What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903553 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 4903553?

Made In This Case, And The Tribunal…: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903553?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903553 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 4903553?

Made In This Case, And The Tribunal…: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903553?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Mile Bush Road, Pukekawa, RD 1, Pukekawa 2696 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903553 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903553. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The landlord i	$300.00		made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The landlord i

Both parties attended the hearing on the 2 December. The tenants by video, the landlord by telephone.

This was the second hearing of the matter. After the first hearing on the 29 August, I adjourned the hearing to allow each party to give me further evidence in respect of the question as to whether the premises were lawful residential premises.

I refer to my adjournment order of the 29 August 2024 which sets out the background to these claims:

The questions for determination are: a. Did the agree to enclose the decking area? If so, did the landlord breach this agreement? b. Did the premises comply with the Healthy Homes Standards? c. Was the landlord lawfully able to rent out the premises? d. What is the remedy? Evidence and the burden of proof.

These are the tenants’ claims. This means that the tenant has the burden of proving their claims on the balance of probabilities. I have to be satisfied that it is more likely than not that a breach occurred.

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.” Did the agree to enclose the decking area? If so. did the landlord breach this agreement?

The tenants claims that the landlord agreed before the tenancy to enclose the deck area making it weatherproof. This would allow the tenants to use the deck all year around.

The tenants in their application to the Tribunal said: We have been paying full rent since day 1 - a total of $450 per week. The house has not been suitable as agreed upon prior to us moving in. We have to access the bathroom from the patio, which is completely exposed to weather elements (wind & rain). We are all sick from having to do this, and that was not the initial a agreement. We are thus claiming the rent we have paid to be refunded.dditional information

The landlord disputes this, he says that he only agreed to put in a window after the tenancy began which he did. He said that he never agreed to close off the deck, but he would have allowed the tenants to do that. He said that the window that he put in was to replace the plastic cladding and he did that work.

Having considered all the evidence from both parties, I consider that it is more likely than not that the landlord agreed to close in the deck for the tenants. Whilst these were discussions between the parties, and I will never know for sure what was said. The landlord did send a text to the tenants on the 13 April 2024 before the tenancy began that that said:

The landlord also purchased windows and some materials for closing in the deck.

The landlord did not enclose the deck, which left the tenants unable to use the deck in winter as they had anticipated. It also meant that water was able to get into the deck area which caused damage to their furniture and belongings, despite the tenants putting up a tarpaulin.

I award the tenants $300 compensation. This amount reflects the lack of amenity during this very short tenancy, and some damage to the tenant’s furniture. The tenants were using the deck as a lounge. It is not a lounge; it is a covered deck and the tenants cannot expect that they can use the covered deck in the same way as a lounge. For instance, the furniture that they put in the deck should be suitable for being used as a covered deck.

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

As this tenancy commenced on the 24 April 2024 the landlord had 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy to comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The tenancy ended on the 8 August 2024 which is the 109th day after the tenancy began. As the landlord was not required to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards until 11 days later there can be no breach. The tenant’s claim for the breaching the Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed.

Is the premises unlawful residential premises?

S78A of the Residential Tenancies Act defines an unlawful premises as: For the purposes of this Act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but— (a) that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlord’s failure to comply with the landlord’s obligations under section 36 or 45(1)(c), or section 66H(2)(c) or 66I(1)(c), as relevant, has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to that unlawful occupation.

The tenants says that the landlord cannot lawfully rent out the property as it does not have the required building consents. The tenants provided a copy of the property information from the Waikato District Council. It is difficult to determine whether these premises were consented, or even if they needed consent. The main part of the premises is a relocatable cabin 2 room. At some stage a bathroom cabin was attached. There is a large deck area (some of which is enclosed) that affronts the main dwelling and the bathroom.

In 2019 [the previous owners], who owned the property at that time applied for building consent BLD 0334/20 to put in a new effluent tank and disposal field to base sector.

In the code of compliance for the building consent it notes: Current, lawfully established, use: Detached Dwellings constructed in 2019. It appears that the reference is to the cabin on the property as that was the only dwelling at the time.

However, in the [Engineering report] which supported the application for the building consent it says that the purpose of the building consent is for effluent tank and disposal for a proposed 4 bedroom home. This home was never built, but the effluent tank and disposal field was completed as per the building consent and got code of compliance.

In the photograph taken in the [Engineering Report] is shows the main cabin. It also appears on a map that the cabin is noted.

The landlord, after purchasing the property applied for building consent to construct a barn (where the landlord lived). This was consented.

It is clear that Council knew about the main cabin. There is nothing on file to tell me that that this cabin was unconsented, and in fact the inference that I can make, is that as council had knowledge about the cabin at the time that it consented and later gave CCC to the effluent tank and disposal field and that either the cabin did not need consent or that it already had one. This is supported by the code of compliance certificate stating that the 2019 detached dwelling was lawfully used.

I do not know if ‘bathroom’ cabin was affixed before the CCC was given.

In conclusion, whilst I am left with unanswered questions about the legality of the premises, I cannot on the evidence provided determine with any level of certainty or probability that they are unlawful and cannot be used for residential purposes, and therefore there is no breach of s78A RTA.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4903553. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The landlord i	$300.00		made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The landlord i

Both parties attended the hearing on the 2 December. The tenants by video, the landlord by telephone.

I refer to my adjournment order of the 29 August 2024 which sets out the background to these claims:

The tenants claims that the landlord agreed before the tenancy to enclose the deck area making it weatherproof. This would allow the tenants to use the deck all year around.

The landlord also purchased windows and some materials for closing in the deck.

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Is the premises unlawful residential premises?

In 2019 [the previous owners], who owned the property at that time applied for building consent BLD 0334/20 to put in a new effluent tank and disposal field to base sector.

In the photograph taken in the [Engineering Report] is shows the main cabin. It also appears on a map that the cabin is noted.

The landlord, after purchasing the property applied for building consent to construct a barn (where the landlord lived). This was consented.

I do not know if ‘bathroom’ cabin was affixed before the CCC was given.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903553 — Healthy homes at 20 Mile Bush Road, Pukekawa, RD 1, Pukekawa 2696

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903553 — Healthy homes at 20 Mile Bush Road, Pukekawa, RD 1, Pukekawa 2696

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Is the premises unlawful residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the house comply with the Healthy Homes Standards?

Is the premises unlawful residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions