What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4470505?

The tribunal order states: Andrew Neville Humphries is to pay Unity Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4470505?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4470505?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4470505?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9198108-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4470505?

The tribunal order states: Andrew Neville Humphries is to pay Unity Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4470505?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4470505?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4470505?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9198108-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

59 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4470505 — Rent arrears

Order

Andrew Neville Humphries is to pay Unity Property Management Limited $183.29 from the bond immediately, being a rent arrears to 28 February 2023 and the Tribunal application fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (6441268-001) immediately as follows: a. Andrew Neville Humphries: $1,736.71 b. Unity Property Management Limited: $183.29
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Hu represented the landlord.
The tenant, Mr Humphries, applied for compensation and exemplary damages for: i.Issuing a notice to terminate the tenancy that does not comply with the requirements in section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). ii.Issuing a retaliatory notice. iii.Failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish. iv.Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and/or failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, in particular: • Draughts from the front door and windows • Black mould/dampness • Cracked kitchen ceiling containing asbestos • Leak from the kitchen window • Porch light/wiring • Bedroom light • Rodents v. Interference with his right to quiet enjoyment and harassment by the landlord.
The landlord applied for rent arrears.
The parties agreed to an eight-month fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 4 February 2022 and ending on 14 September 2022. Rent was agreed at $480 per week and a bond of $1,920.00 was paid.

How much rent is owing?

The landlord claims rent of $231.43 being 6 days rent from 24 February 2023 to 1 March 2023 ($411.43) less a rent credit held by the landlord of $180.00.
However, the tenancy ended on 28 February 2023. The rent owed to that date is $162.85 being 5 days rent ($342.85) less the $180.00 rent credit. Did the landlord issue a notice to terminate the tenancy that did not comply with the

Act?

The premises consist of an old home which was due for demolition. The landlord had obtained consent for the demolition which was intended to take place eight months after the tenancy commenced. Mr Humphries was aware of the intended demolition when he agreed to the tenancy.
After the fixed term of the tenancy expired on 14 September, the tenancy rolled over to a periodic tenancy. Ms Hu said that, on 19 September 2022, she emailed Mr Humphries a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on 22 December 2022 because the premises were to be demolished.
Mr Humphries claims that the notice is defective because he did not receive the full 90 days that he was entitled to under section 51(2) of the Act. He claims that he only received the termination notice on 11 November 2022.
I am satisfied that the notice was correctly served on Mr Humphries on 19 September and therefore the landlord has complied with the requirements in the Act for the issuing of a termination notice. Mr Humphries confirmed that the email address used by Ms Hu to send the notice was correct and it is an address given by Mr Humphries in the tenancy agreement as an address for service of notices.
Moreover, there is no prejudice to Mr Humphries even if he did not receive or read the notice until 11 November as claimed, because Ms Hu agreed to extend the notice period to 5 February 2023, being 90 days from 11 November.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Is the notice issued on 19 September retaliatory?

Mr Humphries claims that the notice issued by the landlord was issued in retaliation of him asking for “a number of things” to be resolved.
Section 54(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may declare a notice of termination to be of no effect if the motivation for giving it was wholly or partly because the tenant has enforced his rights under the tenancy agreement or the Act. Section 54(3) provides that the giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages maybe payable if the notice is declared to be of no effect.
However, an application under section 54 must be made within 28 days after the receipt of the notice. Mr Humphries amended his application to include a claim that the notice was retaliatory on 7 June 2023. He is therefore well outside the 28-day time limit, even if it is accepted that he did not receive the notice until 11 November 2022.
In any event, I do not consider that the notice is retaliatory because I am satisfied that the sole reason for giving the notice was because the premises were to be demolished.
This claim is therefore also dismissed. Failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish
There was no dispute that, before Mr Humphries moved into the premises, there was work required to be completed to bring it to a reasonably cleaning and tidy condition. There was also no dispute that Mr Humphries was “desperate” to move in as he had to move out of his previous tenancy by 3 February (the day before this tenancy commenced) and he had been having difficulties finding another tenancy. The dispute was whether the parties agreed that the remaining work could be completed after Mr Humphries moved in, as claimed by Ms Hu, or whether Ms Hu promised that the work would be completed before Mr Humphries moved in, as claimed by Mr Humphries.
I am not satisfied that Mr Humphries has established to the standard required, that is on the balance of probabilities (or more likely than not) that Ms Hu did promise to have all the cleaning and tidying work completed before Mr Humphries moved in. I consider that, given Mr Humphries circumstances, it was more likely than not that Mr Humphries was happy to move in knowing there was still work that needed to be done.
The landlord had the premises commercially cleaned on 9 February and had the lawns, and gardens tidied, and rubbish removed on 10 February. However, Mr Humphries claims that the premises still required cleaning to be done and rubbish to be removed after the contractors had been.
Mr Humphries texted Ms Hu about the rubbish on 17 February. Ms Hu said that the maintenance contractor was still working at the premises until 28 February, and she assumed that all the required work had been completed by then. Mr Humphries did not dispute that he did not tell Ms Hu about any additional work that was required after 17 February and he did not provide any photographs of the remaining rubbish.
I am therefore not satisfied that Mr Humphries has provided sufficient evidence to establish his claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages under this head and the claim is dismissed. Is the landlord in breach of the Healthy Homes standards and/or did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
Mr Humphries claims that the premises do not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards which provide detailed requirements for the provision of heating, adequate ventilation, drainage, minimising draughts and moisture ingress in rental properties.
However, the premises are exempt from compliance with the standards because they were intended to be demolished within 12 months of the tenancy commencing and the landlord had a consent for the demolition: Reg 31 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Despite this, I am satisfied that the premises did comply with the standards. Ms Hu provided in evidence a Healthy Homes Report dated 2 February 2022 which confirms the premises compliance with the standards with the exception of the requirement to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom ventilation. That work was completed by the landlord on 6 February 2022.
In addition to the Healthy Homes requirements, a landlord is required to 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”: section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant. 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 the landlord is notified or otherwise becomes aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner. If the landlord fails to complete repairs, after becoming aware of the need for the repair, within a reasonable time, the tenant may be entitled to compensation and/or exemplary damages may be ordered.
As mentioned, Mr Humphries claims that the landlord is in breach of the repair and maintenance obligation with respect to the following: • Draughts from the front door and windows • Black mould/dampness • Cracked kitchen ceiling containing asbestos • Leak from the kitchen window • Porch light/wiring • Bedroom light • Rodents Draughts
The Healthy Homes Report dated 2 February 2022 records that the premises do comply with the standards regarding draught stopping. Moreover, Mr Humphries accepts that he did not tell the landlord of his concerns regarding draughts.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Black mould/dampness
I am also not satisfied that Mr Humphries has established this claim either. He provided photographs of areas which he said was mould. However, the photographs were taken at the tenancy commencement and it is noted that the contractor employed by the landlord to clean the premises records that he did clean mould. Mr Humphries did not provide any photographs of mould that were taken during the tenancy or after the premises were cleaned at the tenancy commencement. Mr Humphries also accepts that he did not tell the landlord of his concerns during the tenancy. Asbestos in kitchen ceiling
Mr Humphries claims that the textured plaster ceiling in the kitchen contains asbestos and poses a danger because the ceiling has a crack.
However, the landlord had the premises tested for asbestos as part of the demolition process. The report dated 29 August 2022 records that the testing of the textured plastered kitchen ceiling detected no asbestos. Leak from kitchen window
Mr Humphries said that he noticed a leak from the kitchen window during the winter of 2022. However, he accepts that he did not tell the landlord of his findings and there is no evidence to support that the landlord was otherwise aware of the issue. Porch light/wiring and bedroom light
The landlord had the power reconnected to the premises and arranged for an electrician to inspect the wiring before the tenancy commenced. The electrician issued a Certificate of Compliance & Electrical Safety Certificate on 2 February 2022. However, Mr Humphries said that there was a live wire hanging from a connection in the porch area where a light should be. He said that he advised the landlord of his findings on 17 February 2022 and a porch light was installed soon after.
I do not consider that the landlord is in breach of any obligation owe to Mr Humphries regarding the porch light issue. I consider that they were entitled to rely on the electrical compliance certificate issued on 2 February as confirming that there were no electrical safety issues with the premises, and they remedied the issue within a reasonable time after being told of it by Mr Humphries.
I also do not consider that the landlord is in breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act with respect to the bedroom light. I accept that the landlord was not aware of the issue until the property inspection on 10 August 2022 and the light was fixed soon after (on 15 August 2022). Rodents and insects
Mr Humphries claims that there was a rat in the ceiling of the premises. He said that he put bait and traps in the ceiling but with no success.
However, I accept Ms Hu’s evidence that she was unaware of the problem with the rat and I am not satisfied that Mr Humphries has provided sufficient evidence to establish that he did tell the landlord of the problem.
Mr Humphries claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for failure to comply with the requirement to repair and maintain the premises is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord interfere with Mr Humphries quiet enjoyment?

Section 38(1) of the Act provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or its agents. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2). Where the landlord is in breach of section 38(2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, exemplary damages maybe payable.
Mr Humphries claims that his quiet enjoyment was breached by Ms Hu continually asking him to move out of the premises.
I do not consider that this constitutes an interference with his quiet enjoyment. Mr Humphries was aware when he entered the tenancy agreement that the tenancy would only be for eight months because the premises were due for demolition and the landlord had given Mr Humphries notice to vacate in September 2022. Mr Humphries did not move out as required under the notice and in fact did not move out until 28 February 2023. Ms Hu was therefore entitled to ask him to do so.
Mr Humphries also claimed that his quiet enjoyment was interfered with when the owner of the premises came to the premises on 5 December and yelled at him telling him to leave the premises or he will turn off the electricity and he will “have big penalties to pay”.
However, Ms Hu said that she had no idea that the owner had been to the premises. I am therefore not satisfied that the owner was acting under the landlord’s instructions or acting as an agent of the landlord.
The claim for interference with his quiet enjoyment is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I consider this appropriate case to award payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Mr Humphries applied 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).
However, Mr Humphries has been mostly unsuccessful in his defence to the landlord’s claim for rent and has been wholly unsuccessful in his claim. His application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4470505 — Rent arrears at 59 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013

Tenancy Tribunal case 4470505 — Rent arrears at 59 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

Act?

Is the notice issued on 19 September retaliatory?

Did the landlord interfere with Mr Humphries quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

Act?

Is the notice issued on 19 September retaliatory?

Did the landlord interfere with Mr Humphries quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions