What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4546710?

The tribunal order states: Taylor Property Services Limited as Agent for Debasis Bandypadhyay must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4546710?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546710?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10318660-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4546710?

The tribunal order states: Taylor Property Services Limited as Agent for Debasis Bandypadhyay must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4546710?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4546710?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4546710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10318660-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A304, 176 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4546710 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was held by video conference at the tenant’s request.

This was the second part of this hearing, my earlier decision deals with the landlord claims and the tenant’s claims for a reassessment of water rates and overpaid rent. Fridge

Ritu Kalani and Yogeshwar Kalani claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This includes maintaining chattels supplied as part of the tenancy.

In the present case, the tenancy agreement included the provision of a Fridge/Freezer.

On 16 March 2020, the tenant advised the landlord that the fridge was making a constant, irritating beeping noise.

The landlord sent a technician to repair the fridge. That technician advised that the fridge needed to be replaced. The landlord sought approval for the replacement from the owner. On 23 March 2020, the new fridge was ordered. The model ordered was not immediately available and had to be ordered for delivery to the premises.

On 25 March 2020, the Covid-19 level 3, and 4 lockdowns were announced. Those caused the tenant to become concerned that the fridge would not be delivered, leaving him to endure the beeping noise for the duration of the lockdown.

The landlord’s position is that he told the tenant, by telephone, that the fridge was considered an essential item which could be delivered during the lockdown.

The tenant denies that he was told this.

The tenant went to Noel Leeming and negotiated the purchase of an alternate fridge for the same cost as the one ordered by the landlord (also from Noel Leeming), and they were able to replace the ordered one with the one purchased.

The tenant had to arrange and pay $150.00 for the delivery of the Fridge. He seeks reimbursement of that cost, together with $350.00 compensation for the 7 hours he says he spent in Noel Leeming arranging this, and 50% of the rent paid for the 9 days the fridge was beeping. The tenant says the beeping meant he could not be in the kitchen or living areas of the house as it was too loud. The tenant did not want to turn the fridge off, or food would spoil.

I find that there was a loss of amenity while the fridge was beeping. The tenant was in the position of choosing between turning it off, and not having a fridge, or putting up with the irritation of the beeping. However, I do not accept that rent should be reduced by 50%. The tenant still had use of the entire apartment, including the fridge, albeit with some inconvenience. I am mindful, also, that the landlord was taking steps to remedy the issue. This is not a case where nothing was done, and I do not think the delay was egregious. That said, I consider that the landlord should have chosen an “in stock” fridge rather than one on back order. Even leaving aside the issue with covid, the expected delivery time was unreasonable, when there were in stock options close to the same cost, such as the one ultimate chosen by the tenant.

Rather than try to calculate a proportion of rent, I award $200.00 in general compensation pursuant to s77(2)(n) for the loss of amenity suffered.

In relation to the delivery fee and the labour component sought by the tenant, these arose from the announcement of the covid-19 lockdown and the tenant’s anxiety about delivery during that time.

I accept the evidence of the landlord that a fridge was an essential item which was able to be delivered during lockdown.

The tenant’s position is that he was not told that, whereas the landlord is clear that he did tell the tenant that by telephone.

Having heard both witnesses over the course of two hearings, I assessed the landlord as being credible and honest in his evidence. He accepted points where necessary and did not appear to exaggerate his evidence. The tenant was less prepared to accept alternate views and was prone to overly emotive descriptions and what I assessed to be exaggerated claims.

I prefer the evidence of the landlord, and I find that he did tell the tenant that the fridge could and would be delivered during lockdown.

Accordingly, I do not consider that the delivery fee and the time spent by the tenant at Noel Leeming is a loss caused by the landlord’s actions. This portion of the claim is dismissed. Harassment

Ritu Kalani and Yogeshwar Kalani claims the landlord has harassed them.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

When the tenant gave notice to terminate the tenancy, the landlord acknowledged that by email, together with their standard check sheet for the end of tenancies. This document includes commercial cleaning of carpets.

On 3 February 2023 the landlord attended the premises to take photographs for the re-listing of the property. During that visit he noticed staining to the carpet and suggested that commercial cleaning might be required to bring it up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required by the Act.

By email on 25 February 2023, the tenant disputed that the carpets were in a different state to the start of the tenancy and stated that he did not accept that commercial carpet cleaning was required by the Act.

As he was not the property manager at the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord accepted the tenant’s evidence that the carpets were in the same condition as the commencement of the tenancy and did not seek commercial cleaning. Not application for that was filed with the Tribunal.

The tenant submits that this exchange amounts to harassment.

I do not agree. Rather this is an entirely normal exchange as parties prepare to terminate a tenancy. The landlord set out his expectations, and the tenant his position in relation to what was required of him. The landlord accepted that and there was no further issue in relation to the carpets.

The landlord’s emails were timely and courteous, and I do not find fault with his approach.

For completeness, while I agree with the tenant that carpet cleaning is not always required for a premises to be left reasonably clean and tidy, I also accept the landlord’s submission that sometimes carpet wear and staining goes beyond fair wear and tear, and commercial cleaning is justified. Ultimately that would be a matter for the Tribunal to determine on application.

In the present case, I find the landlord has not harassed the tenant. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons