What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985248 about?

The tribunal order states: NZURI Enterprises Limited must pay Nathan John Bartlett $27.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4985248?

Her Order 2 Or 3 Above, Then The Ten…: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985248?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11159828-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985248 about?

The tribunal order states: NZURI Enterprises Limited must pay Nathan John Bartlett $27.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4985248?

Her Order 2 Or 3 Above, Then The Ten…: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985248?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11159828-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 29 Evans Street, Maori Hill, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985248 — Mould & damp

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985248. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to	$2,000.00		her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to

Order

NZURI Enterprises Limited must pay Nathan John Bartlett $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. An electrical inspection (and any necessary repairs) of the garage light and electrical outlet plugs in the internal entrance of the premises, which must be completed by 30 January 2025; and b. Replacement of ripped and damaged net curtains, which must be completed by 15 February 2025.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2b, the landlord must pay the tenant $1,500.00 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 9 December 2024.
The parties had also participated in a case management conference by telephone in November. The purpose of the case management conference was to clarify some of Mr Bartlett’s claims.
At the case management conference, Mr Bartlett confirmed that he is not seeking refund of the bond and does not want the tenancy to end. The claim for refund of the bond was withdrawn.
Mr Bartlett had also applied for work orders. At the case management conference, he confirmed that he would like the following work to be done at the premises: a. Carpet repaired or replaced where it is torn and/or damp; b. Net curtains replaced; c. Electrical plugs checked following water ingress from burst water main; d. Wallpaper installed in lounge; e. Garage light checked.
Mr Bartlett also claimed compensation for items lost following water entering the property.
As discussed at the case management conference, 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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. 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.” (emphasis added)

WORK ORDERS

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not comply with its repair and maintenance obligations and wants the problem fixed by having: a. Carpet repaired or replaced where it is torn and/or damp; b. Net curtains replaced; c. Electrical plugs checked following water ingress from burst water main; d. Wallpaper installed in lounge; e. Garage light checked.
The landlord’s obligation is to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
As noted above and discussed at the case management conference, the applicant has the onus of proving that repairs or maintenance are required. It was apparent that the Tenant has a strong sense of grievance against a range of agencies. Much of his evidence and submission was focussed on those issues, rather than matters which this Tribunal has jurisdiction over. The only matters which I can consider and determine are whether the landlord has breached its obligations and what, if any, remedy is appropriate.
The tenant provided very little corroborative evidence in support of his claims. The photographic evidence was limited. The tenant claimed to have been waiting 16 months for repairs but did not provide evidence to support that timeframe.
The evidence establishes that net curtain at the premises are worn, ripped and no longer provide effective privacy. The premises are a converted motel unit within a block of similar accommodation. The tenant has a reasonable expectation that the landlord would act to preserve his privacy. At the case management conference, Mr Moloney (the director of the landlord) acknowledged that he had agreed to replace the net curtains but had lost the measurements. I expected that issue would have been resolved or progressed before the substantive hearing. It was not.
Mr Moloney now says that he is considering alternative privacy options for the premises. The landlord has had adequate opportunity to address this issue. I find that its failure to do so amounts to a breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligation and that a work order is appropriate, as set out in Orders 2 to 4 above.
The tenant claims that there has been flickering of the garage light and that he is concerned about power outlets following water ingress caused by a council water leak. At the hearing, the landlord said that the premises have an electrical certificate of compliance, but that he could have an electrician investigate these issues even though he disputed the amount of water which had entered the premises. The landlord did not provide a copy of the electrical certificate of compliance.
Concerns about electrical wiring can be a safety issue. There is evidence of water ingress at the premises. The landlord indicated that it would investigate the issue. However, given that it also said it would replace net curtains but didn’t, I consider that a work order is necessary for both parties to be satisfied that there is no safety issue with the electrical circuit to the garage light or circuits near the entrance of the premises (where water entered the dwelling). As this is a safety issue, I have not made an alternative award of compensation in Order 3 above.
The evidence did not establish that any issues or concerns with wallpaper or carpet amount to a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations. At best, these appear to be aesthetic issues. These parts of the claim are dismissed. COMPENSATION – WATER INGRESS?
Mr Bartlett claimed compensation of $20,000 for the less of personal items following water ingress caused by a leak in the Council watermain.
At the case management conference, I indicated that Mr Bartlett would need to provide further explanation and evidence to support this claim. In a directions order, I recorded: “Mr Bartlett will need to identify how the water ingress was caused by any breach of the landlord’s obligations. Put another way, he will have to show what the landlord did or failed to do and which has led to water entering the premises. He will also have to prove the damage which occurred because of the water entry.’
Mr Bartlett did not address those issues. The landlord is not responsible for the condition of a council water main on the street. Mr Bartlett did not provide evidence of the extent of water ingress or the damage caused. The landlord said that there was some dampness (not wet or flooding conditions) and he provided a dehumidifier to assist the tenant.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached any obligation in relation to the council water main leak. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
At the hearing both parties raised other issues with the tenancy relationship. Mr Bartlett also has concerns about other tenants at the premises. The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint, and I did not discern what, if anything, either party wanted the Tribunal to do about the matters raised, so have not commented or considered issues other than those set out in the directions Order dated 4 November 2024.
As the tenant was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. Neither party was substantially successful, so I have not granted suppression of either party’s details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985248. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to	$2,000.00		her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to

Order

NZURI Enterprises Limited must pay Nathan John Bartlett $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. An electrical inspection (and any necessary repairs) of the garage light and electrical outlet plugs in the internal entrance of the premises, which must be completed by 30 January 2025; and b. Replacement of ripped and damaged net curtains, which must be completed by 15 February 2025.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2b, the landlord must pay the tenant $1,500.00 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 9 December 2024.
The parties had also participated in a case management conference by telephone in November. The purpose of the case management conference was to clarify some of Mr Bartlett’s claims.
At the case management conference, Mr Bartlett confirmed that he is not seeking refund of the bond and does not want the tenancy to end. The claim for refund of the bond was withdrawn.
Mr Bartlett had also applied for work orders. At the case management conference, he confirmed that he would like the following work to be done at the premises: a. Carpet repaired or replaced where it is torn and/or damp; b. Net curtains replaced; c. Electrical plugs checked following water ingress from burst water main; d. Wallpaper installed in lounge; e. Garage light checked.
Mr Bartlett also claimed compensation for items lost following water entering the property.
As discussed at the case management conference, 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. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. 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.” (emphasis added)

WORK ORDERS

Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms, insulation, a failure to comply with a standard of fitness under section 120C Health Act 1956, or a failure to comply with any health or safety legislative requirement. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not comply with its repair and maintenance obligations and wants the problem fixed by having: a. Carpet repaired or replaced where it is torn and/or damp; b. Net curtains replaced; c. Electrical plugs checked following water ingress from burst water main; d. Wallpaper installed in lounge; e. Garage light checked.
The landlord’s obligation is to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
As noted above and discussed at the case management conference, the applicant has the onus of proving that repairs or maintenance are required. It was apparent that the Tenant has a strong sense of grievance against a range of agencies. Much of his evidence and submission was focussed on those issues, rather than matters which this Tribunal has jurisdiction over. The only matters which I can consider and determine are whether the landlord has breached its obligations and what, if any, remedy is appropriate.
The tenant provided very little corroborative evidence in support of his claims. The photographic evidence was limited. The tenant claimed to have been waiting 16 months for repairs but did not provide evidence to support that timeframe.
The evidence establishes that net curtain at the premises are worn, ripped and no longer provide effective privacy. The premises are a converted motel unit within a block of similar accommodation. The tenant has a reasonable expectation that the landlord would act to preserve his privacy. At the case management conference, Mr Moloney (the director of the landlord) acknowledged that he had agreed to replace the net curtains but had lost the measurements. I expected that issue would have been resolved or progressed before the substantive hearing. It was not.
Mr Moloney now says that he is considering alternative privacy options for the premises. The landlord has had adequate opportunity to address this issue. I find that its failure to do so amounts to a breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligation and that a work order is appropriate, as set out in Orders 2 to 4 above.
The tenant claims that there has been flickering of the garage light and that he is concerned about power outlets following water ingress caused by a council water leak. At the hearing, the landlord said that the premises have an electrical certificate of compliance, but that he could have an electrician investigate these issues even though he disputed the amount of water which had entered the premises. The landlord did not provide a copy of the electrical certificate of compliance.
Concerns about electrical wiring can be a safety issue. There is evidence of water ingress at the premises. The landlord indicated that it would investigate the issue. However, given that it also said it would replace net curtains but didn’t, I consider that a work order is necessary for both parties to be satisfied that there is no safety issue with the electrical circuit to the garage light or circuits near the entrance of the premises (where water entered the dwelling). As this is a safety issue, I have not made an alternative award of compensation in Order 3 above.
The evidence did not establish that any issues or concerns with wallpaper or carpet amount to a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations. At best, these appear to be aesthetic issues. These parts of the claim are dismissed. COMPENSATION – WATER INGRESS?
Mr Bartlett claimed compensation of $20,000 for the less of personal items following water ingress caused by a leak in the Council watermain.
At the case management conference, I indicated that Mr Bartlett would need to provide further explanation and evidence to support this claim. In a directions order, I recorded: “Mr Bartlett will need to identify how the water ingress was caused by any breach of the landlord’s obligations. Put another way, he will have to show what the landlord did or failed to do and which has led to water entering the premises. He will also have to prove the damage which occurred because of the water entry.’
Mr Bartlett did not address those issues. The landlord is not responsible for the condition of a council water main on the street. Mr Bartlett did not provide evidence of the extent of water ingress or the damage caused. The landlord said that there was some dampness (not wet or flooding conditions) and he provided a dehumidifier to assist the tenant.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached any obligation in relation to the council water main leak. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.
At the hearing both parties raised other issues with the tenancy relationship. Mr Bartlett also has concerns about other tenants at the premises. The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint, and I did not discern what, if anything, either party wanted the Tribunal to do about the matters raised, so have not commented or considered issues other than those set out in the directions Order dated 4 November 2024.
As the tenant was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. Neither party was substantially successful, so I have not granted suppression of either party’s details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985248 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 4, 29 Evans Street, Maori Hill, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985248 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 4, 29 Evans Street, Maori Hill, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WORK ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WORK ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions