What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4944033?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4944033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944033?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10918544-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4944033?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4944033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4944033?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4944033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10918544-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 2, 2 Hennessy Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4944033 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wyatt represented the landlord. Background
Mr James resides in a social housing complex managed by OCHT a social housing provider. His tenancy started on 1 October 2017 and is a current tenancy.
Mr James is an avid and proficient gardener. He grows vegetables which he then distributes to people in need and to members of his church.
Such is his gardening proficiency he has received various awards. He keeps the gardens surrounding his unit immaculate. As well, he tends to other garden areas that are raised beds, some built out from the boundary fences.
The communal gardens were not put in place by OCHT, but probably by past tenants who were gardening enthusiasts. Now though, only Mr James takes an interest in maintaining those areas, which he does willingly and with a focus on helping others.
The soil in the raised communal gardens has reduced over time and Mr James has to climb over the raised edges to do his gardening work. Mr James is blind so that makes this task difficult and dangerous.
On 1 July 2024, while doing that, he fell and suffered a neck injury. ACC accepted his claim for personal injury (ACC cover letter produced).
Mr James feels aggrieved that OCHT has not maintained the raised garden plots. Following his injury, he decided to do something about that. So, he made the application before the Tribunal today. He initially claimed $2,000,000.00 but after Tenancy Services raised a jurisdictional issue (the Tribunal has jurisdiction up to $100,000.00 only) he reduced his claim. The application
In his written application, Mr James seeks compensation of $50,000.00 as reparation for his injury suffered while gardening. Today he said his compensation claim also extended to the work he had put in over the years to maintain the raised gardens. He said he was the only person with an interest in gardening.
Mr James also seeks a work order for OCHT to add soil to the raised gardens to get them back to the level they once were at making it easier for him to work. Issues
The Tribunal must decide these issues: •Can Mr James be awarded compensation for the injury he suffered while gardening on 1 July 2024? •Has OCHT breached its statutory responsibilities such that Mr James can be awarded compensation? •Should the Tribunal make a work order? Law
Section 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 provides: 317 Proceedings for personal injury (1) No person may bring proceedings independently of this Act, whether under any rule of law or any enactment, in any court in New Zealand, for damages arising directly or indirectly out of— (a) personal injury covered by this Act; or (b) personal injury covered by the former Acts. (2) Subsection (1) does not prevent any person bringing proceedings relating to, or arising from,— (a) any damage to property; or (b) any express term of any contract or agreement (other than an accident insurance contract under the Accident Insurance Act 1998); or (c) the unjustifiable dismissal of any person or any other personal grievance arising out of a contract of service. (3) However, no court, tribunal, or other body may award compensation in any proceedings referred to in subsection (2) for personal injury of the kinds described in subsection (1).
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.
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. Can Mr James be awarded compensation for the injury he suffered while gardening on 1 July 2024?
Mr James has an accepted ACC claim for the personal injury he sustained while gardening on 1 July 2024. Section 317(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 prevents him from bringing proceedings arising directly or indirectly out of his accepted personal injury claim.
For this reason, Mr James cannot be awarded compensation for his personal injury. His compensation claim arising from his personal injury falls under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Has OCHT breached its statutory responsibilities such that Mr James can be awarded compensation?
Ms Wyatt explained that OCHT did not build the raised gardens that are in place from the fence line, nor did Mr James’ tenancy agreement require him to tend those gardens.
The gardens have been in place for some time, probably built by a previous tenant. They were intended for communal use, though only Mr James now tends them.
OCHT has not committed any breach of its statutory responsibilities. It did not build the raised gardens, nor does it require any tenant to tend them.
Mr James has no claim against OCHT for the time he has spent gardening. There was no agreement between him and OCHT for him to do gardening work in return for payment. He does the gardening because he enjoys it, and it allows him to give vegetables away to those in need. While laudable, he has no claim against OCHT for the work he has done; he has done the work based on his own charitable motivation.
Without an identified breach of its statutory responsibilities as a landlord there can be no award of compensation made against OCHT.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

If follows that the Tribunal cannot make a work order. Ms Wyatt said it was likely that OCHT would now remove the raised gardens as its maintenance contractors have advised that the soil is damaging the boundary fences.
The Tribunal cannot require a landlord to provide something that it has no statutory responsibility to provide. There is no proper basis on which the Tribunal could make a work order. The raised (communal) gardens are not part of Mr James’ tenancy. They are something from which he has derived pleasure and have allowed him to grow vegetables for a charitable purpose. But it is for the landlord alone to decide what to do with them.
Mr James has gardens around his unit which he also uses to grow vegetables. The upkeep of them is his responsibility. He confirmed that there was no issue with those gardens which he maintained at his expense. Result
The application is dismissed. Mr James cannot claim compensation for his personal injury; section 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 prevents that. The landlord has not committed any breach of its statutory responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 so the Tribunal cannot award Mr James compensation for his time and costs tending communal gardens. The Tribunal cannot make a work order when the work to be done is not required as part of a landlord’s statutory responsibilities. Name suppression
On my enquiry neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Wyatt represented the landlord. Background
Mr James resides in a social housing complex managed by OCHT a social housing provider. His tenancy started on 1 October 2017 and is a current tenancy.
Mr James is an avid and proficient gardener. He grows vegetables which he then distributes to people in need and to members of his church.
Such is his gardening proficiency he has received various awards. He keeps the gardens surrounding his unit immaculate. As well, he tends to other garden areas that are raised beds, some built out from the boundary fences.
The communal gardens were not put in place by OCHT, but probably by past tenants who were gardening enthusiasts. Now though, only Mr James takes an interest in maintaining those areas, which he does willingly and with a focus on helping others.
The soil in the raised communal gardens has reduced over time and Mr James has to climb over the raised edges to do his gardening work. Mr James is blind so that makes this task difficult and dangerous.
On 1 July 2024, while doing that, he fell and suffered a neck injury. ACC accepted his claim for personal injury (ACC cover letter produced).
Mr James feels aggrieved that OCHT has not maintained the raised garden plots. Following his injury, he decided to do something about that. So, he made the application before the Tribunal today. He initially claimed $2,000,000.00 but after Tenancy Services raised a jurisdictional issue (the Tribunal has jurisdiction up to $100,000.00 only) he reduced his claim. The application
In his written application, Mr James seeks compensation of $50,000.00 as reparation for his injury suffered while gardening. Today he said his compensation claim also extended to the work he had put in over the years to maintain the raised gardens. He said he was the only person with an interest in gardening.
Mr James also seeks a work order for OCHT to add soil to the raised gardens to get them back to the level they once were at making it easier for him to work. Issues
The Tribunal must decide these issues: •Can Mr James be awarded compensation for the injury he suffered while gardening on 1 July 2024? •Has OCHT breached its statutory responsibilities such that Mr James can be awarded compensation? •Should the Tribunal make a work order? Law
Section 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 provides: 317 Proceedings for personal injury (1) No person may bring proceedings independently of this Act, whether under any rule of law or any enactment, in any court in New Zealand, for damages arising directly or indirectly out of— (a) personal injury covered by this Act; or (b) personal injury covered by the former Acts. (2) Subsection (1) does not prevent any person bringing proceedings relating to, or arising from,— (a) any damage to property; or (b) any express term of any contract or agreement (other than an accident insurance contract under the Accident Insurance Act 1998); or (c) the unjustifiable dismissal of any person or any other personal grievance arising out of a contract of service. (3) However, no court, tribunal, or other body may award compensation in any proceedings referred to in subsection (2) for personal injury of the kinds described in subsection (1).
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.
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. Can Mr James be awarded compensation for the injury he suffered while gardening on 1 July 2024?
Mr James has an accepted ACC claim for the personal injury he sustained while gardening on 1 July 2024. Section 317(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 prevents him from bringing proceedings arising directly or indirectly out of his accepted personal injury claim.
For this reason, Mr James cannot be awarded compensation for his personal injury. His compensation claim arising from his personal injury falls under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Has OCHT breached its statutory responsibilities such that Mr James can be awarded compensation?
Ms Wyatt explained that OCHT did not build the raised gardens that are in place from the fence line, nor did Mr James’ tenancy agreement require him to tend those gardens.
The gardens have been in place for some time, probably built by a previous tenant. They were intended for communal use, though only Mr James now tends them.
OCHT has not committed any breach of its statutory responsibilities. It did not build the raised gardens, nor does it require any tenant to tend them.
Mr James has no claim against OCHT for the time he has spent gardening. There was no agreement between him and OCHT for him to do gardening work in return for payment. He does the gardening because he enjoys it, and it allows him to give vegetables away to those in need. While laudable, he has no claim against OCHT for the work he has done; he has done the work based on his own charitable motivation.
Without an identified breach of its statutory responsibilities as a landlord there can be no award of compensation made against OCHT.

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

If follows that the Tribunal cannot make a work order. Ms Wyatt said it was likely that OCHT would now remove the raised gardens as its maintenance contractors have advised that the soil is damaging the boundary fences.
The Tribunal cannot require a landlord to provide something that it has no statutory responsibility to provide. There is no proper basis on which the Tribunal could make a work order. The raised (communal) gardens are not part of Mr James’ tenancy. They are something from which he has derived pleasure and have allowed him to grow vegetables for a charitable purpose. But it is for the landlord alone to decide what to do with them.
Mr James has gardens around his unit which he also uses to grow vegetables. The upkeep of them is his responsibility. He confirmed that there was no issue with those gardens which he maintained at his expense. Result
The application is dismissed. Mr James cannot claim compensation for his personal injury; section 317 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 prevents that. The landlord has not committed any breach of its statutory responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 so the Tribunal cannot award Mr James compensation for his time and costs tending communal gardens. The Tribunal cannot make a work order when the work to be done is not required as part of a landlord’s statutory responsibilities. Name suppression
On my enquiry neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4944033 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 2, 2 Hennessy Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4944033 — Tenancy dispute at Unit 2, 2 Hennessy Place, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a work order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions