What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4865441 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4865441?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4865441?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4865441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10414565-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4865441 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4865441?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4865441?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4865441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10414565-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4865441 — State of repair

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant made a claim for compensation and reimbursement for the time spent waiting for the smoke alarm testing and for weekly pool maintenance costs.

I deal with the claims in turn. Smoke alarm testing

The tenant was told that there was a mandatory smoke alarm testing that had to take place. The smoke alarm company had suggested a booking time and requested that the tenant either confirms the suggested booking time or to contact them to arrange a different appointment time.

The tenant had accepted the suggested booking time.

The tenant said that the smoke alarm company failed to show up at the stipulated booking time and a further two times without warning. The tenant was unilaterally told about the changed booking times. The tenant had lost 9 hours in total to be present for the testing.

The landlord said that the smoke alarm company failed to show up twice instead of three times and that the property manager accompanied the smoke alarm company when the testing finally took place at one of the routine inspections. The tenant’s son was present at the time.

The tenant said that he had understood that he had to be present for the testing to provide access. The landlord said that the smoke alarm company could obtain access via the landlord and that the tenant was not required to be present.

The tenant also said that he wanted to be there because the tenant did not want to have anyone that the tenant did not know to be present at the premises by themselves.

I find that the tenant had chosen to be present as he did not want to have an unknown person at the premises which is understandable. However, that does not warrant compensation.

As the tenant was never required to be there for the testing, and neither the landlord nor the smoke alarm company ever requested for the tenant be present for the testing, there is no basis for any compensation.

This claim is dismissed. Swimming pool maintenance

The tenant wanted reimbursement of the $55.00 paid every week for swimming pool maintenance.

The tenant claimed that pool maintenance was the landlord’s responsibility under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

It is correct that the pool must be provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness under section 45(1)(a) and it must be maintained to a reasonable state of repair also under section 45(1)(b).

However, there is an obligation on the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy under section 40(1)(c).

Pool cleaning and maintenance falls under the tenant’s responsibilities under section 40(1)(c). If any substantial part of the pool requires maintenance or repairs, that falls on the landlord. Other standard cleaning and maintenance falls on the tenant.

The parties agreed for the pool to be maintained by a contractor at an agreed rate of $55.00 per week. This was included as an increased weekly rent. This is possible under section 28(1)(c) as the rent had been increased to reflect the agreed variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefited the tenant.

Therefore, I find no issue with $55.00 for pool maintenance being added as part of the weekly rent.

This claim is dismissed also.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made a claim for compensation and reimbursement for the time spent waiting for the smoke alarm testing and for weekly pool maintenance costs.
I deal with the claims in turn. Smoke alarm testing
The tenant was told that there was a mandatory smoke alarm testing that had to take place. The smoke alarm company had suggested a booking time and requested that the tenant either confirms the suggested booking time or to contact them to arrange a different appointment time.
The tenant had accepted the suggested booking time.
The tenant said that the smoke alarm company failed to show up at the stipulated booking time and a further two times without warning. The tenant was unilaterally told about the changed booking times. The tenant had lost 9 hours in total to be present for the testing.
The landlord said that the smoke alarm company failed to show up twice instead of three times and that the property manager accompanied the smoke alarm company when the testing finally took place at one of the routine inspections. The tenant’s son was present at the time.
The tenant said that he had understood that he had to be present for the testing to provide access. The landlord said that the smoke alarm company could obtain access via the landlord and that the tenant was not required to be present.
The tenant also said that he wanted to be there because the tenant did not want to have anyone that the tenant did not know to be present at the premises by themselves.
I find that the tenant had chosen to be present as he did not want to have an unknown person at the premises which is understandable. However, that does not warrant compensation.
As the tenant was never required to be there for the testing, and neither the landlord nor the smoke alarm company ever requested for the tenant be present for the testing, there is no basis for any compensation.
This claim is dismissed. Swimming pool maintenance
The tenant wanted reimbursement of the $55.00 paid every week for swimming pool maintenance.
The tenant claimed that pool maintenance was the landlord’s responsibility under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is correct that the pool must be provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness under section 45(1)(a) and it must be maintained to a reasonable state of repair also under section 45(1)(b).
However, there is an obligation on the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy under section 40(1)(c).
Pool cleaning and maintenance falls under the tenant’s responsibilities under section 40(1)(c). If any substantial part of the pool requires maintenance or repairs, that falls on the landlord. Other standard cleaning and maintenance falls on the tenant.
The parties agreed for the pool to be maintained by a contractor at an agreed rate of $55.00 per week. This was included as an increased weekly rent. This is possible under section 28(1)(c) as the rent had been increased to reflect the agreed variation in the terms of the tenancy that benefited the tenant.
Therefore, I find no issue with $55.00 for pool maintenance being added as part of the weekly rent.
This claim is dismissed also.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4865441 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4865441 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions