What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4339836?

The tribunal order states: Patricia Daniells must pay Rochelle Lorraine Hack and Joseph Bernard Hack

How much money was awarded in case 4339836?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Interference with the…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4339836?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4339836?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9778657-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4339836?

The tribunal order states: Patricia Daniells must pay Rochelle Lorraine Hack and Joseph Bernard Hack

How much money was awarded in case 4339836?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Interference with the…: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4339836?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4339836?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9778657-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

107B Furness Road, Kerikeri, Kerikeri 0293 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4339836 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4339836 — net $1,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair	$600.00	Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Compensation: Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition	$200.00	Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition
Compensation: Interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy	$350.00	Interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,170.44

Order

Patricia Daniells must pay Rochelle Lorraine Hack and Joseph Bernard Hack $1,170.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was a rehearing granted at the landlord’s request. Ms Hack represented the tenants. Background
The tenants have applied for compensation for several alleged breaches by the landlord. Today, Ms Hack confined her submissions to just some of the matters initially raised, perhaps because of the previous orders made by the Tribunal.
I explained that a rehearing is a hearing afresh before a new adjudicator.
The tenancy started on 26 February 2022 and ended on 25 June 2022, so it lasted just 4 months.
The premises were part of a larger area once used for workers’ accommodation. It was a rural tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation for the following alleged breaches by the landlord: a failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; a failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition; and breaches of the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy due to wandering pigs.
Both parties gave oral evidence and they each provided documentary evidence that I have considered in reaching my decision. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? •Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition? •Did the landlord or her agent interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy due to wandering pigs.
As I have noted, while other matters were raised in the application, they were not pursued by Ms Hack today. The tenants are now aware that the landlord had the premises assessed for compliance with the Health Homes Standards (HHS). The premises were assessed as compliant so some of the other issues that concerned HHS compliance would not have succeeded in any case.
I note also that the landlord raised various issues against the tenants including rent arrears and their alleged failure to leave the premises (including outside) in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. As there is no landlord application before the Tribunal, I cannot address those issues on this application. Legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenants’ compensation claims are for actual losses (time spent cleaning) and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when awarding compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
Ms Hack raised 2 main repair issues she said the landlord failed to act on. The first was a broken windowpane in her daughter’s bedroom; the second was a gap between the floor and the wall in the main bedroom which allowed rodents to enter.
The landlord described the windowpane as 1 of 8 small louvre panes. She said she instructed a contractor to repair the window and they attended (unannounced) on 3 occasions but the tenants were not home, and they could not gain access.
A broken window (the tenant said there was an actual hole in the pane) means that the room was largely unusable.
This is a repair and maintenance issue that should have been dealt with before the tenancy started, or very promptly after that.
Ms Hack said there was a gap between the floor and the wall in the main bedroom that allowed rodents to enter the premises. The landlord denied the presence of a gap.
The premises were assessed as HHS compliant, so the gap is not a HHS compliance issue.
That said, it might still be, and probably was, a repair and maintenance issue.
The tenants’ photos produced in evidence show the effect of the rodents entering the premises. Rodents can be a particular problem in rural tenancies.
The landlord should have taken steps to address the tenants’ concerns. After all, they were living in the premises and were best placed to observe and report on an issue such as this.
Ms Hack also referred to a smell in the kitchen/dining area which the tenants attributed to a drainage issue. There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the cause of the smell. The landlord said she had the drains assessed and no problems were identified.
I do not find proved a claim that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the drains causing a smell in part of the premises.
Considering the factors referred to in Birch, I award the tenants compensation of $600.00 for the landlord’s failure to address the limited repair and maintenance issues raised by Ms Hack. Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition?
Ms Hack said the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy even though the landlord had done some cleaning. She said she spent a day cleaning before the tenants moved in.
The landlord said the premises were clean. She said she had a professional cleaner do the cleaning and she did a good job.
Whether premises are reasonably clean at the start of a tenancy is not assessed on the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal undertakes an objective assessment of the evidence provided.
The photographic evidence produced shows that the premises were not provided in what would be objectively considered a reasonably clean condition.
Ms Hack said she spent a day cleaning the premises. She is entitled to compensation for her time. I award the tenants compensation of $200.00 for the cleaning work they had to do at the start of the tenancy. Did the landlord (or her agent) interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy due to wandering pigs?
The landlord accepted that pigs at the rural property under the care of her contractor were a problem and a nuisance. She said she apologised for that.
Ms Hack described how the pigs, sometimes up to 20 of them, would roam around and make a terrible mess right up to the front door. She said the front door had to be kept shut otherwise the pigs would have come inside.
I find that this was a considerable interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. For this breach (considering the factors noted in Birch) I award the tenants compensation of $350.00. Filing fee
The tenants’ application is successful. The landlord must pay the filing fee on the application. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $1,170.44 in total comprising compensation of $1,150.00 and the filing fee of $20.44.
I record that the landlord has paid the bond to the tenants in full. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4339836 — net $1,170.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair	$600.00	Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
Compensation: Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition	$200.00	Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition
Compensation: Interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy	$350.00	Interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,170.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,170.44

Order

Patricia Daniells must pay Rochelle Lorraine Hack and Joseph Bernard Hack $1,170.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was a rehearing granted at the landlord’s request. Ms Hack represented the tenants. Background
The tenants have applied for compensation for several alleged breaches by the landlord. Today, Ms Hack confined her submissions to just some of the matters initially raised, perhaps because of the previous orders made by the Tribunal.
I explained that a rehearing is a hearing afresh before a new adjudicator.
The tenancy started on 26 February 2022 and ended on 25 June 2022, so it lasted just 4 months.
The premises were part of a larger area once used for workers’ accommodation. It was a rural tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation for the following alleged breaches by the landlord: a failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; a failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition; and breaches of the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy due to wandering pigs.
Both parties gave oral evidence and they each provided documentary evidence that I have considered in reaching my decision. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair? •Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition? •Did the landlord or her agent interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy due to wandering pigs.
As I have noted, while other matters were raised in the application, they were not pursued by Ms Hack today. The tenants are now aware that the landlord had the premises assessed for compliance with the Health Homes Standards (HHS). The premises were assessed as compliant so some of the other issues that concerned HHS compliance would not have succeeded in any case.
I note also that the landlord raised various issues against the tenants including rent arrears and their alleged failure to leave the premises (including outside) in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. As there is no landlord application before the Tribunal, I cannot address those issues on this application. Legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. The tenants’ compensation claims are for actual losses (time spent cleaning) and for the loss of use of and therefore enjoyment of the tenancy.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when awarding compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
Ms Hack raised 2 main repair issues she said the landlord failed to act on. The first was a broken windowpane in her daughter’s bedroom; the second was a gap between the floor and the wall in the main bedroom which allowed rodents to enter.
The landlord described the windowpane as 1 of 8 small louvre panes. She said she instructed a contractor to repair the window and they attended (unannounced) on 3 occasions but the tenants were not home, and they could not gain access.
A broken window (the tenant said there was an actual hole in the pane) means that the room was largely unusable.
This is a repair and maintenance issue that should have been dealt with before the tenancy started, or very promptly after that.
Ms Hack said there was a gap between the floor and the wall in the main bedroom that allowed rodents to enter the premises. The landlord denied the presence of a gap.
The premises were assessed as HHS compliant, so the gap is not a HHS compliance issue.
That said, it might still be, and probably was, a repair and maintenance issue.
The tenants’ photos produced in evidence show the effect of the rodents entering the premises. Rodents can be a particular problem in rural tenancies.
The landlord should have taken steps to address the tenants’ concerns. After all, they were living in the premises and were best placed to observe and report on an issue such as this.
Ms Hack also referred to a smell in the kitchen/dining area which the tenants attributed to a drainage issue. There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the cause of the smell. The landlord said she had the drains assessed and no problems were identified.
I do not find proved a claim that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the drains causing a smell in part of the premises.
Considering the factors referred to in Birch, I award the tenants compensation of $600.00 for the landlord’s failure to address the limited repair and maintenance issues raised by Ms Hack. Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition?
Ms Hack said the premises were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy even though the landlord had done some cleaning. She said she spent a day cleaning before the tenants moved in.
The landlord said the premises were clean. She said she had a professional cleaner do the cleaning and she did a good job.
Whether premises are reasonably clean at the start of a tenancy is not assessed on the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal undertakes an objective assessment of the evidence provided.
The photographic evidence produced shows that the premises were not provided in what would be objectively considered a reasonably clean condition.
Ms Hack said she spent a day cleaning the premises. She is entitled to compensation for her time. I award the tenants compensation of $200.00 for the cleaning work they had to do at the start of the tenancy. Did the landlord (or her agent) interfere with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy due to wandering pigs?
The landlord accepted that pigs at the rural property under the care of her contractor were a problem and a nuisance. She said she apologised for that.
Ms Hack described how the pigs, sometimes up to 20 of them, would roam around and make a terrible mess right up to the front door. She said the front door had to be kept shut otherwise the pigs would have come inside.
I find that this was a considerable interference with the tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. For this breach (considering the factors noted in Birch) I award the tenants compensation of $350.00. Filing fee
The tenants’ application is successful. The landlord must pay the filing fee on the application. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $1,170.44 in total comprising compensation of $1,150.00 and the filing fee of $20.44.
I record that the landlord has paid the bond to the tenants in full. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4339836 — State of repair at 107B Furness Road, Kerikeri, Kerikeri 0293

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4339836 — State of repair at 107B Furness Road, Kerikeri, Kerikeri 0293

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