What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838581 about?

The tribunal order states: Damerell Group (Grey Lynn) Limited Acting Agent For Dave & Ingrid Nicholson

How much money was awarded in case 4838581?

Compensation: Bathroom Door/Floor: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Outside Flooding: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Smart Vent Failure: $155.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838581?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10758468-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838581 about?

The tribunal order states: Damerell Group (Grey Lynn) Limited Acting Agent For Dave & Ingrid Nicholson

How much money was awarded in case 4838581?

Compensation: Bathroom Door/Floor: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Outside Flooding: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Smart Vent Failure: $155.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838581?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10758468-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25A Normandy Place, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838581 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838581 — net $750.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Outside flooding	$300.00	Outside flooding
Compensation: Cleaning rangehood	$25.00	Cleaning rangehood
Compensation: Bathroom door/floor	$250.00	Bathroom door/floor
Compensation: Smart vent failure	$155.00	Smart vent failure
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$750.44
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$750.44

Order

Damerell Group (Grey Lynn) Limited Acting Agent For Dave & Ingrid Nicholson must pay Karina Miria Mihaka-Edmonds and Michael William Edmonds $750.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5804613-010) to Karina Miria Mihaka-Edmonds and Michael William Edmonds immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation. The landlord has no claim against the bond.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Failure to maintain
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn. Outside flooding
On 9 May 2023 the tenants informed the landlord that there was water under the house and on the property.
Auckland Council data shows that around 77mm of rain fell in 2 hours in Henderson on that Tuesday morning. 1 1 Latest torrent adds unprecedented statistic to Auckland's 2023 weather | Stuff
This was a significant rainfall event which had an impact not experienced (or not reported) before by the tenants.
The landlord investigated and while there was clearly surface water, it was expected to later drain. A drainlayer attended.
There was further flooding on 22 May 2023, this was reported and a further follow up made on 3 August 2023 by the tenants.
It appears that the downstream problem with the council stormwater infrastructure was causing a backing up and overflow onsite. The typography was such that water from the premises and the neighbouring premises flowed towards it, ending up at a lower point in the back lawn and garden. The tenants provided photos of the extent of the worst flooding.
They claim the landlord failed to remedy. The landlord did engage a drainlayer and no underlying issue in the premises drains was found. It appears accepted the fix required was for the council to “flush” the sediment from the downstream tank. This was never done.
While accepting this was possibly beyond the control of the owner, the impact on the tenants during medium to heavy rainfall was apparent. I heard that at time they had to wade through ponded water to access the front door. Getting to the clothesline and use of the backyard were also challenges during these occurrences.
It is difficult to be certain of the frequency and extent of later impacts due to the restricted stormwater drainage. I have determined a single compensation amount of $300.00 for all impacts of the flooding on the tenants. In settling on this I have considered the role of the council but possible mitigation onsite, as well as the limited impact internally (no reported dampness or mould from the subfloor or external areas due to the flooding). Smart vent failure
On 14 June 2023 the tenants sent a photo to the landlord of the control panel of the SmartVent home ventilation system. They advised it had alarmed that the filter was fill and required replacing. It was never replaced. The manufacturer recommends replacement approximately every 12 months, subject to the use and environmental conditions.
This tenancy started in February 2022 and it was well over 12 months before the alarm. The tenants claim the system ceased to work due to the alarm.
A working ventilation system, as presented at the start of the tenancy, was a reasonable expectation. I have calculated compensation on the basis of 31 weeks impact (allowing some extended tenant absences) at $5.00 per week. That totals $155.00 compensation and this is awarded. Bathroom door/floor
The floor around the bathroom displayed “bubbling” from water ingress into the plywood floor or possible slumping of the piling in that location. The landlord was notified and the owner inspected it on or around 18 December 2023.
The landlord looked at it and acknowledged something was amiss. The bathroom door could not be opened or closed. The initial thinking was a subfloor piling failure. No remedial action was taken at that time. In fairness, there appears some indication of the tenants spending more time away from the premises but for whatever reason the landlord decided to wait until the tenancy ended before addressing the issue (tenant notice to terminate had already been served).
The actual cause was later found to be a slow leak from the hot water cylinder. This was not discovered until the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated the HWC is not easily seen and no indication of the leak was observed.
The tenant sought compensation for the last ten weeks of the tenancy when the bathroom/toilet/laundry use was inhibited by both the inability to close the door but also due to concerns regarding the safe traffic over the deteriorating flooring in that area.
I have determined some compensation is appropriate for the impact. I have applied a weekly “refund” of rent at $50.00 and adopted a five-week period of impact within the overall last ten weeks of the tenancy. This totals $250.00 compensation and this is awarded. Cleaning rangehood
It was agreed between the agent and the tenants that they should not clean the rangehood as it was not clean at the beginning of the tenancy. However, in what was more than likely a note left by the owners, intended for the tenants, a request was made that the rangehood be cleaned.
One tenant acted on the request and partially cleaned the filters but not the whole rangehood. The owner later had it cleaned professionally.
The tenant estimated it took him 30 minutes to perform the cleaning. I consider the prior agreement of the agent and tenants that cleaning was not required takes precedence and the claim by the tenant for compensation is upheld. However, I struggle with the claimed $60.00 based on the subsequent landlord photos and award $25.00. Return of bond
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 refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee
The tenant have been successful with their application and must be returned their cost of filing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838581 — net $750.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Outside flooding	$300.00	Outside flooding
Compensation: Cleaning rangehood	$25.00	Cleaning rangehood
Compensation: Bathroom door/floor	$250.00	Bathroom door/floor
Compensation: Smart vent failure	$155.00	Smart vent failure
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$750.44
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$750.44

Order

Damerell Group (Grey Lynn) Limited Acting Agent For Dave & Ingrid Nicholson must pay Karina Miria Mihaka-Edmonds and Michael William Edmonds $750.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5804613-010) to Karina Miria Mihaka-Edmonds and Michael William Edmonds immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation. The landlord has no claim against the bond.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Failure to maintain
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA 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, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn. Outside flooding
On 9 May 2023 the tenants informed the landlord that there was water under the house and on the property.
Auckland Council data shows that around 77mm of rain fell in 2 hours in Henderson on that Tuesday morning. 1 1 Latest torrent adds unprecedented statistic to Auckland's 2023 weather | Stuff
This was a significant rainfall event which had an impact not experienced (or not reported) before by the tenants.
The landlord investigated and while there was clearly surface water, it was expected to later drain. A drainlayer attended.
There was further flooding on 22 May 2023, this was reported and a further follow up made on 3 August 2023 by the tenants.
It appears that the downstream problem with the council stormwater infrastructure was causing a backing up and overflow onsite. The typography was such that water from the premises and the neighbouring premises flowed towards it, ending up at a lower point in the back lawn and garden. The tenants provided photos of the extent of the worst flooding.
They claim the landlord failed to remedy. The landlord did engage a drainlayer and no underlying issue in the premises drains was found. It appears accepted the fix required was for the council to “flush” the sediment from the downstream tank. This was never done.
While accepting this was possibly beyond the control of the owner, the impact on the tenants during medium to heavy rainfall was apparent. I heard that at time they had to wade through ponded water to access the front door. Getting to the clothesline and use of the backyard were also challenges during these occurrences.
It is difficult to be certain of the frequency and extent of later impacts due to the restricted stormwater drainage. I have determined a single compensation amount of $300.00 for all impacts of the flooding on the tenants. In settling on this I have considered the role of the council but possible mitigation onsite, as well as the limited impact internally (no reported dampness or mould from the subfloor or external areas due to the flooding). Smart vent failure
On 14 June 2023 the tenants sent a photo to the landlord of the control panel of the SmartVent home ventilation system. They advised it had alarmed that the filter was fill and required replacing. It was never replaced. The manufacturer recommends replacement approximately every 12 months, subject to the use and environmental conditions.
This tenancy started in February 2022 and it was well over 12 months before the alarm. The tenants claim the system ceased to work due to the alarm.
A working ventilation system, as presented at the start of the tenancy, was a reasonable expectation. I have calculated compensation on the basis of 31 weeks impact (allowing some extended tenant absences) at $5.00 per week. That totals $155.00 compensation and this is awarded. Bathroom door/floor
The floor around the bathroom displayed “bubbling” from water ingress into the plywood floor or possible slumping of the piling in that location. The landlord was notified and the owner inspected it on or around 18 December 2023.
The landlord looked at it and acknowledged something was amiss. The bathroom door could not be opened or closed. The initial thinking was a subfloor piling failure. No remedial action was taken at that time. In fairness, there appears some indication of the tenants spending more time away from the premises but for whatever reason the landlord decided to wait until the tenancy ended before addressing the issue (tenant notice to terminate had already been served).
The actual cause was later found to be a slow leak from the hot water cylinder. This was not discovered until the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated the HWC is not easily seen and no indication of the leak was observed.
The tenant sought compensation for the last ten weeks of the tenancy when the bathroom/toilet/laundry use was inhibited by both the inability to close the door but also due to concerns regarding the safe traffic over the deteriorating flooring in that area.
I have determined some compensation is appropriate for the impact. I have applied a weekly “refund” of rent at $50.00 and adopted a five-week period of impact within the overall last ten weeks of the tenancy. This totals $250.00 compensation and this is awarded. Cleaning rangehood
It was agreed between the agent and the tenants that they should not clean the rangehood as it was not clean at the beginning of the tenancy. However, in what was more than likely a note left by the owners, intended for the tenants, a request was made that the rangehood be cleaned.
One tenant acted on the request and partially cleaned the filters but not the whole rangehood. The owner later had it cleaned professionally.
The tenant estimated it took him 30 minutes to perform the cleaning. I consider the prior agreement of the agent and tenants that cleaning was not required takes precedence and the claim by the tenant for compensation is upheld. However, I struggle with the claimed $60.00 based on the subsequent landlord photos and award $25.00. Return of bond
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 refunded in full to the tenant. Filing fee
The tenant have been successful with their application and must be returned their cost of filing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838581 — Cleanliness at 25A Normandy Place, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838581 — Cleanliness at 25A Normandy Place, Henderson, Auckland 0610

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