What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4837160?

The tribunal order states: This order confirms that the tenancy of Frances Baines at 11 Glendevon Place,

How much money was awarded in case 4837160?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837160?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10697840-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4837160?

The tribunal order states: This order confirms that the tenancy of Frances Baines at 11 Glendevon Place,

How much money was awarded in case 4837160?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837160?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10697840-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Glendevon Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4837160 — Rent arrears

Order

This order confirms that the tenancy of Frances Baines at 11 Glendevon Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 ended on Sunday 16 June 2024, and possession is granted to Kevin Homan.
Frances Baines must pay Kevin Homan $2,285.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Frances Baines’ remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 1 July 2024.
Ms Baines (the tenant) entered a tenancy agreement with Mr Homan (the landlord) for the premises situated at 11 Glendevon Place, Tokoroa 3420. The tenancy commenced on 1 October 2020. The rent was $400.00 per week and the bond was recorded in the Tenancy Agreement as $800.00.
Both parties have filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal.
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages due to the landlord failing to comply with repair and maintenance obligations in relation to the hot water cylinder, retaliatory notice and non-lodgement of the bond.
The landlord has claimed possession of the tenancy following notice to end the tenancy and rent arrears.
The matter was adjourned briefly for the parties to provide further evidence as requested by the Tribunal.
The key issues are: i. Did the landlord breach his responsibility to repair and maintain the hot water cylinder? If so, is the tenant entitled to compensation and exemplary damages? ii. Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory? If so, is the tenant entitled to compensation and exemplary damages? iii. Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time? If not, is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages? iv. Were rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy?
Before I consider the specific issues, I begin by noting that as with any claim, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. The parties need to establish, on the balance of probabilities, their claims. In other words, the parties must prove with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.
What is required is for the Tribunal to be satisfied that, overall, it is more probable than not that the facts occurred as described and that the inferences sought to be drawn can reasonably be drawn from the facts as they have been found. Did the landlord breach his responsibility to repair and maintain the hot water cylinder? If so, is the tenant entitled to compensation and exemplary damages?
The tenant claims compensation and exemplary damages due to the landlord breaching his obligation under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to repair and maintain the hot water cylinder.
The Tribunal could award compensation for breach of a landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(b)). The repair obligation was not absolute. A landlord did not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it caused damage (Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland, CIV- 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007, citing Body Corporate 126001 v Chan [1998] DCR 270) and a tenant had to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d)). The landlord’s obligation was therefore to repair on notice: “... the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be.” (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC, Wellington, CIV-2009- 085-001431, 24 February 2010; see also Merwald Real Estate v Lanauze DC Auckland, MA151-89, 2 May 1989)
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 reported noticing increased power bills in late 2023. She contacted Slingshot, the power company, to inquire about the high costs. She was eventually informed that the issue stemmed from a fault with the hot water cylinder.
In response, the landlord first became aware of the problem on 19 February 2024 when he contacted the tenant regarding unpaid rent. The tenant explained she couldn’t pay due to high power bills.
The landlord said he immediately arranged a plumber, who inspected the hot water cylinder on 25 February 2024. The plumber discovered an issue with the relief valve and ordered replacement parts, which took two weeks to arrive. During this time, the plumber turned off the water, leaving the tenant without hot water. The landlord provided the tenant $500.00 to help with the high power bills.
The question at hand was whether the landlord took appropriate steps to address the problem. I find the landlord acted promptly in attending to the hot water cylinder issue. There is no evidence of a previous problem and there is no evidence that the issue would have been discovered by the landlord during a general inspection. I am satisfied that the relief valve was properly maintained. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the landlord has failed to meet his obligations. While the tenant experienced higher power bills, and a lack of hot water for two weeks., she has already been adequately compensated by the landlord, and as I find no breach on the landlord’s part no further compensation is warranted.
Since the landlord has not breached his repair and maintenance obligations, exemplary damages are not applicable. Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory? If so, is the tenant entitled to compensation and exemplary damages?
The tenant believes the landlord issued a 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy in retaliation to her communications with the landlord regarding his repair and maintenance obligations in relation to the hot water cylinder and her high power bills.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord (section 54(1) RTA).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54 (3), 109(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 15 March 2024, the landlord gave the tenant 90 days' notice to end the tenancy, intending to put the property up for sale. Although his plan to buy another property privately fell through. The landlord produced evidence to support his intention to purchase another home. The landlord confirmed that the notice was not related to the tenant's complaint about the hot water cylinder or any other tenancy matters.
While the tenant links the termination notice to her complaints with the hot water cylinder, high power bills and compliance with the landlord’s obligations under the RTA, I do not make that link.
There is no basis upon which the Tribunal should reject the landlord’s evidence which was given in a straightforward and seemingly honest manner.
I find the timing of the notice was coincidental. There was no causal link between the tenant exercising her rights under the RTA and the issuing of a genuine and lawful termination notice. I find that the landlord complied with the provisions of the RTA by giving proper notice to end the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the notice to end the tenancy was given by the landlord for an entirely separate, fair and genuine reason and not in retaliation to any complaints or requests for repairs or maintenance raised by the tenant.
The evidence does not support a breach of section 54. Accordingly, the claim for retaliatory notice, has not been proved and is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time?

If not, is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement between the parties records a bond of $800.00.
The landlord stated that the tenant did not pay the full bond upfront. The tenant initially paid $300.00, followed by two payments of $400.00. The landlord later refunded $400.00 but couldn't recall the exact details and needed to check his records. He agreed however to accept an $800.00 bond but admitted he did not lodge it with the Bond Centre.
In this case, the landlord did not lodge the bond within 23 working days of payment and therefore committed an unlawful act. The landlord explained that the non- lodgement was due to a mere oversight. I find nevertheless that the landlord is in breach of his duties under section 19 RTA on timely lodgement of the bond and a nominal amount of exemplary damages is appropriate. I find that exemplary damages of $300.00 is appropriate.

Were rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy?

A tenant must pay rent as and when it falls due (see section 40 RTA).
The landlord initially sought termination of the tenancy, but the tenant said she had already vacated the property on 16 June 2024 as per the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy. The landlord’s notice did not specify an end date. Due to this flaw in the notice and taking a pragmatic approach, I accepted the tenant vacated on 16 June in line with notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord produced rent records proving rent arrears of $3,385.71 owing as at 16 June 2024. The tenant did not provide any evidence to challenge the rent summary presented. Filing fee
Both parties have paid a filing fee and I do not consider it appropriate for either party to reimburse the other.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837160 — Rent arrears at 11 Glendevon Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837160 — Rent arrears at 11 Glendevon Place, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time?

If not, is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Were rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time?

If not, is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

Were rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy?