What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4572809?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4572809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4572809?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4572809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9179672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4572809?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4572809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4572809?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Harassment, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4572809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9179672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Jollie Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4572809 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Hawke, who manages the tenancy, represented the landlord. For convenience, I will refer to both him and the named landlord as the landlord.

The tenant claims compensation for breach by the landlord of their obligations concerning the condition of the premises and for interference with her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The landlord denies any breach. Law

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Generally, a landlord will be found to have been breach of this obligation where they become aware of that the premises are not, in some respect, in a reasonable state of repair and they fail to remedy the disrepair within a reasonable time. Usually, the landlord relies on the tenant to inform them of the need for repair.

Certain Healthy Homes regulation apply to this tenancy but not the regulations that took effect from 1 July 2021 such as the Draught Stopping Standard. This tenancy began in February 2021. That means that the recent regulations apply either after 90 days or 120 days (depending on the date of renewal) if the tenancy is renewed after 1 July 2021. The tenancy has not been renewed. The landlord changed in March 2022, but that is not a renewal. Therefore, the more recent regulations do not apply.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

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".

The tenant is required to establish her claims to the civil law standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. That means proving that the facts necessary to establish the claims are more likely than not to be true. Evidence

The tenant gave detailed evidence and provided some messages between the parties and some photographs. There was no direct third-party evidence such as a building report or anything of that nature.

The landlord produced three photographs and the summary page of a Healthy Homes Inspection Report from February 2021. It appears that the report was commissioned by the previous landlord. It concluded that the premises were compliant with the (current) Healthy Homes Regulations apart from some draught stopping needed for the front and back doors.

Independent evidence generally was therefore thin on the ground.

He landlord has carried out all the repair work to the premises. He has not employed any contractors. He said that his background is maintenance engineering and that he felt he was competent to deal with the repairs. He said that the owner was struggling with their finances, and so he was under instructions to keep expenses down. I note that a landlord’s financial situation does not affect their repairing obligations. The Claims Taps

The tenant said that the taps in the kitchen and bathroom were difficult to turn on and off and that they couldn’t be fully turned off.

The landlord said that he had found one of the taps needed some attention and after he had cleaned it up and lubricated it was working well. He was called back to see to the taps, but he said that he found no fault with them.

Plainly, the parties disagree about the condition of the taps. The onus of proof is on the tenant and without better evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the taps were not in a reasonable state of repair after the landlord attended to them. Rangehood

The tenant complained that air blew back from the outside vent for the rangehood and that this is still a problem even after the landlord’s fix.

The outside vent in under the eaves in the soffit and it does not have any means to prevent blow back. The landlord said that such is not necessary because the vent is on the horizontal not the vertical. But there are flaps directly above the rangehood that are designed to stay closed when the rangehood is not operating.

I accept the tenant’s evidence that the flaps were not working properly because the ducting for the rangehood had concertinaed and obstructed them. Although there was no photograph showing the flaps, that seems likely from seeing a photograph of the ducting directly above the rangehood.

The landlord stretched the ducting just above the rangehood by taping two chopsticks to the ducting which supported it in its extended state. He said that removed any risk of the ducting impinging on the movement of the flaps. Although the fix appears to be somewhat “Heath Robinson”, I accept that it has resolved the problem.

The landlord responded to the tenant’s concern within a reasonable time and therefore they have complied with their repairing obligation. Doors

The tenant complained that the draught excluder fitted to the back door did not allow her to lay a mat on the floor where the door opened. She said that there was no porch outside the door and when it was wet, there was no mat to mitigate the water brought in from the outside.

The landlord said that the draught excluder had to meet the floor to be effective. I’m not sure that’s correct because the door threshold is raised. But this does seem to be more an issue of the lack of a porch rather than a want of repair. The tenant cannot of course expect a porch when one was not there originally.

It is not appropriate for me to make any order in relation to the draught excluder on the door, but I would encourage the landlord to consider whether it can be adjusted or altered so that the tenant can have a mat inside the door. Garage Door

The tenant said that the garage tilt door became impossible for her to use. The landlord agreed, and he carried out some work on it by lifting it and resecuring it. He said that it was an old door and when he looked around for someone to repair it, no one was willing to do so. He maintained that the door was now usable and safe to use.

The tenant said that she does not use it because it flaps in the wind, and she is concerned that it could injure someone or damage her car. She said that due to the condition of the door, she has not kept her car in the garage, and it has suffered damage as a result. There were no photographs showing the car damage or of the cost to repair it.

The photographs of the door show, at most, minor deflection of one of the brackets. Plainly it can be opened and closed, and the evidence does not prove that it is not in a reasonable state of repair. That said, it is plainly coming to the end of its life, and it may not be long before it must be replaced. The landlord should be vigilant regarding the door and take the necessary steps before it gets to the stage that it becomes unusable. Gaps

There are photographs showing the wardrobe in the tenant’s bedroom where the lining at the back does not meet the floor and there is no skirting board. The tenants said that the gap allows a draught and insects to crawl out into the wardrobe and into the bedroom.

The landlord said that the wardrobe walls are internal walls and so there should not be a draught. He said he had not noticed the gap at the bottom of the wall.

In my view the gap is unacceptable and there should be skirting board fitted to cover it. I am not satisfied that the tenant has raised the issue before now and so I find no failure by the landlord to comply with their repairing obligations. There is no claim for a work order, but I expect the landlord to install the skirting board promptly if the tenant requires it. Hot Water

The tenant is concerned about the temperature of the hot water in the premises. Her concern appears to be more about the possibility that the water temperature could rise to an unacceptable degree due to a fault with the thermostat.

The landlord tried the water, and he was satisfied that it was within an acceptable temperature range. There was no evidence to contradict that. Driveway

The tenant said that construction work nearby had damaged the driveway. The landlord disagreed and said that the driveway was in a reasonable condition.

There were no photographs of the driveway and so I am unable to assess its condition. Quiet Enjoyment

The landlord flatly denied the tenant’s allegations that he has been dismissive and condescending towards her. He also denied that he had visited the premises too frequently or contacting her too frequently or at inappropriate times.

The messages that have been produced do not support the tenant’s claims. Rather, they show the landlord being considerate in terms of giving the tenant more notice than the Act requires and being accommodating of the tenant’s wishes to be present during inspections. I note that the Act does not require landlords to accommodate tenants in that way.

The evidence does not prove that the landlord has interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises. Result

It follows from my findings above that the tenant’s application must be dismissed. Comment

It was obvious to me that the tenant has been seriously vexed by her concerns about the premises and about the landlord’s manner. I have found that her claims have not been proved. I would hope that the parties can have a more constructive and amicable relationship in the future.

If the tenant does feel the need to make another application to the Tribunal, she should consider the value of evidence from an independent and qualified witness. I appreciate that there may well be a cost associated with that, but the benefit of it may justify the cost and that cost, if the claims are proved, may be recoverable.