What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282143 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282143?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282143?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13685633-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282143 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282143?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282143?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13685633-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 24 London Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282143 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms White and Ms Goulding represented the landlord.
The tenant, Ms Sycamore, had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 1 August 2020. The tenancy ended on 17 November 2024, and she applied for exemplary damages and compensation of $100,000 (the Tribunal’s monetary limit) for: i.Failure by the landlord to repair and maintain the premises at all or in a timely manner (back door lock and ceiling damage); and ii.Failure by the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of building, health, and safety under any enactment insofar as they apply to the premises (asbestos).
Ms Sycamore made an application to the Tribunal on 13 June 2024 (application number 4914233) for the same issues as those in this application. However, she withdrew that application before it came to a hearing. She said she did so because there were other matters going in in her life at the time. Is the landlord in breach of the obligation to maintain and repair the premises and/or the obligation to comply with health and safety enactments?
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and section 45(1)(c) requires a landlord to comply with all building, health and safety requirements in so far as they apply to the premises.
When determining “reasonable” state of repair, the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes is relevant.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant here. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once Ms Sycamore notified the landlord or the landlord became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to within a reasonable time. What time frame is reasonable 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 may be.
A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) or section 45(1)(c) may entitle the tenant to compensation. It is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act. Back door lock
Ms Sycamore told the property manager for the tenancy about the problem with the back door lock at a property inspection on 25 January 2024. Repairs to the lock were completed on 14 February 2024. The invoice for the work records that a new lock and key barrel was fitted and the door fixed so it does not jam. Ms White said that Sycamore raised the door lock issue again at another property inspection on 16 July 2024 (after the property was broken into) and, on 30 August, she requested a bolt to be installed on the door. That work was completed on 3 September.
I am satisfied that in both instances the repairs required to remedy the back door and lock was completed within a reasonable time after the landlord became aware of the issue. The claim for compensation and exemplary damages for the issues with the backdoor and lock is therefore dismissed. Ceiling damage
There was no dispute that there was a small “bulge” or crack in the second bedroom ceiling at the tenancy commencement. A property inspection report dated 18 October 2022 notes the damage. A photograph of it is provided with the report. The next routine inspection report dated 25 January 2024 records that the property manager was unable to access the bedroom at that time (Ms Sycamore used the room for storage and an ‘art room’).
While the damage to the bedroom 2 ceiling was known at the tenancy commencement, the damage was minor I do not consider that it was damage that required repair at that time to bring the premises to a reasonable standard of repair given the age and character of the premises.
Ms Sycamore said that sometime in 2023, she noticed small hairline cracks in the stippled ceilings in other rooms (living room, bathroom and bedroom 1). The cracks could only be observed when close to the ceiling. Ms Sycamore said that a neighbour told her that the ceiling may contain asbestos. She claims that in December 2023 she messaged the property manager about her concerns, but nothing was done. She then filed her first application with the Tribunal on 13 June 2024.
Ms White denies receiving any message from Ms Sycamore in December 2023 about her asbestos concerns and the hairline cracks and she said that there is no record on the file or any property inspection reports of Ms Sycamore’s concerns or any damage to the ceilings (other than bedroom 2). She said that Ray White did not become aware of Ms Sycamore’s asbestos concerns and the hairline cracks until they received her June 2024 Tribunal application.
After receiving the application, the landlord arranged for All Clear to test the ceiling for asbestos. In a report dated 24 July 2024, All Clear states that non friable Chrysotile (White Asbestos) was found in the ceiling coatings. The report records that the ceilings have moderate to medium damage but with “low potential risk to release fibres”. A photograph with the report of the ceiling damage in bedroom 2 shows more extensive damage than those shown in the photographs taken during the routine property inspection on 18 October 2022, with the edges of the bulge now breaking away. The All Clear report recommends either removing the asbestos or temporarily “encapsulate the ceiling and manage in accordance with an Asbestos Management Plan.”
The landlord chose the latter recommendation, and a quote was obtained from a building contractor (Galbraiths Building Ltd) to seal and then paint all the ceilings. The work was arranged to be completed on 4 October 2024, but Ms Sycamore denied access to the contractor to complete the work. She said she believes she did so because she was unwell at the time. Then, on 15 October Ms Sycamore gave the landlord notice to end the tenancy on 14 November and she requested that no maintenance be done until she vacated. The work was therefore not completed until 2 December 2024, after Ms Sycamore vacated.
I do not consider that the landlord is in breach of its obligation in section 45(1)(c) of the Act to repair and maintain the premises. I am not satisfied that Ms Sycamore has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that she told the landlord in December 2023 of her concerns regarding asbestos and the hairline cracks in the ceilings or that the bulge/damage to the bedroom 2 ceiling had deteriorated in the manner shown by All Clear’s photograph. Ms Sycamore said that she does not have a copy of the message anymore because she lost her phoned. She thought she had submitted it with her June 2024 application, but the message was not found on that file. I note too that in a text message to Ray White on 17 January 2024 Ms Sycamore lists maintenance issues she wanted attended to, but she makes no mention of the ceilings or her concerns regarding the possibility of them containing asbestos.
I therefore find that the landlord was not aware of the hairline cracking, or the deterioration of the bedroom 2 damage, or the possibility that the ceilings may contain asbestos until it received Ms Sycamore’s application in June 2024. I consider that they acted promptly after this to have the matter investigated and to have it remedied. Any delay in having the ceilings encapsulated (as recommended by All Clear) was due to Ms Sycamore not wanting the work done until she vacated.
I therefore find that the landlord is not in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the ceilings at the premises and the claim for compensation and exemplary damages under this head is dismissed.
I am also not satisfied that Ms Sycamore has established that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(c) of the Act to comply with enactments regarding health and safety requirements in so far as they apply to the premises. This claim is therefore also dismissed.
Ms Sycamore claims that the landlord breached the Health & Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2026 made under the Health & Safety at Work Act 2015. The purpose of this Act (and the regulations made under it) is to ensure the safety of workers and others arising from work done on premises that contain asbestos. However, there was no work done by the landlord or its contractors on the ceilings at the premises while Ms Sycamore was a tenant. The work was done after she vacated. Suppression
Ms Sycamore applied, in her application, for a suppression order. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
Ms Sycamore has been wholly unsuccessful in her application. Suppression is therefore not granted.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms White and Ms Goulding represented the landlord.
The tenant, Ms Sycamore, had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 1 August 2020. The tenancy ended on 17 November 2024, and she applied for exemplary damages and compensation of $100,000 (the Tribunal’s monetary limit) for: i.Failure by the landlord to repair and maintain the premises at all or in a timely manner (back door lock and ceiling damage); and ii.Failure by the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of building, health, and safety under any enactment insofar as they apply to the premises (asbestos).
Ms Sycamore made an application to the Tribunal on 13 June 2024 (application number 4914233) for the same issues as those in this application. However, she withdrew that application before it came to a hearing. She said she did so because there were other matters going in in her life at the time. Is the landlord in breach of the obligation to maintain and repair the premises and/or the obligation to comply with health and safety enactments?
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and section 45(1)(c) requires a landlord to comply with all building, health and safety requirements in so far as they apply to the premises.
When determining “reasonable” state of repair, the age and character of the premises and the period during which they are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes is relevant.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant here. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once Ms Sycamore notified the landlord or the landlord became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to within a reasonable time. What time frame is reasonable 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 may be.
A failure to comply with section 45(1)(b) or section 45(1)(c) may entitle the tenant to compensation. It is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act. Back door lock
Ms Sycamore told the property manager for the tenancy about the problem with the back door lock at a property inspection on 25 January 2024. Repairs to the lock were completed on 14 February 2024. The invoice for the work records that a new lock and key barrel was fitted and the door fixed so it does not jam. Ms White said that Sycamore raised the door lock issue again at another property inspection on 16 July 2024 (after the property was broken into) and, on 30 August, she requested a bolt to be installed on the door. That work was completed on 3 September.
I am satisfied that in both instances the repairs required to remedy the back door and lock was completed within a reasonable time after the landlord became aware of the issue. The claim for compensation and exemplary damages for the issues with the backdoor and lock is therefore dismissed. Ceiling damage
There was no dispute that there was a small “bulge” or crack in the second bedroom ceiling at the tenancy commencement. A property inspection report dated 18 October 2022 notes the damage. A photograph of it is provided with the report. The next routine inspection report dated 25 January 2024 records that the property manager was unable to access the bedroom at that time (Ms Sycamore used the room for storage and an ‘art room’).
While the damage to the bedroom 2 ceiling was known at the tenancy commencement, the damage was minor I do not consider that it was damage that required repair at that time to bring the premises to a reasonable standard of repair given the age and character of the premises.
Ms Sycamore said that sometime in 2023, she noticed small hairline cracks in the stippled ceilings in other rooms (living room, bathroom and bedroom 1). The cracks could only be observed when close to the ceiling. Ms Sycamore said that a neighbour told her that the ceiling may contain asbestos. She claims that in December 2023 she messaged the property manager about her concerns, but nothing was done. She then filed her first application with the Tribunal on 13 June 2024.
Ms White denies receiving any message from Ms Sycamore in December 2023 about her asbestos concerns and the hairline cracks and she said that there is no record on the file or any property inspection reports of Ms Sycamore’s concerns or any damage to the ceilings (other than bedroom 2). She said that Ray White did not become aware of Ms Sycamore’s asbestos concerns and the hairline cracks until they received her June 2024 Tribunal application.
After receiving the application, the landlord arranged for All Clear to test the ceiling for asbestos. In a report dated 24 July 2024, All Clear states that non friable Chrysotile (White Asbestos) was found in the ceiling coatings. The report records that the ceilings have moderate to medium damage but with “low potential risk to release fibres”. A photograph with the report of the ceiling damage in bedroom 2 shows more extensive damage than those shown in the photographs taken during the routine property inspection on 18 October 2022, with the edges of the bulge now breaking away. The All Clear report recommends either removing the asbestos or temporarily “encapsulate the ceiling and manage in accordance with an Asbestos Management Plan.”
The landlord chose the latter recommendation, and a quote was obtained from a building contractor (Galbraiths Building Ltd) to seal and then paint all the ceilings. The work was arranged to be completed on 4 October 2024, but Ms Sycamore denied access to the contractor to complete the work. She said she believes she did so because she was unwell at the time. Then, on 15 October Ms Sycamore gave the landlord notice to end the tenancy on 14 November and she requested that no maintenance be done until she vacated. The work was therefore not completed until 2 December 2024, after Ms Sycamore vacated.
I do not consider that the landlord is in breach of its obligation in section 45(1)(c) of the Act to repair and maintain the premises. I am not satisfied that Ms Sycamore has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that she told the landlord in December 2023 of her concerns regarding asbestos and the hairline cracks in the ceilings or that the bulge/damage to the bedroom 2 ceiling had deteriorated in the manner shown by All Clear’s photograph. Ms Sycamore said that she does not have a copy of the message anymore because she lost her phoned. She thought she had submitted it with her June 2024 application, but the message was not found on that file. I note too that in a text message to Ray White on 17 January 2024 Ms Sycamore lists maintenance issues she wanted attended to, but she makes no mention of the ceilings or her concerns regarding the possibility of them containing asbestos.
I therefore find that the landlord was not aware of the hairline cracking, or the deterioration of the bedroom 2 damage, or the possibility that the ceilings may contain asbestos until it received Ms Sycamore’s application in June 2024. I consider that they acted promptly after this to have the matter investigated and to have it remedied. Any delay in having the ceilings encapsulated (as recommended by All Clear) was due to Ms Sycamore not wanting the work done until she vacated.
I therefore find that the landlord is not in breach of the obligation to repair and maintain the ceilings at the premises and the claim for compensation and exemplary damages under this head is dismissed.
I am also not satisfied that Ms Sycamore has established that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(c) of the Act to comply with enactments regarding health and safety requirements in so far as they apply to the premises. This claim is therefore also dismissed.
Ms Sycamore claims that the landlord breached the Health & Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2026 made under the Health & Safety at Work Act 2015. The purpose of this Act (and the regulations made under it) is to ensure the safety of workers and others arising from work done on premises that contain asbestos. However, there was no work done by the landlord or its contractors on the ceilings at the premises while Ms Sycamore was a tenant. The work was done after she vacated. Suppression
Ms Sycamore applied, in her application, for a suppression order. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
Ms Sycamore has been wholly unsuccessful in her application. Suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282143 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 24 London Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282143 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 24 London Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions