What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808560 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is to pay $500.00 to La Donna Chantelle-Marie Victoria Rawinia

How much money was awarded in case 4808560?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808560?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10594231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808560 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is to pay $500.00 to La Donna Chantelle-Marie Victoria Rawinia

How much money was awarded in case 4808560?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808560?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10594231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808560 — 14-day notice

Order

[The landlord/s] is to pay $500.00 to La Donna Chantelle-Marie Victoria Rawinia Reihana immediately.

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 the landlord failed to maintain the premises in regard to a hole in the fence, a broken cupboard, a curtain rail, broken and dangerous steps/stairs, garbage bins full at the start of the tenancy, and an ongoing sewage leak. She has claimed compensation and exemplary damages.
La Donna claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises regarding a hole in the fence, a broken cupboard, a broken window latch, a defective curtain rail and broken steps?
La Donna’s claim is that the landlord did not address these issues after sending a series of 14 day notices to the landlord on 3 April 2023. Her submission is that the hole in the fence was not repaired until June 2023. The broken cupboard was never fixed, the curtain rail was fixed on 3 August 2023 and the broken/slippery steps were not repaired until July 2023. She did not state when the window latch was fixed. These repair dates reflect that if they are true, the landlord did not remediate within a reasonable time.
The landlord provided evidence that does not support La Donna’s submission. The landlord’s submission is that all matters raised in the 14 day notices were addressed without delay and before the dates La Donna has given.
In an email to La Donna dated 11 April 2023 the landlord gave her an update about the issues she had raised on 3 April. The email stated that the fence problem was being worked on, the complaint about the insulation thickness met healthy Homes Standards, the window latches has been fixed, the door to the kitchen cupboard had been removed as it was too easy to break, anti-slip strips had been put on three steps as a trial, a broken step was repaired and a video link was sent showing the curtain rail worked if used with care. On 17 April 2023 the landlord sent another email stating, ‘The stairs on the deck have been fixed. Anti-slip strips have been installed on the stairs at the main entrance. Here is photo proof’. A day later on 18 April 2023 La Donna emailed the landlord as follows: ‘I am happy with the way things are going and there is no need for the tenancy notices anymore’.
La Donna did not inform the landlord of any issues with these items after that date, nor any problem with the progress of having a new fence build after the old one collapsed due to Gabriel storm damage. She did not object to the curtain rail not being replace. It was reasonable for the landlord to believe La Donna was satisfied with the landlord’s maintenance of issues raised. Despite that the landlord continue to find solutions regarding the curtain rail and replaced it with one made by an overseas supplier through [curtain supply store].
I am satisfied that La Donna’s submission that the landlord failed to maintain the premises regarding these issues has not been proved. The evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly and took La Donna’s concerns seriously. La Donna expressed her satisfaction with the landlord’s actions. The landlord could not be faulted regarding this maintenance.

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

La Donna said there was garden rubbish at the property when she moved in and the rubbish bins were full.
The landlord provided evidence to show that a contractor mowed the lawns and that she hired and used a 2 cubic meter bin for waste removal prior to La Donna’s tenancy.
In order for La Donna’s claim about rubbish to be progressed she would need to provide evidence that she contacted the landlord at the time to inform the landlord about rubbish at the property. The landlord claimed that the first time La Donna mentioned rubbish was when the application was made to the Tribunal over a year and a half after the tenancy began. La Donna was unable to provide any evidence that she had notified the landlord of any rubbish issue. The claim must therefore be dismissed. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises regarding sewage.
There is no dispute that there was a sewage leak at the property. There are two houses on the property. The separate wastewater drains from each house link into a sump and then become one line that heads to another sump at the corner of the common property.
The landlord received a nuisance notice from [Council] regarding effluent travelling across the shared driveway and mosquitos in the (tenant’s) swimming pool. As with other maintenance issues the landlord acted immediately employing contractors to attend. [Contractors], trading as [redacted] attended on 3 and 5 April, and believed the drain had been unblocked and the area cleaned. However Donna reported that the problem had reoccurred. [Water utility company] became involved because it was difficult to determine whether the blockage about 15 meters down the common line near a manhole at the corner of the property was [water utility company]’s or the landlord’s responsibility. [Water utility company] attended the site and made assessments that it could be a rag and fats in the private line. The problem was finally resolved in September 2023 by a broken section of ceramic drain being replaced by plastic pipe. The Service Report from the repairer confirmed that the blockage was caused by tree roots penetrating ceramic joints. The Report also confirmed that the obstruction ‘was exacerbated by the incorrect disposal of non-degradable wet wipes by house occupants’.
La Donna claimed that she did not put material such as wet wipes into the system. The evidence however supports the landlord’s view that the wet wipe type material has come from the premises that Donna was using. The house that linked into the property was unoccupied from 26 May 2023. That was before the first time that the drain was cleared. It is also relevant that the [couple] in the adjoining property were not using the sewer system. La Donna stated that the elderly couple were using buckets in the back yard for toileting and La Donna objected to what they were doing. The fact that the drains blocked after this couple left the premises and that they did not return before the drain was replaced, leads to the conclusion that the source of the non- dissolvable material in the drains came from La Donna’s premises. That is the balance of probability.
In summary the problem of the sewage from the blocked drain was necessitated by both tree roots and because wet wipes were being flushed into the system. This was an assessment made both [water utility company] and the pipe repairer. I must conclude that the problem La Donna experienced with sewage at the property was an inconvenience that her tenancy contributed too. Had the wet wipes not been put into the system there may not have been a problem from the tree roots until after she left the tenancy. That is a possibility but will never be known.
I have ordered $500.00 compensation because the total period of time it took to identify and complete the drain repair was about six months. I am satisfied that the landlord was doing their best to work with the authorities and contractors and that it was a complicated repair. Had there not been the wet wipes discovered in the drain, the compensation would have been more.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence shows the landlord immediately responded to the tenant’s requests regarding maintenance and for the most part fixed matters in a very short time. There was always an intention to maintain the premises. The landlord did not commit an unlawful act. Therefore the claim for exemplary damages must be dismissed. Name Suppression
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and the tenant has not, name suppression is granted for the landlord. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Order

[The landlord/s] is to pay $500.00 to La Donna Chantelle-Marie Victoria Rawinia Reihana immediately.

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 the landlord failed to maintain the premises in regard to a hole in the fence, a broken cupboard, a curtain rail, broken and dangerous steps/stairs, garbage bins full at the start of the tenancy, and an ongoing sewage leak. She has claimed compensation and exemplary damages.
La Donna claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises regarding a hole in the fence, a broken cupboard, a broken window latch, a defective curtain rail and broken steps?
La Donna’s claim is that the landlord did not address these issues after sending a series of 14 day notices to the landlord on 3 April 2023. Her submission is that the hole in the fence was not repaired until June 2023. The broken cupboard was never fixed, the curtain rail was fixed on 3 August 2023 and the broken/slippery steps were not repaired until July 2023. She did not state when the window latch was fixed. These repair dates reflect that if they are true, the landlord did not remediate within a reasonable time.
The landlord provided evidence that does not support La Donna’s submission. The landlord’s submission is that all matters raised in the 14 day notices were addressed without delay and before the dates La Donna has given.
In an email to La Donna dated 11 April 2023 the landlord gave her an update about the issues she had raised on 3 April. The email stated that the fence problem was being worked on, the complaint about the insulation thickness met healthy Homes Standards, the window latches has been fixed, the door to the kitchen cupboard had been removed as it was too easy to break, anti-slip strips had been put on three steps as a trial, a broken step was repaired and a video link was sent showing the curtain rail worked if used with care. On 17 April 2023 the landlord sent another email stating, ‘The stairs on the deck have been fixed. Anti-slip strips have been installed on the stairs at the main entrance. Here is photo proof’. A day later on 18 April 2023 La Donna emailed the landlord as follows: ‘I am happy with the way things are going and there is no need for the tenancy notices anymore’.
La Donna did not inform the landlord of any issues with these items after that date, nor any problem with the progress of having a new fence build after the old one collapsed due to Gabriel storm damage. She did not object to the curtain rail not being replace. It was reasonable for the landlord to believe La Donna was satisfied with the landlord’s maintenance of issues raised. Despite that the landlord continue to find solutions regarding the curtain rail and replaced it with one made by an overseas supplier through [curtain supply store].
I am satisfied that La Donna’s submission that the landlord failed to maintain the premises regarding these issues has not been proved. The evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly and took La Donna’s concerns seriously. La Donna expressed her satisfaction with the landlord’s actions. The landlord could not be faulted regarding this maintenance.

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

La Donna said there was garden rubbish at the property when she moved in and the rubbish bins were full.
The landlord provided evidence to show that a contractor mowed the lawns and that she hired and used a 2 cubic meter bin for waste removal prior to La Donna’s tenancy.
In order for La Donna’s claim about rubbish to be progressed she would need to provide evidence that she contacted the landlord at the time to inform the landlord about rubbish at the property. The landlord claimed that the first time La Donna mentioned rubbish was when the application was made to the Tribunal over a year and a half after the tenancy began. La Donna was unable to provide any evidence that she had notified the landlord of any rubbish issue. The claim must therefore be dismissed. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises regarding sewage.
There is no dispute that there was a sewage leak at the property. There are two houses on the property. The separate wastewater drains from each house link into a sump and then become one line that heads to another sump at the corner of the common property.
The landlord received a nuisance notice from [Council] regarding effluent travelling across the shared driveway and mosquitos in the (tenant’s) swimming pool. As with other maintenance issues the landlord acted immediately employing contractors to attend. [Contractors], trading as [redacted] attended on 3 and 5 April, and believed the drain had been unblocked and the area cleaned. However Donna reported that the problem had reoccurred. [Water utility company] became involved because it was difficult to determine whether the blockage about 15 meters down the common line near a manhole at the corner of the property was [water utility company]’s or the landlord’s responsibility. [Water utility company] attended the site and made assessments that it could be a rag and fats in the private line. The problem was finally resolved in September 2023 by a broken section of ceramic drain being replaced by plastic pipe. The Service Report from the repairer confirmed that the blockage was caused by tree roots penetrating ceramic joints. The Report also confirmed that the obstruction ‘was exacerbated by the incorrect disposal of non-degradable wet wipes by house occupants’.
La Donna claimed that she did not put material such as wet wipes into the system. The evidence however supports the landlord’s view that the wet wipe type material has come from the premises that Donna was using. The house that linked into the property was unoccupied from 26 May 2023. That was before the first time that the drain was cleared. It is also relevant that the [couple] in the adjoining property were not using the sewer system. La Donna stated that the elderly couple were using buckets in the back yard for toileting and La Donna objected to what they were doing. The fact that the drains blocked after this couple left the premises and that they did not return before the drain was replaced, leads to the conclusion that the source of the non- dissolvable material in the drains came from La Donna’s premises. That is the balance of probability.
In summary the problem of the sewage from the blocked drain was necessitated by both tree roots and because wet wipes were being flushed into the system. This was an assessment made both [water utility company] and the pipe repairer. I must conclude that the problem La Donna experienced with sewage at the property was an inconvenience that her tenancy contributed too. Had the wet wipes not been put into the system there may not have been a problem from the tree roots until after she left the tenancy. That is a possibility but will never be known.
I have ordered $500.00 compensation because the total period of time it took to identify and complete the drain repair was about six months. I am satisfied that the landlord was doing their best to work with the authorities and contractors and that it was a complicated repair. Had there not been the wet wipes discovered in the drain, the compensation would have been more.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence shows the landlord immediately responded to the tenant’s requests regarding maintenance and for the most part fixed matters in a very short time. There was always an intention to maintain the premises. The landlord did not commit an unlawful act. Therefore the claim for exemplary damages must be dismissed. Name Suppression
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and the tenant has not, name suppression is granted for the landlord. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808560 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808560 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions