What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906698 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 4906698?

Compensation: Condition Of Premises: $4,257.14 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906698?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906698?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11529073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906698 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 4906698?

Compensation: Condition Of Premises: $4,257.14 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906698?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906698?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11529073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

43 Goatley Road, Warkworth, Warkworth 0981 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906698 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906698 — net $4,277.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Condition of premises	$4,257.14	Condition of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,277.58
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,277.58

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906698 — net $4,277.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Condition of premises	$4,257.14	Condition of premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,277.58
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,277.58

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Fiona Angus must pay [The tenant/s] $4,277.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by counsel.
The tenancy began on 25 August 2003 and ended almost 21 years later on 18 March 2024.
The tenant has applied for compensation on the basis that the premises is an illegal dwelling for residential purposes and that the landlord was negligent in relation to maintenance of the premises. The premises
The premises rented by the tenant was previously used by the American Army many years ago and is described as a barn. The landlord lives in a separate dwelling on the same piece of land. The landlord purchased the property in the late 1990s when it was subdivided from one of the landlord’s parents property which they owned from 1993.
The landlord said that the barn had been lived in previously as it had a shower, toilet, and electricity. The landlord said that the barn was used for storage of timber and hay before they renovated it. The landlord lived in the premises from 1998 until 2003 when they moved into the other dwelling. Unlawful residential premises
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes. 45(1)(c) of the RTA provides that the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
The premises in this case have been used for residential purpose for at least the last 26 years. The tenant had made enquiries with Auckland Council in relation to whether the building had consent to be occupied as a dwelling. In an email from a Planning Information Advisor from Auckland Council it states; “From all the information held for the site in the Council, we do not find any consents granted to confirm that the building has been legally approved as a dwelling. Therefore, the building is illegal to be occupied as a dwelling.”
It is not surprising that Auckland Council could not find any consents for the building given its age and the purpose for which it was originally used. The building was built at a time when there was no requirement to seek council consent, like there is today. Just because a building is old and constructed prior to the consent regime does not make it unlawful.
It was submitted by counsel for the landlord that section 10 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides that land may continue to be used for a purpose that was lawfully established before any rule in a district plan or national environmental standard changed to prohibit or restrict it, including resource consent. That submission is accepted.
This means that the premises is not an unlawful residential premise as defined by section 78A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
I turn now to consider the tenant’s claim in relation to maintenance of the premises.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that there were maintenance issues that needed addressing. In 2020 the landlord asked the tenant to prepare a list of the maintenance issues that she felt needed doing.
After hearing evidence from the parties and considering the photographs and other evidence submitted, I consider that the main maintenance issues that the landlord failed to address were: (a) Water filters – the tenant produced photographs of water filters that were full of debris. The landlord produced evidence that the filters were changed in February 2024 and the landlord said they were also changed in 2021 but no evidence of this was submitted. The tenant said that she purchased water for the period that she lived at the premises. She estimated that this cost her approximately $10,000.00. The landlord said at the hearing that the tenant was advised that it was her responsibility to keep the water filters clean. Also, the landlord said that the tenant had authority to call the plumber. The landlord said that their water also had filters and they cleaned theirs. They relied on the tenant advising in regard to the water filters which she did in February 2024. The landlord said they preferred to boil the water. (b) Septic tank - At the hearing the landlord said that they were not aware of any leaking of the septic tank. They said the septic tank was checked and cleaned every two to three years. They also said that the overflow pipe for the septic tank empties into the bush. After the hearing the landlord produced evidence that septic tank was emptied in November 2024. The note on the invoice says that the septic tank needs to be cleaned yearly. There is an invoice from May 2022, but the invoice is not clear that the barn septic tank was emptied whereas the November 2024 clearly showed both the main house and barn were cleaned. Also, the May 2022 invoice was around half the price of November 2024 invoice suggesting that only one septic tank was emptied. The landlord said that the septic tank was emptied in 2021 but no evidence was produced. The landlord also said that the septic tanks only needed to be cleaned every two to four years but that is not the advice of the expert as noted in the November 2024 invoice. (c) Fireplace – the fireplace flu was removed when the roof was replaced in October 2020. The tenant was advised not to use the fireplace from that date. The heat pump was installed on 3 June 2022 even though the landlord had a quote to install it in September 2021. The landlord explained that the delay was due to the tenant wanting a replacement fireplace, but the one purchased by the landlord was too large for the space. Also, a wall and doors needed to be put in due to the open plan nature of the barn and the size of the heat pump. The landlord explained that this did not occur because the tenant did not want a wall and due to the tenant having too many belongings. At the hearing the landlord said that the heat pump was installed in 2020 but no evidence was produced. The landlord was directed to file evidence confirming when the heat pump was installed, and this was filed after the hearing. The evidence was that the heat pump was installed in June 2022. The tenant went for 20 months (October 2020 to June 2022) without a heat source in the premises. At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that the tenant went for a winter without heating and was still charged full rent. For the winter without heating the tenant said she used a hot water bottle and blankets to keep warm. She was living on her own at that stage, but friends were worried about her being cold. (d) Flooring – the concrete floor throughout the premises, including the kitchen and bathroom, was covered with sea grass matting. The landlord said that the sea grass flooring would be fine if it was kept clean. Over the years it rotted, and the tenant asked for replacement flooring. The tenant obtained some lino and offcuts of carpet to use where the sea grass had deteriorated. At the hearing the landlord agreed that the premises needed new flooring. (e) Draughts – there were obvious gaps in doors and windows at the premises. The tenant said that there was always condensation and sometimes mould. At the hearing the landlord said that she knew of the gaps in the doors when they saw the tenant’s evidence. In relation to the rotting windows the landlord said they knew about them, and they were added to the list of things that needed doing. (f) Deck – the railing was unsafe and had been removed. The tenant said she would block off the deck when children visited because it was unsafe. A friend of the tenant’s put-up netting which made it safer. On one occasion a neighbour’s foot went through the deck. The landlord said that the deck rotted because of planter boxes put on it by the tenant. The landlord acknowledged that the deck was not in good condition but seemed to blame the tenant although no evidence was produced to support this. The landlord said that the deck was higher than six foot at one end. (g) Carport roof – the tenant had advised the landlord that it was broken, and it would make a noise in the wind. The landlord acknowledged that it was not fixed.
The landlord said that inspections were never carried out during the tenancy and instead any work was only carried out when asked for by the tenant. At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that they heavily relied on the tenant letting them know when maintenance was required. When asked about what maintenance was carried out during the tenancy the landlord said work on the deck, plumbing and the roof.
At the hearing there was discussion in relation to the Healthy Homes standards and the landlord stated that everything needed to be done for the premises to be compliant. The landlord said it was impossible to carry out the Healthy Homes improvements while the tenant was living in the premises.
For this tenancy the Healthy Homes standards do not apply due to the compliance time frames. If this tenancy were to continue beyond March 2024, then the landlord would need to comply with the standards by 1 July 2025. However, because the tenancy ended before 1 July 2025 the landlord did not need to comply with the standards.
The conclusion of the Tribunal is that these premises, even allowing for their age, were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed compensation of 35% of the rent paid from 2003 until 2024. Firstly, this is not possible due to the Limitation Act which prevents awards where the act or omission on which the claim is based were six years earlier than when the claim is made. So the Tribunal could not make an award for anything earlier than six years before the tenant’s application. Also, the compensation sought is based on this being an unlawful residential tenancy, which the Tribunal has determined that it is not.
Instead the Tribunal has determined that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the conditions that she lived in. The argument put forward by the landlord that the tenant would not leave the premises is not accepted. The legislation provides the landlord with the ability to give the tenant notice to end the tenancy where it is appropriate. For example, for at least the 12 months prior to the end of the tenancy the landlord could have given the tenant 90 days’ notice for the tenancy to end to carry out extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises.
The compensation has been calculated at the rate of $20.00 per week for the period from 19 February 2020 until 18 March 2024. That period has been used because it is when the last rent increase took effect and 2020 was when the tenant provided the landlord with the list of repairs that were required. The compensation awarded amounts to $4257.14.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906698 — Tenancy dispute at 43 Goatley Road, Warkworth, Warkworth 0981

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906698 — Tenancy dispute at 43 Goatley Road, Warkworth, Warkworth 0981

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