What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4767024?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4767024?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767024?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10336660-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4767024?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4767024?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767024?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767024?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10336660-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 24 Ross Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4767024 — Mould & damp

Order

The application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought compensation by way of rent reduction for the length of time the landlord took to remedy issues with the premises.
The property is a two storey wooden villa, over one hundred years old, split into four separate flats with shared laundry facilities.
The tenant occupied a downstairs flat and the owner of the property lived in the other downstairs flat, while his daughter lives in one of the upstairs flats.
Initially the tenancy was for a fixed term from 17/7/2019 and at the end of the term rolled over to a periodic tenancy.
The tenant vacated on 3/11/2023 and filed her application on 15/12/2023.
The tenancy agreement provides that the property management company is the agent for the landlord and the landlord is Arthur Davies, the owner of the property.

Did the property management company and or the landlord harass the tenant?

Kelly Eunice Gray submitted that she had a good relationship with the landlord and helped him a lot, especially with regard to his daughter.
During the final few months of her tenancy the tenant said that the arguments between the landlord and his daughter affected her peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises.
Further the tenant suggested that prior to moving out the landlord prevented her closing her door during an argument with her about garden pots, by putting his foot in her door.
In any tenancy the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, though, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find neither the property management company nor the landlord have committed an unlawful act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant did not believe that the property management company or the landlord had harassed her.
There is no evidence to support that the landlord, or the property management company engaged in behaviour which could be categorised as harassment.
Rather the evidence supports that unfortunately the relationship between the landlord and the tenant broke down during the final year of the tenancy, resulting in the tenant leaving the premises. Did the property management company and or the landlord fail to maintain the premises?
Kelly Eunice Gray claims the property management company and the landlord have breached their obligations by failing to repair the premises in a timely manner, meaning she could not use parts of her flat for different periods during the tenancy.
In particular the tenant was unhappy with the following: a. The four weeks taken to fix the leak in the front bedroom, b. Seven weeks to fix the leak in the bathroom from the roof, c. Year and a half to fix the leak in the bedroom from under the outside door, d. Mould and holes in the pantry due to the kitchen floor needing replaced, e. Five days without hot water, f. Borer in the premises.
On the other hand, the property management company and the landlord disputed that maintenance was not attended to.
The property management company provided letters and invoices from the plumber about the work they had undertaken on the roof since 2016; an invoice from the builder about replacement of the kitchen floor in May 2019, an invoice from an electrician about replacement of two hot water cylinders in June 2023 and the initial property inspection report dated19/7/2019.
The landlord gave evidence. He believed the roof took about a week to fix and that when the builder replaced the kitchen floor there was no evidence of a leak.
While the landlord agreed there was a leak in one bedroom which meant it couldn’t be used for an unspecified amount of time, he pointed out that the roof over that area of the premises had been replaced in 2022.
The landlord disputed that he had ever attempted to fix any leak under an outside door of the bedroom occupied by the tenant.
However, the landlord did accept that he tended to fix the issues raised by the tenant rather than leaving the responsibility with the property management company.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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.
I find neither the property management company nor the landlord have committed an unlawful act.
The Tenancy Tribunal is a civil jurisdiction, and the onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant there is not enough evidence to persuade me it is more likely than not there has been a failure to maintain the premises.
The documentation provided by the property management company supports that significant work, especially to the roof, has been undertaken on what is an old house.
While it is understandable that the tenant was unhappy with what she perceived were unacceptable delays, I do not consider these were the fault of either the property management company or the landlord.
Identifying and fixing leaks in rooves quickly can be problematic due to the difficulty in identifying the area of the leak.
I do not consider taking five days to replace hot water cylinders over weekends which include a statutory holiday, unreasonable.
Compensation by way of rent reduction is not available to the tenant.
In my view the way in which the landlord undertakes the business of renting these premises by living at the property and dealing directly with the tenant about maintenance has significantly contributed to this dispute with the tenant.
No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was unsuccessful with her application.

Order

The application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought compensation by way of rent reduction for the length of time the landlord took to remedy issues with the premises.
The property is a two storey wooden villa, over one hundred years old, split into four separate flats with shared laundry facilities.
The tenant occupied a downstairs flat and the owner of the property lived in the other downstairs flat, while his daughter lives in one of the upstairs flats.
Initially the tenancy was for a fixed term from 17/7/2019 and at the end of the term rolled over to a periodic tenancy.
The tenant vacated on 3/11/2023 and filed her application on 15/12/2023.
The tenancy agreement provides that the property management company is the agent for the landlord and the landlord is Arthur Davies, the owner of the property.

Did the property management company and or the landlord harass the tenant?

Kelly Eunice Gray submitted that she had a good relationship with the landlord and helped him a lot, especially with regard to his daughter.
During the final few months of her tenancy the tenant said that the arguments between the landlord and his daughter affected her peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises.
Further the tenant suggested that prior to moving out the landlord prevented her closing her door during an argument with her about garden pots, by putting his foot in her door.
In any tenancy the tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, though, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find neither the property management company nor the landlord have committed an unlawful act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant did not believe that the property management company or the landlord had harassed her.
There is no evidence to support that the landlord, or the property management company engaged in behaviour which could be categorised as harassment.
Rather the evidence supports that unfortunately the relationship between the landlord and the tenant broke down during the final year of the tenancy, resulting in the tenant leaving the premises. Did the property management company and or the landlord fail to maintain the premises?
Kelly Eunice Gray claims the property management company and the landlord have breached their obligations by failing to repair the premises in a timely manner, meaning she could not use parts of her flat for different periods during the tenancy.
In particular the tenant was unhappy with the following: a. The four weeks taken to fix the leak in the front bedroom, b. Seven weeks to fix the leak in the bathroom from the roof, c. Year and a half to fix the leak in the bedroom from under the outside door, d. Mould and holes in the pantry due to the kitchen floor needing replaced, e. Five days without hot water, f. Borer in the premises.
On the other hand, the property management company and the landlord disputed that maintenance was not attended to.
The property management company provided letters and invoices from the plumber about the work they had undertaken on the roof since 2016; an invoice from the builder about replacement of the kitchen floor in May 2019, an invoice from an electrician about replacement of two hot water cylinders in June 2023 and the initial property inspection report dated19/7/2019.
The landlord gave evidence. He believed the roof took about a week to fix and that when the builder replaced the kitchen floor there was no evidence of a leak.
While the landlord agreed there was a leak in one bedroom which meant it couldn’t be used for an unspecified amount of time, he pointed out that the roof over that area of the premises had been replaced in 2022.
The landlord disputed that he had ever attempted to fix any leak under an outside door of the bedroom occupied by the tenant.
However, the landlord did accept that he tended to fix the issues raised by the tenant rather than leaving the responsibility with the property management company.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation 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.
I find neither the property management company nor the landlord have committed an unlawful act.
The Tenancy Tribunal is a civil jurisdiction, and the onus is on the applicant, in this case the tenant to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant there is not enough evidence to persuade me it is more likely than not there has been a failure to maintain the premises.
The documentation provided by the property management company supports that significant work, especially to the roof, has been undertaken on what is an old house.
While it is understandable that the tenant was unhappy with what she perceived were unacceptable delays, I do not consider these were the fault of either the property management company or the landlord.
Identifying and fixing leaks in rooves quickly can be problematic due to the difficulty in identifying the area of the leak.
I do not consider taking five days to replace hot water cylinders over weekends which include a statutory holiday, unreasonable.
Compensation by way of rent reduction is not available to the tenant.
In my view the way in which the landlord undertakes the business of renting these premises by living at the property and dealing directly with the tenant about maintenance has significantly contributed to this dispute with the tenant.
No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was unsuccessful with her application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767024 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 24 Ross Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767024 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 24 Ross Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the property management company and or the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the property management company and or the landlord harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions