What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882060 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4882060?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882060?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882060 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4882060?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882060?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10926316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882060 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application for compensation for the landlord’s failure to repair blinds is dismissed as is the application for a remedy due to a missing R value of the ceiling insulation in the tenancy agreement.
The application for a refund of water rates is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant is elderly and has difficulties hearing so the Tribunal approved her request for representation. The application
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. In particular she states that vertical blinds in the lounge were broken and were not repaired, despite her issuing a 14-day notice on 27 February 2024.
She also refers to the tenancy agreement not recording the R value of the ceiling insulation. Background
The tenancy started on 13 November 2020. The premises were sold in May 2024. The landlord named in this application no longer manages the tenancy.
The new owner of the premises has agreed to replace the vertical blinds in the lounge. The replacement is pending, measurements having been taken.
The tenant also sought a refund of water rates. However, the information provided by her former property manager has established how the water rates were charged. The tenant’s representative withdrew that claim.

Should the Tribunal make any orders?

The evidence about the state of the blinds is in conflict. The tenant’s former property manager responded to the 14-day notice she received. She repaired a toilet seat. She said in evidence today that the blinds were working when she inspected them and on the settlement date of the sale in May 2024. She said the tenant might have forced open the blinds which caused them to be difficult to close.
The issue has resolved in the sense that the new owner has agreed to replace the vertical blinds. The tenant’s representative accepted that no work order could be (or need be) made. However, she sought compensation for the tenant’s inconvenience for the period when the blinds were difficult to close.
The Tribunal is not persuaded to award compensation. That the blinds were difficult to close was an inconvenience but did not result in a compensable loss.
The time between the 14-day notice (27 February 2024) and the date of sale of the premises was about 9 weeks, so not excessive. After the sale, the new owner agreed to do the work.
The tenant’s representative also raised the issue of an incomplete insulation statement in the tenancy agreement because the R value of the ceiling insulation is not noted.
Generally, the insulation statement (and the other required statements) in the tenancy agreement have been completed as they should be. The landlord gave evidence that the premises had new insulation installed before the tenancy started.
That the R value of the ceiling insulation was not recorded is a technical breach, but not one that requires sanction by the Tribunal. Result
I dismiss the application. The tenant has not established a case for compensation, despite a period of inconvenience when the lounge blinds were difficult to close. The technical breach I have referred to does not require the Tribunal to intervene. The application for a refund of water rates is withdrawn. Name suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord is entitled to an order because their defence to the application is successful.
Though not entitled to an order, I have suppressed the tenant’s name as well. The tenant is vulnerable due to her age. The issues were minor. There is no public interest in the order being published.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application for compensation for the landlord’s failure to repair blinds is dismissed as is the application for a remedy due to a missing R value of the ceiling insulation in the tenancy agreement.
The application for a refund of water rates is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant is elderly and has difficulties hearing so the Tribunal approved her request for representation. The application
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. In particular she states that vertical blinds in the lounge were broken and were not repaired, despite her issuing a 14-day notice on 27 February 2024.
She also refers to the tenancy agreement not recording the R value of the ceiling insulation. Background
The tenancy started on 13 November 2020. The premises were sold in May 2024. The landlord named in this application no longer manages the tenancy.
The new owner of the premises has agreed to replace the vertical blinds in the lounge. The replacement is pending, measurements having been taken.
The tenant also sought a refund of water rates. However, the information provided by her former property manager has established how the water rates were charged. The tenant’s representative withdrew that claim.

Should the Tribunal make any orders?

The evidence about the state of the blinds is in conflict. The tenant’s former property manager responded to the 14-day notice she received. She repaired a toilet seat. She said in evidence today that the blinds were working when she inspected them and on the settlement date of the sale in May 2024. She said the tenant might have forced open the blinds which caused them to be difficult to close.
The issue has resolved in the sense that the new owner has agreed to replace the vertical blinds. The tenant’s representative accepted that no work order could be (or need be) made. However, she sought compensation for the tenant’s inconvenience for the period when the blinds were difficult to close.
The Tribunal is not persuaded to award compensation. That the blinds were difficult to close was an inconvenience but did not result in a compensable loss.
The time between the 14-day notice (27 February 2024) and the date of sale of the premises was about 9 weeks, so not excessive. After the sale, the new owner agreed to do the work.
The tenant’s representative also raised the issue of an incomplete insulation statement in the tenancy agreement because the R value of the ceiling insulation is not noted.
Generally, the insulation statement (and the other required statements) in the tenancy agreement have been completed as they should be. The landlord gave evidence that the premises had new insulation installed before the tenancy started.
That the R value of the ceiling insulation was not recorded is a technical breach, but not one that requires sanction by the Tribunal. Result
I dismiss the application. The tenant has not established a case for compensation, despite a period of inconvenience when the lounge blinds were difficult to close. The technical breach I have referred to does not require the Tribunal to intervene. The application for a refund of water rates is withdrawn. Name suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression under section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord is entitled to an order because their defence to the application is successful.
Though not entitled to an order, I have suppressed the tenant’s name as well. The tenant is vulnerable due to her age. The issues were minor. There is no public interest in the order being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882060 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882060 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make any orders?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make any orders?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions