What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4501529?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 4501529?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501529?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9175554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4501529?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 4501529?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4501529?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4501529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9175554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4501529 — Leaks

Order

The claim is dismissed

Reasons

All parties appeared for an in person hearing. Healthy Homes Report

Mia has claimed that the landlord failed to provide her with a Healthy Homes Report. Under section 13A(1CA) a landlord is not required to provide a Healthy Homes Report to a tenant. The requirement is that the landlord provides: a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards. The landlord provided that statement to the tenant as part of the tenancy agreement.
There has been no Regulation made under s138(B)(5) regarding Healthy Homes Reports.
This claim must be dismissed. Compensation for the deck failure.
Mia claimed compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the deck. This claim came about because Mia’s mother suffered a serious injury to her leg when a piece of decking collapsed and her leg went through the deck. I appreciate that this was a disturbing event for Mia and her mother.
A landlord can be liable to pay compensation where there is a failure to maintain the premises. That is usually where a maintenance issue is known and the landlord fails to remedy the problem. However in this case it was not known by anyone that there was a problem with the board on the deck that failed. If it had been obvious, Mia’s mother would not have stepped on it. If it had been obvious, Mia would have reported it to the landlord before her mother stepped on it. A few boards have now been replaced however the does not mean that the landlord should have known that there was going to be a failure of a board on the deck. It has not been proved that the failure of the decking board was foreseeable or that the landlord neglected to carry out obvious maintenance. Therefore this claim must be dismissed. Windows.
Mia has claimed that the landlord was in breach of Healthy Homes Standards regarding the gaps in some windows. She referred to a Healthy Homes Report she commissioned in January 2023. It showed some gaps in louvre windows.
The landlord provided evidence showing that in July 2022, when the tenancy began, the landlord commissioned a Healthy Homes Report for the property. The Report revealed that the property was compliant, including the windows. However the landlord decided that as part of maintenance, the windows would be replaced. In a text from Mia to the landlord on 20 August 2022 she requested the landlord not to change the windows because it would take one to three days. She stated, “I don’t care about the windows, they don’t need to be replaced”.
I am satisfied that the landlord complied with Mia’s wishes and the windows were not replaced. If Mia had agreed to the window change the windows would have been compliant when they were later tested and found to have gaps.
The claim is dismissed because the landlord acted on the information available about the windows in July 2022 and the tenant did not want the windows changed. Compensation is declined. Shower wall failure and leaking shower tap
Mia has claimed compensation because of the condition of the shower. However the landlord’s evidence shows that there was no problem with the shower lining at the time the tenancy began. The property manager stated that the first time he had been made aware of the state of the shower lining was when Mia made the application to the Tribunal. Mia is ending her tenancy and the shower will be replaced when she has gone. If Mia wished to have the shower replaced before now, she should have informed the landlord as soon as the shower wall failed.
Mia also believes that the landlord failed to repair the shower taps. She showed a video of water coming from a tap handle. The video was on 22 August. The landlord provided a video dated 8 September. It showed that the tap had been repaired because water was coming out of the shower head but not leaking from the tap. The landlord provided evidence of plumbing bills relation to the shower. The evidence does not support Mia’s claim that the landlord failed to fix the shower tap.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord failed to maintain the shower at the property. It is an old shower. The landlord was not required to upgrade it, only to maintain it. The claim for compensation regarding the shower is dismissed. Water leak – Ceiling
Mia referred to the damage to the ceiling from the leak above the ceiling. The evidence about this damage supports the landlord’s submission that Mia caused the damage. The evidence shows that Mia asked for the washing machine that had been left by previous tenants, to remain so she could use it. The landlord did so on the condition that she disposed of it when she left the tenancy. Mia failed to correctly connect the washing machine to the taps and caused the leak. She has placed the blame on the landlord but the landlord could claim the cost of repairs to the property from Mia. Mia’s claim against the landlord regarding ceiling repairs must be dismissed. It would be Mia’s responsibility to repair the ceiling. Cost of the Healthy Homes Report
Mia has also claimed the cost of obtaining her own Healthy Homes Report. She believes that the landlord should pay for this because the landlord would not provide her with a report and the report showed windows with gaps. However as stated above, the landlord was not required to provide a report to Mia. The failure of the windows to comply was because Mia did not want the landlord to replace them. Other repairs were carried out by the landlord when Mia informed him about it. There are insufficient grounds for the landlord to pay for the January 2023 report. Other
Mai has made other claims in her application, such as a breach of her quiet enjoyment, a range hood replacement and the landlord failing to maintain the premises. I do not find these claims proved. On the contrary, the evidence shows that after Mia brought maintenance matters to the landlord’s attention the maintenance was carried out promptly. Summary
For the reasons set out in this decision the claims for compensation and for the recovery of the filing fee must be dismissed.

Order

The claim is dismissed

Reasons

All parties appeared for an in person hearing. Healthy Homes Report

Mia has claimed that the landlord failed to provide her with a Healthy Homes Report. Under section 13A(1CA) a landlord is not required to provide a Healthy Homes Report to a tenant. The requirement is that the landlord provides: a statement, made and signed by the landlord,— that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards. The landlord provided that statement to the tenant as part of the tenancy agreement.
There has been no Regulation made under s138(B)(5) regarding Healthy Homes Reports.
This claim must be dismissed. Compensation for the deck failure.
Mia claimed compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the deck. This claim came about because Mia’s mother suffered a serious injury to her leg when a piece of decking collapsed and her leg went through the deck. I appreciate that this was a disturbing event for Mia and her mother.
A landlord can be liable to pay compensation where there is a failure to maintain the premises. That is usually where a maintenance issue is known and the landlord fails to remedy the problem. However in this case it was not known by anyone that there was a problem with the board on the deck that failed. If it had been obvious, Mia’s mother would not have stepped on it. If it had been obvious, Mia would have reported it to the landlord before her mother stepped on it. A few boards have now been replaced however the does not mean that the landlord should have known that there was going to be a failure of a board on the deck. It has not been proved that the failure of the decking board was foreseeable or that the landlord neglected to carry out obvious maintenance. Therefore this claim must be dismissed. Windows.
Mia has claimed that the landlord was in breach of Healthy Homes Standards regarding the gaps in some windows. She referred to a Healthy Homes Report she commissioned in January 2023. It showed some gaps in louvre windows.
The landlord provided evidence showing that in July 2022, when the tenancy began, the landlord commissioned a Healthy Homes Report for the property. The Report revealed that the property was compliant, including the windows. However the landlord decided that as part of maintenance, the windows would be replaced. In a text from Mia to the landlord on 20 August 2022 she requested the landlord not to change the windows because it would take one to three days. She stated, “I don’t care about the windows, they don’t need to be replaced”.
I am satisfied that the landlord complied with Mia’s wishes and the windows were not replaced. If Mia had agreed to the window change the windows would have been compliant when they were later tested and found to have gaps.
The claim is dismissed because the landlord acted on the information available about the windows in July 2022 and the tenant did not want the windows changed. Compensation is declined. Shower wall failure and leaking shower tap
Mia has claimed compensation because of the condition of the shower. However the landlord’s evidence shows that there was no problem with the shower lining at the time the tenancy began. The property manager stated that the first time he had been made aware of the state of the shower lining was when Mia made the application to the Tribunal. Mia is ending her tenancy and the shower will be replaced when she has gone. If Mia wished to have the shower replaced before now, she should have informed the landlord as soon as the shower wall failed.
Mia also believes that the landlord failed to repair the shower taps. She showed a video of water coming from a tap handle. The video was on 22 August. The landlord provided a video dated 8 September. It showed that the tap had been repaired because water was coming out of the shower head but not leaking from the tap. The landlord provided evidence of plumbing bills relation to the shower. The evidence does not support Mia’s claim that the landlord failed to fix the shower tap.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the landlord failed to maintain the shower at the property. It is an old shower. The landlord was not required to upgrade it, only to maintain it. The claim for compensation regarding the shower is dismissed. Water leak – Ceiling
Mia referred to the damage to the ceiling from the leak above the ceiling. The evidence about this damage supports the landlord’s submission that Mia caused the damage. The evidence shows that Mia asked for the washing machine that had been left by previous tenants, to remain so she could use it. The landlord did so on the condition that she disposed of it when she left the tenancy. Mia failed to correctly connect the washing machine to the taps and caused the leak. She has placed the blame on the landlord but the landlord could claim the cost of repairs to the property from Mia. Mia’s claim against the landlord regarding ceiling repairs must be dismissed. It would be Mia’s responsibility to repair the ceiling. Cost of the Healthy Homes Report
Mia has also claimed the cost of obtaining her own Healthy Homes Report. She believes that the landlord should pay for this because the landlord would not provide her with a report and the report showed windows with gaps. However as stated above, the landlord was not required to provide a report to Mia. The failure of the windows to comply was because Mia did not want the landlord to replace them. Other repairs were carried out by the landlord when Mia informed him about it. There are insufficient grounds for the landlord to pay for the January 2023 report. Other
Mai has made other claims in her application, such as a breach of her quiet enjoyment, a range hood replacement and the landlord failing to maintain the premises. I do not find these claims proved. On the contrary, the evidence shows that after Mia brought maintenance matters to the landlord’s attention the maintenance was carried out promptly. Summary
For the reasons set out in this decision the claims for compensation and for the recovery of the filing fee must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501529 — Leaks at 26 Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4501529 — Leaks at 26 Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

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