landlord that he paid $8.00 to the tenant for power he used on one day, and any other use has been minimal.
I am unable to make any finding with regards to the power connection. The photographs provided by the tenant fall short of proving that the landlord has made an unlawful power connection or that there are any health and safety concerns.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Cross application

Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears?

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears when the application was filed on 13 December 2023. Although rent had been in arrears since 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord has waived their right to the overdue rent. There is no requirement to serve a 14-day notice to remedy.
The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The amount of rent due and owing has been proven by the rent summary provided.

Should the tenancy be terminated for assault?

In accordance with section 55(1)(c) of the RTA, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
The landlord says the tenant threatened, pushed, and punched the landlord’s father (who is in ill health) at the premises on 16 November 2023. Police were called and a report made, although no charges have been laid to the landlord’s knowledge. The landlord provided a recording of the neighbour’s call to police on the day of the incident, and I heard the words of the landlord’s father directly. The landlord says the tenant was aggressive and threatening on two earlier occasions in May and July 2023, and this seems to be escalating.
I am unable to make a determination as to whether or not an assault took place on 16 November 2023, without further objective evidence.
However, I find it more likely than not that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord and his family. I accept their evidence of intimidating and threatening behaviour on at least two occasions. All of this has left the family in fear and unable to return to the premises since November 2023. I accept their evidence that the tenant’s behaviour is volatile as displayed by him in the hearing room. As this is a serious breach, I find that the tenancy must be terminated on this ground.
The tenancy has already been terminated for rent arrears in any event. Filing fee
As the landlord has been substantially successful in their claims, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression in their application form and again at the hearing.
The tenant did not request name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the application for name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4764237 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 January 2024	$1,400.00	Rent arrears to 24 January 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Richard Ian Johnson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5.00pm on Wednesday 24 January 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Richard Ian Johnson must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant applied for the following: -Compensation of $1,999.99 for the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premises, and -An order to set aside a 90-day notice as retaliatory and exemplary damages; and -Exemplary damages for no insulation statement, and harassment.
The landlord filed a cross application and applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, and refund of the bond.
Both parties attended initially, but the tenant left the hearing room part way through. The Tribunal heard evidence from the tenant relating to the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premises. However, during the landlord’s response, the tenant interrupted and called the landlord a liar, he raised his voice and became angry, and he then left the hearing room.
The hearing continued in the tenant’s absence.
As the onus is each party to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities, the tenant’s remaining claims are not proven and must be dismissed. However, I did hear sufficient evidence to make a determination on the issue of alleged failure to maintain the premises.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
The property is an older style which was probably built in or around the 1950’s. The landlord’s obligations must be seen in this context as the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes are relevant under section 45.
The tenant says he was unable to open a window in the lounge as it was nailed shut, he put in some base boards on the exterior of the premises to stop draughts, the roof leaked in the lounge and kitchen, the laundry was outside on the deck which caused his machine to deteriorate, and a back step off the deck was rotten which caused an injury to the tenant.
I do not find sufficient evidence that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. On the tenant’s own evidence, he knew from the outset that one of the older lounge windows could not be opened. I accept the landlord’s evidence that there are other windows in the lounge which provide sufficient ventilation and replacement of all the windows is part of the forthcoming planned renovations.
Both parties claim they attached the base boards. In a situation such as this where each of the parties gives subjective evidence that directly opposes the other’s, in order to reach the required standard of proof they will need to provide some kind of objective evidence that supports their position. As no further evidence has been forthcoming, I am unable to conclude the landlord failed to properly maintain the exterior of the premises.
On the tenant’s own evidence, the landlord came out to investigate the cause of the roof leaks in 2020/2021, he carried out repairs, and despite record rainfall in 2023, no further leaks have occurred. Although I agree that the lounge ceiling is cracked and slightly dipped, I do not find that the landlord has failed to properly maintain. I accept his evidence that the roof is old and again part of the planned renovations.
I find no breach in respect of the washing machine. The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 say there must be adequate provision for washing clothes. The provision for a washing machine outside underneath a covered deck is sufficient to satisfy the Regulations therefore this part of the claim is not proven.
With regards to the steps off the deck, the landlord provided photographs from the start of the tenancy which show that there were no steps in this area. The landlord says they did not put in any steps during the tenancy as there was no requirement to do so. Accordingly, the tenant has been unable to prove the steps were the responsibility of the landlord.
I have also taken into account a letter from the tenant dated 20 October 2022. The tenant states he has always had excellent service from the landlord in relation to repairs and maintenance. He describes a plumbing issue fixed within a day, taps being replaced, a dehumidifier being provided, the fireplace being investigated, and a heat pump provided as requested.
The tenant also raised health and safety concerns around a power connection from the premises to the sleepout which is used by the landlord for storage and work materials. The tenant says the landlord’s father carried out the connection himself and it is unsafe. The tenant says there was an agreement that the landlord would pay him $8.00 if the landlord stayed overnight in the sleepout and used his electricity, but no payment has been made despite the landlord being there. The tenant says he has seen lights on in the sleepout but not often.
The landlord says his father did not carry out this work and it was the same when they purchased the premises in or around 2017. The landlord says he paid $8.00 to the tenant for using electricity on one occasion when he was doing work on the roof, and any other power use has been minimal as they have visited the sleepout in daylight hours.
By virtue of section 39 of the 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. This means that the tenant should not be sharing power with the sleepout unless it can be separately measured.
However, I decline to make any order in this regard. The tenant did not provide any quantifiable loss, and I accept the evidence of the landlord that he paid $8.00 to the tenant for power he used on one day, and any other use has been minimal.
I am unable to make any finding with regards to the power connection. The photographs provided by the tenant fall short of proving that the landlord has made an unlawful power connection or that there are any health and safety concerns.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Cross application

Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears?

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears when the application was filed on 13 December 2023. Although rent had been in arrears since 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord has waived their right to the overdue rent. There is no requirement to serve a 14-day notice to remedy.
The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The amount of rent due and owing has been proven by the rent summary provided.

Should the tenancy be terminated for assault?

In accordance with section 55(1)(c) of the RTA, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
The landlord says the tenant threatened, pushed, and punched the landlord’s father (who is in ill health) at the premises on 16 November 2023. Police were called and a report made, although no charges have been laid to the landlord’s knowledge. The landlord provided a recording of the neighbour’s call to police on the day of the incident, and I heard the words of the landlord’s father directly. The landlord says the tenant was aggressive and threatening on two earlier occasions in May and July 2023, and this seems to be escalating.
I am unable to make a determination as to whether or not an assault took place on 16 November 2023, without further objective evidence.
However, I find it more likely than not that the tenant has threatened to assault the landlord and his family. I accept their evidence of intimidating and threatening behaviour on at least two occasions. All of this has left the family in fear and unable to return to the premises since November 2023. I accept their evidence that the tenant’s behaviour is volatile as displayed by him in the hearing room. As this is a serious breach, I find that the tenancy must be terminated on this ground.
The tenancy has already been terminated for rent arrears in any event. Filing fee
As the landlord has been substantially successful in their claims, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression in their application form and again at the hearing.
The tenant did not request name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
As the landlord has been substantially successful, the application for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4764237 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4764237 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears?

Should the tenancy be terminated for assault?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Should the tenancy be terminated for rent arrears?

Should the tenancy be terminated for assault?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions