What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007988 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5007988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007988?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041301-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5007988 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5007988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007988?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11041301-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007988 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
By consent, the landlord will arrange for a qualified asbestos removal contractor to inspect the premises (after giving due notice in terms of section 48(2)(ba)) for the presence of asbestos and will take any recommended remediation steps.
By consent, the landlord will ensure that the water rates charged to the tenant for the rating periods covering the months of May and June 2024 are the same as the average charges for the rating periods covering the months of February March and April 2024. For the rating periods covering July 2024 and thereafter, the charges will be as metered for the premises.
By consent, the landlord will check and ensure that there are no fire hoses or other water outlets for common use, metered to the premises.
By consent, the landlord will ensure that any entry notices given under s.48 RTA for the purpose of maintenance work being carried out, will specify who will be visiting the premises and for what purpose.
The tenant’s application or compensation and/ or exemplary damages for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was accompanied by a neighbour and his keyworker.
This is the second cross application considered by the Tribunal in respect of this tenancy.
On 8 December 2023 (applications 4744769/ 4755329) the Tribunal made an order dismissing both parties’ applications.
On 18 October 2024 after a hearing by videoconference, the Tribunal made an order on the cross application to this matter (5008388), dismissing the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy. This application, made by the tenant, was allocated a face to face hearing. The claims
The tenant confirmed today that he seeks: a. a work order requiring removal of asbestos from the premises; b. compensation for water use charges resulting from a leak at the premises; and c. compensation and/or exemplary damages for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. Work Order
The tenant has a concern that there is asbestos on the rear wall of the property that may pose a health risk.
The landlord agrees to have the premises inspected and to make sure that any recommended remediation steps are taken to avoid a health risk.
As the work order is made by consent, the Tribunal is not required to make an alternative monetary order (se s.78(2)). Water Charges
The tenant’s evidence is that he brought a leak under the floor of the premises to the previous property manager’s attention.
The tenants key worker provided a video taken on 30 May 2024 which shows a leak under the premises close to the hot water return valve.
The tenant has provided in evidence copies of the water rates charged for the period March to April 2024 which is for a sum of $143.27 and for June 2024 which is for a sum of $215.69. The difference between those usage charges tends to support the tenant’s concern that the water consumption he has been charged for, increased as a result of that leak.
The parties agree that a fair way of ensuring that the tenant is only paying for water used at the premises is to apply to the invoicing periods covering May and June 2024, the average of the consumption charges for February, March and April, before the leak. The leak was fixed during June 2024 so from July 2024 onwards the metered charges are appropriate.
The tenant is concerned that there is a public utility fire hose and tap at the front of the property available for common use, which are metered to his premises. The landlord will check those concerns to ensure the tenant is only required to pay for water he himself uses. Breach of right to quiet enjoyment
Section 38(1) and (2) provide that: “(1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.(2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”
The tenant provided evidence a “stack” of 20 notices received by him between 25 January 2024 and 25 September 2024. That is a lot, and the tenant says that they demonstrate an unreasonable interference with his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
We went through all of those notices at the hearing,
Five of the notices relate to routine inspections of the premises or re-inspections after notices of remedy were given following an inspection being carried out. The inspections are not carried out more than quarterly.
Four of the notices are breach notices to do with a dog being at the premises. The Tribunal's Order of 18 October 2024 makes it clear that the dog should not have been at the premises and records the tenant’s evidence that the dog will not return to the premises. That will avoid any need for such notices to be issued in future.
Three of the notices are notices of entry for contractors to check the smoke alarms, complete healthy homes installation and for another unspecified purpose. Those entries were necessary to meet the landlords’ obligations, although if the landlord is giving notice of an intended entry for maintenance purposes, the notice should specify who will be visiting and for what purpose. The landlord will change its templates accordingly.
Two of the notices are on consecutive days for alleged anti social behaviour, addressed in the 18 October Order.
One notice was a reminder about the parking rules at the premises.
One notice was a 14 day notice to remedy in respect of a lock change.
One notice was to meet the landlord’s obligation to advise the tenant that the premises were on the market for sale.
Three notices were in relation to viewings carried out for the purposes of finding a buyer. Those viewings were not conducted more than once per week.
I am told by the landlord that the premises have been sold so there will be no continuation of the sale viewings. In that regard, I note that the landlord is not the owner of the premises but a social housing provider who itself rents the premises from the owner. The sale is subject to the landlord’s tenancy, so this tenancy won't be affected by the sale.
As discussed during the hearing, while I accept that the number of notices received by the tenant does appear intrusive, the evidence does not prove that the notices were not given properly or for other than legitimate reasons.
Many of them did not involve entry to the premises, those that did were for appropriate maintenance reasons, reasonable inspections that the landlord had a right to carry out under s.48 and for the purposes of showing prospective purchases which the landlord is obliged to provide reasonable access for under its own tenancy.
The issues with the dog and the locks have been addressed in the Tribunal’s previous Order. The premises have been sold and the healthy homes compliance work has been carried out. It therefore seems likely that in the absence of other breaches of the tenant’s obligations, which might generate remedy notices, the tenant can have some reassurance that the number of notices and of visits required to the premises will now be less.
I do not find the landlord to be in breach of its obligations under s. 38 and that claim is dismissed.
No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007988 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007988 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions