What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5024828?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd must

How much money was awarded in case 5024828?

Compensation: Rent refund (26/7/2024…: $2,303.57 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024828?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481963-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5024828?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd must

How much money was awarded in case 5024828?

Compensation: Rent refund (26/7/2024…: $2,303.57 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024828?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481963-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Gunson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5024828 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5024828 — net $2,330.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent refund (26/7/2024 to 25/2/2025	$2,303.57	Rent refund (26/7/2024 to 25/2/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,330.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,330.57

Order

Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd must pay Michael Raimondo Di Leva and Conor Morris $2,330.57 immediately, being rent refund of $75 per week from 26 July 2024 to 25 February 2025 and filing fee.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 31 March 2025: a. Employ a licenced plumber or drain layer to investigate the cause of water ingress into the entrance foyer and provide a recommendation to redress the issue; b. Follow the recommendation of the licenced plumber or drain layer. c. Repair the door sill at the front entrance.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $3,500.00 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 $5,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The weekly rent is reduced by $75.00 from the date of hearing until the repairs are completed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not repair the water ingress issue at the entrance foyer. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
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 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.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

On the day that the tenants moved into the tenancy it was raining and they noticed water ingress in the entrance foyer. The issue was raised with the Property Manager. The tenants served a 14 days’ notice to remedy dated 16 September 2024 on the landlord. The landlord did not comply with the 14-day notice.
The problem is that the entrance foyer floods when there has been consistent rain. The tenant said that the Property Manager has witnessed the flooding on multiple occasions. The area includes carpeted stairs which lead to the upstairs of the premises and a door which leads to the garage. The water pools at the front door and the sill of the front door had rotted at one end.
The tenant believes that the water is entering through a concrete block wall which has retained soil on the exterior side. The landlord said that he is not certain that the water is entering through the wall because he thinks that the wall had been waterproofed when constructed.
The landlord sought advice from a builder, even though the owner is a licenced Building Practitioner. I am told that the builder recommended that a trench be dug, and a drainage pipe laid along the wall. The owner did not agree with the advice given because photographs show that there is a drainage pipe and he says waterproofing must have been done at the time.
While the waterproofing may have previously been done it may no longer be effective and may need to be reapplied. A professional plumber and drain layer should be able to provide advice to fix the problem.
On 3 November 2024 the landlord carried out work at the premises which he says was to drain the water from inside. The work involved cutting a small channel in the concrete to enable the water pooled inside to drain out the front door where the sill was cut and a channel for the water to drain into the garage and presumably out the garage door.
This work did not solve the problem. It just means that the water will drain out after it has entered the premises. The tenants report a musty smell which is understandable given that the stairs just next to the area where the water pools are carpeted. Also, whenever the tenants enter the premises on days when the water has entered the premises, they will carry water on their footwear on to the carpeted stairs. The tenant says that draughts, rodents and insects have entered through the gap in the sill.
In the meantime, two weeks ago the landlord applied for demolition of the premises. Consent for that has not yet been granted. Therefore, as he had not applied for demolition before commencement of the tenancy, the landlord is not exempt from compliance with the Healthy Homes standards (see regulation 31, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The landlord had a Healthy Homes assessment carried out in 2022 and the report from that assessment was produced at the hearing. While the premises were certified as compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards in March 2022 since then there is evidence of water ingress, and the landlord has cut a large hole in the door sill of the front door. This would impact on the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord shall comply with the healthy homes standards and section 45(1)(b) states that the landlord shall maintain the premises in a reasonable standard of repair. The landlord has failed to comply.
I have made a work order providing for the landlord to carry out the repairs after obtaining advice from a qualified plumber or drain layer.
Given the inconvenience and living conditions for the tenants I have reimbursed the rent paid at $75.00 per week. That rent reduction is to continue until the repairs are completed.
Because Michael Raimondo Di Leva, Conor Morris has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5024828 — net $2,330.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent refund (26/7/2024 to 25/2/2025	$2,303.57	Rent refund (26/7/2024 to 25/2/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,330.57
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,330.57

Order

Sunshine Property Group Limited As Agent For Sac Develop Group Ltd must pay Michael Raimondo Di Leva and Conor Morris $2,330.57 immediately, being rent refund of $75 per week from 26 July 2024 to 25 February 2025 and filing fee.
The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 31 March 2025: a. Employ a licenced plumber or drain layer to investigate the cause of water ingress into the entrance foyer and provide a recommendation to redress the issue; b. Follow the recommendation of the licenced plumber or drain layer. c. Repair the door sill at the front entrance.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $3,500.00 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 $5,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
The weekly rent is reduced by $75.00 from the date of hearing until the repairs are completed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant claims that the landlord did not repair the water ingress issue at the entrance foyer. The tenant wants the problem fixed.
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 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.

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

On the day that the tenants moved into the tenancy it was raining and they noticed water ingress in the entrance foyer. The issue was raised with the Property Manager. The tenants served a 14 days’ notice to remedy dated 16 September 2024 on the landlord. The landlord did not comply with the 14-day notice.
The problem is that the entrance foyer floods when there has been consistent rain. The tenant said that the Property Manager has witnessed the flooding on multiple occasions. The area includes carpeted stairs which lead to the upstairs of the premises and a door which leads to the garage. The water pools at the front door and the sill of the front door had rotted at one end.
The tenant believes that the water is entering through a concrete block wall which has retained soil on the exterior side. The landlord said that he is not certain that the water is entering through the wall because he thinks that the wall had been waterproofed when constructed.
The landlord sought advice from a builder, even though the owner is a licenced Building Practitioner. I am told that the builder recommended that a trench be dug, and a drainage pipe laid along the wall. The owner did not agree with the advice given because photographs show that there is a drainage pipe and he says waterproofing must have been done at the time.
While the waterproofing may have previously been done it may no longer be effective and may need to be reapplied. A professional plumber and drain layer should be able to provide advice to fix the problem.
On 3 November 2024 the landlord carried out work at the premises which he says was to drain the water from inside. The work involved cutting a small channel in the concrete to enable the water pooled inside to drain out the front door where the sill was cut and a channel for the water to drain into the garage and presumably out the garage door.
This work did not solve the problem. It just means that the water will drain out after it has entered the premises. The tenants report a musty smell which is understandable given that the stairs just next to the area where the water pools are carpeted. Also, whenever the tenants enter the premises on days when the water has entered the premises, they will carry water on their footwear on to the carpeted stairs. The tenant says that draughts, rodents and insects have entered through the gap in the sill.
In the meantime, two weeks ago the landlord applied for demolition of the premises. Consent for that has not yet been granted. Therefore, as he had not applied for demolition before commencement of the tenancy, the landlord is not exempt from compliance with the Healthy Homes standards (see regulation 31, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
The landlord had a Healthy Homes assessment carried out in 2022 and the report from that assessment was produced at the hearing. While the premises were certified as compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards in March 2022 since then there is evidence of water ingress, and the landlord has cut a large hole in the door sill of the front door. This would impact on the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord shall comply with the healthy homes standards and section 45(1)(b) states that the landlord shall maintain the premises in a reasonable standard of repair. The landlord has failed to comply.
I have made a work order providing for the landlord to carry out the repairs after obtaining advice from a qualified plumber or drain layer.
Given the inconvenience and living conditions for the tenants I have reimbursed the rent paid at $75.00 per week. That rent reduction is to continue until the repairs are completed.
Because Michael Raimondo Di Leva, Conor Morris has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024828 — Tenancy dispute at 15 Gunson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024828 — Tenancy dispute at 15 Gunson Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions