What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4907704 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Dion & Lara Hamilton & Frizzell must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4907704?

Compensation: $2,370.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907704?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907704?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10778360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4907704 about?

The tribunal order states: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Dion & Lara Hamilton & Frizzell must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4907704?

Compensation: $2,370.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907704?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907704?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10778360-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Paramu Place, Richmond, Richmond 7020 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4907704 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907704 — net $2,390.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,370.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,390.44
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,390.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907704 — net $2,390.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,370.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,390.44
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,390.44

Order

The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Dion & Lara Hamilton & Frizzell must pay [The tenant/s] $2,390.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord confirmed they were comfortable with representing all respondents consistent with the naming in this order.
The tenant sought compensation of a number of landlord failings.
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. 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
This tenancy commenced 23 February 2024, as a one-year fixed term tenancy.
The premises were previously owner occupied but they had relocated overseas and signed a Property Management Agreement (PMA) with the agent in late 2023. It appears a flatmate from during the owners’ tenure remained at the property. This hindered the on boarding process of the agency and delayed the advertising and subsequent letting for this tenancy.
The agent advised that under the PMA, all maintenance would be arranged by the owner and there was no delegated authority to the agent for expenditure.
In an email to the owners dated 19 December 2023, the agent advised that had to cancel viewings as they were unable to access the house. The flatmate had not responded to the attempts to contact him. They had access through an open window and reported the house in poor condition, inside and out.
As a consequence of the poor condition, they advised the owner it would be necessary to hold off tenanting the property until 2024. They also recommended having methamphetamine screening test done as a baseline for insurance purposes. The owner declined to have a baseline test conducted.
It was only shortly before this tenancy commenced that the previous remaining occupant left. The agent found the premises in a poor condition. They noted an email to the owner dated 26 February 2024 (after the tenancy commenced) significant issues including an abandoned vehicle (later removed), a heat pump that was not working, bathroom fans that were either not working or not vending outside, the shower door would not close properly causing water leakage, no lighting in the lounge were working. The email noted the gardens are overgrown and the tenant had cleaned up over the weekend with the help of family and friends. The email further noted that they tidy the interior “because the budget allocated to the cleaner was insufficient”. In fairness to the agent, they passed on the tenant’s request for compensation of one weeks rent which they considered appropriate. That request was declined but a second $200 voucher was provided to the tenant, totalling $400 compensation.
The initial healthy homes assessment was not able to inspect the attic space due to an access issue – the entry hole was padlocked. The inspection did find problems with the extraction and some other lesser issues. It left the ceiling insulation as not assessed.
A series of emails between the agent and owners during the tenancy were informative. They may be summed up as confirming a number of unresolved issues and ongoing debate regarding by who and how resolution may occur. The advice of the agent to the owners regarding potential liability through a tenant application to the Tenancy Tribunal was clearly communicated to them.
Eventually, the tenant was released from the fixed term tenancy by mutual agreement. The agent/owner relationship was by this stage at times fractious and appears to have ended. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn.
Under section 45, a landlord must, in part: • provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness • provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair • comply with all requirements in respect insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness
The tenant stated that when she moved in the house was an “absolute state”. Her observation is supported by the emails from the agent as well as her own evidence. The condition appears to be a surprise to the owners, given prior efforts at the instigation to ensure the premises was clean.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenant had to undertake extensive efforts to restore the condition at an acceptable state. Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
The emails provide further evidence for confirmation that the bathroom fan and heat pump did not work. The heat pump was later fixed before the cooler season commenced.
The tenant claimed the bathroom was very damp and growing mould. The shower door would not close properly which “left water running out and onto the flooring”.
These failures support the tenant view that the premises were not at a reasonable standard. Comply with all requirements in respect to insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction).
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation in this region is 3.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
After a delay in accessing the ceiling space, the existing insulation was confirmed as being R2.0 and requiring a top up. The date of the existing insulation being installed was unknown but it may have been before 2016.
There would be a diminished insulation effect of the lower rated insulation, but it appears in reasonable condition in the photos provided.
A quote for a top up was provided to the owner but as at the end of the tenancy it had not been advanced. Quiet enjoyment
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises (see s 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
There were two main impacts, beyond the obvious impacts on quiet enjoyment from remedying or enduring the failures to maintain.
The first was an aggressive the telephone interaction with a contractor engaged by the owner and the tenant (his interactions with the agent also appear less than desirable).
The second was the discovery of nine pot plant holders, with artificial lighting, in the attic space. Based on the layout and dried leaf in places, it appears more likely than not that the pots were previously used to grow marijuana, prior to this tenancy. This was discovered when the agent finally got access to that space for the insulation to be assessed. The tenant was advised of this discovery by the installer and the matter subsequently escalated to the agent and the police (no further police action was taken). The tenant expressed concerns of possible methamphetamine despite police reassurances. However, as the owner had declined the baseline test at commencement it is understandable the tenant, with two young children, may have some ongoing concerns regarding possible contamination. A methamphetamine composite test was conducted soon after and confirmed no contamination. Compensation
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common-sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party
I consider multiple grounds for compensation have been established.
While the tenant described the condition on entry as “horrific” I have reviewed the photos, allowed for the partial clean at short-notice by the landlord’s cleaner, and the tenant’s own admission to an inclination to over cleaning. The landlord offered $400.00 in vouchers and these were accepted by the tenant. I consider that compensation is appropriate based on the evidence and no further order is made. That the tenant did not get the expected long benefit of a deeply cleaned home is in the consideration of the impact of the earlier than envisaged notice to terminate.
The table below breaks out the specific awards.
The clear reluctance of the owners to authorise expenditure due to their own financial concerns ignore the $620.00 per week being paid by the tenant to them (it is acknowledged the net income would be less after management fees). That totalled over $15,000 during this tenancy and the compensation awarded here of $2,370.00 is effectively a refund of 15% of rent paid for a premises that did not deliver to the market rent charged. Return of the bond
The landlord has no claim against the bond. It is returned to the tenant by mutual agreement. This is an alternative to accepting a variation to this application and ordering the same per s 22B RTA. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest Cleaning/rubbish removal (in addition to the $400)620.00$ Quiet enjoyment200.00$ Early exit620.00$ Failure to maintain930.00$ or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907704 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Paramu Place, Richmond, Richmond 7020

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907704 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Paramu Place, Richmond, Richmond 7020

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