What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4969654 about?

The tribunal order states: William Moyes must pay [the tenant] the sum of $2,163.50 as calculated in the

How much money was awarded in case 4969654?

Compensation: Gas: $1,536.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Inconvenience: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969654?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11035777-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4969654 about?

The tribunal order states: William Moyes must pay [the tenant] the sum of $2,163.50 as calculated in the

How much money was awarded in case 4969654?

Compensation: Gas: $1,536.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Inconvenience: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969654?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11035777-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46 Mako Mako Road, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4969654 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969654 — net $2,163.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Gas	$1,536.50	Gas
Compensation: partial refund of bond balance	$100.00	partial refund of bond balance
Compensation: inconvenience	$500.00	inconvenience
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,163.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,163.50

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant raised a number of issues about the tenancy which began on 3 March 2023 and ended on 7 August 2024.

The onus is on the tenant to establish her claims on the balance of probabilities, that is, “more likely than not”.

The parties had a good relationship throughout the tenancy. The landlord lived behind the premises and the parties communicated frequently. The landlord described the tenant as awesome.

Unfortunately, some 9 months into the tenancy an issue with the hot water system was discovered. The water was on a gas infinity system. On 28 December 2023 the tenant, who was living at the premises with her daughter, received a very large power bill. The gas portion was for $1,053.50. This was usually around $100. The gas was used for hot water only. The next day the tenant notified the landlord, who attended straight away. It was soon discovered that there was a tiny hole in a hot water pipe under the floor. This had led to the entire area being full of steam.

Heaters and dehumidifiers were provided to dry the area out.

A second power bill in January also had a high gas component of $783.00.

It transpired that the steam had got into the walls of the house via the holes that had been created when the property had been rewired. Over the next few weeks, paint started to peel from the walls and when arrangements were made for repainting, parts of the inner walls had to be replaced. The wooden floorboards were damp and where particle board had been installed around the shower and toilet, the floor was very soft.

The property became mouldy, and the tenant and her daughter became sick.

For about 2 weeks in February there was a painter onsite. He then went on holiday and was to return to finish painting, but he did not do so.

The landlord took over the painting and repairs on the outside of the house and with the tenant’s consent, he stored equipment such as the water blaster and sander in the garage along with pails of paint.

The toilet’s connection to the floor had been loose and in July, the entire toilet came away and had to be refitted. The tenant said that she had earlier notified the landlord that the toilet was loose, but the landlord denied that. He said he would have attended to it if he had been told. Given the landlord’s prompt attention to other matters that were raised, I agree that is likely. The tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord was notified of this issue but failed to attend to it.

Most of the tenant’s complaints about the tenancy arose because of the original leak in the water pipe.

The tenant agreed that the landlord attended to most matters in a timely manner and that communication was good.

Having heard from the parties, I am satisfied that in most respects, the landlord made every effort to be a good landlord and to look after his tenant. He was not good at paperwork and he did neglect some of his obligations in that there was no written tenancy agreement and he did not lodge the bond. The landlord is urged to ascertain all of his responsibilities before entering into any further residential tenancy agreements. Mould/Healthy Homes standards

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). She says that there was mould, and gaps in the floors and gaps in the walls during the repairs.

I accept that it is possible that during the tenancy it is possible that the property did not comply with the draught standard, which requires the landlord to ensure that the property is free of gaps and holes that cause noticeable draughts. However, the tenant must prove that it is more likely than not that this is the case. The tenant did not provide a Healthy Homes Assessment or photographs of the unreasonable gaps.

The tenant has not established that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenant produced photographs showing mould in the laundry and bathroom. It is not clear whether this was as a result of the water leak.

It was explained to the tenant that the absence of: a. Independent evidence of her daughter’s sickness b. independent testing of the mould, c. independent medical or scientific evidence that the mould caused the sickness, and d. evidence that the mould was present because of the failure of the landlord to comply with his obligations, I could make no determination about the landlord’s responsibility for her daughter’s illness. Inconvenience and stress

While the landlord was working on the property, the tenant’s enjoyment of her home was impeded. She said that the landlord attended without giving the proper notice.

Under section 48 of the Act, the landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.

This means that the landlord can enter without the tenant’s consent provided this notice is given.

The tenant said that the landlord would say on the day or the day before and let her know he was coming.

The landlord said that he understood that the tenant consented to his being there.

The tenant acknowledged that she had agreed to him coming.

The tenant has not established that the landlord failed to give at least 24 hours notice on every occasion but more importantly, she has not established that the landlord entered without her consent.

There was one occasion when someone was in the house without being introduced to the tenant. The landlord’s brother-in-law was visiting the day that the toilet came away. He helped the landlord fix the issue. The landlord did not realise that he had not introduced him to the tenant.

It is understandable that the tenant felt uncomfortable with this person in her house, but in circumstances where the landlord was trying to address a problem urgently, it is also understandable that he forgot to get the tenant’s express consent to his brother-in-law’s presence. In the absence of any objection from the tenant, and in the context of the urgent issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume there was implied consent to someone assisting with the solution. No order for compensation is warranted.

The tenant also said that she was disturbed by the noise of the landlord’s power tools especially when she was trying to work from home.

The landlord said that he would try to work at a different end of the house from where the tenant was working so as not to disturb her. If she had told him that it was too noisy, he would have stopped.

Similarly, the tenant had agreed to the landlord storing his water blaster, tools and paint in the garage, but he gradually took over the entire garage.

The landlord said that it was a large garage (60 square metres), but agreed that he did spread things out.

The tenant said that she did not raise these issues with the landlord because she does not like confrontation. That may be so, but it is not reasonable for the landlord cannot be held accountable for issues that he was not aware of.

That said, it is apparent that the extent and duration of the damage and repairs was significant. They have still not been completed. The collapse of the toilet was particularly distressing. The tenant should be compensated, and I order $500 being one week’s rent. Power bills

The tenant wanted to be compensated for her increased power bills. The landlord said that he had given her $400 cash. The tenant said that the $400 he gave her was in July 2024. She had contacted him to request a contribution to the power bills because of all the power tools he was using on the property. The landlord thought that the $400 had been given earlier.

The tenant had produced a very detailed timeline of all interactions. It included the payment in July of $400.

I find it is more likely than not that the tenant’s recollection is correct – that the $400 was provided at a later date.

As indicated at the hearing, the tenant must be compensated for the very significant gas bill. Her inability to pay it on time has affected her credit rating.

I accept the tenant’s evidence that usually the gas bill for herself and her daughter was around $100 a month. I have allowed $150 for usual gas consumption, leaving a balance of $903.50 for December and $633.00 for January. That makes a total of $1,536.50 that the tenant has had to pay for gas she did not consume. This has been caused by a failure to maintain the premises under section 45 I order the landlord to pay that amount in compensation to the tenant. Bond

The landlord did not lodge the bond of $2,000. He has refunded $1,800 to the tenant but kept $200 because of a missing rug and curtain and some damage to the wall.

The tenant said that she threw out the curtain because it was mouldy and had no knowledge of the rug. She acknowledged that she had dented the wall.

Given the state of the property because of the leak, it is not reasonable that the tenant should contribute to the repair of the wall. The landlord has had to refurbish the premises. I therefore order him to refund a further $100 of the bond to the tenant. Oven installation

During the tenancy, the oven was not working. In consultation with the tenant, a new oven was purchased. The new oven was installed by the landlord. The tenant said that ovens should be installed by electricians. The landlord has since had the oven checked by an electrician and provided a certificate form a master electrician confirming it is electrically safe. The tenant raised no issue with the landlord installing the oven at the time.

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. The tenant has not pointed to which requirement the landlord has breached. I understand that it is recommended that an electrician undertake such an installation, but in the absence of evidence that there is a legal requirement I make no order regarding the oven. Notice of sale

The tenant also complained that the landlord told her he was going to sell the property but did not give her any notice in writing.

The landlord said that at the start of the tenancy it was made known that he was intending to sell the property. He agreed that he told her he was going to sell the property at the end of the year.

Under section 50(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a landlord may terminate a tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if the premises are going to be put on the market for sale. The landlord did not ever ask the tenant to leave the premises or attempt to terminate the tenancy. The landlord did not need to advise the tenant in writing that he was intending to sell the property. This claim is dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969654 — net $2,163.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Gas	$1,536.50	Gas
Compensation: partial refund of bond balance	$100.00	partial refund of bond balance
Compensation: inconvenience	$500.00	inconvenience
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,163.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,163.50