What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804277 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4804277?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804277?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10429329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804277 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4804277?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804277?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10429329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

175 Browns Bay Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4804277 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed for a work order and compensation.
The work order sought was in relation to replacement of the carpet, repair of the front door lock, applying mesh to wall penetrations, applying mesh to decking and replacement of the front door.
The other issues sought in the application had been resolved prior to the hearing and were withdrawn.
The main issue for the tenant was the carpet which she says is breaking down resulting in micro particles that she and her husband are breathing in. The tenant wants the carpet to be replaced.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. The tenant produced close-up photographs of the carpet, correspondence with the landlord and a letter from her doctor.
The landlord does not agree that the carpet needs to be replaced. In support the landlord produced evidence that the carpet was new in April 2019 (five years old at date of hearing). The landlord had a flooring installation manager from Flooring People attend the property to inspect the carpet. His email dated 4 June 2024 states that the carpet is not breaking down.
The landlord produced photographs from the most recent routine inspection which took place on 6 March 2024. The photographs show that most of the carpet is covered by the tenant’s rugs. The area covered by the rugs far exceed the uncovered area of carpet.
At the hearing the tenant said that the carpet has been professionally cleaned on three occasions since the tenancy commenced in September 2021. The most recent professional clean was in March 2024. The tenant said that this is the only thing that has made a difference to the situation. The tenant said that when the carpet is professionally cleaned the rugs are also lifted and cleaned but normally, they are not vacuumed under on a regular basis.
The tenant has been very worried about the carpet. In earlier correspondence to the landlord the tenant thought that the carpet was old and estimated it to be a minimum of 20 years old. The tenant purchased more rugs to cover the carpet which she thought would reduce the dust but has since learnt from her doctor that this does not help the situation.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the carpet needs replacing. There is no sign of wear, and the carpet is only five years old which is less than the expected life of carpet in rental homes. It is possible that the presence of so many rugs contribute to the level of dust especially given that they are only lifted for cleaning around once a year.
The tenant’s application for a work order to replace the carpet is dismissed.
At the hearing there was discussion about the front door lock and how the tenant needed to use the deadbolt because the door would open with the wind. The landlord produced an invoice showing that this issue was looked at in November 2022. At the time the door was working correctly but it was noted that the door was twisted. Another invoice was produced from January 2023 which shows that the front door was removed, the bottom planed, and the door catch adjusted.
The tenant said that since then she has not raised the issue of the door not closing properly. The issue was also not raised at the most recent routine inspection. The tenant also wants the front door to be replaced.
The landlord needs an opportunity to address maintenance issues. At the hearing the landlord agreed to look at this further. Given that the tenant has not recently raised this issue with the landlord I will not make a work order requiring the work to be carried out. That part of the work order is dismissed.
Another issue raised by the tenant was the lack of coverage on wall penetrations in the garage. This is another issue that the landlord agreed to look in to. I do not consider that a work order is required for this because there is no evidence that this issue was raised earlier with the landlord.
The other part of the work order was the mesh on the decking outside the garage. In the photographs from the routine inspection the mesh covered a small amount of the decking which I am told sometimes gets slippery.
The landlord had the mesh replaced recently and a photograph was produced showing most of the decking was now covered by mesh. The tenant thought that the mesh was not effective and did not cover all the required area.
On the evidence it is not clear that all the decking needs to be covered by mesh. In December 2023 the landlord had the house professionally cleaned. I am satisfied that the landlord is maintaining the premises and a work order is not required in relation to the mesh on the decking outside the garage. That part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant sought compensation in relation to the purchase of rugs. As mentioned above the tenant has now learnt that the rugs are unlikely to assist with the issue of the carpet breaking down or excessive dust. It is my view that the presence of the rugs and the lack of regularly lifting them for cleaning may be exacerbating the dust issue. I do not consider that the tenant has suffered any loss due to the landlord’s actions. The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed for a work order and compensation.
The work order sought was in relation to replacement of the carpet, repair of the front door lock, applying mesh to wall penetrations, applying mesh to decking and replacement of the front door.
The other issues sought in the application had been resolved prior to the hearing and were withdrawn.
The main issue for the tenant was the carpet which she says is breaking down resulting in micro particles that she and her husband are breathing in. The tenant wants the carpet to be replaced.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced. The tenant produced close-up photographs of the carpet, correspondence with the landlord and a letter from her doctor.
The landlord does not agree that the carpet needs to be replaced. In support the landlord produced evidence that the carpet was new in April 2019 (five years old at date of hearing). The landlord had a flooring installation manager from Flooring People attend the property to inspect the carpet. His email dated 4 June 2024 states that the carpet is not breaking down.
The landlord produced photographs from the most recent routine inspection which took place on 6 March 2024. The photographs show that most of the carpet is covered by the tenant’s rugs. The area covered by the rugs far exceed the uncovered area of carpet.
At the hearing the tenant said that the carpet has been professionally cleaned on three occasions since the tenancy commenced in September 2021. The most recent professional clean was in March 2024. The tenant said that this is the only thing that has made a difference to the situation. The tenant said that when the carpet is professionally cleaned the rugs are also lifted and cleaned but normally, they are not vacuumed under on a regular basis.
The tenant has been very worried about the carpet. In earlier correspondence to the landlord the tenant thought that the carpet was old and estimated it to be a minimum of 20 years old. The tenant purchased more rugs to cover the carpet which she thought would reduce the dust but has since learnt from her doctor that this does not help the situation.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the carpet needs replacing. There is no sign of wear, and the carpet is only five years old which is less than the expected life of carpet in rental homes. It is possible that the presence of so many rugs contribute to the level of dust especially given that they are only lifted for cleaning around once a year.
The tenant’s application for a work order to replace the carpet is dismissed.
At the hearing there was discussion about the front door lock and how the tenant needed to use the deadbolt because the door would open with the wind. The landlord produced an invoice showing that this issue was looked at in November 2022. At the time the door was working correctly but it was noted that the door was twisted. Another invoice was produced from January 2023 which shows that the front door was removed, the bottom planed, and the door catch adjusted.
The tenant said that since then she has not raised the issue of the door not closing properly. The issue was also not raised at the most recent routine inspection. The tenant also wants the front door to be replaced.
The landlord needs an opportunity to address maintenance issues. At the hearing the landlord agreed to look at this further. Given that the tenant has not recently raised this issue with the landlord I will not make a work order requiring the work to be carried out. That part of the work order is dismissed.
Another issue raised by the tenant was the lack of coverage on wall penetrations in the garage. This is another issue that the landlord agreed to look in to. I do not consider that a work order is required for this because there is no evidence that this issue was raised earlier with the landlord.
The other part of the work order was the mesh on the decking outside the garage. In the photographs from the routine inspection the mesh covered a small amount of the decking which I am told sometimes gets slippery.
The landlord had the mesh replaced recently and a photograph was produced showing most of the decking was now covered by mesh. The tenant thought that the mesh was not effective and did not cover all the required area.
On the evidence it is not clear that all the decking needs to be covered by mesh. In December 2023 the landlord had the house professionally cleaned. I am satisfied that the landlord is maintaining the premises and a work order is not required in relation to the mesh on the decking outside the garage. That part of the claim is dismissed.
The tenant sought compensation in relation to the purchase of rugs. As mentioned above the tenant has now learnt that the rugs are unlikely to assist with the issue of the carpet breaking down or excessive dust. It is my view that the presence of the rugs and the lack of regularly lifting them for cleaning may be exacerbating the dust issue. I do not consider that the tenant has suffered any loss due to the landlord’s actions. The claim for compensation is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804277 — Cleanliness at 175 Browns Bay Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804277 — Cleanliness at 175 Browns Bay Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions