What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782998 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 (6516295-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4782998?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782998?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10546333-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782998 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 (6516295-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4782998?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782998?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10546333-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Tukauri Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782998 — State of repair

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 (6516295-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims by the tenant are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 July 2024. The tenant is represented by counsel Asenaca Uluiviti.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of hotel expenses due to being given a 28 day notice to vacate by the landlord. Exemplary damages are also sought.
However, counsel for the tenant concedes during the hearing that the landlord had never issued any notice to the tenant to terminate the tenancy. It was the tenant who exercised the right to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. While the parties were on a fixed term tenancy, the parties agreed at mediation that the tenant may give 28-day notice to vacate, if the tenant so wishes.
Accordingly, there is no basis for the tenant to seek any compensation or exemplary damages for unlawful termination of the tenancy.
The same goes with the tenant’s claim for unlawful discrimination on purported grounds of the landlord refusing to extend the tenancy.
After the tenant had given effective notice to end the tenancy, the tenant can only revoke the notice with the landlord’s consent. See section 51(6) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The refusal by the other party to give consent does not amount to discrimination. Moreover, the initial notice to terminate was issued by the tenant herself.
In any event, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenancy was further extended from 10 April to 21 April 2024 by the landlord after the tenancy had already ended by the tenant exercising her right to give 28 days’ notice as agreed during mediation.
I now address the tenant’s remaining claims for compensation and exemplary damages on account of the landlord’s breach of section 45 RTA.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 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.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
Only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made. Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
I now address the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention, when the landlord was advised of the issue, and when, if any, the repairs and works had been (or never) carried out during the tenancy and if not, why they haven’t been carried out or attended to.
At the start of the tenancy on 8 December 2023, the tenants requested for permission to install a new heat pump at the top level of the premises at her own expense. The premises already has a heat pump on the main living area. The landlord is therefore not in breach of their responsibilities in failing to install a second heatpump at the premises.
The tenant claims the fibre was not installed at the premises for fast internet as it should be in newly built premises. However additional term and condition 12 of the tenancy agreement states:
Fibre broadband - The Tenant acknowledges if fibre is not connected but is available in the street, the landlord must permit for any installation to occur from the street to the property where there is no cost to the landlord. The tenant agrees to make a request in writing if fibre is available, and the landlord agrees to respond within 21 days. From here, the tenant agrees to notify the installation company and request they scope the property to provide a plan for the landlord to agree to, and to ensure cables and entry points into the property are completed appropriately....
The landlord was prepared to facilitate fibre installation in the circumstances. There is no evidence of any inordinate delay or refusal to provide fibre to the premises. As indicated on the tenancy agreement, the tenant acknowledged that fibre has not been connected to the premises at the start of the tenancy.
I am unable to discern any breach by the landlord on the fibre installation.
On 8 December 2023, the tenant informed the landlord that the bathroom door does not lock. The landlord’s property manager duly attended on 22 December 2023 to fix the door latch issue. After access had been given by the tenant, tradespeople completed door repairs on 19 February 2024. The delay in fixing the bathroom lock was due initially to holiday closedown periods and subsequently, failure by the tenant to facilitate access to tradespeople.
Finally, the tenant appears to have laid blame on their relationship breakdown to the landlord’s failure to maintain. There is however no cogent evidence nor material before the Tribunal to suggest there is any failure to respond to maintenance issues properly raised with the landlord.
I consider and accept the landlord’s submissions that in any event, domestic issues between spouses are “nothing to do with them”. Similarly, the landlord is not responsible for stress caused by a drunken neighbour knocking on the premises. There is no evidence that the security code to the front door was compromised and the landlord is not obliged to provide new codes accordingly.
In the upshot, none of the tenant’s claims for damages and exemplary damages on alleged breaches of the landlord’s responsibility to maintain is successful.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claims accordingly.
The landlord confirms that they are happy for the bond to be returned to the tenant forthwith.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 (6516295-001) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims by the tenant are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 5 July 2024. The tenant is represented by counsel Asenaca Uluiviti.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of hotel expenses due to being given a 28 day notice to vacate by the landlord. Exemplary damages are also sought.
However, counsel for the tenant concedes during the hearing that the landlord had never issued any notice to the tenant to terminate the tenancy. It was the tenant who exercised the right to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. While the parties were on a fixed term tenancy, the parties agreed at mediation that the tenant may give 28-day notice to vacate, if the tenant so wishes.
Accordingly, there is no basis for the tenant to seek any compensation or exemplary damages for unlawful termination of the tenancy.
The same goes with the tenant’s claim for unlawful discrimination on purported grounds of the landlord refusing to extend the tenancy.
After the tenant had given effective notice to end the tenancy, the tenant can only revoke the notice with the landlord’s consent. See section 51(6) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The refusal by the other party to give consent does not amount to discrimination. Moreover, the initial notice to terminate was issued by the tenant herself.
In any event, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenancy was further extended from 10 April to 21 April 2024 by the landlord after the tenancy had already ended by the tenant exercising her right to give 28 days’ notice as agreed during mediation.
I now address the tenant’s remaining claims for compensation and exemplary damages on account of the landlord’s breach of section 45 RTA.
Under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
A landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they applied to the premises.
A tenant has a corresponding duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (see section 40(1)(d) RTA).
The landlord’s obligation is therefore to repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, either from observing the property or notice from the tenant: “... the obligation of the landlord, under section 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.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989).
Compensation ought to be awarded for breach of the landlord’s obligations and where the other party has suffered a loss or inconvenience because of that breach.
Only if the landlord is found to in breach of their obligations under section 45 (as set out above) and the tenant has carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify and allow maintenance to be attended to, would an award of compensation be considered and made. Where the tenant has not carried out his/her corresponding duty to notify or not allow maintenance to be attended to, no award of compensation will be made.
I now address the specific instances of complaints raised by the tenant of items requiring attention, when the landlord was advised of the issue, and when, if any, the repairs and works had been (or never) carried out during the tenancy and if not, why they haven’t been carried out or attended to.
At the start of the tenancy on 8 December 2023, the tenants requested for permission to install a new heat pump at the top level of the premises at her own expense. The premises already has a heat pump on the main living area. The landlord is therefore not in breach of their responsibilities in failing to install a second heatpump at the premises.
The tenant claims the fibre was not installed at the premises for fast internet as it should be in newly built premises. However additional term and condition 12 of the tenancy agreement states:
Fibre broadband - The Tenant acknowledges if fibre is not connected but is available in the street, the landlord must permit for any installation to occur from the street to the property where there is no cost to the landlord. The tenant agrees to make a request in writing if fibre is available, and the landlord agrees to respond within 21 days. From here, the tenant agrees to notify the installation company and request they scope the property to provide a plan for the landlord to agree to, and to ensure cables and entry points into the property are completed appropriately....
The landlord was prepared to facilitate fibre installation in the circumstances. There is no evidence of any inordinate delay or refusal to provide fibre to the premises. As indicated on the tenancy agreement, the tenant acknowledged that fibre has not been connected to the premises at the start of the tenancy.
I am unable to discern any breach by the landlord on the fibre installation.
On 8 December 2023, the tenant informed the landlord that the bathroom door does not lock. The landlord’s property manager duly attended on 22 December 2023 to fix the door latch issue. After access had been given by the tenant, tradespeople completed door repairs on 19 February 2024. The delay in fixing the bathroom lock was due initially to holiday closedown periods and subsequently, failure by the tenant to facilitate access to tradespeople.
Finally, the tenant appears to have laid blame on their relationship breakdown to the landlord’s failure to maintain. There is however no cogent evidence nor material before the Tribunal to suggest there is any failure to respond to maintenance issues properly raised with the landlord.
I consider and accept the landlord’s submissions that in any event, domestic issues between spouses are “nothing to do with them”. Similarly, the landlord is not responsible for stress caused by a drunken neighbour knocking on the premises. There is no evidence that the security code to the front door was compromised and the landlord is not obliged to provide new codes accordingly.
In the upshot, none of the tenant’s claims for damages and exemplary damages on alleged breaches of the landlord’s responsibility to maintain is successful.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claims accordingly.
The landlord confirms that they are happy for the bond to be returned to the tenant forthwith.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782998 — State of repair at 21 Tukauri Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782998 — State of repair at 21 Tukauri Place, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions