What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4512732?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ request for suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 4512732?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,371.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4512732?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4512732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9091843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4512732?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ request for suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 4512732?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Abatement: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,371.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4512732?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4512732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9091843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit5, 245A Bealey Avenue, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4512732 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4512732 — net $171.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,371.42		Rent arrears
Rent abatement to 17 July 2023		$1,200.00	Rent abatement to 17 July 2023
Compensation property condition		$1,000.00	Compensation property condition
Exemplary damages tenancy agreement		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages tenancy agreement
Total award	$3,371.42	$3,200.00
Net award	$171.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$171.42

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4512732 — net $171.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,371.42		Rent arrears
Rent abatement to 17 July 2023		$1,200.00	Rent abatement to 17 July 2023
Compensation property condition		$1,000.00	Compensation property condition
Exemplary damages tenancy agreement		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages tenancy agreement
Total award	$3,371.42	$3,200.00
Net award	$171.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$171.42

Order

The tenants’ request for suppression is refused.
For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal order made on 22 March 2023 is set aside.
Matthew Tereniti August and Danielle Johns must pay Alison Ross and Malcolm John Ross $171.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenants’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The landlords’ claim for termination and possession is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Johns attended the hearing for the tenants. The landlords both attended.
This was a rehearing following the Tribunal’s decision to grant a rehearing because it appeared that the tenants might have valid money claims against the landlords that they could set off against the landlords’ claim for rent arrears and so avoid termination and possession.
The tenants have filed a cross application and because there is no dispute that $3,371.42 rent is unpaid, the hearing was to deal with the tenants’ claims. Background
This periodic tenancy began on 4 February 2023 at a rent of $590 per week. The tenants are first time renters. The landlords are experienced landlords.
The premises is a town house on three floors. The ground floor consists of a double garage, a bedroom and a bathroom. On the first floor are the living area and kitchen. On the second floor are two bedrooms and a bathroom.
Shortly after the tenants moved in, they discovered areas of damp and rot in the downstairs bathroom and, to a lesser extent, in the adjoining bedroom. The landlords removed linings in the bathroom and discovered that there was substantial water damage behind them from a water leak. The tenants claim that the bathroom and bedroom have been unusable since they moved in, and they claim a rent abatement for their loss of use of them.
They make other claims concerning the condition of the premises including that they were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness, carpet was loose, noncompliance with Healthy Homes Regulations, no key to the back door, landlords’ belongings in the garage, a non-functioning spa bath and electrical faults. They also claim interference with their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
For the following reasons I have found some but not all the tenants’ claims proved, and I have awarded them a total of $3,200 which all but extinguishes the rent arrears.
The ground floor bathroom remains all but unusable and so the tenants are entitled to a rent abatement until it has been repaired. I have made an order for rent abatement to date and for compensation and exemplary damages. I have dismissed the landlords’ application for termination and possession. The parties need to discuss and try to agree the way forward. The repairs need to be started and completed, the tenants must pay the bond and the rent going forward subject to a rent abatement until the repairs have been completed. It should be possible for the parties to come an agreement so that they do not need to come back to this Tribunal with claims. The Tenants’ Claims Ground Floor
After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that ground floor bathroom is all but unusable. A large area of wall lining had been removed and the framing there is black with mould. I would not expect the tenants to have to use it.
The tenants claimed that the landlords were aware of the water leak in the bathroom since before the tenancy and that they tried to cover it up. There was some evidence for that allegation, but it was not enough to prove the claim. I find, therefore, that the condition of the bathroom was not the result of any breach by the landlord.
I am not persuaded that the adjoining bedroom is unusable although I can understand if the tenants are reluctant to use it. The tenants put a small hole in the wall when they applied pressure to an area that they suspected was affected by damp from the bathroom. It was, and the area gave way. In my view the tenants could have tested that area without making a hole in the wall.
Assessing the amount of rent abatement in this type of situation I not a science. It is an exercise in judgment after considering the use of the unusable part of the premises, its size relative to the premises and the affect on the tenants of being without its use. I have determined that there should be an abatement of approximately 10% of the rent and I have abated the rent to date by $1200. Other Claims Concerning the Condition of the Premises
The tenants have made other claims concerning the condition of the premises and the landlord’s failure to comply with relevant building laws and failure to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I note that the more recent Healthy Homes Regulations applied to this tenancy 120 days after it began. That means that they applied from 3 June 2023.
The landlord produced two Healthy Homes Reports after the hearing. A report dated January 2023 found that the premises were noncompliant in several respects. A report in May found the premises to be fully compliant. It follows that the landlords have complied with their Healthy Homes obligations.
The tenants claim that the premises were not provided to them in a reasonable state of cleanliness. They did not produce any photographic evidence to support the claim and they did not complain to the landlords at the time. The landlords’ denied the claim. I find that the claim has not been proved.
There was property belonging to the landlords in the garage at the start of the tenancy and the landlords’ daughter delivered more of their property to the premises during the tenancy. The landlords said that the premises were let partly furnished and that some of the things in the garage were provided for the tenants’ use, if they wanted them.
The tenants said that they were unable to use the garage due to the quantity of landlords’ belongings in it.
I find that some of the property left at the premises was for the tenants’ use and that they did use it. Some was not and should not have been left there. The landlord produced a photograph showing the garage being used by the tenants as a habitable space which suggests that the tenants were content not to use for their car.
I find there has been a breach by the landlords for failing to remove all their belongings from the premises before the tenancy began. It is not a serious breach, but it should attract some compensation.
The tenants were not provided with a key to the back door. The door locks but the tenants cannot gain access to the premises through the door when it is locked. I find that the tenants had a reasonable expectation that they would be given a key for the back door. The resulting inconvenience it slight but some compensation is appropriate.
The tenants said that in the upstairs bathroom the spa function in the bath does not work and that the heater and electrical outlets did not work. Plainly they should all work and any electrical repairs that were necessary should have been carried out reasonably promptly.
The tenants complained about the appearance of the upstairs shower, but I do not find any breach in that respect.
Carpet was not securely attached to the floor in one area. Ms Johns said that she tripped on the carpet, fell and suffered a dental injury which needs treatment. Personal injury falls to be dealt with by ACC and so I can give no remedy for that. The carpet should have been secure. A carpet layer did attend but left after a disagreement with the tenants.
After taking all things into consideration, I find that compensation in the sum of $1,000 is appropriate for the breaches that I have found to be established. I don’t find that there have been any serious or deliberate breaches that would warrant an award of exemplary damages. Other Claims
The tenants claim that the landlords have interfered with their quiet enjoyment and privacy and that they have unlawfully entered the premises.
The tenants were in arrears with their rent and the landlord called them over a weekend to find out what was going on. There is dispute over how many calls were made. The tenants said they found that very stressful.
The tenants did not answer the calls. Perhaps if they had, they could have avoided the stress they say they suffered. The tenants also complained that the landlords got a neighbour to call on them regarding the rent arrears. The landlords live in Nelson, and I see nothing wrong with them appointing someone local to enquire about the rent when the tenants were not answering calls.
The tenants also complain about the landlords trying to push their way into the premises after arranging for some work to be done. The tenants did not want the landlords doing any work, only the plumber. There were also complaints about contractors not arriving as arranged.
Having considered the complaints and the evidence I am not satisfied that there has been any significant breach by the landlords. To the extent that there has been any breach, I do not consider that exemplary damages or compensation is warranted. Tenancy Agreement
It was apparent that the landlords failed to comply with their obligations to provide information with the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.
A landlord must also state whether the premises are insured and, if so, the excess for damage to the premises.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $900.00.
A landlord must also provide Healthy Homes information.
The landlords have signally failed to comply with any of their obligations to provide the tenants with any of the information that they were entitled to.
The landlords are experienced landlords and there is no excuse for failing to provide the required information. There were at least three unlawful acts, and I am satisfied that there should be an award of exemplary damages for them. It is important for tenant to be given the required information and it is in the public interest that landlords comply with these obligations.
Each breach attracts its own maximum award. Looking at the situation in the round, an award of $1,000 is warranted. Bond
The tenants should have paid $2,330 bond but they have not done so. I cannot deal with this issue under these applications. I would expect the tenants to pay the bond or arrange with the landlords to pay it. It will be up to the landlord to decide what to do if this cannot be resolved with the tenants. I would hope that it does not require another application to the Tribunal. Result
The award to the tenants has all but extinguished the rent arrears. It is not appropriate, in my view, to make any order on the landlord’s application apart from ordering the tenants to pay the remaining rent arrears. Suppression
Both sides have applied for suppression. Plainly there has been fault on both sides in this case and no one has been a clear winner. There is no good reason that overcomes the desire for open justice and so both applications are refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4512732 — Rent arrears at Unit5, 245A Bealey Avenue, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4512732 — Rent arrears at Unit5, 245A Bealey Avenue, Christchurch 8013

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