How much money was awarded in case 4812218?

Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812218?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812218?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10252300-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4812218?

Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812218?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812218?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10252300-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812218 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4812218 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4812218. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and if required, also repaired. 2. Until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired, the rent is to be reduced by	$60.00		and if required, also repaired. 2. Until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired, the rent is to be reduced by

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 nd May 2024: a. Have the gutters cleaned and if required, also repaired.

Until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired, the rent is to be reduced by $60.00 per week.

The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 th April 2024.

On 19 th December 2023, the Tribunal made a work order against the landlord. The tenant claims the landlord has breached the work order.

Breaching a work order without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

There were 16 issues to be addressed for the work order. By the time of the hearing, many of those were completed albeit late, except for some where it was discovered the work order was impossible to be complied with.

There was an initial delay of one month due to the original order from the Tribunal not being attached in the Tribunal’s email to the landlord. From that delay, there was a further delay due to the parties not being able to agree on which professional to use.

The outstanding issues at the time of the hearing were: a. the gutters not being cleaned or repaired; b. the draught issues upstairs; c. insulation work not being done of the room on the deck; d. work to be done on all areas of the deck; e. carpet not being repaired; and f. roof issues.

The initial urgent issue around the gutter cleaning and repairs was due to the water tank collecting water via the gutters. However, the landlord had since replaced the water tank altogether and was filling the new water tank up by a water tanker and not via the gutter.

This was due to the previous water tank not meeting the health and safety standard required. That was the reason why the landlord had replaced the water tank altogether.

Although I acknowledge that has reduced the urgency regarding the gutter cleaning and repairs, I still do not find that is a reasonable excuse for not having the gutters cleaned or repaired. However, I do not find that there is any public interest for exemplary damages in the circumstances.

The landlord has agreed to have the gutters cleaned within 28 days of the order. I order the landlord to do so and repair the gutters if required also.

In relation to all other outstanding issues, the professional engaged had found that the entire deck needs to be demolished and rebuilt. Due to the scaffolding required, it made sense for the roof to be worked on at the same time and the carpet to be repaired or replaced after the work was done. The room on the deck was found to be unsafe due to the deck being found unsafe. The draught issue upstairs cannot be resolved until the roof has been repaired.

The repair is likely to become a significant project and the landlord was arranging finances and deciding how to go about with the repairs. Whether the tenant would be able to continue living at the premises during the rebuild of the deck remains to be clarified.

I do not find that the landlord has breached the work order intentionally. I decline to award any exemplary damages.

However, the tenant has now lost the use of the deck and the room on the deck.

To reflect the loss of use, I order the rent to be reduced by $60.00 per week calculated from the date of the hearing. The rent is to be reduced until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired.

The landlord asked whether this would affect the landlord’s ability to increase the rent. Apparently, the rent had not been increased for a number of years.

There is nothing stopping the landlord increasing the rent in accordance with section 24 of the RTA. From that, the rent would need to be reduced by $60.00 per week unless and until the deck and the room have been repaired.

If the tenant believes that the increased rent exceeds the market rent, the tenant can make an application to the Tribunal to adjust the rent to be in line with market rent under section 25 RTA.

The tenant’s application for loss of enjoyment is dismissed as it relates to the inherent stress involved with the issues.

The tenant’s claim for compensation for bottled water is dismissed as the landlord has already paid back the amount to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4812218. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and if required, also repaired. 2. Until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired, the rent is to be reduced by	$60.00		and if required, also repaired. 2. Until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired, the rent is to be reduced by

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 22 nd May 2024: a. Have the gutters cleaned and if required, also repaired.
Until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired, the rent is to be reduced by $60.00 per week.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 th April 2024.
On 19 th December 2023, the Tribunal made a work order against the landlord. The tenant claims the landlord has breached the work order.
Breaching a work order without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $5,000.00. See section 108(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
There were 16 issues to be addressed for the work order. By the time of the hearing, many of those were completed albeit late, except for some where it was discovered the work order was impossible to be complied with.
There was an initial delay of one month due to the original order from the Tribunal not being attached in the Tribunal’s email to the landlord. From that delay, there was a further delay due to the parties not being able to agree on which professional to use.
The outstanding issues at the time of the hearing were: a. the gutters not being cleaned or repaired; b. the draught issues upstairs; c. insulation work not being done of the room on the deck; d. work to be done on all areas of the deck; e. carpet not being repaired; and f. roof issues.
The initial urgent issue around the gutter cleaning and repairs was due to the water tank collecting water via the gutters. However, the landlord had since replaced the water tank altogether and was filling the new water tank up by a water tanker and not via the gutter.
This was due to the previous water tank not meeting the health and safety standard required. That was the reason why the landlord had replaced the water tank altogether.
Although I acknowledge that has reduced the urgency regarding the gutter cleaning and repairs, I still do not find that is a reasonable excuse for not having the gutters cleaned or repaired. However, I do not find that there is any public interest for exemplary damages in the circumstances.
The landlord has agreed to have the gutters cleaned within 28 days of the order. I order the landlord to do so and repair the gutters if required also.
In relation to all other outstanding issues, the professional engaged had found that the entire deck needs to be demolished and rebuilt. Due to the scaffolding required, it made sense for the roof to be worked on at the same time and the carpet to be repaired or replaced after the work was done. The room on the deck was found to be unsafe due to the deck being found unsafe. The draught issue upstairs cannot be resolved until the roof has been repaired.
The repair is likely to become a significant project and the landlord was arranging finances and deciding how to go about with the repairs. Whether the tenant would be able to continue living at the premises during the rebuild of the deck remains to be clarified.
I do not find that the landlord has breached the work order intentionally. I decline to award any exemplary damages.
However, the tenant has now lost the use of the deck and the room on the deck.
To reflect the loss of use, I order the rent to be reduced by $60.00 per week calculated from the date of the hearing. The rent is to be reduced until the deck and the room above the deck are repaired.
The landlord asked whether this would affect the landlord’s ability to increase the rent. Apparently, the rent had not been increased for a number of years.
There is nothing stopping the landlord increasing the rent in accordance with section 24 of the RTA. From that, the rent would need to be reduced by $60.00 per week unless and until the deck and the room have been repaired.
If the tenant believes that the increased rent exceeds the market rent, the tenant can make an application to the Tribunal to adjust the rent to be in line with market rent under section 25 RTA.
The tenant’s application for loss of enjoyment is dismissed as it relates to the inherent stress involved with the issues.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for bottled water is dismissed as the landlord has already paid back the amount to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812218 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812218 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions