What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077388 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5077388?

Compensation: failure to maintain di…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain ki…: $54.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain mi…: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain wa…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077388?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077388 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5077388?

Compensation: failure to maintain di…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain ki…: $54.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain mi…: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain wa…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077388?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 36, 8 Clayton Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5077388 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5077388 — net $1,356.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to provide rangehood in a reasonably clean condition	$175.00	failure to provide rangehood in a reasonably clean condition
Compensation: failure to maintain dishwasher	$300.00	failure to maintain dishwasher
Compensation: failure to maintain washing machine	$250.00	failure to maintain washing machine
Compensation: failure to maintain microwave	$550.00	failure to maintain microwave
Compensation: failure to maintain kitchen tap	$54.00	failure to maintain kitchen tap
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,356.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,356.00

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 February 2025.

The tenant claims the landlord has breached their obligations under sections 45(1)(a) and (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant seeks compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. 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 Katipo 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 of 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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE LANDLORD PROVIDE THE PREMISES IN A REASONABLE STATE OF CLEANLINESS? (Section 45(1)(a))

Section 45(1)(a) RTA states: (1) The landlord shall – (a) Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and ...

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1 It does not mean commercially clean, 2 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 3 or to a hotel or motel standard. 4 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 5

The tenant claims the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition because: a. The rangehood was dirty and grease spilt on food when cooking; and b. The oven was not clean.

The tenant first notified the landlord about these issues on 24 September 2024 via a telephone call. A 14-day notice to remedy was emailed to the landlord on 27 September 2024.

The landlord organised for a cleaner to visit the property on 17 October 2024. The rangehood and oven were cleaned on this date.

The tenant submitted photographs of the oven and rangehood. The photographs of the oven show that the glass panel is dirty. The photographs of the rangehood show the presence of grease when the vents are removed. The tenant also submitted photographs of the stovetop where grease had fallen from the rangehood.

The tenant gave evidence that the oven smelt bad and they could not use it. The tenant also gave evidence that they were unable to use the stovetop to cook, because grease from the rangehood dripped into food.

The landlord gave evidence that the owner cleaned the property before the tenancy began. The rangehood appeared clean, but the landlord accepts that when the vent was moved by the tenant, grease was apparent. The landlord disagreed that the oven was not reasonably clean and referred to photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy.

I consider that the oven was reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy. The photographs taken as part of the pre-inspection report include photographs of the inside of the oven. It appears clean. I accept that some residue was apparent on the glass door, but do not consider this renders the oven to be unreasonably clean. This claim is dismissed.

I find that the rangehood was unreasonably clean on the basis of the photographs submitted by the tenant. Whilst it appears clean when the vents are intact, removal of the vents show a build-up of grease and the tenant submitted photographs of grease that had fallen onto the stovetop. 3 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 4 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].

The tenant gave evidence that they were unable to use the stovetop for cooking until the rangehood was cleaned, which is a period of approximately 3 and a half weeks. This was obviously inconvenient, as a stovetop is generally used daily for cooking.

The tenant paid full rent of $520.00 per week during the time that they were unable to use the stovetop. I consider the tenant should be compensated a total of $175.00 for this period. This equates to $50.00 per week, which I consider fairly reflects the frequency with which a stovetop is used and the time the tenant was without this amenity. DID THE LANDLORD FAIL TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES IN A REASONABLE

STATE OF REPAIR?

Section 45(1)(b) RTA states: (1) The landlord shall – ... (b) Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and ...

It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is a reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 6

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 7 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 8 6 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 7 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 8 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4].

There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 9

The tenant claims the landlord failed to remedy the following issues within a reasonable timeframe: a. Broken dishwasher b. Washing machine causing flooding c. Corroded microwave d. Broken extractor fan where dryer situated e. Leaking kitchen tap when hot water turned on

The tenant first notified the landlord of these issues via a telephone call on 24 September 2024 and again in a 14-day notice to remedy sent on 27 September 2024.

I deal with each issue in turn below. Broken dishwasher

The tenant gave evidence that the dishwasher was mouldy and not emitting hot water.

A plumber was sent to the address on 14 October 2024 to investigate the issue.

The landlord gave evidence that the owner was provided with a quote for a dishwasher from Goodwin Realty Limited, but wanted to get their own quote.

A new dishwasher was purchased and meant to be delivered to the tenancy address on 25 October 2024. The tenant accepts they were unwell on this date, which postponed delivery and installation of the dishwasher. Subsequently, the tenant had difficulty organising delivery of the dishwasher as they did not have the order number.

The dishwasher was delivered and installed on 8 November 2024.

The broken dishwasher was first reported to the landlord on 24 September 2024 and was not replaced until 8 November 2024. That is a period of approximately 7 weeks. I bear in mind that the landlord organised for the dishwasher to be delivered on 25 October 2024 and this was cancelled due to the tenant being sick. Even then, that is a delay of approximately 5 weeks since the issue was first reported to the landlord. The delay is unreasonable.

The tenant gave evidence that not having a working dishwasher was an inconvenience. I accept this. A dishwasher is generally used on a daily or two- 9 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. daily basis, depending upon how many people live in the property. In this property, it was just the tenant.

The landlord organised to deliver the dishwasher on 25 October 2024, but was unable to do this because the tenant was sick. I consider it fair in these circumstances to calculate the time the tenant was without a dishwasher up to 1 November 2024, rather than 8 November 2024. That is a period of 6 weeks.

I consider compensation of $50.00 per week to be a reasonable amount to reflect the absence of a dishwasher. I have multiplied this figure by 6 weeks, which equates to $300.00.

The tenant is awarded $300.00 compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the dishwasher in a reasonable state of repair. Washing machine causing flooding

The tenant gave evidence that the drain on the floor in the kitchen would flood when using the washing machine. The tenant submitted a photograph of the drain with soap suds coming out of it.

A plumber was sent to the address on 14 October 2024. The defect was unable to be immediately repaired, as certain parts needed to be ordered. The issue was meant to be repaired on 25 October 2024 but was delayed as the tenant was sick. The washing machine was repaired on 1 November 2024.

The issue was first reported by the tenant on 24 September 2024. A plumber was not sent to investigate the issue until 14 October 2024, which is approximately three weeks later. I consider this delay to be unreasonable. A washing machine is used relatively frequently. I would expect a landlord to organise a plumber to investigate the issue within one week of it being reported.

The added delay to complete the repair was due to the fact that the plumber needed to order specific parts, which is out of the landlord’s control. The landlord was in a position to remedy the defect on 25 October 2024, but this was delayed to 1 November 2024 due to the tenant being sick.

In these circumstances, I consider it fair and reasonable to award the tenant compensation at $50.00 per week from 24 September 2024 – 25 October 2024, which is a period of 5 weeks.

The tenant is awarded compensation of $250.00 to reflect the landlord’s failure to maintain the washing machine in a reasonable state of repair. Corroded microwave

The tenant gave evidence that the microwave was unusable from the start of the tenancy due to it being severely corroded on the inside. The tenant submitted photographs which prove this was the case.

The landlord first replaced the microwave on 3 December 2024 however, the replacement microwave was dented. The landlord gave evidence they did not know this was the case as it was packed in a box, which did not have any dents in it. The landlord replaced the replacement microwave on 9 December 2024.

The tenant first reported the issue with the microwave to the landlord on 24 September 2024. The microwave was not replaced with a functioning microwave until 9 December 2024, which is a period of approximately 11 weeks. A microwave is used daily and is something that is easily replaced. A delay of 11 weeks is unreasonable.

The tenant gave evidence that not having a functioning microwave for this length of time was a significant inconvenience, as they could not quickly heat up food. I accept this.

I consider compensation at $50.00 per week to be reasonable to reflect the absence of a functioning microwave. I have multiplied this figure by 11, which is the number of weeks the tenant was without a microwave.

The tenant is awarded $550.00 in compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the microwave in a reasonable state of repair. Broken extractor fan

The tenant gave evidence that the fan in the dryer cupboard was broken, which meant they could not use the dryer because there was no ventilation.

The tenant claims the landlord knew about the broken fan, because they have noted “do not use. Being repaired/replaced” on the ingoing inspection report dated 23 September 2024.

The landlord claims the comment about the fan on the ingoing inspection report is an administrative error. The landlord gave evidence that it is an old comment and the fan had been repaired prior to this tenancy commencing.

The tenant gave evidence that the faulty fan caused the power to cut out in the whole tenancy address on 27 September 2024.

The tenant reported the issue to the landlord on 24 September 2024. An electrician was sent to the address on 29 September 2024. The fan was fixed on 7 October 2024.

The landlord sent an electrician to investigate the issue 5 days after it was first reported. The fan was fixed within 2 weeks of it being reported. I do not consider this delay to be unreasonable.

This claim is dismissed. Leaking kitchen tap

The tenant gave evidence that the tap in the kitchen was leaking from its base when the hot water was turned on.

The tenant submitted a photograph of the tap which shows a small amount of water leaking from its base.

The issue was first reported to the landlord on 24 September 2024. A plumber visited the address on 14 October 2024. The issue was meant to be fixed on 24 October 2024, but was delayed to 1 November 2024 as the tenant was unwell.

It took the landlord 3 weeks to send a plumber to investigate the issue. The landlord was not in a position to fix the issue until 24 October 2024, which is approximately 4 and a half weeks after it was first reported.

I do not consider the leaking tap to be as serious as some of the other maintenance issues raised by the tenant. Whilst it needed to be fixed, the tenant was still able to use the tap and the amount of water leaking does not appear to have been significant based on the photographs.

Considering the number of issues raised by the tenant, I think it is reasonable for the landlord to have attempted to prioritise other matters first. I consider a delay of 2 weeks up to 6 October 2024 to investigate the leaking tap would have been reasonable. It took the landlord 3 weeks to investigate the issue, which is too long.

When determining compensation, I calculate the weeks that the tenant endured the leaking tap from 24 September 2024 – 24 October 2024, which is when the landlord was in a position to fix the problem. That is a period of approximately 4 and a half weeks. I consider $12.00 per week to be reasonable.

The tenant’s claim for compensation is granted for a total of $54.00 for the landlord’s failure to maintain the kitchen tap in a reasonable state of repair.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5077388 — net $1,356.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: failure to provide rangehood in a reasonably clean condition	$175.00	failure to provide rangehood in a reasonably clean condition
Compensation: failure to maintain dishwasher	$300.00	failure to maintain dishwasher
Compensation: failure to maintain washing machine	$250.00	failure to maintain washing machine
Compensation: failure to maintain microwave	$550.00	failure to maintain microwave
Compensation: failure to maintain kitchen tap	$54.00	failure to maintain kitchen tap
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,356.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,356.00