What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4938635 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 4938635?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938635?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11078818-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4938635 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 4938635?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938635?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11078818-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4938635 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938635 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4938635 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The Landlord shall pay the Tenant $200.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The Tenant has claimed compensation, refund of the bond and termination of a fixed term tenancy. At the hearing the Tenant withdrew the claims for refund of the bond and termination of the fixed term tenancy.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. If the applicant fails to do so, their application will be dismissed, regardless of its merit. The Tribunal is not obligated to gather or extract evidence on behalf of the applicant.
The Tenant moved into the property on 10 May 2024 and ended the tenancy by agreement on 20 August 2024. The property was described as a "beautiful home" in a desirable Northcote location, with sea views, landscaped gardens, and a spacious interior, making it appealing to tenants and buyers. Failure to maintain the property
Ronald Robert Rose claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tenant claimed a full refund of the rent which equated to $13,300.00 because the property had several issues with it including a garage prone to flooding. He submitted he should have been informed of this before he entered into the Tenancy Agreement. Alternatively, he claimed $100.00 per week for the loss of use of the garage if he was no successful in the full refund.
When the Tenant moved in, he discovered significant issues soon after, including water damage in the garage, and a boarded-up fireplace.
The tenant discovered water leakage in the garage upon returning home after a few weeks. He found his freezer had stopped working and noticed water stains on several boxes. Because of this, the tenant lost personal items, including family photos and videos, due to water damage in the garage. This was fifty years of family memories. The Tenant was devastated. He felt misled by the higher rent he was paying ($300 more per week) and the presentation of the property during the rental process.
The ongoing drainage issues included a blocked pump that was not fully inspected. Despite temporary repairs, water continued to seep into the property. The tenant discovered the garage had a history of flooding, which was not disclosed upfront, adding to their frustration.
The property was also excessively cold, with temperatures dropping below 16°C at night. Infrared measurements showed inadequate heating, and high power bills were incurred despite minimal use of electricity. Drafts from gaps under doors and windows caused significant discomfort, even after attempted repairs by tradespeople. The tenant's son had to stay elsewhere for three weeks due to the cold.
Despite requesting the Healthy Homes report (“HHS”) multiple times, the tenant did not receive it until 21 June 2024, raising concerns about the property's compliance with health and safety standards.
The HHS report revealed multiple compliance failures, such as inadequate heating, failed drainage, and poor insulation. The tenant questioned why these issues were not disclosed before they moved in, especially given the report's date (one day before the tenant moved in).The ongoing issues led to significant stress and frustration, exacerbated by a high-pressure work role.
The Tenant claimed they could not use the garage during the tenancy and had to move their belongings to one bedroom upstairs to protect them. This meant the loss of use of both areas.
The tenant requested to break the lease and be refunded for moving costs but faced conflicting responses from the landlord and property management, leading to further frustration. Despite verbal agreements, the tenant was later asked to pay for various costs, adding to the confusion and distrust.
Several issues remained unresolved when the tenant moved out in August, including holes in the bathroom floor, gaps under doors, and poor insulation, particularly in the winter. The tenant felt the property was not properly maintained, leaving them trapped in an uncomfortable living situation.
The tenant was frustrated by the lack of transparency, particularly regarding past flooding and ongoing risks. Landlords submissions
The Landlord acknowledged that the garage experienced flooding in January 2023, after which the previous owners installed a sump pump and regrouted downpipes to address drainage. The previous owners at that time, believed the issue had been resolved and there was no ongoing risk of flooding. They felt the drainage system was functioning properly and did not foresee any future problems.
The Landlord was not unaware of any ongoing flooding issues until the garage had water leakage in May 2024. The Landlord described the May 2024 flooding event as an isolated incident due to a significant weather event, referencing a news article about heavy rainfall affecting other homes on the street. They emphasized that the flooding was unexpected and unrelated to neglect or ongoing drainage problems, which had been addressed in January 2023.
When the new owner purchased the property, they were assured by the previous owners that everything was in order, and that there were no lingering risks of flooding. Based on these assurances, the new owner did not see any need to bring up the potential flood risk with the tenants or further investigate the history of flooding. This was outlined in email correspondence submitted from the Landlord.
The builder’s report conducted in February 2024 also confirmed the property’s foundations, walls, roof, windows, and drainage were in good condition, with moisture readings within acceptable levels. This was filed as evidence.
In May 2024, the faulty sump pump was discovered after the Tenant raised concerns. The property experienced some water ingress and drainage issues, particularly affecting the garage area, but the main living spaces remained unaffected. The water entering the garage and minor flooding in the driveway were caused by drainage problems and a malfunctioning sump pump, not a full flood.
The Landlord responded quickly, with a builder visiting on 25 May 2024, drain unblockers arriving on 31 May 2024, and the new pump installed by mid-July. A plumber identified that defective wiring caused the pump to fail. The owner acted immediately, replacing the pump and having it properly wired to ensure proper drainage moving forward.
Multiple plumber opinions were sought to ensure the issue was properly resolved. The property met all five Healthy Homes standards by 12 July 2024, within the required 120-day timeframe.
The other issues the Tenant raised with the house were due to a mix of managing an older property (1960s’ build) with inherent challenges (ie., poor insulation, difficult draft-proofing, outdated drainage) and meeting modern Healthy Homes standards. While the Healthy Homes Assessors helped guide the property managers to ensure compliance (e.g., adding insulation, ensuring heating, and fixing the drainage), the property's age and structure made it difficult to fully address every issue to perfection. The sump pump failure and drainage issues were unfortunate, but the property managers acted swiftly to address these as they were identified.
Given that the living areas of the house were not impacted by water, and the damage was limited to the garage, the Landlord submitted there was no valid reason to request a rent refund on the basis of flooding. The Tenant was able to use the house as intended, with the living spaces unaffected by the water ingress.
The landlord acknowledges the obligation to provide a safe living environment and responded promptly to the flooding issue, taking immediate steps to resolve the problem once it was identified. They were genuinely sorry that the Tenant had to experience this issue, especially with the damage to his personal belongings and family history. They fully acknowledged how disappointing and distressing this situation has been for him, and regretted that it had caused such significant stress. The law
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, a landlord is required to ensure that the property is maintained in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation takes into account the age and character of the premises, as well as the period during which the property is expected to remain habitable and suitable for residential use.
Landlords are responsible for repairing defects they are aware of. Once they become aware of a defect, they must address it within a reasonable time. However, the landlord's obligation to repair is not absolute. They are not required to anticipate hidden or unobservable defects before they cause damage. As explained in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, the key requirement is that repairs must be made within a reasonable time after the landlord gains knowledge of the issue.
Section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires landlords to include a statement in the tenancy agreement, signed by the landlord, confirming that: From the start of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the Healthy Homes Standards as outlined in section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (whichever is applicable). The statement must also include any additional information required by regulations under section 138B(5)
In considering the evidence, the Landlord was not aware of the defective sump pipe until May 2024 when the Tenant raised it and then they acted swiftly to repair it. The sump had defective wiring so the Landlord could not have been expected to aware of this at the start of the tenancy. There was a Builders Report from February 2024 and the observed physical condition of the property, which led them to believe the property was suitable for leasing.
I do not consider the Landlord was negligent in failing to disclose there was a history of flooding issues because the last flood was in January 2023 when there was a weather event. Many houses were affected in Auckland in the same way. At that time they remedied the pump and then no further incidents occurred.
The Landlord is only obligated to repair defects once they have been notified of the issue. In this case, the Landlord was not advised there was a garage prone to flooding nor were they aware of the sump defective wiring at the start of the tenancy.
Even if the property was not compliant with Healthy home standards at the start of the tenancy, they had 120 days to comply. They were only obligated to provide a statement in the Tenancy Agreement that they were or would take steps to be compliant, but not provide the Healthy Home Standards report.
The Tenant also did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord was aware of the defects with the faulty sump prior to the tenant's move-in, or that the landlord failed to address the issue before the tenant's occupancy. It is the Tenant's responsibility to substantiate their claim, but no supporting documentation was provided.
Additionally, the Tenant did not present independent professional evidence linking the damage of his items to the defective sump or that the flooding was not caused by the heavy rains that occurred that weekend.
As soon as the Landlord discovered the defective sump, they acted promptly. I therefore do not find they failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
For these reasons, I dismiss this claim. Claim for emotional stress
The Tenant also claimed $10,000.00 for emotional distress. However, since I have not found the landlord liable for failure to maintain the property, it does not follow that the landlord should be held responsible for compensating the Tenant's emotional stress. Claim for late filing of the bond
The Tenant has claimed compensation for the late filing of the bond. The Tenant submitted this was not filed within 23 days.
The Landlord acknowledged this was correct however it was an oversight because the accounts person was away that day.
Section 19(1)(b) of RTA states: the landlord shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the landlord and the tenant.
Upon reviewing the evidence, I find that the landlord has been operating for a significant period and is well aware of their obligations. The absence of the accounts person should not excuse any failure to meet these responsibilities. As a result, I have awarded the landlord $200.00.
The amounts ordered are proved. Claim for admin costs.
The Tenant has claimed $150.00 for their administrative costs in preparing for this hearing. They submitted their normal charge out rate was $240.00 per hour.
The Landlord opposed this submitting they too had to take time away from their other files to prepare for the hearing.
The Tenant has not been successful in their claim and administrative costs are not awarded by the Tribunal. Had they had legal counsel this may have been considered.
As the Tenant has not been substantially successful, they must pay their own filing fee and name suppression is not granted.
As the Landlord has been successful, name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938635 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938635 — 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