What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911323 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $160.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4911323?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Further Rent Rebate For Flooding: $140.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911323?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10687627-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911323 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $160.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4911323?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Further Rent Rebate For Flooding: $140.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911323?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10687627-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911323 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911323 — net $160.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Further rent rebate for flooding	$140.00	Further rent rebate for flooding
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$160.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$160.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911323 — net $160.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Further rent rebate for flooding	$140.00	Further rent rebate for flooding
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$160.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$160.44

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $160.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 July 2024.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 11 June 2024. She claimed reimbursement of power charges and compensation of 4 weeks rent ($2,560.00) due to flooding at the property. Background Summary
A summary is as follows: • The parties agreed to a residential tenancy for a fixed term from 24 March 2023 to 21 March 2024 at an initial rent of $590.00 per week. • The property was flooded overnight on 5 April 2024 due to a burst bathroom vanity pipe. Some of the tenant’s furniture was damaged. Dryers and dehumidifiers were installed and working at the property from 6 April 2024. • The tenant vacated the property from 5 April until 18 April 2024 to allow the house to dry (approximately 2 weeks). She said she stayed with family or lived in her car for a couple of nights. • While the tenant was away the landlord removed the laminate flooring in the kitchen, lounge, and laundry, to aid drying. • The rent was increased to $640.00 from 12 April 2024 pursuant to an earlier notice of increase. The landlord also reduced the rent by $75.00 per week for 3 weeks due to the flooding. • The tenant served a 14-day notice to remedy on 9 May 2024, requiring the flooring in the kitchen, lounge, and laundry to be repaired. The tenant said there was a slight breeze coming through the floor causing the house to be very cold. They had moved into a bedroom and were using the heat pump to keep warm. • On 14 May 2024 the tenant served a 28-day notice to terminate the tenancy (which was now periodic). The keys were returned on 11 June 2024. • On or about 5 July 2024 the landlord’s insurers approved replacement of the flooring. The work was completed on 18-19 July 2024. Relevant Law
Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect (Barfoot & Thompson v Casey (District Court Auckland, CIV 2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007)). This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs (section 45(1)(d)). Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances (Collins v Professionals Hutt City Limited (District Court Wellington, CIV 2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010)). Failure to comply with the maintenance obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the premises are partially destroyed, or part of the premises is so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, the rent abates accordingly and either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy (section 59 of the Act).
The term “uninhabitable” is not defined in the Act but has been understood in this context to mean “not suitable for habitation or fit to live in” or “incapable of being inhabited, occupied or tenanted” (Watkin v Brazier Property Investments [2012] DCR 186). Analysis
The tenant’s photographs taken on or about 5 April 2024 show water in the bathroom on the floor and behind the bathroom sink where the vanity pipe was leaking. The photographs also show very damp carpet in the hallway to the lounge. I agree with the tenant’s description of the carpet as “soaked”. It seems the hallway was the most badly affected area. The flooding extended to the laminate flooring in the kitchen and partway into a bedroom. Part of the lounge was also affected.
The tenant provided photographs showing the laminate flooring partly removed in the lounge and fully removed from the kitchen, leaving the underfloor visible. The tenant’s photographs show that, when she left on 11 June 2024, the flooring had not been replaced. The tenant said the skirting had not been replaced because the flooring was not yet completely dry.
There were dryers and dehumidifiers on site from 6 April 2024 onwards for different periods of between 7 and 12 days. In total there were 7 air movers and 3 dehumidifiers. The tenant was reimbursed for the cost of the electricity used by these units. Although the tenant provided copies of her power invoices, a precise calculation of the cost of power used by the units was prepared by Counties Property Care Limited. This was calculated as $451.00 plus GST (see the email from Counties Property Care dated 13 May 2024 to the property manager). The landlord said the tenant was given these details so she could be assisted by WINZ, and ultimately she was reimbursed by the insurance company.
The Counties Property Care invoice included a detailed timeline of the work they performed on site together with an itemised breakdown of cost. On 6 April 2024 it was recorded that the carpet was “95% dry”. By 9 April 2024 the carpet was “all dry”. There was still dampness in the walls and flooring. On 11 April 2024 it was recorded that all walls were dry, and the flooring was “progressing well”. The flooring in the lounge and kitchen was reported dry on 12 April 2024. By 17 April 2024 the flooring under the house was also dry.
I accept that the property was rendered uninhabitable when the flooding occurred. The property manager said she was on site during the afternoon of 5 April 2024. The tenant had already packed ready to leave and said she was going to stay with family. The property manager said she told the tenant that she could turn the machines off at night and stay in the property.
In my view, the tenant’s photographs show that the premises were too badly flooded for habitation until the dryers and dehumidifiers had been able to remove the excess water. It is difficult to know exactly when this was achieved but the carpets dried out quickly. By 11 April 2024 the walls were dry, and the flooring was progressing well. I estimate the property would have been fit for residential use again within a matter of days after the flooding, and certainly by the time the tenant returned on 18 April 2024.
I consider that the rent should fully abate pursuant to section 59 of the Act for 4 days, from 6-9 April 2024. By 9 April 2024 the carpets were dry. The tenant received a rent reduction of $225.00 from the landlord. A rent reduction of 4 days at the daily rate of $91.43 results in a rent credit of $365.72. I award compensation to the tenant, by way of a further rent rebate, in the sum of $140.00 ($365.72-$225.00).
I am not satisfied that the property remained uninhabitable when the tenant returned on 18 April 2024. A routine property inspection was performed on 30 April 2024. The report said the flooring was still to be replaced and the landlord was waiting on insurers to approve the quotes. The skirting boards were still to be reattached for the same reason. The landlord was also investigating a possible leak from the shower – the carpet and flooring were wet when the shower was being used. The tenant was not using the shower pending a report from the plumber. The landlord’s photographs show the tenant's personal belongings in the property and generally the premises were in good condition. The property manager’s view was that the tenant was living comfortably in the premises.
The tenant’s main complaint was that removal of the flooring allowed draughts and made the property cold. They had to live in one of the bedrooms which had a heat pump to stay warm and her children were constantly sick. She did however acknowledge that all the facilities in the premises were working.
While the tenant was initially told not to use the shower while it was investigated, soon afterwards permission was given to continue using the shower. The tenant said they were unable to use the shower for over a week and instead used the bath. I do not view this as being excessively inconvenient, as it was only for a short period. The more substantive issue is whether the landlord breached their maintenance obligation by not repairing the water- damaged flooring before the tenant left on 11 June 2024. Unless there was a breach of obligation by the landlord, I consider the tenant cannot successfully claim compensation for discomfort caused by the damaged flooring.
Landlords have an obligation to take steps to repair damage to premises within a reasonable time. The landlord experienced delays obtaining approval from insurers for the works to proceed. Delay may also have been caused by a dispute over whether the shower leak was covered under the same insurance claim.
The cost of drying the property alone was just over $9,000.00. I was told that the cost of replacing the laminate flooring was $6,500.00. The flooded carpets were re-laid after drying out and the old laminate flooring had to be disposed of. These two items together added further cost of about $1,350.00. Therefore, this was a remediation project with an overall cost of about $16-17,000.00.
I consider it was understandable if the landlord wanted the insurance company to fund the repairs, and this meant that the timing of remediation was not under the landlord’s control. The landlord provided a written chronology, including all the times she called the insurance company to expedite matters. The landlord filed a complaint with insurers on 6 June 2024.
The flooding was not caused by a breach of the tenancy agreement by either party. It follows that the tenant is only entitled to a rent rebate or compensation if the premises were uninhabitable or if the landlord did not repair the water damage within a reasonable time. In the circumstances, I find that the landlord was not in breach of the duty to maintain the premises. The timing of repairs was in the hands of their insurers. Further, the property was not uninhabitable between 18 April 2024 and 11 June 2024, when the tenant vacated, so the abatement provisions for uninhabitable premises do not apply. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The tenant has succeeded in establishing an entitlement to a further rent rebate arising from the flooding. I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
The tenant’s claims for reimbursement of power charges and for compensation amounting to 4 week’s rent were not successful. I do however have a discretion to grant suppression (section 95A of the Act). There is little public interest in the tenant’s details being known. She did nothing wrong. From her perspective, she had to live in a cold house that was not being repaired. I grant suppression as requested.
The landlord has been substantially successful in defending the claim. I grant suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911323 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911323 — Tenancy dispute

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