What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900553 about?

The tribunal order states: Real Property Management Limited as agent for Brian Morris must pay Nicola

How much money was awarded in case 4900553?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900553?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11263119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900553 about?

The tribunal order states: Real Property Management Limited as agent for Brian Morris must pay Nicola

How much money was awarded in case 4900553?

Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900553?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11263119-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Kauri Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900553 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900553 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (ant infestation	$500.00	Compensation (ant infestation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

Real Property Management Limited as agent for Brian Morris must pay Nicola Jane Darrell $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation (ant infestation) $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $520.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $520.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant’s mother also attended as a support person. At the start of the hearing, I explained that a support person could not have an active role during the hearing and could not give evidence. That was accepted by the tenant and her mother.
The tenant had applied for work orders, early release of a fixed term tenancy and compensation arising from an alleged ant infestation at the premises.
The parties had resolved the early termination application and the tenancy ended before this hearing. As a result, the only issue before me was the application for compensation.
The tenant had applied for compensation of $8,450 but did not provide any breakdown or evidence to explain or support the amount claimed. At the hearing, the amount was reduced to $4,333.33 being a 30% rent rebate for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenant claims that there was an infestation of ants at the property from the start of the tenancy. She says that the landlord did not address the issue and she should receive a rent rebate of 30%. The tenant provided two photos of ants at the premises; one from 8 February 2024 showing ants in the garage and another sent to the landlord on 19 April showing ants in a kitchen cupboard. She also provided evidence of exchanges with the landlord during the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
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.” (emphasis added)
There is no specific provision dealing with insects or pests in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to its age and character.
Where a tenant claims that a landlord is responsible for a pest infestation, the Tribunal will usually consider whether that infestation has been caused by, or contributed to by, a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or whether there is an underlying maintenance issue which is contributing to the pests.
In this instance there is also a clause in the Tenancy Agreement regarding “vermin”. Clause 31 on page 5 states: Vermin - The Landlord will ensure the Property remains free from the presence of fleas, rats, mice, cockroaches, ants and flies (“vermin”) for a period of one month after the Tenant takes possession. The Tenant agrees to contact the Landlord in writing to advise the presence of vermin within the first 30 days of occupation. At the expiry of the 30 days, the Tenant accepts liability for the presence of vermin and agrees to take steps to remove the vermin from the Property. Where the Tenant can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to maintain cleanliness and the presence of vermin was beyond their control, then the Landlord and Tenant may share the liability of eradication.
That provision is more onerous than the general requirement to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. Section 11(2) RTA recognises that a landlord may voluntarily incur more extensive obligations than those imposed by the Act.
The landlord submitted that an element of reasonableness should be read into clause 31. That it was not an absolute requirement to ensure that the premises were vermin free, but a “reasonable endeavours” type requirement.
The tenancy started on 21 December 2023. The tenant advised the landlord that ants were present after hours on 29 December 2023; within 30 days of the tenancy starting. The landlord immediately arranged for pest treatment, which took place on 12 January 2024, as soon as possible after the Christmas break. In response to the tenant’s request for treatment, the landlord asked the tenant to remove the ant bait she had laid inside the premises as this would attract ants into the dwelling.
On 5 February the tenant contacted the landlord again and noted that there were still ants in the garage and driveway. There was no reference to ants in the dwelling at that time. The owner had laid bait around the exterior of the property on 2 February 2024.
The landlord claims that there was a routine inspection on 3 April where there were no signs of ants. The landlord says that it its inspection report noted that the tenant advised there were some ants in the garage, but the house was “mostly” sorted.
There was no other evidence of ants inside the dwelling until 19 April when the tenant sent the landlord a photograph of ants congregating towards the top of a kitchen cupboard. The photograph is not clear enough to see what the ants were attracted to on that surface. The landlord, again, immediately arranged for a pest control company to attend the property. That did not occur until 2 May because of delays in arranging a suitable time for the tenant.
The landlord followed up with the tenant on 9 May to see whether the treatment had been effective. The tenant replied on 21 May advising that she had noticed some ants in the bathroom in the last couple of days.
The landlord followed up again on 13 June asking whether the ants were still an issue and if the tenant would like the landlord to make another attempt at treatment. There was no reply from the tenant. The landlord followed up again on 24 June and the tenant replied that they “may have dwindled down” with the change in weather and recorded that she had seen the “odd one”.
The landlord then tried to arrange for an alternative pest control company, requested by the tenant. In the meantime, the parties agreed to end the tenancy.
Both parties purported to give evidence of whether the adjoining premises also had an ant problem. The tenant gave evidence of what she had been told by the neighbour’s granddaughter and the landlord gave evidence of what she had been told by the neighbour’s daughter. Neither attended to give evidence and I put no weight on the “hearsay” evidence presented by both parties.
The evidence does not establish that the landlord has breached s45 of the RTA. The tenant did not show that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition or that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair,
However, the evidence does show that there were ants at the premises within 30 days of the start of the tenancy; in breach of clause 31 on page 5 of the tenancy agreement. It also seems that the issue was, temporarily, brought under control within that timeframe. The landlord arranged for internal treatment by a pest control company and the owner laid external bait. After the initial treatment, I find that the ants were an environmental issue and the landlord took all reasonable steps to deal with them.
While the tenant complained of ants throughout the tenancy; there are only two photographs from February (garage) and April (a kitchen cupboard). The photographs show a large cluster of ants but not what they are attracted to or circulating around. There was no evidence to support a rent rebate of 30% (even if the landlord had been liable beyond the initial treatment).
I award the tenant $500 for the inconvenience of the initial treatment.
As the tenant was partially successful, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900553 — net $520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (ant infestation	$500.00	Compensation (ant infestation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$520.44

Order

Real Property Management Limited as agent for Brian Morris must pay Nicola Jane Darrell $520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation (ant infestation) $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $520.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $520.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant’s mother also attended as a support person. At the start of the hearing, I explained that a support person could not have an active role during the hearing and could not give evidence. That was accepted by the tenant and her mother.
The tenant had applied for work orders, early release of a fixed term tenancy and compensation arising from an alleged ant infestation at the premises.
The parties had resolved the early termination application and the tenancy ended before this hearing. As a result, the only issue before me was the application for compensation.
The tenant had applied for compensation of $8,450 but did not provide any breakdown or evidence to explain or support the amount claimed. At the hearing, the amount was reduced to $4,333.33 being a 30% rent rebate for the duration of the tenancy.
The tenant claims that there was an infestation of ants at the property from the start of the tenancy. She says that the landlord did not address the issue and she should receive a rent rebate of 30%. The tenant provided two photos of ants at the premises; one from 8 February 2024 showing ants in the garage and another sent to the landlord on 19 April showing ants in a kitchen cupboard. She also provided evidence of exchanges with the landlord during the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
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.” (emphasis added)
There is no specific provision dealing with insects or pests in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to its age and character.
Where a tenant claims that a landlord is responsible for a pest infestation, the Tribunal will usually consider whether that infestation has been caused by, or contributed to by, a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness or whether there is an underlying maintenance issue which is contributing to the pests.
In this instance there is also a clause in the Tenancy Agreement regarding “vermin”. Clause 31 on page 5 states: Vermin - The Landlord will ensure the Property remains free from the presence of fleas, rats, mice, cockroaches, ants and flies (“vermin”) for a period of one month after the Tenant takes possession. The Tenant agrees to contact the Landlord in writing to advise the presence of vermin within the first 30 days of occupation. At the expiry of the 30 days, the Tenant accepts liability for the presence of vermin and agrees to take steps to remove the vermin from the Property. Where the Tenant can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to maintain cleanliness and the presence of vermin was beyond their control, then the Landlord and Tenant may share the liability of eradication.
That provision is more onerous than the general requirement to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. Section 11(2) RTA recognises that a landlord may voluntarily incur more extensive obligations than those imposed by the Act.
The landlord submitted that an element of reasonableness should be read into clause 31. That it was not an absolute requirement to ensure that the premises were vermin free, but a “reasonable endeavours” type requirement.
The tenancy started on 21 December 2023. The tenant advised the landlord that ants were present after hours on 29 December 2023; within 30 days of the tenancy starting. The landlord immediately arranged for pest treatment, which took place on 12 January 2024, as soon as possible after the Christmas break. In response to the tenant’s request for treatment, the landlord asked the tenant to remove the ant bait she had laid inside the premises as this would attract ants into the dwelling.
On 5 February the tenant contacted the landlord again and noted that there were still ants in the garage and driveway. There was no reference to ants in the dwelling at that time. The owner had laid bait around the exterior of the property on 2 February 2024.
The landlord claims that there was a routine inspection on 3 April where there were no signs of ants. The landlord says that it its inspection report noted that the tenant advised there were some ants in the garage, but the house was “mostly” sorted.
There was no other evidence of ants inside the dwelling until 19 April when the tenant sent the landlord a photograph of ants congregating towards the top of a kitchen cupboard. The photograph is not clear enough to see what the ants were attracted to on that surface. The landlord, again, immediately arranged for a pest control company to attend the property. That did not occur until 2 May because of delays in arranging a suitable time for the tenant.
The landlord followed up with the tenant on 9 May to see whether the treatment had been effective. The tenant replied on 21 May advising that she had noticed some ants in the bathroom in the last couple of days.
The landlord followed up again on 13 June asking whether the ants were still an issue and if the tenant would like the landlord to make another attempt at treatment. There was no reply from the tenant. The landlord followed up again on 24 June and the tenant replied that they “may have dwindled down” with the change in weather and recorded that she had seen the “odd one”.
The landlord then tried to arrange for an alternative pest control company, requested by the tenant. In the meantime, the parties agreed to end the tenancy.
Both parties purported to give evidence of whether the adjoining premises also had an ant problem. The tenant gave evidence of what she had been told by the neighbour’s granddaughter and the landlord gave evidence of what she had been told by the neighbour’s daughter. Neither attended to give evidence and I put no weight on the “hearsay” evidence presented by both parties.
The evidence does not establish that the landlord has breached s45 of the RTA. The tenant did not show that the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition or that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair,
However, the evidence does show that there were ants at the premises within 30 days of the start of the tenancy; in breach of clause 31 on page 5 of the tenancy agreement. It also seems that the issue was, temporarily, brought under control within that timeframe. The landlord arranged for internal treatment by a pest control company and the owner laid external bait. After the initial treatment, I find that the ants were an environmental issue and the landlord took all reasonable steps to deal with them.
While the tenant complained of ants throughout the tenancy; there are only two photographs from February (garage) and April (a kitchen cupboard). The photographs show a large cluster of ants but not what they are attracted to or circulating around. There was no evidence to support a rent rebate of 30% (even if the landlord had been liable beyond the initial treatment).
I award the tenant $500 for the inconvenience of the initial treatment.
As the tenant was partially successful, I also award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900553 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Kauri Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900553 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Kauri Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

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