What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959373 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 4959373?

Compensation: Raw Sewage Discharge: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959373?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11328910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959373 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 4959373?

Compensation: Raw Sewage Discharge: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959373?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11328910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

231 Nixon Road, Taupaki, RD 2, Taupaki 0782 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959373 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959373 — net $2,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: raw sewage discharge	$2,500.00	raw sewage discharge
Net award	$2,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,500.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 th August 2024 and 1 st November 2024.

The tenant had applied for work orders and compensation. The landlord had filed a cross-application in relation to an unconsented minor dwelling at the premises.

On the order dated 6 th August 2024, I ordered for the tenant to remove the unconsented minor dwelling from the premises by 10 th October 2024 or to get the Council approval to retain the minor dwelling. 4959373, 48754402

As the order made against the tenant still stands, I only consider the tenant’s claims in this order.

The tenant had sought for work orders for the landlord to fix: a. fences and gates; b. horse stable roof and doors; c. window gaps and latches; d. gutters and water tank leaks; e. sewage above ground; and f. water to the paddocks.

The tenant also claimed that the premises was not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standard (“HHS”) and that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant sought a total compensation of $32,400.00 calculated at $100 per week over 324 weeks. Background

The tenancy started on 8 th December 2017.

The premises is a 3-bedroom house on 10 acres of land with 6 paddocks and a 3-bay stable for horses.

In the tenancy agreement, special conditions stated that it was the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the verge, paddocks, fences and boundaries and the landlord allowed for the tenant to have 12 breeding French bulldogs, 6 breeding horses, 5 mares, 1 stallion, 5 sheep, 1 cow, 6 chickens and 1 working sheep cattle dog.

In relation to the tenant’s claims, the tenant never sent any 14-day notice requiring the landlord to do anything until April 2024. Jurisdiction issues

The landlord opposed the tenant’s application for work orders and compensation.

In relation to the issues raised, the landlord said that they had already been fixed by the landlord, agreed to be the tenant’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement, or that the tenant had never notified the landlord before.

The landlord highlighted that the tenant did not mitigate their loss by taking reasonable steps to limit the damage arising from the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the property. 4959373, 48754403

Finally, the landlord highlighted that the tenant was unable to bring a claim for compensation in respect of issues which arose more than 6 years ago under section 11 of the Limitation Act 2010.

Section 5(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states that the RTA does not apply where the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other similar purposes.

I find that the fences and gates, horse stable roofs and doors, and water to the paddocks are outside the jurisdiction of the RTA as a result. Therefore, those claims are not considered in this order. Work completed and HHS compliance

The landlord stated that the window gaps and latches were fixed.

In March 2018, 10 window latches were fixed. In March 2023, the ranch slider lock was fixed. In May 2024, window latches were fixed.

The landlord provided HHS assessment and other various invoices to prove that the window gaps and latches were fixed.

The landlord also stated that the tank and gutter leaks were fixed.

A new water tank was installed in December 2019. The water tank was repaired in July 2022 and repaired again in June 2024.

For the gutters, a full gutter clean was done with an additional net being installed to avoid leaves dropping in in March 2018. Gutter was cleaned again in October 2023. Spouting was replaced on both sides of the house in June 2024.

The landlord provided invoices to prove that they were reasonably maintained.

The landlord also had fixed the fireplace by sweeping and inspecting the fireplace in June 2022, a new fireplace being installed in July 2023 and a smashed tile of the fireplace being fixed in May 2024.

In relation to HHS, the landlord was ordered to obtain an updated HHS for the premises after the hearing in August 2024.

The landlord has provided an HHS report where the premises was assessed on 13 th August 2024 and being found to be compliant.

I find that the landlord has reasonable maintained the premises and I find no reason for any compensation in relation to these claims. Sewage above ground

The tenant claimed that the sewage dispersal fingers had been damaged when the tenant moved in, but the owner did not pay for a professional drain layer to 4959373, 48754404 do the work for it. The tenant said that the landlord instead had a friend lay a single overflow pipe out into the paddock which flowed above ground in the paddock behind the house and that when it rained it flowed over the paddock.

The landlord said that the landlord had fixed the raw sewage issue by having the drain unblocked in January and March 2018, pumping out the septic tank and a new outlet being connected to the existing septic tank along with a feed line to new soakage trenches, scoria soakage trenches in paddock behind the house in March 2018.

In January 2019, silicon was put around the gap to address the sewage smell and the drain was again unblocked in November 2021.

The landlord also highlighted that Auckland Council visited the premises on 13 th June 2024 to investigate the overflow and found that there was no issue.

The landlord had invoices to prove the work done and there was also a record of the tenant already having received $1,500.00 for the sewage issue in 2018 by way of a rent credit.

However, I find that there was more telling evidence in the bundle of evidence provided by the parties. In the letter dated 30 th October 2024 by Drain Ninjas Limited, it stated: Dug and installed new effluent trenches 3 x 25m filled with drainage metal capped with geo cloth and material put back on top. This all goes via a distribution box so that it disperses evenly. This is all done to the council code. Also installed a filter on septic tank as there wasn’t one causing the solids to go down the outlet to the old open-ended pipe. Replaced the mushroom on septic tank as this was broken off. All this work was completed on 25/10/2024. This work could only be completed during the summer months as before this period as the ground was too waterlogged to get machines/trucks into the paddock where new field was going.

This supports what the tenant was claiming. It proves that the septic tank did not have a filter and that as a result there was stink of sewage all the time due to the raw sewage overflowing straight out onto the paddocks.

The Auckland Unitary Plan also required the landlord to have maintenance record of the wastewater system and septic tank. The key rules found in chapter E 5.6.1 required that the primary septic tank and land disposal system be inspected at least once every three years, and where necessary, the tank pumped out by a suitably qualified onsite wastewater service provider when slud and scum levels occupy 50% or more of the tank volume.

There was no record of the landlord having met the maintenance requirement of the wastewater system and septic tank.

Although I accept the landlord has done some maintenance, I am not satisfied that it met the legal minimum given the work completed on 25 th October 2024. 4959373, 48754405

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,500.00 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the septic tank issues.

This amount takes into account the fact that the tenant did not formally complain about the raw sewage issue for a long time to the landlord. If the tenant had given the landlord a 14-day notice to remedy this situation earlier, I would have found that the tenant had done what the tenant needed to do to mitigate the landlord’s loss and awarded a greater sum of compensation. The tenant explained that they did not say anything in fear of retaliation. Despite that, I find that the tenant should have exercised the tenant’s rights by addressing this issue in writing.

This amount also takes into account the landlord’s filing fee for the landlord’s cross-application which they succeeded completely.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959373 — net $2,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: raw sewage discharge	$2,500.00	raw sewage discharge
Net award	$2,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,500.00