What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4926994 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $4070.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4926994?

Rent Arrears: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926994?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4926994 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $4070.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4926994?

Rent Arrears: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926994?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047805-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4926994 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4926994. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
rent arrears to 8 July 2024 and	$20.44		rent arrears to 8 July 2024 and
Bond		$5,196.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4926994. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
rent arrears to 8 July 2024 and	$20.44		rent arrears to 8 July 2024 and
Bond		$5,196.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $4070.44 from the bond, being $4,050 rent arrears to 8 July 2024 and $20.44 filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,196.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited: $4,070.44 [The tenant/s]: $1,125.56
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Wilson and Ms Belu attended the hearing representing the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing by telephone.
The other two tenants, who are [Tenant 1]’s adult children, are not named in her application, but she assured me that they supported the application, and that she had their authority to represent them on the application. I will therefore treat it as an application made by all three tenants.
The landlord claims rent arrears and the filing fee.
The tenants claim exemplary damages and compensation for breach by the landlord of its obligations relating to the condition of the premises. Background
This tenancy began on 4 August 2023 and ended on 8 July 2024 after the landlord released the tenants from the fixed term tenancy.
There were three events that occurred during the tenancy that are the basis of the tenants’ application.
The first occurred in September 2023 when water leaked from a bathroom above the lounge below.
The second occurred at around the same time when water leaked from a bathroom downstairs into a storeroom.
The third occurred near the end of the tenancy when rainwater leaked from around a chimney into [Tenant 1]’s bedroom on the first floor.
The tenants claim compensation in the sums of $4,945 for the first leak event being half the rent for nine weeks.
The tenants also claim $4,945, on the same basis, for the second leak event.
They claim $4,050 being half of six weeks rent from 25 May 2024 to 30 June relating to the third event.
The application also refers to claims for $700 medical expenses, $460 moving expenses and $1,500 legal fees.
The application states, “And compensate for the mental damage caused to the child (sic) and the whole family’s physical and mental health due to 11 months of water leakage, mould and lack of normal rest.” My understanding is that the claims are limited to the monetary amounts referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
The landlord denies any liability and says that it responded appropriately when it was informed of the problems affecting the tenants. It also points to the fact that it reduced the rent in response to the first and second events in recognition of the loss of use of parts of the premises and of some amenity that arose from the events. Rent
There is no dispute that the tenants withheld rent at the end of the tenancy and, subject to the tenants’ cross claim, the rent arrears are $4,050. It follows that the outcome of this case depends on the result of the tenants’ application. Relevant Law
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. The maximum applies to each distinct breach.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
The landlord’s maintenance and other obligations relating to the premises are not strict obligations, by which I mean that the landlord will not be liable for the consequences of every breach of them. More is needed for liability to be imposed on the landlord.
For liability to follow, the landlord must be aware of the problem or defect and must have failed to take reasonable steps to remedy the problem or defect. Usually, landlords are informed of problems or defects by their tenant.
For example, if the premises are in a reasonable state of repair when they are provided to the tenant, and they fall out of repair during the tenancy causing the tenant a problem, the landlord is not immediately liable to the tenant for the consequences of the problem. When the landlord becomes aware of the problem, when the tenant informs them of it, the landlord has an obligation to take reasonable steps to fix the problem. That includes an obligation to act within a reasonable time.
If the landlord takes reasonable steps within a reasonable time, they will have complied with their obligations and they will have no liability to the tenants. Alarm
[Tenant 1] referred to an incident on their first night in the premises when the burglar alarm went off in the middle of the night, woke the tenants up and kept them awake until the next morning when the landlord was able to give them the code for the alarm and it could be disabled. Although there does not appear to be any claim relating to it, I cover if off for good measure.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the alarm going off was a one-off unexplained event. The alarm had not been in operation for some years, and it is not known what set it off. It was very unfortunate that it chose to go off in the middle of the tenants’ first night in the property. The landlord is not responsible for freak events that it has no control over and therefore there is no legal basis for any award to the tenants for the upset and inconvenience that it caused them. Leaks
[Tenant 1] described yellow smelly water leaking into the living room from the toilet above. I accept the evidence from the landlord’s plumber who attended the hearing and gave evidence, that the cause of the leak was a failed connection at the pipe carrying water from the cistern to the toilet pan. It was therefore clean water and leaked only when the toilet was flushed.
The toilet cistern was concealed behind the wall at the back of the toilet. The leak was therefore not visible until the cistern and associated pipework had been exposed by removing the flush operation on the wall.
[Tenant 1] said that tiler who attended after the cistern had been replaced (with one that was not concealed) told her that this was not the first time this had happened.
The landlord denied that there had been a similar event previously during the six years that they have been managing the premises. They said that the previous tenancy was for 28 months, and those tenants did not report any problems with the premises. I accept that. The tenants did not provide any reliable evidence to the contrary. The tiler did not give evidence.
The toilet was out of commission for 11 weeks until 25 September but there were other bathrooms and toilets in the premises.
In September, water came into a storage space beside the son’s downstairs bedroom from a leaking toilet or pipework adjacent. The landlord replaced the system, which took a week, and the leaking stopped.
In consideration of the inconvenience and loss of amenity arising from these two events, the landlord gave the tenants a rent discount of $250 per week for the 11 weeks making a total discount of $2,250.
The third event arose near the end of the tenancy from a weather event that caused water to leak into [Tenant 1]’s bedroom from a flashing around the bottom of the chimney above. The leaking was intermittent. There was a problem with the flashing which the landlord’s roofer fixed with a temporary patch. The flashing was subsequently replaced.
The landlord was notified of this leaking close to the end of the tenancy and after the tenants had vacated the premises.
After considering the evidence in this case, I find that none of these events constituted a breach by the landlord of its maintenance obligations. It was very unfortunate that the events coincided with the tenants’ occupation of the premises, but they were not due to any failure by the landlord to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair and the landlord responded reasonably and within a reasonable time to fix the problems after they became aware of them.
Underlying the tenants’ claims is the assertion that the premises are a leaky house, and that the landlord was aware that it was prone to leaking before it granted the tenancy and that it concealed that information from the tenants. There is no evidence to support that assertion and I find that it is untrue.
At most, the tenants would be entitled to some rent rebate due to the loss of use of bathroom facilities. The landlord has already given that allowance and I find that it was more than adequate.
[Tenant 1] provided some medical evidence relating to her and her son. The son’s medical evidence did not appear to relate to the leaking. [Tenant 1]’s medical evidence mentions the leaks but also other personal issues that strike me as being more pertinent to the difficulties she was experiencing.
The tenants have not proved that the landlord has any further liability to them and so their application must be dismissed.
The landlord is entitled to have the rent paid from the bond and the filing fee. The balance of the bond will be paid to the tenants. Suppression
Although the tenants have not been successful, I have granted them name suppression. My impression is that [Tenant 1] is the one who has been driving this application and that she has been struggling with some personal problems. I think this application has more to do with those personal problems than with the issues that arose during this tenancy. I see no public interest in the tenants being identified and it could harm them if they are identified.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926994 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926994 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions