Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5279596 — State of repair
Decided 11 Nov 2025 · Published 11 Nov 2025 · Application 5279596
- State of repair
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Up Property Management Limited As Agent For Warm Homes Hogans Ltd must pay $1,850.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre must pay [The tenant] the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 4 November 2025.
- The Tribunal and both parties were supported by a Mandarin interpreter.
- The tenant has applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord has made across application for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- The tenant rented [tenant’s address 1 supressed] from 17 March 2025 to 20 May 2025. This flat was newly built in July 2024. The tenancy agreement relates to this flat.
- The tenant moved to [tenant’s address 2 supressed] from 20 May 2025 to 21 September 2025. The parties did not enter into a new tenancy agreement or variation to reflect the second tenancy. The terms of the original tenancy agreement remained in force, except for the flat number.
- The tenant and her family moved to Flat 1 as there was a lot of painting and other work that needed to be done at Flat 6.
- The property manager has confirmed that these flats are in the same block and owned by the same entity and no new tenancy agreement was signed when the tenant moved into Flat 1.
- The tenant confirmed that her claims relate to both tenancies.
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
- In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
- The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. LANDLORD’S CLAIM
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy of Flat 1, ended on 21 September 2925. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of this part of the tenancy was $3,200.00. All the rent arrears retain to the rental of Flat1. At the end of the tenancy of Flat 6, there were no rent arrears.
- These rent records show that the tenant stopped paying the full $660.00 per week rent and reduced the rent unilaterally by $200.00 per week from 16 June 2025 to the end of the tenancy and did not pay any rent at all for the week commencing 1 September 2025 and ending 7 September 2025.
- The tenant confirmed they owed this money, according to the terms of the tenancy agreement. She also confirmed she withheld payment of this rent due to the repair, maintenance and healthy homes issues she claims the landlord did not address in a timely manner. TENANT’S CLAIMS A. Tenancy One- Flat 6 Claims Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) and (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is 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 might be”. 1
- 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 and/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 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
- There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
- Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
- Breaching either of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- General damages may also be awarded in the form of rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
- The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to her attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Leaks
- The tenant claims there were leaks to the roof, toilet and subfloor of flat 6 that were left unaddressed for weeks. Upstairs bedroom ceiling leak
- The tenant states the leak was discovered on 5 April 2025 and proved the tenant’s husband sent the property manager a photograph of the stained ceiling from the leak. The tenant also called the property manager the same day as the leak appeared to report the water stain from the leak.
- The parties confirmed the property manager arranged a contractor to come that evening to investigate the leak. The tenant proved the contractor made a big hole in the ceiling where the leak was while he was investigating the source of the leak. The parties confirmed the contractor could not find where the water was coming into the ceiling cavity.
- The tenant claims this hole was left open, with no further investigation or remediation carried out for more than 6 weeks, to 15 May 2025.
- The contractor asked the tenant to keep observing the leak and to let them know when the ceiling leaked again. In meantime the tenant states that cold air, dust and insulation fibres kept coming into the bedroom and spreading through the house. The tenant’s husband covered the hole with plastic but informed the contractor within the two weeks that it was leaking again, as he could see the drops of water on the temporary cover.
- The original contractor, plumber and a roofer came about two weeks after the tenant reported the leak again to try to identify where it was coming from. They did some repair roof on the leak. It was the connection of the ventilation pipe going into the roof. This was sealed from the inside to stop the leaking. They asked the tenant to keep an eye on it again as they were unsure if they had fixed the issue. After a week it had not leaked, so he informed the contractors that it was fixed and asked them to come and repair the hole in the ceiling. This hole was not repaired until 15 May 2025.
- The tenant raised is concerns about how long it took to fully remediate this issue and so negotiated a $200.00 per week rent reduction for this 6-week period that the tenant could not use this room, and the stress and inconvenience caused by the protracted period that it took to repair the ceiling after the leak had been fixed. The tenant says the landlord did give her the agreed rent reduction. The landlord confirmed that the tenant received the agreed $200.00 rent reduction per week from 7 April 2025 to 25 May 2025, being 7 weeks or $1,400.00.
- They also moved the tenants to Flat 1 from 20 May 2025, but the rent summary for Flat 1 starts on 26 May 2025. However, I am satisfied that the rent rebate agreed between the parties in fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and that there is no justifiable reason for the Tribunal to impose any further rent reduction on the landlord. Toilet leak
- The tenant says she was told by the property manager at the start of the tenancy that there had ben some issues with the downstairs toilet leaking and the tenant needed to keep an eye on it. Further, the tenant says that the property manager said she would apply for a water rates rebated
- The tenant claims the toilet was leaking from the start of the tenancy and her husband observed it for around 10 days and then they reported it on 27 March 2025. They say it took 4 weeks to get the repair work done, despite multiple follow up communications.
- The tenant and her husband also say the property manager promised to apply for a water rates rebate but the changed her mind.
- The property manager confirmed it was a leak from the toilet cistern to the bowl and that to her it was a minor leak. The tenant disagreed and produced a video she had sent to the property manager telling her it was still leaking and asking her to get it fixed. The tenant says the water constantly running from the cistern to the bowl was noisy and disruptive and that it caused her and her family stress worrying about increased water usage. She did not consider it unreasonable to want the issue remedied in a timely manner, especially when she was aware that the landlord knew about the issue at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord says there was a delay in the issue being resolved because the builder would not fix the leak under warranty, so the property manager sent her handy man to replace the washer in the cistern on 18 April 2025. Further, the property manager says the tenant’s water usage in that premise shows that during this period there was no real difference in their water usage.
- The landlord says the water bill for March/April 2025 was $91.21. The water usage from the tenant during the tenancy was between $114.00 and $172.00 with an average of around $120.00 per month. Therefore, there was no basis for the landlord to approach Watercare for a rebate as there was no proof of a significant increase in water consumption based on the bills.
- The tenant questioned why the landlord had not fixed the toilet before the tenancy commenced if it was aware of the issue. The property manager stated the previous tenant had not reported this issue and she noticed it after the prior tenants moved out but did not know if it was an ongoing problem. That is why she asked the tenant to observe it initially and once they identified there was an ongoing issue, she had it fixed. It took some time as the landlord had to ascertain whether it was covered under the building warranty.
- I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the toilet leak in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $500.00 for the stress and inconvenience of having to live with leaking toilet for four weeks when it was a reasonably easy issue to fix.
- I also find that this breach was not an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded. The landlord’s delay in addressing the issue came from the building contract it was obligated to try to claim under before arranging a separate contractor to do the repair. B. Moving between Flat 6 and 1 False and misleading conduct during move between flat 6 and 1
- The tenant and her family asked to move to Flat 1 to stop further disputes as there was a lot of repair and maintenance work to be done on Flat 6. Painting, and sanding needed to be done in the bedroom on the first floor where the leak had been. There are two bedrooms on this floor and one bathroom. At this time, it was only the tenant’s husband living in the house. He was living in one of the bedrooms. These bedrooms were the only bedrooms in the house.
- The tenant says the landlord agreed to cover the moving costs, but then only provided a mover for two hours to move the large items and that left the tenant and her family having to pack and move the smaller items and unpack.
- The tenants want compensation for stress and inconvenience of having to pack and move these items.
- The landlord says the tenant made the request to move to Flat 1 and it did not force or require her to move. Further, the landlord said it would get Flat 1 ready for the tenant and her family to move into, but the tenant insisted on moving the next day, so this meant the landlord had no time to get it ready or arrange a mover.
- I am satisfied the landlord did its best to clean the flat the next day before sunrise and to get a mover to come to move as much as they could in the time they had.
- I also accept that the landlord’s evidence that the tenants had not had enough time to pack their small things properly, the moving company does not move small items that are not well packed, and this is why the movers did not move all the tenant’s belongings.
- Additionally, I find that it was the tenant’s choice to move to avoid the inconvenience of being in Flat 6 when the bedroom ceiling was sanded and painted, when this work could have been done through the day over a few days when the tenant’s husband was at work. There is no evidence the landlord made the tenant and her family move.
- In all the circumstances, I find the landlord did all it could to accommodate and assist the tenant and that there is no justifiable reason for me to made any compensatory award for the landlord’s alleged and unproven false and misleading conduct during the tenant’s move between flat 6 and 1. This claim is dismissed. C. Tenancy Two- Flat 1 Failure to maintain
- The tenant gave evidence the landlord failed to investigate and repair defects with Flat 1 brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Subfloor leak
- The tenant says there was a leak in the joins of the wooden laminate floor in the footing area on the ground floor, from the entrance to the bathroom, including in the kitchen.
- The tenant confirmed that initially her husband did not notice it but after a short period of time he could see the water coming through the joins when he was walking on the tiles, and when he looked further there was water coming up between the floor panels. It was more obvious on rainy days.
- The tenant says her husband reported this issue to the property manager on 17 August 2025 and then again on 31 August 2025.
- The builder’s site manager came over on 19 August 2025 and could not find where the water was coming from. He asked the tenant to observe the area between the bathroom and the kitchen to see if it was coming from the bathroom. The tenant’s husband did this and confirmed there was no correlation between the bathroom and the increase in water under the laminate flooring. The tenant’s husband found there was a correlation between wet weather and the water under the laminate flooring.
- The original builders site manager came back again on 3 September 2025. The tenant had asked him to come on 1 September 2025 as it was raining, and the floor was wet. The site manager was not available, so he came on 3 September 2025. He saw the water but could not find where the water was coming from.
- The tenant’s husband claims nothing further was done by 21 Sepember2025 when the tenant and her family moved out.
- The landlord says that it accepts it could not find the source of the water and the tenancy was soon coming to an end, so it decided to leave the investigation work until after the tenant had moved out. Further, it claims that post the tenant moving out, no leak had been found and there has been no more water coming up under the laminate flooring.
- The builder has concluded the kitchen cabinet sink had a connector to the washing machine that may have been loose. After the tenant moved out the builder tightened this connector and there were no further issues. After the tenant moved out the landlord also found the dishwasher was not connected to this pipe and it should have been.
- I find the landlord failed to investigate and remediate the leak issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $30.00 per week for the period of 5 weeks (17 August 2025 to 21 September 2025) the tenant and her husband have suffered the stress and inconvenience of having to live with the leaky floor boards, being a rent rebate of $150.00.
- I also find that this breach was not an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded. The landlord’s delay in addressing the issue came from the contractor being unable to locate the source of the water until after the tenant had moved out. Ventilation
- The tenant confirmed that on 24 May 2025 her husband discovered cooking fumes entering the downstairs bathroom from the kitchen.
- On 24 and the 26 May 2025 the tenant raised this issue with property manager.
- The landlord wanted the builder to come and investigate this as it thought it could be under warranty. It found it was out of time and not covered by the warranty.
- On 27 May 2025 the builder’s site manager came to investigate the issue. He found the fumes were coming from the rangehood into the bathroom fan when they were being used at the same time. The site manager recommended a valve be put in to resolve the issue, but the tenant’s husband says it did not address the issue at all.
- The tenant raised the issue with the property manager again and asked for the issue to be resolved as it had impacted the tenant’s son, who has a lot of allergies. He had one doctor’s visit from 30 May 2025 to the end of the tenancy because of the fumes and had antihistamines and other medication prescribed due to indoor air quality. The visit cost $19.00.
- The tenant explained that her son wears special lenses at night and was so aggravated by the fumes so he couldn’t wear them for two weeks and she had to buy him special drops. Additionally, she says he had to wear glasses and couldn’t participate in school sports.
- On 28 May 2025, the property manager promised to arrange an electrician to come to the house for repairs and promised to reduce the rent by $200.00 per week during the affected period, starting from 20 May 2025 until the repairs were done.
- On 31 May 2025 the electrician installed a damper. It considered that this would fix the issue and so the landlord told the tenant it was not prepared to give her any further rent rebate after 1 June 2025.
- The parties confirmed that the cooking fumes still continued to enter the downstairs bathroom when the exhaust fan in the bathroom and the kitchen range hood were used at the same time.
- On 2 June 2025 the electrician visited again and sealed the damper, the problem remained as there were still gaps between the vents that could not be completely sealed. The electrician told the landlord that they would need to cut the whole ceiling out to fully investigate the issue properly and resolve it. They could not do this while the tenant was still living in the property. The property manager offered the tenants $60.00 rent reduction each week if they stayed in the tenancy but did not use the bathroom fan and the rangehood at the same time. The tenant refused this offer. She wanted the issue resolved.
- On 4 June 2025, the property manager offered the tenant three options: a. Move back to Flat 6; b. Terminate lease; or c. Remain in Flat 6 without any further remediation of the issue;
- he tenant rejected all options and issued a 24-hour notice to the landlord requiring it to resolve the issue. In response, the landlord confirmed refusal to repair the issue while the flat was occupied.
- When the tenant and her family moved out, they say this issue had still not been remedied.
- I find the landlord failed to fully remediate the ventilation issue in a reasonable time frame in all the circumstances and that the tenant should receive a rent rebate of $200.00 per week for the period of 16 weeks (1 June 2025 to 21 September 2025) the tenant and her family have suffered the stress and inconvenience of having to live with the ongoing ventilation issue, being a rent rebate of $3,200.00.
- I also find that this breach was an intentional unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded.
- A maximum of $7,200.00 exemplary damages can be awarded for all s45(1) of the RTA breaches and as such, the quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order.
Did the landlord breach its healthy homes standards obligations?
- The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
- Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
- The tenancy commenced on 17 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards, by 1 July 2025. A. Ventilation Standard
- The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the ventilation standard.
- The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances
- As per paragraphs [65] to [78] above I find that the landlord was in breach of the ventilation standard from 1 July 2025 to 21 September 2025, that it knew about the breach and deliberately failed to remedy it by 1 July 2025 and that in doing so it committed an unlawful act.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- I find that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in relation to this breach because: a. The landlord is an experienced property management company engaged by the owner of the property to ensure the landlord’s statutory obligations are met and it should have reasonably known that the landlord is required to comply with all healthy homes standards from the relevant compliance date. b. The tenant is entitled to rely on her statutory right to live in a home that meets the ventilation standard, the landlord could have given the tenant formal written notice terminating the tenancy due to the need for repairs that could not be carried out while the premise was occupied and it did not or agreed to contribute towards the cost of temporary accommodation while the issue was fully remediated, ; c. t is in the interests of the tenant to receive compensation for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations ensure tenants love in healthy homes compliant houses.
- The quantum ordered under this section will be set out at the end of the s45(1) of the RTA breach section of this order. B. Moisture Ingress and Drainage
- The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
- The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space if it is reasonably practical to do so.
- The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
- The tenant said this is the seeping water coming from the floorboards means the moisture level inside the premise increased. No moisture readings were done in the house by the tenant or the landlord’s contactors and there was no evidence produced by the tenant that proves on the balance of probabilities the flat did not have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, including gutters, downpipes and drains. Additionally, there was no claim the premise should have a ground moisture barrier and did not have one.
- For these reasons, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard. This is a repair and maintenance issue. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches
- I have found that the landlord has committed 1 intentional breach of s45(1)(b) and 1 of s45(1)(bb) of the RTA that resulted in the tenant experiencing considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenity the tenant was paying rent to enjoy.
- I find the landlord has committed these 2 unlawful acts intentionally.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,200.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one eighth of the maximum penalty available. Breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment- both tenancies
- The tenant claims the landlord has harassed her and her family and breached their quiet enjoyment of both the premise.
- Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that 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 RTA further confirms that contravention of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
- In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
- From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
- The tenant confirmed that the basis for this claim was: a. On moving day the property manager never came over, the landlord told them that they had to do more cleaning and remove rubbish etc and the tenant sent photographs of what they had done. The property manager sent a colleague over. b. The week after the tenant moved, the property manager contacted the tenant saying the rubbish bin was full and needed to be emptied before the next week. The tenant says the bins were full when they moved in. This seems like double standards; c. After the tenants moved from Flat 6 to 1 and the property manager contacted them to say one of the corners had not been cleaned properly. The tenant’s husband said that he had sent pictures two weeks before and the property manager and she had no issues. Additionally, he says that during these two weeks, many people had been through the house and sanding and painting work had started and people were viewing the house. He property manager confirmed she suggested they go back together and look at the house and so they could agree whether the tenant was responsible for the area that needed to be cleaned. The tenant considered the property manager to be intentionally making trouble with the tenant’s husband for something minor; d. The day the tenant moved into Flat 1, the property manager was not there but then told the tenant to clean the house when the cleaner had not cleaned it properly. The property manager stated there were cooking smells that needed to be cleaned and when the cleaner did not come back to address this issue, the property manager told the tenant to go to the supermarket and get air freshener herself. Later on the parties found out this smell was a result of the ventilation issue; e. The property manager had not attended both times the entry and exit inspections for both flats and then harassed the tenant unreasonably about issues that were not the tenant’s responsibility to address. The property manager stated both times she had good reason not to be there and that she had had informed the tenant and her husband of those reasons.
- All of the issues and concerns the tenant has raised under this head of claim relate to standard communications that occur between landlords and tenants that can be challenging for both parties but they do not constitute a breach of the landlord’s obligations to ensure the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and to 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.
- This claim is dismissed because the tenant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Because the tenant has wholly substantially succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with it’s claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
- The tenant applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenant has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication is ordered.