What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788140 about?

The tribunal order states: Rajeev Goyal must pay Gunther Fester and Shoulyn Sharangit Singh $2,445.44

How much money was awarded in case 4788140?

Compensation: Failure to maintain: f…: $145.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water supply/pressure:…: $2,280.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788140?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10094946-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4788140 about?

The tribunal order states: Rajeev Goyal must pay Gunther Fester and Shoulyn Sharangit Singh $2,445.44

How much money was awarded in case 4788140?

Compensation: Failure to maintain: f…: $145.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Water supply/pressure:…: $2,280.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788140?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10094946-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Coburg Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4788140 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788140 — net $2,445.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Water supply/pressure: loss of amenity	$2,280.00	Water supply/pressure: loss of amenity
Compensation: Failure to maintain: floor	$145.00	Failure to maintain: floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,445.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,445.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788140 — net $2,445.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Water supply/pressure: loss of amenity	$2,280.00	Water supply/pressure: loss of amenity
Compensation: Failure to maintain: floor	$145.00	Failure to maintain: floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,445.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,445.44

Order

Rajeev Goyal must pay Gunther Fester and Shoulyn Sharangit Singh $2,445.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
By the consent of both parties, this tenancy will end on Sunday 24 March 2024 at 23:59 hours. Possession returns to the landlord after this time.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants sought compensation due to the landlord’s failure to address a water pressure/hot water problem and a break in the subfloor.
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.
The issue of 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
This tenancy commenced 1 July 2023. The landlord had acquired the property just prior to this tenancy. It ends shortly after a landlord notice to terminate. Failure to maintain
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy two issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn. Water
The tenants claimed that early in the tenancy they suffered from a poor water supply that meant they could not safely shower, use a washing machine, nor use the dishwasher.
Unfortunately for the tenants the phone used by them for communicating with the landlord during the first part of the tenancy was damaged, losing any communication between them and the landlord from that time.
The fact that the water supply required significant repair is not disputed. The landlord has since had attended to (late January 2024). Unfortunately, it appears to be a legacy issue predating this tenancy that was not identified during the due diligence/purchase of the premises.
Given the impact on the tenants is not in dispute, the question of when the tenants notified the landlord of the problem needs to be answered.
I have no reason to not believe the tenants when they recounted raising the issue within the first six weeks of the tenancy. Equally, the landlord’s submission that he never received advice at that time cannot be discounted.
The issue was clearly confirmed on 4 November 2023 and the wording of that message indicates prior communication of the problem to the landlord. From such communication, the landlord has failed to act in a timely manner. As he recounted it, this may be due to his contractor but I fail to be convinced that the tenants in any way hindered the repair that they had requested and desired.
In the absence of any evidence of communication beforehand, I have settled on an effective notification date of 9 October 2023, with the tenants experiencing ongoing disruption to their use of water and appliances, in particular the shower. Given it was not repaired until the end of January 2024, I have calculated compensation on the basis of $140.00 per week during this time. That equates to compensation to the tenants for the lack of a reliable water supply of $2280.00, based on approximately 16 weeks proven impact. Subfloor
There is damage to a small section of subfloor. The area is carpeted so the primary issue is a trip hazard. The tenants notified the landlord of the problem some two weeks before a scheduled routine inspection on 7 December 2023. No repair of the subfloor has been completed. The landlord stated he relied on the advice of his contractor that it would be better to leave the repair until the end of the tenancy. The contractor has not inspected the problem. From the description of the problem, and the likely repair required, any such advice is not evidentially supported and is not a defence to the failure to repair the problem in a timely manner.
The impact on the tenants has been less than experienced due to the water issue but I believe grounds for some compensation are stablished and I award $10 per week for the 14.5 weeks impacted, having allowed one week grace for a reasonable period for the repair before any compensation would be due. $145.00 compensation is awarded to the tenants for the landlord’s continued failure to repair the subfloor. End of tenancy
While separate to the claims, this order records the mutual agreement of the parties that this tenancy will end 24 March 2024. This is a little earlier than the set termination via the prior landlord notice to terminate and is for the benefit of the tenants.
Other tenancy issues were raised by both parties. As discussed, these should form as part of fresh applications, or be mutually resolved between the parties. Application filing fee
Because Gunther Fester and Shoulyn Sharangit Singh have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788140 — State of repair at 28 Coburg Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788140 — State of repair at 28 Coburg Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612

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