What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4823078 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4823078?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Use And Compensation: Pool: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823078?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10336363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4823078 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4823078?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Loss Of Use And Compensation: Pool: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823078?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10336363-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4823078 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823078 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Loss of use and compensation: Pool	$4,000.00	Loss of use and compensation: Pool
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Whalan And Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Property Management Canterbury as Agent for LCW Family Trust Luke Whitelock must pay [The tenant/s] $4,020.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation for loss of use of the swimming pool and related inconvenience during the tenancy. Background
The tenancy was from December 2020 to January 2024 so just over three years.
The premises consist of a lifestyle property with an outdoor, unheated, swimming pool.
The rent was $750 per week for the first two years and $850 per week for the final year.
The tenancy agreement stated that the landlords were responsible for servicing the pool. The renewal agreement after two years provided that the tenant was to maintain the pool and provide chemicals and the landlords were to have the pool checked periodically by a professional.
There were problems with the pool from the start. The pool company’s job records show 28 jobs during the tenancy. Not all of those were for faults with the pool but the majority were.
The landlords produced photographs from the inspections during the tenancy which showed the pool water to be clear on all but one occasion.
The tenant said that the water might be clear, but debris in the pool was stirred up when the pool was used which made using it unpleasant.
The tenant had teenage children living with him and their use of the pool, as well as his own, was often inhibited. Law
Under section 45 of the residential tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In general, a landlord will be in breach of this obligation only when they are aware of a defect and then fail to remedy it within a reasonable time. That means that where a landlord responds appropriately when a defect is brought to their attention, they will not generally be found in breach of the obligation.
In some circumstances, a landlord will be liable where they should, if they had exercised reasonable diligence, have been aware of the defect. A landlord is expected to have inspected the premises before the start of a tenancy to ensure that it is in a reasonable state of repair and is otherwise compliant with relevant requirements.
Section 59 of the Act provides that where part of the premises is uninhabitable, rent will abate accordingly.
Section 85(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal will deal with cases according to their substantial merits and justice. Discussion and Decision
The evidence does not lead me to find that the landlords have been in breach of their maintenance obligations. In my view, they responded appropriately to reports from the tenant that the pool was not operating correctly.
The tenant suggested that the landlord should have known that fixing things on an ad hoc basis was not good enough and that a substantial overhaul of the pool equipment was needed. The evidence does not establish that. There were continual problems, but there is no evidence that the landlords received advice to do more than they did and declined to accept it.
I do not find that the landlord should have known that the pool was defective from the start. They had just recently bought the premises before the tenancy, and there was no evidence that they had any reason to think that the pool was faulty.
If follows that I should not award compensation for the landlords’ breach of their repairing obligations.
Section 59 of the Act refers to parts of the premises being uninhabitable. It is not apt to say that the pool was uninhabitable. But it was unusable and in practice, that amounts to the same thing. In my view there should be an award for the loss of use of the pool by applying s59 by analogy. To the extent necessary, I rely on s85 to justify that.
The landlords in their email to the tenant dated 10 February 2024 set out a detailed record of the times that the pool was out of use and offered compensation in the sum of $2,950 based on $100 per week. In my view that is consistent with the evidence, and it is a suitable approach to the assessment of a rent abatement for the loss of use. I therefore award $3000 for the loss of use of the pool.
The tenant has referred to the significant inconvenience of having to deal with the continual problems that arose with the pool, taking up his time and energy. In my view there should be an additional award in recognition of that. To the extent necessary I rely on s85 for jurisdiction to make such an award. I find that $1,000 is appropriate.
The total ward is therefore $4,000. The tenant has had some success and so I add the filing fee.
Because the tenant has been successful, I grant him name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823078 — net $4,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Loss of use and compensation: Pool	$4,000.00	Loss of use and compensation: Pool
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,020.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Whalan And Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Property Management Canterbury as Agent for LCW Family Trust Luke Whitelock must pay [The tenant/s] $4,020.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims compensation for loss of use of the swimming pool and related inconvenience during the tenancy. Background
The tenancy was from December 2020 to January 2024 so just over three years.
The premises consist of a lifestyle property with an outdoor, unheated, swimming pool.
The rent was $750 per week for the first two years and $850 per week for the final year.
The tenancy agreement stated that the landlords were responsible for servicing the pool. The renewal agreement after two years provided that the tenant was to maintain the pool and provide chemicals and the landlords were to have the pool checked periodically by a professional.
There were problems with the pool from the start. The pool company’s job records show 28 jobs during the tenancy. Not all of those were for faults with the pool but the majority were.
The landlords produced photographs from the inspections during the tenancy which showed the pool water to be clear on all but one occasion.
The tenant said that the water might be clear, but debris in the pool was stirred up when the pool was used which made using it unpleasant.
The tenant had teenage children living with him and their use of the pool, as well as his own, was often inhibited. Law
Under section 45 of the residential tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In general, a landlord will be in breach of this obligation only when they are aware of a defect and then fail to remedy it within a reasonable time. That means that where a landlord responds appropriately when a defect is brought to their attention, they will not generally be found in breach of the obligation.
In some circumstances, a landlord will be liable where they should, if they had exercised reasonable diligence, have been aware of the defect. A landlord is expected to have inspected the premises before the start of a tenancy to ensure that it is in a reasonable state of repair and is otherwise compliant with relevant requirements.
Section 59 of the Act provides that where part of the premises is uninhabitable, rent will abate accordingly.
Section 85(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal will deal with cases according to their substantial merits and justice. Discussion and Decision
The evidence does not lead me to find that the landlords have been in breach of their maintenance obligations. In my view, they responded appropriately to reports from the tenant that the pool was not operating correctly.
The tenant suggested that the landlord should have known that fixing things on an ad hoc basis was not good enough and that a substantial overhaul of the pool equipment was needed. The evidence does not establish that. There were continual problems, but there is no evidence that the landlords received advice to do more than they did and declined to accept it.
I do not find that the landlord should have known that the pool was defective from the start. They had just recently bought the premises before the tenancy, and there was no evidence that they had any reason to think that the pool was faulty.
If follows that I should not award compensation for the landlords’ breach of their repairing obligations.
Section 59 of the Act refers to parts of the premises being uninhabitable. It is not apt to say that the pool was uninhabitable. But it was unusable and in practice, that amounts to the same thing. In my view there should be an award for the loss of use of the pool by applying s59 by analogy. To the extent necessary, I rely on s85 to justify that.
The landlords in their email to the tenant dated 10 February 2024 set out a detailed record of the times that the pool was out of use and offered compensation in the sum of $2,950 based on $100 per week. In my view that is consistent with the evidence, and it is a suitable approach to the assessment of a rent abatement for the loss of use. I therefore award $3000 for the loss of use of the pool.
The tenant has referred to the significant inconvenience of having to deal with the continual problems that arose with the pool, taking up his time and energy. In my view there should be an additional award in recognition of that. To the extent necessary I rely on s85 for jurisdiction to make such an award. I find that $1,000 is appropriate.
The total ward is therefore $4,000. The tenant has had some success and so I add the filing fee.
Because the tenant has been successful, I grant him name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823078 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823078 — 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