How much money was awarded in case 4782464?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $41.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,833.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782464?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10241070-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4782464?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $41.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,833.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782464?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10241070-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2139B River Road, Horsham Downs, RD 1, Hamilton 3281 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782464 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782464 — net $3,075.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,833.58		Rent arrears
Light bulbs/batteries	$41.90		Light bulbs/batteries
Exemplary damages ;breach of section 45 (heating		$800.00	Exemplary damages ;breach of section 45 (heating
Total award	$7,875.48	$800.00
Net award	$3,075.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,075.48

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for compensation by way of a rent rebate and compensation. The landlord has applied for has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond. Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

Producing evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:“...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

The tenancy began on 27 August 2019 and ended on 4 March 2024.The tenants said that they lived in the premises treating it like their making repairs, cleaning, and section maintenance to bring it up to a very good standard.

Their claim for compensation by way of a rebate was based on the premises not being worth the $1100.00 per week the tenants were paying. To support their claim for a rent rebate of 25% over the entire tenancy the tenants presented a list of 25 issues with the property that they said they had repaired themselves or bought up to standard or believed breached the RTA .

The tenant has the responsibility to notify a landlord of damages or repairs as soon as possible. See section 40(1)(d)RTA. The landlord is required to maintain the premises in reasonable state of repair. See section 45(1)(b) RTA. These sections are highlighted because on many occasions the tenants were unable to establish that they had told the landlord of the repairs required and just attended to them or paid themselves for things to be repaired, without the landlord’s consent.

The tenants often had not provided evidence of damages, cleaning required ,or what the premises looked like before they maintained it or undertook work to remedy issues. They were unable to establish the necessary evidence to prove many of their claims.

The tennis court repairs, rubbish removal and cleaning at the start of the tenancy, tree trimming, and branch removal, full septic tank and garden reinstated claims are dismissed because there was no evidence or photos of what the premises or these areas were like when the tenants first moved in.

The tenant said that they were not claiming compensation for the gates and fences they installed to pet and childproof the section. Swimming Pool

The premises came with a pool and the tenants said that they would maintain it based on the belief that they would have to pay higher rent for a company to do it.

As part of their maintenance, they purchased a robotic pool cleaner, skim baskets and salts and chemicals to get the balance right. Three invoices were provided, and they seek reimbursement for these costs.

There was concern that the pool pump was not working, and the tenant informed the landlord on 15 September 2020.This was replaced in October 2020

In December 2020 the tenants believed that there was a leak which was causing a lot of the balancing issues. A copy of a work order dated 8 December 2022 was provided for checking a slow leak .This leak was repaired.

In May 2023 the tenant reported that the pool was leaking, and a technician visited the premises on 11 May 2023 to recheck for a leak. The Swimming Pool Shop spent time investigating the ongoing problem. Three invoices were produced as by the landlord for repairs.

The landlord believed that by June 2023 the pool had been repaired and was working. They had received no further communication form the tenants after this date about the pool. The tenants were unable to establish that they had told the landlord that the pool was still leaking.

The tenants said there was still a problem with the leak, and they had to top it up regularly and add chemicals weekly to be able to use it. The tenants said that a repairer had told them that the owner was not going to spend any more money on it, so they stopped telling the landlord that the water level kept dropping and purchased their own chemicals.

The landlord received an invoice for pool chemicals being charged to their account but did not know who had ordered them. They did not seek reimbursement of this, and the tenants denied ordering them.

The evidence provided supports the landlords claim that they attended to the repairs when they were told that there was a problem.

The tenant sought compensation for purchases to maintain the pool. The landlord said that they were never informed or asked about the purchase of the pool equipment and do not believe that they are liable for this cost.

A landlord is to compensate a tenant for reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant when repairing the premises, where the state of disrepair has arisen other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or is otherwise serious and urgent. The tenant must also give the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or has made a reasonable attempt to do so. See section 45 (1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant said that they agreed to pay the costs to maintain the pool by use of chemicals, not the extra purchases required. However, there is no record of the tenants asking the landlord if they could purchase the equipment, or that the repairs were required because it was dangerous or urgent. This claim is dismissed. Oven repairs

The tenant informed the landlord that the thermostat in the oven did not work. The landlord organised for a repair on 1 September 2021.The tenant said that in the last few months of the tenancy it stopped working again.

The landlord on the outgoing inspection on 6 March 2024 left the oven going for over 4 hours and said that it heated up. On this date the oven was checked and an electrical safety certificate from Menzies Electrical was provided confirming that the oven function and thermostat all worked.

This claim is dismissed. Oven extractor fan

The range hood light was repaired but the tenants said that the extractor fan was not. It blew air out and was not externally vented, this was a breach of the RTA by not complying with the Healthy Homes Standards, HHS. The tenancy began in 2019 and at that date the HHS in relation to ventilation did not apply to this tenancy.

The landlord arranged the electrician to repair the light but there was no note if the fan had been checked by them.

The dates for compliance with the HHS vary depending on each tenancy. For private rentals the landlord must comply within 90 days of a new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.

The landlord said that healthy homes report on the property was completed 2021 and confirmed that the extractor fans were non-compliant but because the tenancy began pre 2019 and was renewed before December 2020,the tenancy is not required to comply with the HHS yet.

This claim is dismissed. Windows

The tenant said that windows leaked, and some had no seal some photos were provided. The tenants said that there was water in the office during after a cyclone and had photos of the leak in ensuite through the high windows and on the floor. They believed it leaked on the windowsills and through high louver windows.

When there was heavy rain, they remove pictures so that they were not damaged.

The landlord knew of the leak in the office after the cyclone 2022 and a plumber and electrician were sent to the premises, but there was no invoice provided confirming any work completed. The tenants confirmed that this leak was fixed on 7 December 2022.

The tenant said items in the office were damaged but there was no photographs invoices or insurance claims provided establishing any loss.

The landlord was made aware of the leak in the ensuite on 21 February 2024 and arranged a maintenance person to attend.

They could not find the leak because it was too dry and so the source could not be found. They noted to check again.

The tenant said most leaks occurred when the rain came from a certain direction and believe that it was from the tiles on the roof and through high windows. Photos were provided of louvers in the ensuite , and cracked paint on windowsills that they believed was caused by water when it rained.

It was claimed that water leaked from a sky light onto a bed and there was a crack pencil line on the wall and said that they told the landlord at inspections.

The landlord said that they have no information from the tenants about any other leaks.

Because of the lack of evidence that this was an ongoing unresolved issue and the tenants had told the landlord about other leaks at the premises, this claim is dismissed. Curtains blinds

The tenants said that the premises had old roman blinds, and the strings were all broken and did not work. They said that they had told the landlord about it verbally at every inspection.

The landlord had no evidence of the tenants contacting them about this and only found one had broken string. This was in lounge/dining area at the end of tenancy inspection. The tenants disputed that but provided no evidence.

This claim is dismissed.

The claim for reimbursement of pest control costs is dismissed as there was no evidence that the landlord was told or evidence of purchases of pest control products.

There was no evidence that the kitchen tap drip was notified to the landlord. It was explained that there was two ways to inform the landlord of maintenance requirements and one was a ”Tapi “ app where a tenant can lodge a request. They could also email, message, or text the landlord but no there are no records of this, and this is dismissed.

The claim for cobwebs that were there at the start of the tenancy were an example the tenants said of what they should not have to put up with at an executive property with a high rent. End of tenancy cleaners removed them. No claim made by the tenants.

The tenants claimed that gutters were not cleaned and are a maintenance issue which caused a rotted window. The tenants said that they let the landlords know verbally at every inspection. They believed that this resulted in a rotted the window frame underneath the guttering. The tenants said that they cleaned the gutters themselves, but had no before photos showing that they needed to be cleaned.

The landlord said gutters were cleared in 2021 as part of healthy homes compliance by Plumbit plumbers, and had no notification that the gutters were failing. Gardens

The tenants said that the hedges and trees were to be maintained by the landlord. The landlord provided quotes in 2020,hedge trim and removal of a tree. Invoices for further work in 2021 were provided. In 2023 following cyclone Gabrielle an arborist was organised to remove a fallen tree. No further evidence was provided from the tenant and this claim is dismissed. Mould bathroom

Tenant said that she let the landlord know about black mould in the bathroom. The landlord said that it was never raised in any of nine inspections conducted and photographed by any of the 6 property managers that the tenants had. Unsafe fireplace

The tenant has email exchanges with the landlord requesting maintenance of the fire. The first was when the protection plate fell off and the whole chimney was red hot The tenant stopped using it. The landlords acted straight away to get the fireplace repaired but repairs took some time.

The landlord confirmed that fireplace door was repaired in 2020. In September 2021 repairs were made to a plate, and on 3 May 2023 the fire was assessed and decommissioned. The landlords compensated the tenants $600.00 in July 2022, being $100.0 per week for the time that they were without heating and had increased electricity bills because they had to use electric heaters. The landlord had 2 heat pumps installed on 21 June 2023.

The tenants said there was very grateful for heating and gaps filled around the windows, however this was another example of the continuing issues they had with the tenancy while paying high rent but having slow repairs.

It was not disputed that the tenants were without a heating source from 3 May 2022 until 21 June 2023. This is a claim that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

Section 45 sets out the landlords’ obligations and that includes an obligation to comply with all the requirements in relations to buildings, health, and safety. The Tribunal must consider whether a landlord had has complied with those relevant obligations.

Prior to the HHS was the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947. Regulation 6 required that ’’every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and a chimney or other approved form of heating.’’ A landlord must supply some form of heating to comply with the heating requirement of the regulations.

On the evidence provided the landlord breached their obligations in relation to buildings health and safety but not providing a form of heating for a year of the tenancy.

I find they have committed an unlawful act. Exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful acts were committed intentionally and it is found just to make an award considering the intent of the person committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed and the public interest.

Having a warm dry house is healthier to live in and it is important that landlords know and comply with the requirements of the RTA. The landlords attended to the heating issue but a delay of this period is unreasonable and suggests that resolving this was not treated as important.

II find it just to award $800.00 for this breach. Stairs

The stairs squeaked and the tenant said that at every inspection they told the current property manager that were getting worse. The tenant said that the wedges that were there holding the stairs there had come out. But after the tenant fixed it, they were a lot better.

On 27 July 2023 the landlord was told that the tenants had repaired them, and this was the only communications about it. No evidence that the landlord was told or that the tenants had tried to inform them. Low clothesline

The clothesline was moved and set very low so that towels and blankest touched the ground. It was sharp and broken so the tenants repaired it.

The tenants said that the water tank was broken and old and ran out of water and the neighbours fixed theirs at the same time. The landlord did not know about this, and the tenant said that they were not claiming about it. Rent Rebate

The tenant sought a 25 % rent rebate for duration of the tenancy. This was based on the state of the premises when they arrived, the repairs that they did and the maintenance that they undertook.

There was evidence of repairs and maintenance but also evidence that the landlord had responded in a timely manner to most of the tenants’ concerns. As already explained the evidence establishing that the landlord knew about damage or maintenance was missing in most of the tenants claims and this is fundamental if a landlord is to be held accountable for failing to provide or maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The premises were not new and the RTA states that the repair and maintenance is in regard to the ‘ age and character of the premises...’ See section45(1)(b)RTA.

The expectation of the RTA is that the landlord maintains the premises not that the premises are maintenance free.

I do not find grounds to award a rent rebate and the tenants claim is dismissed. Landlords claim.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records, and which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not dispute this. Dishwasher

The landlord said that when the tenant vacated the premises, they removed the dishwasher. There was an invoice provided for a ‘Robinhood’ dishwasher to be provided at the premises.

It was established that there was a dishwasher at the premises in November 2023. The landlord sought compensation for this.

The tenants said that because of the legs the ‘Robinhood’ branded dishwasher it was not able to fit in the gap for it in the kitchen. The tenant packaged it back up and the property manager removed it. They said they were told it would be used in another house.

The tenants said that they decided to purchase their own dishwasher to use. Photographs were provided of their own SMEG dishwasher in place in the kitchen.

The landlord had no further evidence.

This claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord claimed that 34 light bulbs were missing. Photo evidence was provided supporting a claim for 28.

The tenants disputed this and claimed that they did not know they had to replace them, that some were not working, and some were never there. They were unable to provide evidence to support this.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must replace standard light bulbs.

An invoice from Menzies electrical dated 6 March 2024 was provided. I find that 20 of the bulbs were standard and award $41.90 for replacement.

I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Both parties applied for reimbursement of the filing fee and were somewhat successful, so this is not awarded.

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord substantially succeeded with their claims and the tenant succeeded with their exemplary damages claim so name suppression is awarded to both parties.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4782464 — net $3,075.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,833.58		Rent arrears
Light bulbs/batteries	$41.90		Light bulbs/batteries
Exemplary damages ;breach of section 45 (heating		$800.00	Exemplary damages ;breach of section 45 (heating
Total award	$7,875.48	$800.00
Net award	$3,075.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,075.48