What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4947074 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4947074?

The reconciled net award was $600.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4947074?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4947074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11177945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4947074 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4947074?

The reconciled net award was $600.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4947074?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4947074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11177945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4947074 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4947074 — net $600.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$600.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4947074 — net $600.00 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$600.00

Order

Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $600.00 immediately, being compensation for loss of backyard use and reimbursement for the expert arborist report.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Originally, the landlord had filed an application seeking a work order. The tenant filed a cross application for loss of amenity with respect to a range of issues at the tenancy address.
At the hearing, things had progressed since the applications were filed and the main issues for consideration were: a. The large trees and impact to the use of the backyard; b. The fireplace; c. The front gate issue.
An issue was also raised by the tenant regarding water invoices; however no orders were sought from the Tribunal with respect to the issue. Backyard and trees
The tenancy address has large trees at the back of the property. Reports provided describe the trees as a shelter belt / screening, comprising of 12 trees on the southwestern (downhill) side of the dwelling. The 12 trees are all Japanese Cedar (cryptomeria japonica).
The site is sloping away from the road around the house, and below the house is a retaining wall. The trees are on a steeper area of land downhill of the retaining wall.
Following a weather event, some of the trees or their branches fell. The tenant submits that he had asked for these to be trimmed in June 2023 during a routine inspection, and some works were carried out. However, approximately a year later and possibly due to a storm, a large part of a tree fell. At the same time, many of the other trees also appeared precarious.
The tenant had concerns about the safety of his family who regularly used the area under the trees’ canopies, he was concerned about his children being hurt and raised this with the landlord. I have not sighted the exact notification of this, but at the hearing both parties agreed this occurred on 21 May 2024.
There were ongoing communications between the parties, where the tenant continually expressed his concerns.
On 5 June 2024, the tenant issued a 14-day notice advising that the landlord was in breach of their responsibilities by allowing the unchecked growth of the tress on the property that present a constant danger to us and requiring that the landlord remedy the breach by getting a professional arborist’s report on the safety of the trees and acting on that report.
Due to some cross over in engagement, three separate tree safety reports were then obtained by the property manager, owner and tenant.
In June 2024 Tauranga Tree Services was engaged by the property manager to provide an assessment of the trees. The report concluded that “a significant amount of epicormic growth has emerged from the old cut wounds and these have now become dominant stems. Stems of this type and weak attachments...as they grow tall, they will become more unstable. From an arborist’s perspective, we would recommend reducing those trees to where they’ve been cut previously...these trees are starting to fall – most likely during storms and other significant wind events. There are cracks and breaks in weak unions, and this will keep occurring as the trees get larger.”
On 7 July 2024 the tenant obtained a tree safety report from Mr Pretty from Pretty Trees. The report identified a high likelihood of branch failure, nothing that there were historical toppings, poor unions, and over-extending growth, with the highest risk of failure being individual tree limbs falling.
On 10 July 2024 the owner received a further report on the trees that noted that it is apparent that the trees have been topped in the past resulting in epicormic growth which is generally regarded as having a higher potential for failure at the union, but summarised that he didn’t see any obvious sign of an immediate danger to people or property and recommended targeted pruning in the near future, to reduce some of the potential risk.
In response to the 14-day notice being served on the landlord and presumably receipt of any of the expert reports, the owner agreed to have the work done, but not until a few months later (in September) and refused to set a date or clarify if the booking for the works was done.
The property manager, as agent for the owner, had filed an application with the Tribunal for a work order for the tree work to be carried out, however, the work to the trees has now been carried out at the landlord’s cost, so this application is not longer extant. The works to the trees was carried out by 16 August 2024.
The tenant seeks compensation for the inability to use the backyard during the 12 weeks that they were unable to use it. He says the back yard is large, and included a playground, basketball court, soccer goal and an above ground pool – all of which were unable to be used. The backyard was one of the reasons for taking the tenancy. He claims that he should be compensated $150.00 per week for the 12 weeks that him and his family were unable to access this area and feared for their safety.
The tenant also seeks reimbursement for the cost of obtaining a tree safety report and has provided an invoice from Pretty Trees for $661.25.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements and includes requirements with respect to safety.
I am satisfied that the landlord was on notice with respect to the tree safety issue, that was prompted by a large tree branch falling, proving that it was a genuine safety concern. In addition, there was sufficient comment across the three arborist reports to support the safety concern held by the tenant.
As a result, the tenant did not have use of this portion of the backyard, and I accept the evidence that this was a significant loss for his family.
The total weekly rent for the tenancy was $650.00 a week.
I have assessed the loss of use of this portion of the backyard as $50.00 and have awarded compensation to the tenant for 12 weeks, totalling $600.00.
In addition, at the time and given the delays it was reasonable for the tenant to want to have the safety of the trees assessed and engage an expert to do so. Although, three reports now seem unnecessary, in my view the tenant should be reimbursed for the cost of the Pretty Trees report.
I order that the landlord pay the tenant $661.25 in reimbursement for the report. Fireplace
The tenant also raised issues regarding the fireplace in the lounge and says when they commenced the tenancy, they understood that the fireplace could be used and were shown the woodshed that had wood ready for use. When they first used it however, the room smoked.
At some stage, presumably from notification from the tenant, the fireplace was inspected and condemned by a fire safety expert. It was not replaced and was ultimately locked up.
The tenant says it took two years for the fireplace to be locked up and it has not been removed, which causes a nuisance him and his family.
Ultimately, the tenant seeks compensation for loss of amenity or use of the fireplace.
The landlord gave evidence that there is a heat pump in the lounge and the property fully complies with Healthy Homes Standards, and has now been locked up, so the landlord considers they have complied with their obligations under the RTA.
I appreciate the frustration of the tenant in not being able to use the fireplace, however, I am satisfied that the landlord has complied with their obligations and accordingly this claim is dismissed. Front gate
When first moving into the property, the front gate fence was completely rotten and blew open in strong wind. The tenant claims that the landlord refused to repair the gate.
On 29 November 2021 the tenant’s lawyers contacted the landlord requesting confirmation that the gate be replaced at no cost to himself.
The tenant says he was required to engage lawyers, and once he did so, the gate was subsequently repaired. He seeks the lawyers’ costs incurred from the delayed actions of the landlord.
The landlord has provided a law firm invoice for the total amount of $1,085.40. I note however, that the invoice also includes attendances for an unrelated issue and there is no cost breakdown provided.
Although I accept that engaging the lawyers may have prompted the landlord to carry out the works, the tenant did not have to engage lawyers. He could have applied to the tenancy tribunal to have the matter resolved which would have come at a significantly lower cost.
In addition, the issue was ultimately resolved and there are no outstanding issues with respect to the front gate.
Accordingly, the claim seeking compensation for legal costs is dismissed. Suppression
Name suppression was sought by both parties. As there has been a shared level of success I consider that it is appropriate to order suppression of both parties’ names and details. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 06 December 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4947074 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4947074 — Healthy homes

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