How much money was awarded in case 4844443?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844443?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844443?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10423728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4844443?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844443?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844443?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10423728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Bruce Street, Mosgiel, Mosgiel 9024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4844443 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4844443?

The tribunal order states: By consent BDTP Investments Limited is to deliver to the address provided by

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

By consent BDTP Investments Limited is to deliver to the address provided by William Campbell at 10am on Friday 7 June 2024 or if it is wet the next fine day, all the possessions belonging to the tenant, that have been left at the premises.

The application for refund of rent and exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord with his lawyer and the tenant his daughter.

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 11/12/2023 to 11/12/2024.

The tenant vacated the premises on 24/2/2024 following termination by the Tribunal.

The tenant sought a refund of the rent he had paid and the arrears he had been ordered to pay, his bond of $1,500.00 and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises due to an overflowing toilet and seizure of his possessions.

As the issue of the bond was previously dealt with in the decision dated 22/2/2024 I am unable to deal with that matter.

Did the landlord breach their obligations?

The tenant submitted that the toilet was blocked and unusable because it overflowed from the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord failed to rectify the matter, despite telling the tenant he would do so.

As a result, the tenant stopped paying rent after the first week.

In support of the claim the tenant relied on an invoice from a plumbing firm, Foley’s Dunedin dated 30/1/2024 which stated, “Put camera down foul drain from boundary trap back towards house, seen a big mass of tree roots approx. 6m down line. Used Jetter to clear from boundary trap to the blind Y junction about 15m down line. When going to put Jetter down the vent to clear rest of line got told to stop. Drain is still blocked.”

Further the tenant provided photographs of the drain outside the back door showing what he believed was faecal matter which “regularly spilled onto the back yard” and left a foul odour which affected his health and that of his daughter who had been the previous tenant.

On the other hand, the landlord disputed that there was any issue with the drain other than blockage from “miss use”, which he believed was the flushing of wet wipes down the drain by the tenant’s daughter.

The landlord submitted that it was not until he received a call from his plumber on 24/1/2024 about another plumber being on site at the premises that he became aware of the drain issue and had his plumber clear the drain.

The landlord’s plumber, Sam Geels, gave evidence by telephone. He confirmed that he had undertaken drainage work on the property for the past three to four years.

Although the plumber was unclear exactly what dates he unblocked drains he believed any blockages were due to wet pipes rather than roots.

Further the landlord suggested it was not until the mediation over the rent arrears on 25/2/2024 that there was any discussion with the tenant about a blocked toilet.

In addition, the landlord suggested, and the tenant did not dispute, that the photographs the tenant provided were taken by the landlord’s plumber in February 2023.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

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 Tenancy Tribunal is a civil jurisdiction, the applicant, in this case the tenant, is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

I am not persuaded by the evidence that it is more likely than not the drain was blocked by tree roots to such an extent that it caused the toilet to overflow.

While it is a possibility taking into account the evidence from the Foley invoice this was the case, the evidence from Mr Geels and the photographs from early 2023 suggesting wet wipes were the cause.

In addition, the lack of notice from the tenant to the landlord about the problem does not support the issue was significant, albeit that he stopped paying rent.

I find the tenant has failed to prove the claim to the necessary standard.

The landlord has not committed an unlawful act. Did the landlord seize the tenant’s possessions?

The tenant claimed the landlord seized his possessions when he could not remove them from the premises on termination due to the weather and would not return them until costs were paid.

In response the landlord suggested he relied on information from Tenancy Services about claiming costs for storage of the tenants’ goods, albeit that he did not actually incur any storage costs.

When he sought legal advice about the storage costs the landlord offered to return the goods to the tenant.

The parties have now agreed to the process for return of the possessions and an order by consent has been made.

However, the tenant believes the seizure and failure to return the goods is “illegal”.

Section 33(1) provides that a landlord is not entitled to seize or dispose of tenant’s goods as security for or in payment of any amount owing by way of rent or any other reason arising from the tenancy.

Except for goods disposed of under sections 62 to 62C, breaching of this provision is an unlawful act and can lead to an award of exemplary damages to a maximum of $3,000.00.

Sections 62 to 62F sets out the criteria for what a landlord can do when on termination of a tenancy a tenant leaves goods on the premises.

A landlord must, after possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and agree on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods.

There is no dispute that the tenant contacted the landlord on the day he moved out to explain why he was unable to move the goods.

However, the landlord chose, after receiving advice to hold the goods pending the tenant paying his costs.

It was not until he received legal advice that the landlord became aware he was only entitled to claim reasonable costs incurred for storage, which he had not incurred because the goods were stored in a container on his business premises.

I find the landlord did not commit an unlaw act because he not seize the tenant’s possessions but rather took possession of them because he considered they were abandoned.

However, the landlord did breach section 62 by holding onto the possessions and asking the tenant to pay unreasonable costs.

Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages and or compensation?

Exemplary damages are not available to the tenant because the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.

In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

In the interests of a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute between the parties I have not awarded compensation for the landlord holding onto the tenant’s possessions when the tenant asked to pick them up.

The reasons for this are as follows: a. It is unlikely the landlord will pursue the tenant for any other costs, such as cleaning, b. The fact that the tenant breached section 40(1)(a) by failing to pay rent for nine of the ten weeks he resided in the premises, c. Immediately he became aware of the need to return the goods the landlord offered to do so, d. The landlord agreed at the hearing to return the possessions tomorrow.

No filing fee is awarded because the tenant was unsuccessful with his claim.

As the claim was not successful name suppression is not available to the tenant.