What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392595 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (BN-00069517) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5392595?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392595?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12838545-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392595 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (BN-00069517) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5392595?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392595?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12838545-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Inglewood Road, Hawthorndale, Invercargill 9810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392595 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented today by the property manager Ms Tremaine. The original application included another tenant. Circumstances changed and he was no longer a tenant and should not have been named as a party to these proceedings and therefore I have removed his name from the order.

This is a cross application; the landlord seeks payment of rent arrears. The tenant did not dispute the amount owing and therefore the amount of the arrears being $718.00 is to be taken out of the bond and payment made to the landlord.

This was a fixed term tenancy that came to an end with notice being given, however there is no other claim that the landlord is bringing against the tenant in relation to the ending of the fixed term tenancy.

The tenant has bought a number of claims against the landlord. The tenant sought a 45% reduction in the rent she had paid over the period of the 5 month tenancy. The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching any of these 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.

The tenant claims that the driveway had cracked concrete from tree roots and was very dangerous. Her mother gave evidence that this was a significant concern. The concrete path was like this at the commencement of the tenancy. Further to this there was a sump that did not appear to drain water away from the driveway. A plumber looked into the sump issue and identified the issue regarding previous work that had been carried out by the previous owner. However, I cannot find on the evidence that the landlord was required to carry out anything more than having it investigated. The driveway is not something a landlord can be made to remedy, and I do not find that the landlord has breached the obligation for failing to maintain.

The tenant also claimed a lack of light due to large trees. The tenant bought this to the attention of the landlord and the landlord carried out the obligations of obtaining a quote to remedy the large trees however the tenant undertook the work herself. Whilst the landlord was not happy with this there is no claim against the tenant for this. There was no significant delay in the landlord requesting a quote for the work and I can not find that there was an unlawful act.

The tenant claims that she had higher than normal electricity accounts and that there may have been an issue with the water heater. The evidence is that the landlord did all that was required. An electrician was hired to look into the issue and there is no evidence at the hearing of an issue being present. The tenant’s evidence is that she moved into a smaller home with double glassed windows and therefore the comparison evidence in relation to the electricity accounts is not convincing evidence, again I must therefore dismiss the claim.

[The tenant/s] and [The party] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. As a result there were issues of mould and dampness.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

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) RTA.

The evidence in relation to this claim is also relevant to the claim filed in relation to the further claim 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 draught stopping standard.

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The landlord sought and obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment report to ensure the home met the standards. This report was obtained prior to the commencement of the tenancy.

The report gave the home compliance in relation to these issues.

However, the report was incorrect. The writer of the report gave evidence as he was summoned to appear. He clearly stated at the outset of his evidence that his report was wrong, it was a ‘typo’. This was concerning given the reliance on such reports.

The insulation was clearly below the required levels. However, when the tenant notified the property manager and provided photos of the insulation, they immediately rectified the issue of the insulation. There is no evidence or reason why the report could not or should not have been relied upon. Therefore, I am not prepared to make a funding against the landlord given they had every reason to rely on the report.

It is unfortunate for both of the parties that the very report, commissioned to protect both parties was incorrect.

Given the fact that the landlord, as soon as he became aware that there was an issue and that the report was incorrect, he took steps to remedy.

This was also the situation with the draft stopping, once the issue of the insulation was identified this was also looked at and draft stopping measures put in place.

I therefore am not prepared to make an award of costs against the landlord and under the circumstances I am not prepared to award either party the filing fee.

The issue of the refund of the bond and rent arrears is provided for in this order and all other claims are dismissed.

Reasons