What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778818 about?

The tribunal order states: RS Raj Investments Limited is added as a party to these proceedings and is

How much money was awarded in case 4778818?

Compensation: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778818?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10779787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4778818 about?

The tribunal order states: RS Raj Investments Limited is added as a party to these proceedings and is

How much money was awarded in case 4778818?

Compensation: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778818?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778818?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10779787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778818 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778818 — net $920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$900.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$920.44

RS Raj Investments Limited is added as a party to these proceedings and is joined as second respondent.

The landlord must carry out the following, which must be completed by 10 September 2024: a. Arrange a suitable tradesperson, such as [Repairman], to check the roof repairs and gutters, and carry out any additional repairs to the roof and/or gutters as identified. The additional repairs are to be completed by 17 September 2024. b. Arrange a suitably qualified professional to repair the ventilation/air conditioning unit. This work is to be completed by 24 September 2024. c. Arrange a qualified electrician to repair or replace the two faulty power sockets in the bathroom. This work is to be completed by 17 September 2024.

Cirone Limited T/As Onecall Property Management as agent for RS Raj Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $920.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing. Ms Zhao appeared for the landlord, Onecall Property Management Limited. There was no appearance by the landlord/owner of the premises, RS Raj Investments Limited. The landlord advises that the owner was aware of the hearing but was unable to attend as he was overseas. The current landlord took over management of the premises from 7 December 2023, as shown in the signed property management authority.

The second named tenant, [Tenant 2], has been living at the premises since 2015. The current tenancy agreement does not include [Tenant 2]’s name, however, there is other evidence, such as the bond lodgement form, listing [Tenant 2] as a tenant of the premises. The tenants refer to an earlier tenancy agreement which included [Tenant 2] as a tenant. As the evidence on this point is incomplete, I am unable to determine this issue. So, for the purposes of this hearing, and as recorded in the tenant’s application, [Tenant 2] is named in this order as a tenant.

This tenancy began on 7 March 2015. The current rent is $2,400.00 per month.

The tenants have applied for a work order, and compensation for the landlord’s failure to attend to repairs and maintenance. The tenants also allege breaches by the landlord under the Healthy Homes Standard (the HHS) in relation to insulation. Work order The legal framework

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements. Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the RTA.

If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the RTA.

A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) of the RTA. Analysis

Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find there is sufficient evidence to establish that the landlord ought to carry out work to address the issues with the roof, gutter, ventilation/air conditioning unit and power sockets in the bathroom. The reasons for this finding are set out under the ‘repairs and maintenance’ heading below. To the credit of Ms Zhao, since she took over the management of the premises, she has recognised the importance of addressing these issues in a timely way.

Accordingly, the above work order is made with the consent of both parties. In this case there is sufficient evidence to establish that the landlord ought to carry out work to address the following issues: • Investigate the roof to ensure there are no further leaks • Repair the gutter above the front door • Repair the ventilation/air conditioning unit. • Repair or replace the two faulty power sockets in the bathroom. Repairs and maintenance The legal framework

The landlord’s obligations are set out under section 45 of the RTA. This includes the requirement that the landlord provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. 1 The landlord is also required to comply with the healthy homes standards, and any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations 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 of the RTA. 1 Section 45(1)(b)

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability/responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 3 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time. The Court stated: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be. 4

In this jurisdiction, it is the party making the claim (in this case, the tenants) who have the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the tenants must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.” For the Tribunal to find in their favour, the tenants must be able to show that the landlord has been in breach of a legal obligation.

In the present case the tenants must be able to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises was not in a reasonable state of repair, and that the landlord had notice of the problem and failed to repair within a reasonable time. Roof and ceiling

In terms of the roof and ceiling leak, the photographic evidence shows the water leak located in the entranceway, and another leak in the small bedroom. The tenants’ oral evidence is that from around May 2018 to April 2021 the ceiling in the entrance/passageway was leaking. The ceiling in the passage was repaired around April 2021, but as the roof was not repaired then, a hole re-appeared one or two years afterwards.

It is unclear from the tenants’ evidence when the landlord was first notified of the ceiling leak. At the time, the owner, Mr Raj, was managing the property. The tenant states Mr Raj was made aware of the leak in 2018, at the time of a Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal order dated 10 May 2018 records that the landlord, Mr Raj, agreed to withdraw the 90 day notice and that the parties were to resolve the other maintenance issues between themselves. It is unclear from this order whether the roof and ceiling leak were part of the maintenance issues to be 2 CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007 3 Section 40(1)(d) 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085 resolved. The handwritten notes, produced as evidence by the tenant of the matters claimed to have been discussed and agreed with the landlord at the time of the hearing, do not record that the roof or ceiling was to be repaired.

The current landlord has provided evidence of the steps taken to resolve this issue since managing the premises. There is an invoice showing that repairs to the roof and gutters were undertaken in March 2024. A further invoice dated 19 August 2024 records ceiling repairs and roof maintenance were carried out. Gutters

The tenants claim the gutters have needed repair since 2015. While most have now been repaired, there was still a leak from the gutter above the front entrance. There is a letter addressed to Mr Raj dated 18 April 2016 which lists a number of issues, including faulty guttering. So, it is likely the owner/landlord was informed of this issue in 2016.

The current landlord explained that after arranging for a healthy homes assessment, which identified that some of the gutters were non-compliant, further work was carried out. The landlord had understood that the gutters had all been repaired, as shown in the 30 March 2024 invoice. Photographic evidence of the repairs was also provided by the landlord. However, on being informed at the hearing that some additional repairs may be required, Ms Zhao agreed to arrange for the investigation and repair of the gutter above the front entrance. Ventilation/air conditioning unit

The tenant, [Tenant 1], has provided evidence regarding the Hometech Energy Recovery System (ERS) unit. This unit is described as an airflow system that recovers and re-uses warm air extracted within the home, to improve air quality. He states that it was installed in the ceiling in October 2017, as part of the Auckland Airport Noise Mitigation package, since the premises is on a flight path. There is a supporting email from the Auckland Airport Noise Mitigation Team. The unit stopped working in 2021 and the landlord was informed on 18 June 2021, as shown in the text message provided as evidence. Electrical sockets

The tenants’ evidence is that two electrical sockets in the bathroom do not work. The electrical socket beside the hand basin is said to have never worked since the start of the tenancy. The other socket over the washing machine is stated to have stopped working several years ago. It is unclear when the landlord was first notified. The tenants state an electrician arranged by the current property management company attended, but did not repair them.

The landlord’s evidence is that an electrician was arranged on 25 March 2024, but this was in relation to the bathroom heating/light, rather than repair of the faulty electrical sockets. Compensation for repair and maintenance issues

In the context of this application, the Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.

The tenants claim a rent reduction on the basis that the landlord failed to fulfil his undertakings in 2018. In the absence of persuasive evidence of what those undertakings were, this cannot form the basis for compensation.

However, it is accepted that the tenants ought to be compensated for the inconvenience and loss of amenity resulting from the roof and ceiling leak, and for the other issues identified. I note their evidence of having to place a bucket under the entranceway ceiling on rainy days, and the damage to personal items which had sentimental value, following the ceiling leak in the small bedroom. They state that when the third bedroom started flooding, they piled everything into the living room and did not have use of it for 12 months. They also state a bucket was placed in the hallway/front entrance for one year from 2020 and after April 2021, they removed the bucket, and then from 2023 to 2024, reinstated the bucket.

Taking into account the nature and likely duration of the repair and maintenance issues, the resulting effect for the tenants, they are to be compensated in the amount of $900.00. Insulation

[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. In the application the tenants noted that the landlord had failed to check the insulation after the roof leak.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

In this case the tenancy agreement signed in 2021 records that the premises was fully insulated, and an insulation certificate dated 22 May 2018 has been produced by the landlord. There is also a Healthy Homes inspection report completed by [Company], certifying, on 8 June 2024, that the premises was complaint with the HHS. In terms of the insulation, it is noted that the ceiling and underfloor insulation was compliant.

The initial report from [Company], following an inspection on 26 April 2024, noted that the ceiling coverage was complete, met the minimum thickness, and had an R value of 2.9, and was in good condition. However, it was found not to comply due to requiring clearance of the existing insulation for recessed lights or electrical devices.

Regarding the underfloor insulation, the coverage was noted to be complete, and to be in good condition, however, it was found not to be installed in an appropriate way. So, it was recommended that the existing insulation be removed, and new insulation be installed to meet the 2008 Building Code.

The issues identified in April 2024 have since been addressed. The certificate of compliance issued by [Company] shows that by June 2024, the premises complied with the HHS in relation to the insulation requirements. The evidence also shows that the landlord took steps to address its obligations concerning insulation in 2018. Overall, it appears the landlord has been compliant with the insulation requirements, although some issues were identified, which were later remedied. Therefore, in terms of this issue, there is no award for compensation or exemplary damages.

Other issues arising from the HHS report have also been highlighted by the tenants. However, the tenants’ application was only in relation to the insulation, hence my findings are limited to this issue. Filing fee and name suppression

As the tenants have been substantially successful with their claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee.

The tenants request for name suppression is granted on the same basis.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778818 — net $920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$900.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$920.44

RS Raj Investments Limited is added as a party to these proceedings and is joined as second respondent.

Cirone Limited T/As Onecall Property Management as agent for RS Raj Investments Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $920.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

This tenancy began on 7 March 2015. The current rent is $2,400.00 per month.

Breaching any of these obligations 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 of the RTA. 1 Section 45(1)(b)

Taking into account the nature and likely duration of the repair and maintenance issues, the resulting effect for the tenants, they are to be compensated in the amount of $900.00. Insulation

As the tenants have been substantially successful with their claim, the landlord is to pay the tenants’ filing fee.

The tenants request for name suppression is granted on the same basis.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778818 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778818 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions