What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5061909 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5061909?

Cleaning: $598.74 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Power Connection: $34.96 awarded to tenant; Pest Control: $159.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $297.65 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061909?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11218759-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5061909 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5061909?

Cleaning: $598.74 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Power Connection: $34.96 awarded to tenant; Pest Control: $159.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $297.65 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin Hire: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061909?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11218759-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5061909 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061909 — net $1,342.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Skip bin hire	$500.00		Skip bin hire
Oven replacement	$297.65		Oven replacement
Cleaning: kitchen	$598.74		Cleaning: kitchen
Pest control	$159.00		Pest control
Compensation: power connection		$34.96	power connection
Total award	$1,555.39	$34.96
Net award	$1,342.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,342.43

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant’s application was for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) because the tenant claimed the landlord did not deal with a rodent infestation within a reasonable time frame.

The tenant claimed compensation for: a. Damaged chattels, personal possessions and food. b. Costs of relocation to another property. c. Costs of storage of her possessions. d. The vet fees for her dog. e. Her doctor’s fee for an injury to her wrist. f. The lost opportunity of setting up a business. g. The cost of removing some trees from the property.

The landlord had claimed from the tenant compensation for the hire of a skip bin, rodent control, cleaning the kitchen and replacing the oven. The parties agreed that the Tribunal could determine the tenant’s liability for these sums as part of this application. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the tenant’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.

While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.

By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.

It is for the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. Background

The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. The tenancy started over 14 years ago on 5 March 2010. b. She had engaged a contractor to remove trees from the property in November 2022 at a cost to her of $980.00. c. On 4 April 2023 she telephoned the landlord and complained of a rat/mice infestation. From the landlord’s record of the telephone call, she advised “she has a overflow from the stream that bring in the rat/mice and there she will always have a rat/mice issue and cannot really manage.” d. She bought electric traps and was catching six mice a day. When the rats moved into the property, the mice moved out. e. When she complained to the landlord, she was advised that she was responsible for controlling the rodents. f. A rat was under her bed and it bit her on the hand in December 2023. She used a “percussion cannon” to evict the rat from her bedroom. g. Rats lived under her bath behind its framing. h. Rats were in evidence throughout the property and could be heard gnawing. i. She complained again about the issue at the property inspection in October 2023 and again in November 2023. j. In early January 2024 she contacted the landlord by telephone to complain of the “on-going pest control issue.” A friend who was present explained to the landlord that rats were in the walls and under the house. The tenant was told that the landlord could arrange for a pest eradication but that she would be liable for half the cost. k. On 12 March 2024 the tenant telephoned the landlord and requested an inspection of the property because of the damage the rats had caused to the property. l. The parties met at the property on 20 March 2024 and inspected the property together. m. The tenant consented to bait being laid and a contractor was engaged by the landlord. No further action was taken in relation to the rats until 3 July 2024 when the tenant was advised that she would have to move to a new property because the property needed extensive works due to the rodent damage. n. She did not use the shower or cook at the property because of her concern with rats and cleanliness. o. The tenant was moved into a motel by the landlord and stayed there for seven days. During this period, she was offered other properties to rent and an agreement was reached on a new property. p. The tenant understood that she had 90 days to move, however she claimed that pressure was put on her to move into the new property urgently. Because of this pressure she had to get help from friends, was unable to secure all her property safely, could not re-erect her storage sheds and so had to put some of her possessions into storage and was unable to start her planned second-hand business.

The tenant’s witness was the tree contractor who had become her friend. He gave evidence as follows: a. The tenant and he first discussed the rodent problem in December 2022. b. Any food left out not in a container was molested by rats. c. The rats “kicked up a storm in the bathroom”. d. The tenant complained “at least ten times” to the landlord about the rat problem. e. He rang the landlord on three separate occasions about the issue, but could not provide specific dates. f. He was the person who spoke to the landlord on the telephone on 3 January 2024. He denied representing that he was a pest control contractor.

The landlord gave evidence from its records as follows: a. The landlord has never been notified of any issue with trees at the property or authorised any work on them. b. On 11 October 2022 a neighbour had complained that the tenant was a hoarder and that because of the clutter in the backyard, rodents were being attracted. c. The inspection on 28 October 2022 noted the clutter and recorded that there was “No obvious signs of pest infestation.” d. The re-inspection on 2 November 2022 also recorded “No obvious signs of pest infestation”. Assistance was offered in “getting things cleared out a bit”. e. 4 April 2023 the landlord’s telephone record shows that the tenant called to complain “she has a overflow from the stream that bring in the rat/mice and there she will always have a rat/mice issue and cannot really manage.” f. The tenant requested a skip bin on 18 October 2023 and this was delivered on 30 October 2023. g. An inspection of the property on 10 November 2023 noted; “Poor condition, customer is working on sorting out the property and getting rid of unwanted items. Discussed referral to sustaining tenancy (around the hording and cleaning up the section) but she would like to wait till after Christmas to try to get it sorted herself...” h. On 3 January 2024 the tenant called wanting to speak with her property manager “urgently about an on-going pest control issue on site. She has had a private company come out to investigate the issue has some concerns.” i. On that day the property manager called the tenant and was advised that she had a contractor from a pest control company there. This person confirmed the issue and gave the opinion that the rats came from a neighbouring farm. As noted above, this person was not in fact a professional pest control expert. j. The landlord’s contractor was instructed to proceed with eradication. k. On 29 January 2024 this job was cancelled because the tenant had told the contractor that she did not want poison used because of fears for her dog’s safety. l. On 20 February 2024 the property manager spoke with the tenant about traps being more expensive than bait. The tenant requested a quote and this information was passed onto the tenant on 27 February 2024. The landlord had been recommended to use two traps as the most effective method. The tenant would only agree to one being used. The landlord appreciated the tenant’s aversion to bait, but believes that bait is a more effective control. m. On 12 March 2024 the tenant telephoned the landlord and complained about the damage caused by rats: a dead rat at the back of the oven, the kitchen pantry had been removed by the tenant, wiring may have been eaten, a hole in the bathroom vanity and to the bathroom door, carpet and external cladding had been damaged. n. The landlord tried to contact the tenant that day to arrange access for tradespeople. o. On 14 March 2024 the landlord visited the tenant at the property to inspect the damage and discuss the issue. The landlord acknowledged that it was then that it became clear that the issue had become serious and widespread. This is confirmed in the property inspection report of that date. p. On 21 and 25 March 2024 the landlord’s contractor tried to get access to the property but was unable to contact the tenant to arrange access. q. On 25 March 2024 the tenant consented to bait being laid and on 26 March 2024 the landlord’s contractor was engaged. r. On 9 May 2024 the situation was discussed with the tenant. A bio-hazard clean of the kitchen was required before an electrician could address the issues in the kitchen and this was arranged on that day. It was agreed that a regular baiting programme was required. s. An enquiry was made of the neighbouring farmer regarding the placing of bait traps on 23 May 2024 but the neighbour would not co-operate. t. Enquiry was made of the regional council to see if it could assist in requiring the neighbour’s co-operation but without result. u. Once the landlord’s contractors had started work on the property it became apparent that the damage caused by rodents was extensive. The remedial work required included removing the wall linings to remove rats’ nests, remove contaminated insulation and rewire the property. v. On 4 July 2024 the landlord met with the tenant to advise that because of the extent of the required works, the tenant would need to move permanently to another property because the works will take a significant amount of time and cause significant disruption. It was the landlord’s opinion that the tenant could not continue to live in the property while the works were completed. The tenant agreed to moving. w. The tenant telephoned the landlord on 23 July 2024 “as she had the house fumigated for rats and there is a bad smell in the house.” x. On 26 July 2024 the landlord arranged for the tenant to move into a motel from 26 July to 1 August 2024. The landlord arranged for a moving truck for 31 July 2024 and the tenant signed the new tenancy agreement on 30 July 2024. y. The tenant had a propensity to hoard items but the property was reported as clean on routine inspections. z. While the rats came from the nearby stream, the presence of so much “clutter” made it more difficult to detect and deal with the issue. aa. Requests for unrelated, routine maintenance were carried out in November 2022, April 2023, November 2023, December 2023, January 2024 and February 2024. The landlord believes it has done all that it needed to during the tenancy to maintain the property. bb. The landlord’s property inspections of 22 November 2022 and 10 November 2023 do not record the tenant complaining of rodent issues and none are noted. Each records the tenant’s clutter/hoarding and requests being made to remove or reduce it. Only in the report of 14 March 2024 does evidence of rodent damage in the bathroom become apparent. cc. The landlord was unaware that the tenant was not using the shower or choosing to live elsewhere on occasion.

The tenant advised that she started to refuse to have work carried out on the property until jobs that she was waiting for were done first. No evidence was provided of those jobs, although it appears to relate to the work required to make the property Healthy Homes compliant by 1 July 2024. She also advised that because nothing was done by the landlord, she got sick of complaining and so did not do so.

The landlord advised that it had no other record of complaints being made by the tenant and noted that the tenant did not take the usual step of issuing a 14- day breach notice to the landlord. From the landlord’s perspective, it cannot remedy an issue if the tenant does not bring it to its attention. For instance, the landlord advised that it had no knowledge that the baiting process it had authorised had not commenced and expected to be told of this by the tenant. Decision

The tenant’s specific complaint in her application is that the landlord did not take adequate steps to control and eradicate the rodent issue. This is the landlord’s failure to maintain which she has claimed has caused all of her losses.

It has been well-established by the Tribunal that the control of pests and vermin is the responsibility of the tenant. It is part of the tenant’s responsibility under section 40(1)(c) RTA to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

A landlord is responsible for a pest problem if the tenant can show that it was present at the start of the tenancy, such as a flea infestation,( in which case the landlord would be in breach of its duty under section 45(1)(a) RTA to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness) or that the design or some defect in the property resulted in the problem.

There is no evidence before the Tribunal that either of those situations apply to this case. The rodent problem only became a significant issue in the last 18 months. The tenant failed to adequately address the issue and it simply got out of control. The tenant has not provided evidence of any maintenance issue that the landlord has failed to address. Pest control is not the landlord’s legal responsibility. However, the landlord, being a social housing provider and pragmatic landlord, offered to assist the tenant in the cost of fixing the issue, but it had no legal obligation to do so.

While the Tribunal has sympathy for the conditions in which the tenant has lived in recent months, the legal responsibility for taking effective steps to eradicate the vermin was hers. In the absence of a breach by the landlord of its legal responsibilities, the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the rat issue must be dismissed. Landlord’s claim

The tenant had the tree work completed without the prior consent or authorisation of the landlord two years ago. Because the landlord did not consent to this work being carried out, it is not liable to reimburse the tenant. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

The tenant had agreed to the landlord ordering the skip bin and to repaying the landlord for the hire fee. The amount of $500.00 is proved.

The oven was damaged by the tenant’s failure to control the rat problem and, no doubt, by her then moving it outside. The landlord gave evidence that the oven was new in December 2021 and was claiming $297.65 being half of the total price. This amount is proved.

The kitchen clean was required before it was safe for the landlord’s tradespeople to undertake the required repairs. The Tribunal is satisfied that state of uncleanliness was caused by the rat problem which the tenant did not effectively combat. The sum of $598.74 is proven.

The landlord has claimed the cost of vermin eradication to the date the end of the tenancy and the sum of $159.00 is proven.

The landlord agreed to reimburse the $34.96 cost of power connection at the tenant’s new property and so this sum is awarded to the tenant.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061909 — net $1,342.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Skip bin hire	$500.00		Skip bin hire
Oven replacement	$297.65		Oven replacement
Cleaning: kitchen	$598.74		Cleaning: kitchen
Pest control	$159.00		Pest control
Compensation: power connection		$34.96	power connection
Total award	$1,555.39	$34.96
Net award	$1,342.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,342.43

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant had agreed to the landlord ordering the skip bin and to repaying the landlord for the hire fee. The amount of $500.00 is proved.

The landlord has claimed the cost of vermin eradication to the date the end of the tenancy and the sum of $159.00 is proven.

The landlord agreed to reimburse the $34.96 cost of power connection at the tenant’s new property and so this sum is awarded to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061909 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061909 — Cleanliness

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