What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4363581?

The tribunal order states: Reena Fritzanna Hall is ordered to allow access to the tenancy property by

How much money was awarded in case 4363581?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4363581?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4363581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10079693-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4363581?

The tribunal order states: Reena Fritzanna Hall is ordered to allow access to the tenancy property by

How much money was awarded in case 4363581?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4363581?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4363581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10079693-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Maywood Crescent, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602, Nil Tenancy Tribunal Case 4363581 — 14-day notice

Order

Reena Fritzanna Hall is ordered to allow access to the tenancy property by Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities on 48 hours’ notice to enable the landlord to carry out required assessments and maintenance.
Failure to comply with the above order will result in a financial penalty or termination as determined by the Tribunal on the application of the landlord.
Reena Fritzanna Hall’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord. These applications have previously been adjudicated by the Tribunal, but a rehearing has been granted. Because a rehearing has been granted, I take no account of the earlier adjudicators analysis or findings 1 , I conduct the hearing afresh, and will make my own decision on the matters in dispute. 1 That is Adjudicator Setefano’s decision.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is lengthy and troubling. A dispute has been ongoing between the parties for many years, and I accept that has caused significant stress to Ms Hall.
For the purpose of determining this matter, the background can be summarised reasonably succinctly as follows.
The tenancy premises were built in the 1990’s.
Ms Hall has been a tenant at the premises since 2003.
Following a dispute with the tenant, the parties agreed an assessment of the premises would be obtained. The landlord obtained an assessment of the premises from ‘NZ House Surveys’. This report is entitled “Gold Report” and that is the term used at today’s hearing to describe this document. In my view this report appears through and comprehensive. The report identifies a range of problems in the tenancy, which include: a. Elevated moisture in the rooms around the hot water cylinder. b. Underfloor insulation in poor condition. c. Elevated moisture levels in bedroom 1 on an external wall. d. The back deck having been fixed directly onto the cladding. e. The interior of the premises being in poor condition with mould around windows and the shower. f. Maintenance needed to aluminium joinery. g. Multiple areas of broken cladding. h. Some areas of external rot.
I note the inspector identified many other defects with the premises of various degrees, I will not set them all out here.
The tenant did not allow the landlord entry following notice, in order to undertake work. The landlord applied to the Tribunal, as did the tenant.
On 25 May 2020 the Tribunal (Ms Hannan) made an order in relation to both landlord and tenant claims, as follows: a. The tenant’s application relating to concerns over the work needed at the tenancy, was dismissed, because Ms Hall did not attend the hearing. Normally when a party does not appear at the hearing, their application will be dismissed. b. The landlords application for an order that the landlord be allowed entry for maintenance was successful. Ms Hannan was satisfied that the landlord had a lawful right to access the premises and ordered that:
Reena Fritzanna Hall is ordered to allow access to the tenancy property by Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities on 48 hours’ notice to enable the landlord to carry out required maintenance.
Failure to comply with the above order will result in a financial penalty or termination as determined by the Tribunal on the application of the landlord.
The tenant filed an application for rehearing. This application was dismissed, but Ms Hannan summarised the issues that were the subject of the original applications before her this way: Both parties had filed applications in the Tribunal. The tenant sought an order seeking maintenance of the dwelling but confusingly also seeking an order denying the landlord access to the property. The landlord sought access to carry out maintenance it agreed needed to be completed. The parties were in dispute over what maintenance should be carried out, how and by whom.
In July 2020 asbestos testing was undertaken in conjunction with works at the premises at that time, no asbestos was found.
Also in July 2020, Kāinga Ora replaced flooring in the living room, dining room, kitchen and hallway.
Following a complaint from Ms Hall, the Auckland City Council attended and inspected the premises on 28 January 2021. There were three council officers who attended, but a later report was provided from Jon Reddell, Senior Compliance Investigator, who states: Ms Hall advised that she believed that the works undertaken to rectify the damage to the flooring of the dwelling had not been completed in a tradesman like manner and that the building was no longer safe for her to occupy, and that she was afraid that she could fall through the floor at any time due to the spongy feeling of the floors. The investigation As a group and in the company of Ms Hall, we went downstairs into the garage area. In the garage area it appeared that the ceiling linings had been removed from the area below the kitchen, laundry, and part of the bathroom located on the upper floor. The ceiling linings remained over the balance of the garage ceiling and showed no signs of water damage. In this area there was evidence of repairs to the flooring, however most of the flooring was obscured by new insulation installed between the framing members. The exposed areas generally showed that the water damaged flooring had been removed and replaced with new plywood flooring. Some of the original particle board flooring remained and generally showed signs of water staining. These areas were probed by hand and found to be both firm and dry. There was no sign of swelling or disintegration of the flooring. Some of the insulation was removed at several points to assess the works undertaken, and these spot checks found the work completed to the same standard as the exposed areas. The inspection of this area showed the works were generally completed to a reasonable standard, however some of the edges of the new flooring were not fully supported, which may allow excessive movement if walked over, and over time could deteriorate and fail. The new flooring was nailed, not screwed, and some of the fixings were missing the framing, and that the flooring was not glued to the framing. It was noted that these unsupported areas of flooring were located under the areas where cabinetry was installed above. It was assessed that it was unlikely that this issue would cause harm to any person walking on the flooring on the upper level. The possible lack of fixings and lack of glue would possibly allow for the floors to move over time. Tura, Manesha and I then moved into the basement area without Ms Hall. The basement area was entered and showed that the ground had been overlaid with black polythene, and insulation had been installed to the exposed area below the upper floor. Some of the insulation was missing around areas of the replaced flooring of the bathroom and toilet. These works appeared to have been completed well, with no evidence of rot damage, and the new flooring fully supported. In the north eastern corner of the basement there was a hole cut through the plaster board of the wall to the garage, which gave a view of an area within a lowered section of ceiling in the garage. Inspection of this area showed no issues. To the east of this area, it was noted that the repairs to flooring under the laundry were not fully supported on adequately secured framing, with one joint reliant on a piece of timber, simply fixed to either side of the cut in the flooring. In the northwestern corner of the basement new framing had been installed to support the joint between the old and new flooring. We then returned to the upper level and walked over the floors that Ms Hall was concerned about, and over the floor of the hall which was untouched. The hall and the lounge/dining areas were fitted with carpet, and the kitchen and laundry were fitted with linoleum. In several area squeaks were noted, and the feel underfoot was different in the lounge/dining area to that in the hallway, possibly due to different underlay. The floors felt secure underfoot with a slight springiness which would be considered normal for framing approaching the maximum span for its size. Assessment The works undertaken at the address to repair/replace the water damaged flooring are work that are exempt from requiring Building Consent under exemption 1.1 of Schedule one of the Building Act 2004. The works appear to have been undertaken generally in a tradesman like manner. There are areas where shortcuts have been taken, which could be rectified, however these do not appear to be causing any issues at this time. These works have been undertaken to the requirements in keeping with the time the building was constructed and not in line with current standards. It appears that although not all the water affected areas of the flooring and floor framing have been removed, however there were no areas of rot noted in the remaining flooring and framing and the remaining flooring appears to be structurally sound. Due to the long‐term nature of the leak that caused the damage, it would be expected that the floor framing timbers would have been exposed to water, which would have allowed these members to readily move and adjust to the loads from above and remain in this altered position when dried. There is nothing to suggest that the flooring will not support the expected loads of residential use and would not meet the definition of Dangerous under section 121of the Building act 2004. Conclusion Works have been undertaken to repair water damaged floors within the dwelling at 20 Maywood Crescent, Glen Eden. These works have been generally completed in a tradesman like manner but could be modified to ensure that all the flooring is adequately supported. The floors that have been repaired appear to be functioning adequately and would not be considered dangerous. The feel of the floor beneath one’s feet is different to that of the existing floors, however this would appear to be due to the different materials used (flooring and underlays) and not due to any structural instability of the floor structure.
Ms Hall made further contact to the Auckland City Council dissatisfied with the assessment and report. I note an email from the Council dated 16 September 2022 stating: I am writing in response to your calls to the contact centre to complain about your flooring. I have listened to the calls, and I understand that you believe that the report from January 2021 indicated that the floors were unsafe. This in not the case, and in fact the report confirmed that the floors are indeed safe and the repairs have been carried out in a workman like manner. I have attached a copy of the report with the relevant areas of the text highlighted. It was noted that there could be improvements to the work, but these areas of flooring are under cabinetry, not where you walk. It was also noted that your floors will feel different after the repairs, and not what you have been used to for the previous years living in the house. However they are safe. There is one comment you referred to from the report that the floor “could deteriorate and fail over time”. The rest of the report then explains that this relates to the unsupported edges if walked over. As they are under cabinetry they will not be walked over. I have checked with the compliance officer who carried out the review and he has confirmed that under normal conditions it would not be expected that these areas would have deteriorated to a dangerous situation within the short timeframe since our last inspection. Auckland Council cannot continue to investigate issues which have not been substantiated. We have made all reasonable efforts to resolve the issues you have raised, and there is no new information to provide sufficient reason to warrant further investment of council resources into the matter. Based on these reasons, Auckland Council will not revisit our decision that this matter is a civil matter between you and your landlord, Kainga ora. I ask therefore that you do not call the contact centre again regarding this matter, as there is no action for council to take.
On 9 December 2022 an inspection was undertaken by GPC Ltd, building consultants. The report states in part: The reason for the visit was to inspect the flooring of the property that had been renewed due to a previously leaking hot water cylinder. ... In summary Whilst the building was constructed to the compliant standard of the time, we are of the opinion that the works carried out to maintain the property have been poorly carried out and not to a good workmanship/tradesman like manner. Whilst the lack of glue and fixings would potentially allow movement over time and also be squeaky underfoot when walking across the floor there is no health and safety risk here. We carried out moisture reading to the underside of the plywood floor where accessible and recorded consistent acceptable readings of around 14%. The elevated reading obtained of 25% was below the shower as discussed with in the body of the report. Recommendation We are of the opinion that the floor should be properly ‘nogged’ with nogs on edge in order to contain the full depth of a fixing, that the flooring would be better screwed than nailed and that all sheets joints should be fully supported regardless of location and that the sheets should be glued. The shower cubicle needs to be repaired and the vinyl floor to shower tray junction should be sealed. The leak as highlighted should be investigated to confirm the source and repaired as/if required if found to be different than our opinion. The exterior cladding across the northern elevation is required to be removed and replaced along with any exposed framing or flooring requiring replacement to be carried out. We would anticipate that this work would be carried out to a good tradesman like standard and by a current and reputable Licensed Building Practitioner
On 22 December 2022 further work was undertaken in the bathroom including sealing fixtures. I note hear that in this summary I have not set out all of the work the landlord did at the tenancy.
The tenant appointed her own electrician to inspect the premises. That inspection occurred on 13 February 2023. Mr Statham reported that the electrical system was in “good condition” and installed to code. The electrician noted that the floor boards on the first floor had been repaired following a water leak and the work was “rough”, but Mr Statham confirmed that he was not qualified to express a view as to the structural stability of the floor. Mr Stratham stated that in the event the floor was to collapse, then there would be a risk of electrical wires being stretched or damaged, but accepted such a risk would be “minor”.
On 13 March 2023 a structural engineer attended the premises in order to “assess the subfloor timber structure (joists, nogs and supporting structural elements) at the property”. The engineer determined that: Overall, Miyamoto considers the floor supporting timber structure to be structurally sound and adequate. This is limited to the visible inspection of the exposed areas only. Miyamoto did not carry out any intrusive investigation as part of the is observation.
The assessor also noted there was no sign of water damage to the timber framing.
It is the case that the landlord has made further efforts to gain access to the premise for the purpose of assessing and undertaking necessary maintenance, but the tenant has refused access.
The parties filed further applications with the Tribunal, largely consistent with the applications considered by Ms Hannan in 2020.
On 18 July 2023 the Tribunal (Ms Setefano) issued a decision. The tenants applications were declined, the landlord application was successful, with the tenant being ordered to allow the landlord entry to the premises on notice for maintenance.
The tenant applied for a rehearing (as will be discussed below), the adjudicator granted the rehearing request.
A hearing was scheduled before myself in the Waitakere District Courthouse on 13 March 2024. The tenant was in attendance with three legal representatives from Russell McVeigh. The landlord was represented by Ms Maturan-abuid who attended with a support person.
I note that at the hearing the tenant provided an 88 paragraph personal statement. I have read that statement in full. In summary Ms Hall states: a. The house is in urgent need of maintenance. b. The tenant has been in dispute with Kāinga Ora around maintenance and repairs for “two decades”. c. The history of repairs and maintenance was set out, with the tenant explaining that she did not consider the work was of a sufficient standard. d. The tenant has not experienced health issues until moving into the premises. e. 14 day notices to remedy issued by the tenant have gone unanswered. f. Damage was caused from a leaking hot water cylinder. g. A hui was convened in 2019 at the premises, from that the agreement was to obtain the ‘Gold report’. The tenant is aggrieved that she was not listed as a client on that report commissioned by Kāinga Ora, so the tenant considers it was not independent. h. There are continuing water ingress issues in the premises. i. The work undertaken by the landlord is superficial and substandard. j. The Tribunal should order all rental paid to Kāinga Ora since 2003 to be refunded in full. k. The tenant set out various outcomes she wanted from her application.
Also of relevance, a further report was filed by Ms Hall from Barry Gill, a Registered Building Surveyor. This is the Veron report. This report was provided to the landlord on the week of the hearing, and the landlord has not had an opportunity to consider it. Mr Gill identified that work was needed to the exterior cladding, as it was severely broken down, and was causing water ingress into the premises. The recommendations for work were in effect to the cladding and associated structures.

PROCEDURAL NOTE

At the hearing today, the landlord raised concerns around the validity of the rehearing request, noting that the tenant sought a rehearing on the basis of witnesses not being called for that hearing, and the importance that witness evidence had in her case which the adjudicator accepted.
There is merit to the landlords submission, in that Ms Setefano approved the rehearing on the grounds that: I accept Ms Hall may have misunderstood the process in relation to her witnesses and should be given an opportunity for her witnesses to be heard. She has provided further evidence which may impact on the outcome.
As the landlord noted today, the tenant did not call any witnesses, nor summon any witnesses for this hearing. That of course is inconsistent with the grounds upon which a rehearing had been requested and granted. I can understand why the situation has caused the landlord a measure of surprise. However the rehearing was granted, and the Tribunal must now hear the matter again.

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 un-likely, 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. TENANT’S CLAIMS Tenant’s case
The tenant seeks the following orders: a. An order that the Tribunal direct a truly independent assessment of the premises, including invasive testing, and then to action any recommendations from that assessment. Ms Hall seeks to have a say on who undertakes that assessment. b. Orders that the landlord action the work set out in the Veron report. c. Order for exemplary damages, general damages and compensation including full refund of all rent paid.
In submissions (which I confirm I have read in full), the tenant has accepted that she has refused access to the premises, where it was submitted: In about December 2021, Ms Hall ceased to permit Kāinga Ora and its contractors to access the property.
The reasons given for that refusal include frustration from repeated works, and concerns around asbestos.
It was submitted that Ms Hall has significant distrust with the landlord and those who have undertaken work including inspections of the premises, funded or instructed by the landlord.
Ms Hall strongly considers that all the landlord as provided is “band aid solutions”, and that the work the landlord has undertaken is superficial only, and that they are not addressing the underlying problems in the house.
Ms Hall considers that more intensive investigation of defects with the premises are needed, which the inspectors so far have not delivered.
Otherwise Ms Hall considers the premises to be damp and very unhealthy for her and her family.
In relation to the work set out in the Veron report, it was submitted that Mr Gill had determined all the steps / work needed to facilitate the recladding work, and that should be ordered now.
The tenant’s position is that the state of the premises has caused a deterioration in the health of the tenant and her family, and has also caused her a significant mental toll. Landlord’s response
In response the landlord says that reports have been obtained from independent contractors, they are not Kāinga Ora staff members, and the conclusions they reach are their own. The landlord cannot see what benefit would be obtained from obtaining further reports, that application is opposed.
The landlord states that Kāinga Ora has been aware of issues with the cladding since 2019, but the landlords tradespeople have been unable to progress the recladding works, because entry is being blocked by Ms Hall.
The landlord considers that the work it has undertaken in the premises was of a reasonable standard. Analysis
As I raised with the parties at the hearing today, the law is well established, that the obligation to maintain sits with the landlord. There is no dispute around this, it has been recorded in Ms Hall’s submissions. But for completeness, section 45(1)(b) of the RTA confirms that the landlord “shall”: 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;
It must be emphasised that this obligation is on the landlord, not the tenant. There is nothing in the RTA which requires the landlord to consult with the tenant around what work is to be undertaken, not to first obtain the tenants agreement to that work. The closest obligation for the tenant is found in section 40(1)(d) (Tenants responsibilities), where the RTA requires that the tenant “shall”: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; and
In summary, the obligation is on the tenant to advise the landlord if repairs are needed, but then it is the obligation on the landlord to undertake the necessary maintenance work.
Having heard from the tenant, it is plain that the tenant considers she has a role to play in deciding what maintenance or work will occur and who will do it, however that is not required in law.
It is also clear that work needs to be undertaken at the premises, I agree with the tenant that needs to be addressed with urgency. The evidence shows that there are significant holes in the cladding, and I am certain that water will be entering the dwelling from those holes, which will be causing damage, and I would anticipate contributing to dampness inside the house. What is very unusual in this case, is that the tenant and landlord both agree this work is urgently needed, but the tenant is blocking the landlord from proceeding with the necessary work. I accept the work will commence with tradespeople attending the premises to assess what is needed, then making a plan, and getting on with the work.
Ms Hall takes the view that unless the landlord agreed to her conditions, she will not permit the landlord to proceed with the necessary work. In my view the tenants approach is not reasonable, and it is not lawful. As I have indicated above the obligation around maintenance is with the landlord (not the tenant), and to make matters worse in this case, the premises are being physically damaged by continuing water ingress.
If the tenant raises issues with the tenancy, and the landlord then fails to undertake the necessary work, THEN the tenant would have ground to bring a claim against the landlord. But in this case it is clear that the landlord is wanting to get this work done, and has wanted to get the work completed since at least 2019.
Another unusual fact in this case, is that the tenant has opposed the landlord commencing work around the cladding, but when I asked the tenant at the hearing what it was the landlord wanted to do, she could not tell me. Therefore I don’t see that the tenant could have any arguable grounds for proposing that different, better or alternate work be undertaken.
The tenant is not satisfied with the standard of the work particularly in relation to her internal floor. Based on the evidence available, there is a common theme from the assessors that some of the work was not of a decent standard, or to use the words of the electrician, rough. But it must also be recognised that there is no expert evidence that the work is unsafe, or that the structure of the dwelling is at risk. In relation to the structure, the expert opinion of a structural engineer is that the structure is safe, and that evidence is unchallenged. I will not make any orders that the landlord undertake further remediation or correction of that earlier work for two reasons. a. Firstly if I were to make an order, the work would be wholly disproportionate to any risk or detriment the tenant faces; and b. Secondly, the standard of the work required under the RTA is not work to an exceptionally high or exemplary standard, it is work to return the premises to a reasonable state of repair, taking into account the age and character of the premises, and the likely lifespan of the dwelling. I am not convinced that the work completed by the landlord would offend that obligation, particularly given the experts have not deemed the premises structurally unsound.
It is surprising that Ms Hall has applied to the Tribunal to make orders against the landlord, when Ms Hall has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders herself. Ms Eastwick-Field submitted that the tenant had reasonable grounds to refuse the landlords entry following notice. I disagree. The time for the tenant to have made that argument was at the hearing in 2020 before Ms Hannan. Despite that, I can see no reasonable grounds for refusing entry now, as I have discussed in this decision.
I recognise that the tenant will disagree with my finding above, and she will probably continue to take the view that the inspection reports are biased and not independent. I note however the inspection report from the council inspectors (the report from Mr Reddell). Mr Reddell is a council officer, there could be no suggestion that his work is commissioned by the landlord, or that he is not independent. Mr Reddell did not consider the work standard was high, but he ultimately concluded the premises were safe for residential use. I have no doubt that if the Council inspectors considered the premises unsafe, they would have said so.
The tenant submits that the premises have caused her health related problems. I am not able to reach any conclusion on that, as the medical evidence presented falls very well short of the standard that would be necessary to establish a causative link between the premises and any health effect for the tenant. The tenant relies particularly on the letters from the GP. However the tenant confirmed the GP had not been to the premises, so it is uncertain what the basis would be for what he has written. I am also minded that the GP has qualified his reports by saying they were not to be used for any legal process. My impression is that the GP has written supportive letter on behalf of his patient, based on what the patient has relayed to him. The letters are of an advocacy nature, rather than expert medico legal reports.
There would be no grounds for the Tribunal to order that the landlord obtain any further reports. Further reports in relation to the cladding are entirely unnecessary. The work needed is obvious, and has been covered off in multiple reports already. What is needed is simply for the landlord to be able to get on and get the cladding replaced. If other work is needed then the landlord should be allowed to proceed with that too.
Similarly there are no grounds for me to order that the tradespeople do the work set out by Mr Gill. The reason is that there is no evidence that the tradespeople would not undertake that work being part and parcel of the recladding. There is a latin saying, omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta. This mean that all things are presumed to be done correctly unless proven otherwise. In this case I have no reason to presume that the tradespeople would not do the necessary work correctly.
Ms Hall is concerned about how any asbestos in the premises will be managed. It must be recognised that there is no evidence that there is asbestos in the premises, and that previous testing associated with work at the dwelling confirmed there was no asbestos found. The Tribunal is aware that there are settled health and safety processes and expectations with contractors, and I have no reason to believe that any contractors appointed by Kāinga Ora would not follow those requirements. There would be no basis for me to make any specific orders in relation to asbestos.
Finally, there are no grounds to order exemplary damages, compensation or general damages. Those types of orders can only be made when the Tribunal first establish a breach. In this case I am not persuaded that there has been any breach. My impression overall is that when work needed to be done, it was done. I accept that at times that was not as speedy as the tenant would have preferred, nor a standard she wanted, but I consider the work was done or attempts made. If the tenant considered the work was not being done, then she had an ability to obtain work orders from the Tribunal, compelling the landlord to do that work. I note here that there is a duty on the tenant to mitigate her loss (section 49), so if she considered that the landlord was causing her loss in that the landlord was remiss with the work to the premises, she needed to mitigate that loss, and again the appropriate action would be an application to the Tribunal.
The tenants claims are dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIM
The landlord only seeks an order that the tenant permit the landlord to enter the premises for maintenance purposes, as discussed above.
What the landlord is seeking, is an order the landlord already has. Ms Hannan has already made the precise order the landlord is now wanting me to make.
My view of the situation aligns with that of Adjudicator Hannan, that the tenant must allow the landlord entry to the premises to undertake maintenance, and while I consider another application that the Tribunal say the same thing again to be unnecessary, I will make the order.
But in doing so it is fair that the tenant be aware of potential consequences if she fails to comply with the order requiring entry with notice. The tenant runs the risk that the next application from the landlord will be an application terminating the tenancy under section 56 of the RTA.
The landlord’s application for an order for access to the premises is granted.
I conclude by recognising that at the hearing today, I did challenge the tenant and her legal representative on the tenants understanding and approach to the law. I did that because I was hopeful that I may have been able to assist the tenant to better understand the parties respective obligations, but I am not sure I had any success with that. I am not sure the tenant will accept the law as I have set it out above, but I have done my best to explain it in my decision. I note for completeness that if the tenant wishes to obtain general information around the parties obligations, a good source of information can be found at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website for Tenancy Services. That can be found at www.tenancy.govt.nz

FILING FEE

Normally the filing fee is ordered to a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim. Strictly the landlord has been entirely successful in its application. However I decline to order the filing fee, because I consider the landlords application was unnecessary. The Tribunal in 2020 has issued the same order the landlord now seeks. In the circumstances the utility of seeking an order that a party already has is limited. I decline to order the filing fee.

NAME SUPPRESSION

There is no application for name suppression, nor are there grounds to order name suppression.
I therefore make no suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4363581 — 14-day notice at 20 Maywood Crescent, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602, Nil

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4363581 — 14-day notice at 20 Maywood Crescent, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602, Nil

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

PROCEDURAL NOTE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

PROCEDURAL NOTE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions