What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4980610 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 4980610?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980610?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10966158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4980610 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 4980610?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980610?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10966158-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4980610 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.

Mr Moore lived in his studio apartment for four months from the 9 April 2024 to the 13 August 2024.

The landlord lived in the house next door.

The parties did not sign a tenancy agreement.

Mr Moore claims that a. The landlord failed to rent the property in a reasonable clean and tidy state. b. The landlord failed to provide a TV connection for his TV. c. The landlord failed to maintain the property by repairing a broken towel rail within a reasonable time. d. The landlord interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the property.

Mr Moore seeks compensation and where applicable exemplary damages for each of these claims.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

This means that in this claim Mr Moore must prove his claims on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord rent the property out in a reasonable clean and tidy state?

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA).

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

Mr Moore claims that when he moved in there was rodent droppings in two drawers including the cutlery draw. He says that he had to buy a mouse trap and caught two mice.

The landlord says that the property was freshly painted (including the drawers) and cleaned thoroughly before the tenancy began. The landlord said that when Mr Moore complained about mice, they took measures such as filling gaps around pipes under the sick to ensure that there was nowhere for the mice to enter. The landlord says that Mr Moore never showed them the mouse droppings and they never saw a mouse at the property. Nevertheless, they purchased mice traps for Mr Moore. Mr Moore says that the traps provided were useless and he had to purchase his own.

I do not have photographs of the drawers with the mouse droppings. I do have photographs taken at the commencement of the tenancy of the studio and they show a tidy and clean property. The tenant has not proven that there were mouse droppings in the drawers and therefore his claim for breach of s 45(1)(a) fails. Did the landlord fail to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair or to maintain the property?

Mr Moore also claims that the towel rail fell off the wall and was not reattached in a timely manner.

S 45 (1)(b) provides that a landlord must: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

Mr Moore says that he told the landlord about the problem when it happened and that his landlord did not do anything until after Mr Moore sent a 14 days’ notice on the 25 July 2024. Mr Moore says that he had nowhere to hang his towel for an unreasonable period of time. Mr Moore says that this should be considered in the context of how small his studio is.

The landlord says that it was a short period from when Mr Moore notified her about the problem to when she got a 14 days’ notice (she says it was less than a week) and then the problem was remedied within a week after receiving the 14 day notice. The landlord also says that there was a hook on the back of the door, another towel rail in the bathroom and the covered line at the back door where Mr Moore could have hung his towel to dry.

I am not satisfied that the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to repair the towel rail. I consider it likely that the towel rail was repaired within two weeks of the notification of the problem. Whilst I understand that given the small space of Mr Moore’s studio that this may have been inconvenient for him, he did have alternative places to hang his towel whilst the rail was broken.

Did the landlord fail to provide a TV connection?

The flat was partly furnished. Included in the furnishings was a mounted TV. Mr Moore says that the TV had a code which no one gave him. He says that he wanted his simple TV and wanted to just connect it to the TV outlet so he could watch channels 1-3. He said that there was a failure of the landlord to provide a TV connection (outlet).

The landlord says that the TV was included. It did have a code, but Mr Moore said he did not want to have the code, the landlord says that he offered Mr Moore Sky for $5.00 per week connected to a sky dish at the property. Mr Moore originally agreed but then later said he did not want that nevertheless they went ahead with having it connected, so that the TV in the property would have Sky. The landlord says that they never saw another TV at the property and that they assisted Mr Moore in moving to his new property and they did not notice another TV in his belongings.

I am satisfied that the landlord provided Mr Moore with a functioning TV. The TV worked, it was connected, and the TV was included as part of the furnishings. It is clear from the text communications between the parties which the landlord provided me with that Mr Moore says that he did not want the TV on the 18 June. Did the landlord breach Mr Moore’s quiet enjoyment?

Mr Moore says that the landlord has breached his quiet enjoyment and harassed him. Mr Moore says that the landlord terrorised him and that both the landlord and [The landlord’s agent] were part of a group that was trying to kill him.

The landlord denies terrorising Mr Moore or breaching his quiet enjoyment. They say that they went out of their way to assist Mr Moore and show kindness to him, such as offering him lifts to church, or picking him up if they saw him out walking. The landlord did baking for him and offered him a meal. When Mr Moore left the property [The landlord’s agent] helped him move.

Mr Moore has not proven on the balance of probabilities that his landlord acted in the ways he has alleged. There is no evidence submitted apart from Mr Moore’s oral testimony to support these claims and I prefer the evidence of the landlord’s and her agent [The landlord’s agent], over that of Mr Moore.

The text messages between the landlord and the tenant show that the way that landlord communicated with Mr Moore was respectful and patient. Having heard from the landlord and [The landlord’s agent] today and read the communication between the parties, I consider that the landlord and [The landlord’s agent] exhibited kindness, tolerance and patience when dealing with Mr Moore. Name suppression.

As the landlord has been successful in defending this claim. I suppress the landlord’s name, [The landlord’s agent]’s name, and the address of the property.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.

Mr Moore lived in his studio apartment for four months from the 9 April 2024 to the 13 August 2024.

The landlord lived in the house next door.

The parties did not sign a tenancy agreement.

Mr Moore seeks compensation and where applicable exemplary damages for each of these claims.

This means that in this claim Mr Moore must prove his claims on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord rent the property out in a reasonable clean and tidy state?

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA).

Mr Moore claims that when he moved in there was rodent droppings in two drawers including the cutlery draw. He says that he had to buy a mouse trap and caught two mice.

Mr Moore also claims that the towel rail fell off the wall and was not reattached in a timely manner.

Did the landlord fail to provide a TV connection?

As the landlord has been successful in defending this claim. I suppress the landlord’s name, [The landlord’s agent]’s name, and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980610 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980610 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord rent the property out in a reasonable clean and tidy state?

Did the landlord fail to provide a TV connection?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord rent the property out in a reasonable clean and tidy state?

Did the landlord fail to provide a TV connection?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions