What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836660 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4836660?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836660?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10386102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836660 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4836660?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836660?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836660?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10386102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836660 — 14-day notice

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal orders that the parties’ names be suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s applications are for: a. Refund of the bond. See section 22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. See section 45(1)(bb) RTA. c. Compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See section 45(1)(a) RTA. d. Compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. See section 45 (1)(b) RTA. Standard 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 her claim is more likely than not. I have considered 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 each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
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.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for the tenant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the tenant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Refund of the bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a tenant applies for refund of the bond and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant.
As discussed at the hearing, the landlord will need to file a further application for any amounts it is seeking from the tenant for compensation arising at the end of the tenancy. Healthy Homes Standards
This tenancy started on 20 October 2020. The Healthy Homes Standards apply to tenancies that started after 1 July 2021.
The Healthy Homes Standards do not therefore apply to this tenancy and the tenant’s claim must be dismissed. Failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
Under section 45(1) RTA the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching this obligation 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.
The parties accept that the property was in far from a reasonable state of cleanliness at the time the tenant was to move into the property on 20 October 2020.
The landlord had paid to have the property cleaned prior to the start of the tenancy. However, the tenant’s photographic evidence established that at the start of the tenancy the premises were in a visibly dirty condition with the previous tenant’s chattels and rubbish scattered around the house and grounds.
The tenant was unsure as to when exactly she did move in because of the state of the property, but believes that it was during the first week of the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence that the property was cleaned, the previous tenant’s rubbish removed and the section tidied on 21 October 2021. Further rubbish discovered at the property by the tenant was removed by the end of October 2020.
The tenant accepted that the landlord arranged to have the property cleaned during the first week of the tenancy and that the landlord compensated the tenant for her inconvenience with a week’s rent at this time.
The tenant has applied for further compensation after the end of the tenancy, some three and a half years later.
The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is entitled to compensation for more than a week’s rent. Other than the inconvenience of not being able to move in on the start date of the tenancy, the tenant did not indicate what other loss or detriment she had suffered that required compensation. This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act by not providing the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Section 109(2) RTA provides that a tenant may not apply for exemplary damages more than twelve months after the date of the commission of an unlawful act. As noted, the tenant applied over three years after the property was provided to her in an unclean condition.
The Tribunal therefore has no power to award the tenant exemplary damages for this unlawful act of the landlord and her claim is therefore dismissed. Failing to maintain the premises
Under section 45(2) RTA the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Breaching this obligation 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.
The tenant’s photographic evidence shows that the property was not in a reasonable state of repair at the start of tenancy. The tenant’s photographic evidence showed that there were a number of holes in the walls, at least one door handle was missing, window latches and venetian blinds were broken. The tenant gave evidence that the door locks were defective but still functioned.
The tenant gave evidence that she had raised several issues with the landlord during the tenancy. The tenant provided copies of texts regarding specific issues and a copy of a 14 day notice dated 17 August 2023, prepared with the help of Community Legal Advice, which was emailed to the landlord. The notice complained of: a. The property being wet and damp. b. Holes in the walls. c. The walls not being insulated. d. Mould. e. Window latches being broken. f. Not having heating in the bedrooms. g. Not complying with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord responded to that notice on 28 August 2023 noting that: a. The landlord had no legal obligation to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. b. The holes in the walls were caused by the tenant. c. The landlord had no obligation to insulate the walls of the property or put heaters in every room and the floor was exempt from the insulation requirement. d. A contractor would investigate the roof and gutters to see if a cause of the dampness could be identified.
The landlord advised and provided photographic evidence that it arranged for a contractor to inspect the roof and gutters on 24 September 2023 and that the inspection did not disclose that any repairs were required.
The landlord provided evidence of the following work being completed by contractors during the tenancy: a. New curtains and net curtains were installed in November 2021. b. The holes in the walls present at the start of the tenancy were repaired in January 2021. c. The door locks were repaired in May 2021 in response to a text request from the tenant on 24 May 2021. d. Electrical repairs were undertaken in June 2021. e. The hot water supply was repaired in August 2021. f. The tenant made a request by text on 22 December 2021 to have a branch removed, having requested attention to the trees by text on 2 August 2021. The landlord advised that having contacted various contractors, this could not be done immediately as it was so close to Christmas. After Christmas, the tenant advised that her partner had removed the branch. g. A heat pump was installed in July 2022. h. A plumber investigated under the house and made a repair to the waste pipe in September 2023. i. A Healthy Homes Report was completed in November 2023. j. Draught stopping work was completed in November 2023. k. Trees were trimmed in November 2023. l. Investigations were carried out by tradespeople on 13 July 2021 and 24 September 2023 regarding complaints the tenant had made about a wall being damp and mouldy. The tradespeople could not discover any issue requiring rectification.
On 17 November 2023 the tenant texted the landlord “There’s really not much I want fixed, the rest of the house that needs attending is up to you.” The text then mentions mould in the front room, “the roof is coming away”, “Bathroom the shower wall coming away from bath tub... Also floor is soft needs checking. The same problem with leak by drain, with underneath that area of house flooded. Toilet not secured. Karaka tree needs to come down, as I have concerns for the safety of my dog. Front tree trimmed.”
The tenancy ended on 21 December 2023. The landlord advised that it did not believe there was any substance in these final claims. The photographic evidence was not conclusive that these were issues which required the landlord’s attention. They appear to be a list of items that the tenant would like to have seen done. I am not persuaded that the tenant has produced evidence that would persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that these were maintenance issues that the landlord was legally obliged to fix.
The landlord advised that there was no mention in the regular inspections or in its file that the tenant made any other requests for maintenance. The landlord’s diary recording the tenant’s requests and detailing the work carried out as above, confirm that the works were completed within a reasonable period after the tenant notified the landlord that it was required.
As noted in relation to the state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy, the tenant has been compensated with one week’s rent for the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. This compensation is adequate for the lack of cleanliness and the failure to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant provided no evidence that she had no issue with this compensation at the time it was offered.
The landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises is qualified by the age and character of the premises. I note that the property is old and must be nearing the end of its useful life. The low rent of $300.00 per week reflects this. A property of this age, even one complying with the Healthy Homes Standards in all respects, will be colder and damper than a house built in the last forty years from modern materials.
The tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that it should award her any further amount of compensation. I note that the landlord has brought aspects of the house up to Healthy Homes Standards before it was legally required to do so by draught proofing the house and installing a heat pump.
However, the property was not provided at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of repair as required by section 45(1)(b) RTA. The landlord has committed an unlawful act. As the tenant did not apply for exemplary damages within twelve months of the start of the tenancy, the Tribunal has no power to award exemplary damages.
The Tribunal has not been persuaded on the evidence before it that the landlord has failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises or that the landlord failed to respond to the tenant’s recorded requests for repairs in a reasonable time frame.
The tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises are therefore dismissed. Suppression
As the tenant has been successful in her application for a refund of the bond and the landlord has successfully defended the tenant’s claims for compensation and exemplary damages, it is appropriate that the Tribunal exercise its discretion under section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of the parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836660 — 14-day notice

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836660 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions