What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4768437?

The tribunal order states: Karen Johnson Property Management Limited As Agent For Deanne Mcleod &

How much money was awarded in case 4768437?

Compensation: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement: $480.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10451870-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4768437?

The tribunal order states: Karen Johnson Property Management Limited As Agent For Deanne Mcleod &

How much money was awarded in case 4768437?

Compensation: $1,440.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement: $480.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10451870-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

172A Ngatai Road, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4768437 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768437 — net $1,940.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent abatement	$480.00	Rent abatement
Compensation	$1,440.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,940.44
Bond	$1,820.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,940.44

Karen Johnson Property Management Limited As Agent For Deanne Mcleod & Mark Asplin Karen Johnson must pay Abhimanyu Dhawan $1,940.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,820.00 (3398104-014) to Abhimanyu Dhawan immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This amended order corrects a typographical error contained in the order dated 31 May 2024.The total amount to be paid by Karen Johnson Property Management Limited as agent for Deanne Mcleod & Mark Asplin has been corrected to $1,940.44 as reflected in the table. Nothing else in the body of the order has been changed.

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord has applied for reimbursement of an insurance excess, rent increase arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy began on 15 May 2020 and ended on 13 December 2023. The tenant was issued a 7-day notice to vacate the premises pursuant to section 59 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 RTA, because the premises were deemed unsafe due to a fire.

The tenant called the landlord to attend to an electrical fault on 22 November 2023 after some small appliances stopped working. An electrician was sent by the landlord and the blown 5-amp fuse wire in the fuse box was replaced by a 10- amp wire which solved the problem.

The tenant called the landlord again on 1 December because the electrical problem had returned. The landlord confirmed that a work order was issued to the electrician on that date but, because it was not deemed as life threatening, it was not attended to immediately.

The tenant called the electrician again on 4 December and was told that he was busy and would get back to him.

On 5 December the tenant discovered that there had been a fire in the storage part of the basement and called the landlord. The electrician arrived as well as the landlord.

The tenant said he was told by the electrician that the problem could be fixed in a few days but after the electrician spoke with the landlord, he was told that had to get out of the property and the power was disconnected. The landlord disputed that the tenant was told the problem could be fixed after a few days.

The tenant was emailed a 7-day notice to terminating the tenancy because the premises were seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. The tenant was further told not to use too much water in the as the premises were dangerous.

The tenant said that the landlord did not offer any support or alternate accommodation.

The landlord said that the tenant was never told that the problem could be fixed after a few days.

The owner had insurance for the damage and loss of rent. Reimbursement of the insurance excess was sought as the landlord they believed that the fire was the due to the tenant’s actions. As at the date of the hearing the premises are still being repaired.

The Tenancy Tribunals burden of proof on the balance of probabilities being the civil law standard of proof. The Applicant is required to establish their claims to this level of proof. Another way to say this is that the applicant must establish with evidence that it is more likely than not that the events have occurred. The tenant’s application.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenant sought exemplary damages for the landlord attempting to terminate the tenancy without grounds. The premises were severely damaged by a fire in the basement. This was not disputed. The power and eventually the water was turned off.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA recognises that when premises are seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable that notice can be given terminating the tenancy and rent abates. See section 59 RTA.

The landlord was entitled to end the tenancy and it was agreed that the rent abated on 13 December 2023, being 7 days after the notice was given. The premises are still empty and being repaired due to fire and extensive smoke damage.

There was no breach established and this claim is dismissed.

Should compensation be awarded to the tenant?

The tenant claimed compensation for having to pay higher rent because he had to secure immediate accommodation after being given 7 days’ notice ending the tenancy. He and his family had also been living in a house without power, and suffered disruption to their life due to the fire. The compensation claimed was calculated at $15,000.00 being $200.00 per week extra for a year.

The issues to consider are if either of the parties breached their obligations under the RTA and whether it can be ascertained how the fire began.

This will affect the landlord’s cross application for reimbursement of the insurance excess as they claim that it was the tenant’s actions which caused the fire.

The premises have a downstairs garage with a door leading to a separate laundry area, a door that leads to the upstairs of the premises and next this another door that leads to a large dirt floor basement storage area.

This basement storage area has exposed wooden floor joists and is lit by a single light bulb with the switch located in the garage .The landlord said that there was a shelf between two support poles which tenants would store items on. The tenant disputes this and there was no evidence provided that this occurred.

The landlord said that the tenant, and previous tenants, used the basement storage area to store various items and boxes as it was very dry and a very large area. A photograph of the storage area was provided.

The landlord confirmed that there are no fire alarms installed in this area as there is no legal obligation to do this. She said that there was a working fire alarm upstairs by the bedrooms as required.

The tenant agreed that he had stored boxes in this area. On December 5, 2024, when the tenant and his wife discovered that there had been a fire, all the boxes had been burned and there was ash over the floor. They called the landlord directly and tidied it up placing the ash in a bag in case anyone wanted to see it.

The electrician and landlord arrived and saw the area had been tidied this led the landlord to believe that the fire had occurred earlier, and the tenant must have known and had failed to inform her. She believed that the fire must have been the tenant fault.

The tenant disputed this saying why would he cause a fire in the place where he and his wife lived. He had not noticed any smell or smoke before and neither did the landlords electrician who came to check the electrical fault on 22 November.

The tenant provided a copy of a report and video from an electrician, Mark Hacking who inspected the premises. Mr Hacking said in his report that. ’’the wiring was questionable in the area of the fire. There is a high possibility of a cable being damaged or rodent chewed, which was arking and ignited the insulation. Downstairs with the fires there is minimal damage to the base of all the posts where the tenant’s appliance boxes were stored. There is a strong possibility that the circuit initially tripped out due to minor arcing damage and was possibly re livened by the rental agent’s electrician.’’

The tenants video showed the electrician, Mr Hacking, in the storage basement area removing the light fitting and showing underneath it where it was burned. Mr Hacking said that it looked like this was the first time that it had been removed and he believed that this was where the fire had started, behind the light where a loose connection burned out.

The landlord said the tenant had started the fire by being careless and storing boxes beside the bulb that she understood did not have a shade. She believed that the light had been left on, but there was no evidence of this.

The landlord provided a ‘confirmation of fire event’ email from Mr Dave Noble of ‘Origin and Cause investigations limited. This is the company used by the landlords insurers IAG New Zealand.

Mr Noble state that he is recognised as an expert and has a background in fire service and private industry and the email was to confirm that a fire did occur. The email states that. ‘Despite the removal of all fire debris by the tenant, it was still possible to establish that a fire had commenced on a makeshift shelf where household items had been stored. These boxes sat beneath an exposed light bulb, which was considered to have inadvertently set alight a cardboard lid. The fire caused extensive damage to the wiring insulation on multiple cables within the subfloor, presenting a constant risk of arcing and non-piloted ignition. This meant the household wiring needed to be isolated and all circuits de-energised( i.e. the residence was unsafe to occupy) Equally the living rooms upstairs were soot coated, and therefore an unhealthy environment.’

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See section 49B,RTA.

There was no dispute that a fire occurred during the tenancy, and no one could confirm when this was.

The tenant’s evidence was that a further electrical fault which they alerted the landlord to caused the fire. The boxes were stored how and where they were allowed to be, and it was not disputed by the landlord that this was the practice of the tenants who had been there before. She also confirmed that she had inspected the area occasionally and noted the boxes on the makeshift shelf that was provided.

At no point did the landlord ask the tenant to move any stored items, or ask him not store boxes there.

I find no fault in the actions of the tenant who called the landlord multiple times alerting her to the electrical issues that he was having. After the fire it was him who called the fire department and asked for a fire inspection report from them.

The tenant had to find alternative accommodation after the fire. He paid rent for one week and due to the struggle to find new premises, he rented a new property which costs him $200.00 per week extra. He is claiming this difference over a year which he said amounts to $15,000.00.

The landlord has the responsibility to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and I find that the landlord breached this obligation by failing to investigate the electrical fault that the tenant alerted her to in a reasonable time. Electrical faults are serious and need to be acted on promptly because of the risk of fire and ultimately a risk to the life of tenants.

The tenant did not claim exemplary damages but sought compensation for a higher rent they had to pay due to the urgent need for accommodation.

No copy of the new tenancy agreement was provided establishing the increased rent. The tenant was still required to pay rent for the week living in a dangerous and compromised premises.

I award compensation of 1 weeks rent for living in a premise that was without power and limited water. Rent should have abated from the time the premises were declared uninhabitable. See section 59 RTA. The tenant then had to find suitable accommodation in a very short period. The landlord had loss of rent cover under their insurance.

I also award $1440.00 being 3 weeks rent as compensation for a time period that would be required to find a new premises. Landlords claims. Insurance excess/rent arrears.

The landlord filed a claim for reimbursement of an insurance excess of $650.00, rent increase arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

I have found that the landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the tenants careless or intentional actions caused this fire. It was the practice to store in items in the basement and the tenant alerted the landlord to all his concerns about the electrical faults at the premises. The landlords own expert statement said that an exposed light inadvertently set alight a cardboard lid.

The claim for reimbursement of the insurance excess is dismissed as it has not been found that the tenant knew about or was responsible for the fire. This results in the claims for arrears for the proposed rent increase and failure by the tenant to report the fire also to be dismissed. Cleaning

A tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This tenancy ended because there was a fire. The tenant remained in the premises for 7 days without power and told to limit water use and not to use other sources of power. The landlord’s expert Mr Noble wrote that the premises were unsafe to occupy.

There was no provision to get hot water to clean or power to vacuum. The premises are smoke damaged and being rebuilt with most walls and flooring removed. The landlord expected the tenant to wipe out cupboards before leaving while being told it was dangerous and to conserve water. This is unrealistic given the state of the premises and the almost complete rebuild that is occurring.

The landlord only provided a quote, and this was for a whole house clean. There are no grounds for this claim, and I find that the tenant has not breached the RTA. This claim is dismissed.

Because Abhimanyu Dhawan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768437 — net $1,940.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent abatement	$480.00	Rent abatement
Compensation	$1,440.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,940.44
Bond	$1,820.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,940.44