What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4979170 about?

The tribunal order states: Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Walker And Kelsey

How much money was awarded in case 4979170?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4979170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4979170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10907910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4979170 about?

The tribunal order states: Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Walker And Kelsey

How much money was awarded in case 4979170?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4979170?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4979170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10907910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

32 Grove Road, Kelburn, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4979170 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4979170 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Bond	$3,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4979170 — net $2,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,027.00
Bond	$3,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,027.00

Order

Trust Property Management Limited As Agent For Laurence Walker And Kelsey Walker must pay [The tenant/s] $2,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 32 Grove Road, Kelburn, Wellington 6012 is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm on Monday 16 September 2024.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by the property management company.
These four tenants moved into a flat in February 2024. The tenancy term is fixed to February 2025. The tenants moved out on 31 August because of the number of maintenance issues during the first five months of their tenancy. They were also really concerned about mould which grew in all the bedrooms, the kitchen and the bathroom - on clothes and shoes, on furniture, photos, and other belongings. The tenants have applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy. The landlord does not agree to any of the claims because they think the tenants have manufactured a reason to leave. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the landlord breach the duty to repair? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced because of the maintenance issues and the mould?

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair?

The tenants originally applied for work orders which can be made if there is a breach of the duty to repair. As the tenant have now moved out, I am considering the claim as a breach of the duty to repair and maintain.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Under section 45 landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I have not been provided with sufficient evidence to show the house was not reasonable at the start of the tenancy.
It is agreed evidence that there were significantly more repairs required during the first six months of this tenancy than usual. The repair and maintenance work required during the tenancy included: • A new vanity – broken at the start of the tenancy • Stain removal in a bedroom – there at the start • A new oven – not functioning properly at the start • Garden work done • Water pipe repairs after the owner drilled through a pipe • Hedge trimming done • Raw sewerage on the porch • Repairs for a leak through the light in one of the bedrooms coming from the upstairs flat • Several weeks of repairs to fix intermittent leaks through the ceiling in the same bedroom • Weed killer sprayed without warning while the tenants were at home • Attaching a draught excluder to meet HHS.
As well as this list there were the usual inspections. The tenants said all of the repairs took more than one visit, often by the owner first and then by the appropriate tradespeople. The landlord’s submission was that that all the repairs were completed within a reasonable time, and they had no previous experience of leaks at the premises.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have considered the submissions and the timeline. I am not persuaded the landlord acted unreasonably in managing the repairs. The time frames also seem reasonable to me. The longest repair was the leak, which was eventually traced to pipes for the upstairs shower, and I accept that it is not always easy to locate an intermittent leak.
I do find there was a breach of section 45 because the landlord should have followed up while the leak was being investigated and the various repairs attempted. There was no moisture testing done downstairs to see how damp the flat was as a result of the pipe leaking and no help offered for drying out the affected areas. This seems especially cavalier given the growth of mould in the flat. I also find a builder should have checked the large window in the front bedroom for leaks before the crack was repaired rather than assuming the excess water on the window sill was condensation.
I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the mould in the flat was the result of the tenants not airing the flat out. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ submissions that they aired the house even more than usual because of the mould and damp. The landlord could not point to any specific incidents when they observed the tenants not properly airing the flat. It seems most likely to me the landlord wanted to blame the tenants rather than acknowledge the possibility of increased moisture levels because of the leak, which is also a breach of section 45 RTA.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the ongoing repairs and visits to the premises amounted to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of tenants in their use of the premises. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000. See section 38 and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.
I am persuaded there was a breach of quiet enjoyment during the tenancy. This was because the tenants often had to stay at the flat to allow access to the owner, the property managers, the trades people, and the people from the upstairs flat. Replacing the vanity and repairing the leak took multiple visits. Not everyone came at the agreed time but the tenants were accommodating because they wanted the repairs done.
I do not accept that the behaviour was serious enough to constitute harassment. It was not behaviour that “served no legitimate purpose” because the repairs were genuine and had to be dealt with. This means I cannot make an award of exemplary damages.

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping and moisture ingress standards.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
I find the draught stopping asked for during the tenancy was attended to promptly, so there was no breach by the landlord. It seems most likely to me the mould growth was because of a plumbing leak rather than a breach of the HHS. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

I find the tenants should get compensation because of the maintenance breaches relating to the leak and the window and because of the breach of quiet enjoyment. The constant interruptions meant there was a loss of amenity – namely the right to enjoy living in the flat they were paying rent for. The tenants have asked for $1500 but I find $2000 is fair because of the number of visits over the duration of their tenancy. Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced because of the maintenance issues and the mould?
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies one of those circumstances is found in s 66 RTA which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
I find the maintenance, the leak and the mould to be an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances which could not have been predicted at the start of the tenancy. The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case. I was not provided with financial information. The landlord submitted that the owner has a mortgage on the property and the usual outgoings including a large insurance premium. The landlord is receiving rent from the upstairs flat. Only some of the tenants are employed at the moment and they are paying rent to live elsewhere. Weighing up the submissions it seems most likely to me the tenants will suffer the greater hardship if the fixed term is not reduced because it would be impossible for them to pay double rent until February 2025.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term. I do not order compensation here because the tenants have already paid rent to 16 September, which is rent for the two weeks after they moved out.
The fixed term tenancy is reduced and ends on 16 September 2024. The landlord should reimburse any rent paid by the tenants after that date. Other orders
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the tenants have left the house in a reasonable condition and there will be no claim for the bond. I find the bond should be refunded in full to the tenants.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
The tenants have not made an application for suppression, but I am using my discretion to allow suppression of the tenants’ names. This is because there has been no breach by the tenants which means any public interest is in the law rather than their names. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4979170 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Grove Road, Kelburn, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4979170 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Grove Road, Kelburn, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach the duty to repair?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Was there a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions