What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932014 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the

How much money was awarded in case 4932014?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932014?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753250-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932014 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the

How much money was awarded in case 4932014?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932014?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753250-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Konini Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932014 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932014 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of quiet enjoyment	$2,000.00	Compensation – loss of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of the tenants.
Nikolas Cheals and Melissa Cheals must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenants in person and the landlord Ms Cheals by phone.
The parties have provided the Tribunal with detailed documentary evidence. Each made submissions at the hearing. I have considered all the evidence, and the parties’ submissions, even if I do not specifically refer to it. The application
The tenancy is a current tenancy. It started on 16 February 2024.
The tenants have applied for compensation for their loss of quiet enjoyment of the tenancy due to repairs being carried out at the premises initially scheduled to take 8-10 weeks (weather dependent).
The repairs were not completed within time largely due to the scope of the repairs being increased. They continued for a further 6 weeks and ended on or about 6 August 2024.
During the repairs there was a significant roof leak which affected 2 bedrooms meaning that they were unable to be used for about 5 days, allowing for the drying of mattresses. The tenants’ compensation claim
The tenants have sought compensation based on a 30% rent rebate for the initial 10-week period of the repairs ($2,340.00); compensation based on a 50% rent rebate for the additional 5-week and 6-day period beyond the initial repair period ($2282.29); and compensation of $278.57 for the period when 2 tenants sought alternative accommodation following the rook leak.
In total, the tenants seek compensation of $4,902.86.
The land has offered compensation of $650.00. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Have the tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment of their tenancy due to the extent and duration of the building work at the premises? •If so, should they be awarded compensation? Law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides in part: Quiet enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenants’ compensation claims are mostly for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy although they have claimed a set cost for 2 tenants finding accommodation elsewhere following the roof leak.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion
The evidence the Tribunal heard establishes that the tenants were aware that some construction work would be carried out at the premises when they entered the tenancy. They believed that the work would last for 8, possibly 10 weeks if there was weather disruption.
The work in fact took 16 weeks to complete. The scope of the work increased for understandable reasons – problems with the roof were identified that meant some of the roof had to be replaced and the landlord decided to have windows replaced while the scaffolding was up.
The parties differed about what they did and did not agree to, but the content of their discussions, and their understanding of each other’s positions concerning the extent of the repairs, is not determinative.
Objectively viewed, the tenants experienced a loss of enjoyment of their tenancy due to the nature, extent, and duration of the construction work. And while they were aware that some work would take place over a defined period, that does not mean that the landlord is released from their statutory responsibility not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises.
The evidence does not establish that the rent was reduced to take account of the tenants’ loss of enjoyment due to the work being done.
The tenants have based their claim for compensation on a percentage rent reduction, 30% for 10 weeks and 50% for 6 weeks. But that is not realistic.
Rent can only abate when the premises are destroyed, or so seriously damaged, so as to be uninhabitable in whole or in part. That was not the case here.
In cases considered after the Christchurch earthquakes, the District Court on appeal took a conservative approach to rent abatement when premises were destroyed or damaged leading to uninhabitability.
Rather, the Tribunal prefers to consider compensation for loss of enjoyment on a more global basis – what was the loss of enjoyment, how did it arise, what were the effects on the tenant, how long did it last for? That is in line with the Birch principles.
Here, the tenants had builders interrupting them, there was noise from the building work, the builders utilised the garage (even if the tenants allowed that), there was dust and other rubbish and some internal disruption, and the house was fully scaffolded. In other words, everything that can be expected from a building site.
Compensation is not punitive. For that reason, the Tribunal has not concentrated on who said what to whom, why additional work was scoped into the project, and other (unrelated for compensation purposes) issues.
The landlord’s offer of $650.00 as compensation is, objectively viewed, inadequate. The tenants experienced a significant loss of enjoyment of their tenancy for 16 weeks which is one-third of the fixed term tenancy the parties agreed.
The tenants sought a specific amount of $278.57 for accommodation costs incurred when leaking affected 2 bedrooms. The roof leak did not result from any landlord breach. It might have related to the roofing repairs, or it might have happened regardless.
The Tribunal did not receive an invoice for a specific cost incurred.
The Tribunal’s consideration of compensation encompasses all matters that affected the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
Having considered all the evidence both documentary and oral, and the parties’ submissions, I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $2,000.00 for their overall loss of quiet enjoyment of the tenancy resulting from disruptions that arose from the building work over 16 weeks and the disruption caused by the roof leak that affected the use of 2 rooms for about 5 days.
Additionally, the tenants have been compensated by the landlord’s building contractor for separate and identifiable losses as a result of the leak. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $2,000.00 together with the Tribunal filing fee – a total of $2,027.00. Name suppression
Both parties applied for an order for name suppression. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as their application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as their defence to the application is not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932014 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – loss of quiet enjoyment	$2,000.00	Compensation – loss of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

An application for name suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of the tenants.
Nikolas Cheals and Melissa Cheals must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenants in person and the landlord Ms Cheals by phone.
The parties have provided the Tribunal with detailed documentary evidence. Each made submissions at the hearing. I have considered all the evidence, and the parties’ submissions, even if I do not specifically refer to it. The application
The tenancy is a current tenancy. It started on 16 February 2024.
The tenants have applied for compensation for their loss of quiet enjoyment of the tenancy due to repairs being carried out at the premises initially scheduled to take 8-10 weeks (weather dependent).
The repairs were not completed within time largely due to the scope of the repairs being increased. They continued for a further 6 weeks and ended on or about 6 August 2024.
During the repairs there was a significant roof leak which affected 2 bedrooms meaning that they were unable to be used for about 5 days, allowing for the drying of mattresses. The tenants’ compensation claim
The tenants have sought compensation based on a 30% rent rebate for the initial 10-week period of the repairs ($2,340.00); compensation based on a 50% rent rebate for the additional 5-week and 6-day period beyond the initial repair period ($2282.29); and compensation of $278.57 for the period when 2 tenants sought alternative accommodation following the rook leak.
In total, the tenants seek compensation of $4,902.86.
The land has offered compensation of $650.00. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Have the tenants suffered a loss of enjoyment of their tenancy due to the extent and duration of the building work at the premises? •If so, should they be awarded compensation? Law
Section 38 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides in part: Quiet enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The tenants’ compensation claims are mostly for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy although they have claimed a set cost for 2 tenants finding accommodation elsewhere following the roof leak.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion
The evidence the Tribunal heard establishes that the tenants were aware that some construction work would be carried out at the premises when they entered the tenancy. They believed that the work would last for 8, possibly 10 weeks if there was weather disruption.
The work in fact took 16 weeks to complete. The scope of the work increased for understandable reasons – problems with the roof were identified that meant some of the roof had to be replaced and the landlord decided to have windows replaced while the scaffolding was up.
The parties differed about what they did and did not agree to, but the content of their discussions, and their understanding of each other’s positions concerning the extent of the repairs, is not determinative.
Objectively viewed, the tenants experienced a loss of enjoyment of their tenancy due to the nature, extent, and duration of the construction work. And while they were aware that some work would take place over a defined period, that does not mean that the landlord is released from their statutory responsibility not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises.
The evidence does not establish that the rent was reduced to take account of the tenants’ loss of enjoyment due to the work being done.
The tenants have based their claim for compensation on a percentage rent reduction, 30% for 10 weeks and 50% for 6 weeks. But that is not realistic.
Rent can only abate when the premises are destroyed, or so seriously damaged, so as to be uninhabitable in whole or in part. That was not the case here.
In cases considered after the Christchurch earthquakes, the District Court on appeal took a conservative approach to rent abatement when premises were destroyed or damaged leading to uninhabitability.
Rather, the Tribunal prefers to consider compensation for loss of enjoyment on a more global basis – what was the loss of enjoyment, how did it arise, what were the effects on the tenant, how long did it last for? That is in line with the Birch principles.
Here, the tenants had builders interrupting them, there was noise from the building work, the builders utilised the garage (even if the tenants allowed that), there was dust and other rubbish and some internal disruption, and the house was fully scaffolded. In other words, everything that can be expected from a building site.
Compensation is not punitive. For that reason, the Tribunal has not concentrated on who said what to whom, why additional work was scoped into the project, and other (unrelated for compensation purposes) issues.
The landlord’s offer of $650.00 as compensation is, objectively viewed, inadequate. The tenants experienced a significant loss of enjoyment of their tenancy for 16 weeks which is one-third of the fixed term tenancy the parties agreed.
The tenants sought a specific amount of $278.57 for accommodation costs incurred when leaking affected 2 bedrooms. The roof leak did not result from any landlord breach. It might have related to the roofing repairs, or it might have happened regardless.
The Tribunal did not receive an invoice for a specific cost incurred.
The Tribunal’s consideration of compensation encompasses all matters that affected the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
Having considered all the evidence both documentary and oral, and the parties’ submissions, I find that the tenants should receive compensation of $2,000.00 for their overall loss of quiet enjoyment of the tenancy resulting from disruptions that arose from the building work over 16 weeks and the disruption caused by the roof leak that affected the use of 2 rooms for about 5 days.
Additionally, the tenants have been compensated by the landlord’s building contractor for separate and identifiable losses as a result of the leak. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants compensation of $2,000.00 together with the Tribunal filing fee – a total of $2,027.00. Name suppression
Both parties applied for an order for name suppression. The tenants are entitled to name suppression as their application is successful. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as their defence to the application is not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932014 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Konini Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932014 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Konini Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

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