What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985750 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties have made an application for suppression in this case, and the

How much money was awarded in case 4985750?

Cleaning: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $262.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: for not being able to…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985750?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11357864-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4985750 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties have made an application for suppression in this case, and the

How much money was awarded in case 4985750?

Cleaning: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $262.50 awarded to tenant; Compensation: for not being able to…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985750?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11357864-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

78 Cabeleigh Drive, Helensville, Helensville 0800 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985750 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985750 — net $103.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$110.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and garden work	$149.50		Rubbish removal: and garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for not being able to use the sink in 2021		$262.50	Compensation for not being able to use the sink in 2021
Compensation: for not being able to use the bath in 2023		$100.00	for not being able to use the bath in 2023
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$286.50	$389.50
Net award		$103.00
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$103.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4985750 — net $103.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$110.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and garden work	$149.50		Rubbish removal: and garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for not being able to use the sink in 2021		$262.50	Compensation for not being able to use the sink in 2021
Compensation: for not being able to use the bath in 2023		$100.00	for not being able to use the bath in 2023
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$286.50	$389.50
Net award		$103.00
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$103.00

Order

Both parties have made an application for suppression in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $103.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claims for compensation for being unable to use the shower, the kitchen sink and the dishwasher in 2023 are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms [A], employee of the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant also attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and failure to maintain the premises. The tenant is seeking compensation (50% of the rent paid) for the periods of time they say they were unable to use the bathroom facilities, the dishwasher and the kitchen sink.
The tenant had originally claimed for breach of the healthy homes standards. However, this claim was withdrawn by the tenant at the hearing. A. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS Burden of proof:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. To put that into a mathematical context, the applicant must prove their claim to just over the 50% probability mark. This 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. Should evidence the tenant has provided regarding matters that are not part of the tenant’s claims be considered?
Section 97(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
In a document the tenant submitted to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing, the tenant had also referred to a number of other matters including carpets not being clean at the start of the tenancy, infestation of rodents and neighbouring cats accessing and damaging the premises. At the hearing, the tenant said that they were not making a claim in respect of these matters but had referred to them as evidence to support that the landlord did not maintain the premises.
Section 85 of the RTA provides: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
In Angelo v Lehr & Ors [2022] NZHC [3033] the High Court commented that: [s]ection 97(6) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has the power to refuse to accept any evidence or submission that is irrelevant or repetitious. I consider that Mr Angelo’s submission that the use of the word “shall” in s 93(1) of the Act permits him to call as much evidence as he wishes is not correct. The Tribunal remains entitled to manage its procedure and must do so to achieve its purpose of providing for the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. I consider that the Tribunal properly utilised the powers in these sections in its dealings with Mr Angelo. I also observe that to my mind the status of the 2015 Tenancy Agreement, its relevance and potential legal implications have been well ventilated before the Tribunal. See [2022] NZHC 3033.
As set out in paragraph 9 above, the tenant has submitted a number of matters not as claims but as evidence as to how the landlord managed the tenancy/maintained the premises generally. I decline to consider this evidence on the basis that it is inconsistent with the Tribunal’s objective in section 85 to achieve its purpose of providing for the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes to traverse matters that are unrelated to the specific claims that have been made. B. THE LANDLORDS’ CLAIMS.
Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises (including the garden) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides that the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord also says that the tenant left rubbish in the shed which had to be removed and that tenant did not leave the garden reasonably tidy.
At the hearing, the tenant advised that he is not disputing the claim for cleaning of the premises.
The landlord has provided photographs of the items left in the shed which it says were taken shortly after the tenancy ended. The tenant says that the only items left in the shed were some curtains. The tenant said that he put the curtains in the shed during the tenancy and, when he did so, there were no other items in the shed.
I consider it is unlikely that the landlord or its agent would have placed items in the shed after the tenancy ended and then taken photographs of them for the purpose of pursing a claim.
The landlord has provided photographs of which it says were taken shortly after the tenancy ended showing that the gardens were not left reasonably tidy.
The landlord’s claim is proved, and I award $110.00 (including GST) for cleaning of the premises and $149.50 (including GST) for removal and disposal of items in the shed and work in the garden. C. THE TENANT’S CLAIMS
The tenant claims compensation for periods of time they say they were without the use of the dishwasher and bathroom facilities.
Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain tenancy premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. The landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair, for example, by observing obvious defects at the property (Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland, CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007) or by notice from the tenant: ... the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem may be – Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington, CIV-2009-085-001431, 24 February 2010
Premises include any appurtenances. Should the tenant be awarded compensation for the dishwasher not being in working order in July / August 2021?
The tenancy commenced on 31 July 2021. The tenant says that shortly after moving in they realised that the dishwasher was not working. The tenant says they telephoned Ms A the following day. The tenant then sent a follow up email to Ms A saying they had tried a rinse cycle, but it had not worked. On 02 August 2021, Ms A replied saying that she would send a technician to assess the dishwasher.
Ms A said she submitted the work order that day. However, Ms A said that shortly after submitting the work order, the landlord said the dishwasher was quite old and instructed her to replace it.
The tenant said that Ms A advised him that the dishwasher was to be replaced, and his expectation was that a new dishwasher would be installed within the week.
On 10 August 2021, the dishwasher had not arrived and the tenant sent an email to Ms A asking for an update. Ms A forwarded him an email from the contractor saying that due to supply issues it could not be installed until the end of the month.
The tenant said that that the dishwasher was installed on or about 31 August 2021 and that during this time they spent approximately 30 minutes per day washing dishes.
Ms A says that landlord should not be liable for loss of amenity because an order for a replacement dishwasher had been placed. The tenant says the landlord could have taken additional steps such as seeing if a dishwasher could be sourced from an alternative supplier or allowing them to purchase a dishwasher and reimbursing them.
The tenant advised the landlord that the dishwasher was not working on 01 August 2025 and the dishwasher was not installed until on or about 31 August 2021. I consider a reasonable period for this issue to be resolved was one week. I find that the landlord could have and should have taken additional steps to resolve this issue within that period.
The tenant was without a dishwasher for a period of approximately 30 days. As I have found one week was a reasonable period to remedy this issue, I find the tenant should be compensated for the remaining 21 days that the dishwasher was not in working order. However, I do not agree that compensation should be at the level claimed (50% of rent paid for the days the dishwasher was not working).
I accept that because the dishwasher was out of order, the tenant had to spend 30 minutes each day cleaning dishes. I award compensation for loss of amenity of $262.50 for this breach calculated as follows: 30 minutes x 21 days = 10.5 hours of the tenant’s time. 10.5 hours x a rate of $25.00 per hour = $262.50. Should the tenant be awarded compensation for the period of time the tenant says they were unable to use the bath, the showers, the kitchen sink and the dishwasher in 2023?
The premises have a master ensuite with a shower, sink and toilet, a main bathroom with a shower and a bath, and a further separate toilet.
The tenant says that on 10 November 2023, when bathing their child they noticed that worms or gnats had come up through the drain in the bath and the toilet. The following day, the tenant sent an email to Ms A saying there appeared to be worms or gnats coming up from the drain in the bath and in the ensuite toilet.
On 14 November 2023, Ms A sent an email to the tenant saying that she was waiting to hear back from the drain company.
On 21 November 2023, the tenant sent an email to Ms A following up on the issue and saying that there was a smell from the outside drain coming up into the dishwasher.
On 23 November 2023, Ms A replied to the tenant saying she had contacted a different company about the gnats and they had suggested work on the drains. She said was waiting for the landlord to approve the work. She also asked the tenant if he had tried to clean out the filter in the dishwasher.
The tenant telephoned the landlord to say they had tried cleaning out the filter.
On 30 November 2023, a drain technician visited the premises. The tenant said that initially he believed both issues had been resolved by the technician. However, the tenant said he noticed that the gnats returned shortly afterwards.
On 04 December 2023, Ms A sent an email to the tenant saying she had spoken with a technician regarding the dishwasher issue and asked if the filter had been pulled out.
The tenant says that at some point between that email and 08 December 2023, he had a telephone call with the landlord in which he said that he had taken the filter out of the dishwasher and cleaned it but it had not worked.
On 08 December 2023, a plumber visited. The tenant said that the plumber fixed the issues. On 13 December 2023, the tenant sent an email to Ms A saying the issues had been resolved.
On 22 December 2023, Ms A sent an email to the tenant asking them not to put fats or oils down the kitchen sink as that was what had caused the blockage. The tenant responded saying: that’s strange as I’m typically quite vigilant with what goes down the drain but I won’t argue with the findings, but will be more diligent in the future.
Ms A replied saying “[n]o worries at all. It could have been a build up from the previous tenants also”.
The tenant says that due to the gnats issue they were unable to use the showers or the bath and that they had to shower at neighbours and friends. The tenant says that while they did not see gnats in the showers, it was logical that if they were in the bath drain they would also be in the shower drain. I asked the tenant if they tried running the water in the shower to see if the gnats came up the shower drain. The tenant said they did not try this.
Ms A says she was unaware the tenant was unable to use the showers and had she been aware, she would have progressed the matter urgently.
None of the correspondence between the parties states that the tenant was unable (or was not) using the showers due to the gnats. The email from the tenant to the Ms A of 03 December 2023 refers to the tenants not being able to use the bath but makes not mention of the other bathroom facilities. The tenant said that Ms A should have realised they were unable to use the showers due to the issue. I do not accept this and find that the landlord could not have reasonably been expected to know that the tenant was not or was unable to use the showers.
I accept that the tenants were unable to use the bath for a period of just under three weeks and Ms A was aware of this. I also find that as they had an infant at the time, not being able to use the bath was an inconvenience. I note that the infant would have been approximately 9 months old at the time and that the tenants could have used a baby bath to bath the child.
I award $100 for this inconvenience. I do not make any award for the period after the technician’s first visit on 30 November because the tenant has not satisfied me that there was more than a short delay from when he notified the landlord that the issue had not been remedied until when the matter was resolved.
The tenant says that they were also unable to use the kitchen sink and the dishwasher. The tenant says that they were washing their dishes in the kitchen sink but he and his wife became sick and he believed that the water quality was affected by the drain issue. I consider this is unlikely and take judicial notice of the fact that waste water and town water are separate.
Ms A says she was unaware that the tenant could not use the sink during this time. In addition, the landlord’s position is that the tenant caused the issue with the sink and the dishwasher by pouring fats/oils down the sink. The tenant denies this and saying they were very careful not to pour fats/oils down the sink. The tenant says that as recognised by Ms A in the correspondence the issue could have been caused by the previous tenants.
At the hearing, Ms A provided an email from Mr Bridgford, Operations Manager at Drain Ninjas, saying he believed a blockage would arise within 3-6 months of pouring oil/fats down the sink. I place limited weight on this evidence for the following reasons: Mr Bridgford did not attend the hearing to give evidence and Ms A confirms Drain Ninjas they are a supplier to the landlord’s agent. Therefore, Mr Bridgford cannot be said to be independent.
Having said that, I do not award compensation for not being able to use the sink or the dishwasher during this time. Ms A was taking steps to resolve the issue. The tenant did not say in his written correspondence that they could not use the sink and I do not consider Ms A could reasonably be expected to know this.
I award $100 in respect of the period of time the tenant was unable to use the bath. The tenant’s claims for compensation for the period of time they were unable to use the showers, the kitchen sink or the dishwasher are dismissed. D. Should either or both parties be awarded suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee?
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with their claim. Therefore, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the application for suppression.
The tenant has not wholly succeeded with their claim. However, I consider they have substantially succeeded with their claim. I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985750 — Cleanliness at 78 Cabeleigh Drive, Helensville, Helensville 0800

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985750 — Cleanliness at 78 Cabeleigh Drive, Helensville, Helensville 0800

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions