What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809937 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4809937?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809937?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10242836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809937 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4809937?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809937?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10242836-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4809937 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809937 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for the lack of a functioning shower	$500.00	Compensation for the lack of a functioning shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

The tenant’s name and details are suppressed.
The landlord is to pay the tenant $520.44 immediately as detailed in the table below.
The tenant’s claims for compensation for breach of her quiet enjoyment and the landlord’s failure to give notice for the attendance of a tradesperson at the property are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The claims
The tenant’s application was for compensation for: a. The landlord’s failure to repair the shower. b. Breach of her quiet enjoyment caused by the comings and goings of tradespeople to the property. c. The landlord’s failure to give notice for a tradesperson to enter the property.
The tenant’s application included claims for exemplary damages. Once the tenant understood the nature of exemplary damages, she withdrew her application for exemplary damages. I note that in the circumstances of this application, I would have determined that the landlord did not intend the breaches and nor would it have been just to have awarded exemplary damages. Burden of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. The shower
The tenant explained that prior to her renting the property, she was promised that the shower would be extensively refurbished and other works would be completed prior to the start of the tenancy. It was very important to the tenant, for reasons personal to herself, that she did not want to have works undertaken while she was living in the property with her baby and cat.
The important facts about the tenant’s issues with the shower are largely agreed between the parties. In brief, the tenant notified the landlord of issues with the shower the day after moving into the property, on 22 November 2023. The landlord had plumbers attend the property to fix the issue on a number of occasions.
The issues with water pressure and temperature were finally fixed on 19 January 2024. The tenant gave evidence that the issue was caused through the faulty installation of the new shower mixer. The tenant explained that while the shower now operates satisfactorily, an issue with the overflow valve may still remain. The landlord has explained that she is committed to replacing the gas hot water system as funds allow.
Both parties have fulfilled their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”): the tenant promptly notified the landlord of a defect that required repair and the landlord has arranged to have tradespeople attend at the property to have the necessary repairs carried out in a reasonable timeframe. The problem is that the landlord’s tradespeople did not fix the problem for a period of 58 days. This may be through no fault of the landlord, but the tenant has been without the use of a fully functioning shower for a lengthy period.
The tenant contracted to rent a property with a fully functioning shower. She did not get what she contracted for. She is entitled to compensation for the lack of amenity and inconvenience. She may have incurred slightly higher gas bills as a result of issues with the gas water heating system, although the tenant could not prove this on the balance of probabilities.
It is appropriate to award the tenant a sum of $500.00 in compensation being an amount that is slightly less than $10.00 per day, based on the cost of hiring a public shower at the local pool during the period concerned. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant complained that in a period of 85 days there had been 17 separate visits to the property by tradespeople, some of them repeated and some of them lengthy. These included the replacement of power points, the provision of a convection hob, the delivery of pots (supplied by the landlord at her cost) required for the hob, inspections for quotes, repairing the air-conditioning unit, repairs to the shower and hot water system and work on the roof insulation. Given her concerns expressed to the landlord’s property manager prior to her signing the tenancy agreement, this was especially upsetting to her.
The tenant accepted that the attendances were required because of her valid complaints about defects requiring repair in the property. She accepted that the landlord had done her best to fix items to the tenant’s satisfaction. It appears to the tenant that the landlord may have been let down by her tradespeople, in particular, in relation to the installation of the new mixing unit in the shower and the subsequent visits required to try and find the fault.
The tenant was obviously and genuinely upset by the number and duration of the visits made by the landlord’s tradespeople. As noted, she was also frustrated at the length of time it took for the shower issue to be resolved. However, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is appropriate to award compensation to a tenant in circumstances which have arisen because a landlord is dutifully discharging its obligations under the RTA. It is unfortunate that so many repairs were required so early in the tenancy but it is not clear that the landlord could have done more to control the disturbance caused to the tenant. Hopefully, for both parties, the spate of repairs is at an end. Notice for repair
Arrangements had been put in place for one of the landlord’s tradespeople to attend at the property at a time and date agreed with the tenant. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the tenant could not be present at the agreed time and date and so it was deferred by a day to an agreed timeframe when the tenant expected either herself or her father to be present. The tenant advised that she was very upset and distressed to arrive at the property and find the tradesperson at work in the property, together with their truck.
I note that the tradesperson’s attendance was within the timeframe agreed with the tenant. The landlord’s property manager apologised to the tenant at the time of this incident and has taken steps to ensure that the tenant’s specific vulnerabilities are protected in the future.
Section 48(2)(d) RTA provides that the landlord may enter the premises “for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry”.
As discussed at the hearing, there is no requirement under section 48(2)(d) RTA that the landlord’s tradespeople must only attend the property when the tenant is present. Once the appropriate notice has been given, the landlord’s tradespeople are entitled to enter the property to carry out required repairs.
While property managers and landlords often extend the courtesy of arranging tradespersons’ visits at times when tenants can be home, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
As the appropriate notice was given and then amended with the consent of the tenant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has breached her notice obligations under section 48 RTA. The tenant’s claim for compensation is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Summary
In summary, it is clear that the tenant has been inconvenienced and upset by the issues which she has experienced with the property. It is equally clear that the landlord has been anxious to remedy those issues and provide a comfortable and functioning home for the tenant. Neither the tenant nor the landlord are “at fault” in relation to these issues, but it is appropriate that the tenant be compensated for what she did not receive for the first 58 days of her tenancy: a fully functioning, hot shower.
I trust that with these issues behind them, the parties can continue to have an amicable relationship and that the tenant, her baby and cat can enjoy their home.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809937 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for the lack of a functioning shower	$500.00	Compensation for the lack of a functioning shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

The tenant’s name and details are suppressed.
The landlord is to pay the tenant $520.44 immediately as detailed in the table below.
The tenant’s claims for compensation for breach of her quiet enjoyment and the landlord’s failure to give notice for the attendance of a tradesperson at the property are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The claims
The tenant’s application was for compensation for: a. The landlord’s failure to repair the shower. b. Breach of her quiet enjoyment caused by the comings and goings of tradespeople to the property. c. The landlord’s failure to give notice for a tradesperson to enter the property.
The tenant’s application included claims for exemplary damages. Once the tenant understood the nature of exemplary damages, she withdrew her application for exemplary damages. I note that in the circumstances of this application, I would have determined that the landlord did not intend the breaches and nor would it have been just to have awarded exemplary damages. Burden of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. The shower
The tenant explained that prior to her renting the property, she was promised that the shower would be extensively refurbished and other works would be completed prior to the start of the tenancy. It was very important to the tenant, for reasons personal to herself, that she did not want to have works undertaken while she was living in the property with her baby and cat.
The important facts about the tenant’s issues with the shower are largely agreed between the parties. In brief, the tenant notified the landlord of issues with the shower the day after moving into the property, on 22 November 2023. The landlord had plumbers attend the property to fix the issue on a number of occasions.
The issues with water pressure and temperature were finally fixed on 19 January 2024. The tenant gave evidence that the issue was caused through the faulty installation of the new shower mixer. The tenant explained that while the shower now operates satisfactorily, an issue with the overflow valve may still remain. The landlord has explained that she is committed to replacing the gas hot water system as funds allow.
Both parties have fulfilled their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”): the tenant promptly notified the landlord of a defect that required repair and the landlord has arranged to have tradespeople attend at the property to have the necessary repairs carried out in a reasonable timeframe. The problem is that the landlord’s tradespeople did not fix the problem for a period of 58 days. This may be through no fault of the landlord, but the tenant has been without the use of a fully functioning shower for a lengthy period.
The tenant contracted to rent a property with a fully functioning shower. She did not get what she contracted for. She is entitled to compensation for the lack of amenity and inconvenience. She may have incurred slightly higher gas bills as a result of issues with the gas water heating system, although the tenant could not prove this on the balance of probabilities.
It is appropriate to award the tenant a sum of $500.00 in compensation being an amount that is slightly less than $10.00 per day, based on the cost of hiring a public shower at the local pool during the period concerned. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant complained that in a period of 85 days there had been 17 separate visits to the property by tradespeople, some of them repeated and some of them lengthy. These included the replacement of power points, the provision of a convection hob, the delivery of pots (supplied by the landlord at her cost) required for the hob, inspections for quotes, repairing the air-conditioning unit, repairs to the shower and hot water system and work on the roof insulation. Given her concerns expressed to the landlord’s property manager prior to her signing the tenancy agreement, this was especially upsetting to her.
The tenant accepted that the attendances were required because of her valid complaints about defects requiring repair in the property. She accepted that the landlord had done her best to fix items to the tenant’s satisfaction. It appears to the tenant that the landlord may have been let down by her tradespeople, in particular, in relation to the installation of the new mixing unit in the shower and the subsequent visits required to try and find the fault.
The tenant was obviously and genuinely upset by the number and duration of the visits made by the landlord’s tradespeople. As noted, she was also frustrated at the length of time it took for the shower issue to be resolved. However, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is appropriate to award compensation to a tenant in circumstances which have arisen because a landlord is dutifully discharging its obligations under the RTA. It is unfortunate that so many repairs were required so early in the tenancy but it is not clear that the landlord could have done more to control the disturbance caused to the tenant. Hopefully, for both parties, the spate of repairs is at an end. Notice for repair
Arrangements had been put in place for one of the landlord’s tradespeople to attend at the property at a time and date agreed with the tenant. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the tenant could not be present at the agreed time and date and so it was deferred by a day to an agreed timeframe when the tenant expected either herself or her father to be present. The tenant advised that she was very upset and distressed to arrive at the property and find the tradesperson at work in the property, together with their truck.
I note that the tradesperson’s attendance was within the timeframe agreed with the tenant. The landlord’s property manager apologised to the tenant at the time of this incident and has taken steps to ensure that the tenant’s specific vulnerabilities are protected in the future.
Section 48(2)(d) RTA provides that the landlord may enter the premises “for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry”.
As discussed at the hearing, there is no requirement under section 48(2)(d) RTA that the landlord’s tradespeople must only attend the property when the tenant is present. Once the appropriate notice has been given, the landlord’s tradespeople are entitled to enter the property to carry out required repairs.
While property managers and landlords often extend the courtesy of arranging tradespersons’ visits at times when tenants can be home, there is no legal requirement for them to do so.
As the appropriate notice was given and then amended with the consent of the tenant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has breached her notice obligations under section 48 RTA. The tenant’s claim for compensation is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Summary
In summary, it is clear that the tenant has been inconvenienced and upset by the issues which she has experienced with the property. It is equally clear that the landlord has been anxious to remedy those issues and provide a comfortable and functioning home for the tenant. Neither the tenant nor the landlord are “at fault” in relation to these issues, but it is appropriate that the tenant be compensated for what she did not receive for the first 58 days of her tenancy: a fully functioning, hot shower.
I trust that with these issues behind them, the parties can continue to have an amicable relationship and that the tenant, her baby and cat can enjoy their home.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809937 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809937 — Tenancy dispute

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