What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985448 about?

This case concerned a leaks dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4985448?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10906989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985448 about?

This case concerned a leaks dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4985448?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10906989-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985448 — Leaks

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in [Event location suppressed] today, that is 3 October 2024.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy in this case commenced in August 2020. The premises are located in a village. The dwelling is small in size.
It is plain that there has been a difference of opinion over various matter between the tenant and landlord in relation to a range of matters, such as the items that the tenant has in his unit, whether it is clean and tidy, fire escape impacts and a water tank initially obtained by the tenant. There have been various complaints and notices from the landlord, and clearly strong differences of opinion have arisen, which has resulted in both parties filing applications with the Tribunal, which largely traverses the same issues but from differing directions.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. LANDLORD’S CASE
The landlord seeks an order to ensure that the tenant is safe in his house, in particular, that there is a clear passage out of the house in the event of an emergency.
The landlord considers that the tenant has not kept the tenancy reasonably clean and tidy, and that there are no risks for leaving the building in an emergency.
The landlord states that they only undertake inspections every six months.
The landlord agrees that he had contacted the tenant’s daughter, but says that was because [The tenant/s] would not talk to him. Taking into account the type of complex this is, the landlord does provide support to residents where appropriate.
The landlord is concerned about there being a fridge on the carpet because of the potential for leaks and carpet damage.
The landlord states that the external water tank was purchased from [The tenant/s], and was moved because it was not secure where [The tenant/s] secured it on a PVC downpipe. The landlord considers it was an earthquake risk where and how it was fixed. TENANT’S CASE
[The tenant/s] states that he does not think that the landlord is complying with their obligations under the RTA. [The tenant/s] states that if he chose to put a dresser drawer in his laundry for example, that is his business.
[The tenant/s] read out a statement to the Tribunal. In summary [The tenant/s] advised me that he considers that the landlord has over reached in how it is managing his unit and that there is bullying going on. [The tenant/s] also raised concerns that the landlord had contacted his daughter, which he considers has breached his privacy.
The tenant’s position is that he keeps the tenancy reasonably clean and tidy, and he disputes that it is ‘dirty’ as suggested by the landlord.
The tenant states he obtained the water tank at no cost to him and he considers it was secure when he secured it to a robust downpipe,

ANALYSIS

As I indicated to the parties at the hearing today, what the Tribunal must do is to clarify what the relevant legal considerations are, and then to evaluate the evidence and determine if there have been any breaches, and make any orders necessary.
As indicated above, the primary law that applies is the RTA, that sets out the primary legal obligations that arise between tenants and landlords. The RTA sets out obligations that both parties have to each other.
Section 40 sets out the tenant’s responsibilities. In terms of this current dispute, the responsibilities that are particularly relevant include that: a. “The tenant shall...keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy”; and b. “The tenant shall not...cause or permit any interference with, or render in operative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004”
In terms of the first obligation, to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, that is a requirement that can be difficult to define. I accept that both the landlord and tenant believe this requirement was or was not met, but ultimately because this matter is not before the Tribunal, it is my role as the independent adjudicator to make that decision. How I do that, is by considering the available evidence, and in particularly the photographs both parties have given me.
Having considered the photographs, I am satisfied that the premises are reasonably clean and tidy. I can see that the premises are quite small which would present a challenge to the tenant in placing the property he has tidily in the dwelling, but I believe he has done that.
It is important to recognise that how people live in tenancies is up to them. It is not for the landlord or Tribunal to impose subjective values around that, it does require an objective assessment, and when I step back and make that assessment, I am confident in concluding [The tenant/s] property is reasonably tidy.
I have seen no evidence of the premises being unclean.
The next consideration looks to escape from fire. I have no difficulty in recognising the landlord’s concern for the welfare of [The tenant/s], and others in the village in the event of a fire (the neighbours are close), the landlord is to be commended for that concern. But again when I consider the photographs, I am not persuaded that there is any likely obstruction of a fire egress here, so I conclude that again [The tenant/s] is meeting his legal obligations to the landlord.
There were some other matters raised today.
In terms of the fridge on the carpet, that is not unlawful. I accept it is possible there could be carpet damage, but that is no more than a possibility. In the event that [The tenant/s] damages the carpet from carelessness, then he would be liable for that. But there is no evidence before me of any actual or likely carpet damage.
In relation to the water tank, as I understand matters [The tenant/s] says he obtained that at no cost to himself, and the landlord paid [The tenant/s] for that tank so I agree with the landlord ownership would then have transferred to the landlord. So what then happens to the tank is for the landlord to decide. In this case I agree with the approach taken by the landlord. Water tanks are heavy, and they would not be safely secured if attached only to a PVC pipe. I can understand the landlords approach to moving and securing the tank.
In relation to the call to [The tenant/s] daughter, that was probably unwise. The contract is between the landlord and tenant, and the communications should only be with [The tenant/s], in relation to [The tenant/s] tenancy. If there was an emergency, that would be a different situation, but that is not the case here. But I do not consider the landlord acted maliciously with this, so no further orders would be necessary.
Now turning to the obligations on the landlord.
The landlord’s primary obligations to the tenant are found in section 45 of the RTA. Those include: “The landlord shall... comply with all requires in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises”
Section 38 also prohibits the landlord from breaching the quiet enjoyment of the tenant.
In terms of the section 45 requirement, there are expectations around the landlord in ensuring the premises are safe, and my impression is that much of what [The tenant/s] has taken to be unreasonable actions on the part of the landlord was simply the landlord acting to ensure that the landlord complied with its legal obligations, that include obligations around buildings, health and safety.
In terms of quiet enjoyment, I do not accept that what the landlord has done has breached [The tenant/s] quiet enjoyment expectation. I am sure that what the landlord did was based on the landlord’s honest and genuine views around the parties’ respective obligations, even if I consider the landlord’s assessment of some of those was not correct.
I have seen no evidence of bullying.
Because of that, I would not make any orders for a breach of quiet enjoyment.

CONCLUSION

I am hopeful that having set out the legal obligations that arise, will allow a reset in the relationship between the parties, and ensure a good working relationship moving forward. But other than setting out the above obligations and conclusions on the facts, I will not make any further orders in this case.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and it is reasonable to order that for both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985448 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985448 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions