What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4648670?

The tribunal order states: Waipa Ranui Incorporation must pay Noa Tangitu awhi aroha Matenga

How much money was awarded in case 4648670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648670?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10472281-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4648670?

The tribunal order states: Waipa Ranui Incorporation must pay Noa Tangitu awhi aroha Matenga

How much money was awarded in case 4648670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648670?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10472281-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

588A Ohautira Road, Raglan 3295 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648670 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Noa Matenga has made a formal application to the Tribunal about her tenancy at the Waipa Ranui farm cottage. The landlord is Waipa Ranui Incorporation (known as “WRI”). The tenancy started on 11 February 2021 and ended on 30 August 2023.

Ms Matenga has applied for compensation and exemplary damages alleging the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by:- a. Failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; section 45(1)(b) RTA (roof and fireplace), b. Acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds alleging that the reason given was to undertake repairs that had been promised before the tenancy was entered into and the termination notice was given without assessing the repairs needed; s60AA RTA, c. Breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy alleging that a third party was given information about the tenancy; s38 RTA, d. Failing to give notice of successor or change of contact person of landlord; s16 RTA.

The compensation claimed relates to living with poor maintenance and moving expenses.

Exemplary damages are like fines and are set at maximum levels in Schedule 1A RTA.

The person that makes the application must provide enough evidence to prove the claims. Maintenance during the tenancy

Waipa Ranui Incorporation acknowledges that it promised at the start of the tenancy to remove the non-operational fireplace and repair a panel in the roof.

The tenant said that water leaked into the lounge from around the chimney and she had to mop this up regularly for the more than two years of the tenancy. The chimney flue rattled loudly which was a disturbance especially when she had a baby in the house.

Noa Matenga sent follow up emails and texts to the property manager at the time, but the work was never done. The landlord says that this was partly because it was difficult to find tradespeople to do the work because of the remote location and the relatively small jobs.

This might explain some of the delay but does not excuse the work never being done.

The landlord did breach s45(1)(b) RTA by failing to do the work that it had promised to do. Acting to terminate the tenancy without grounds

Ms Matenga says in her application that the landlord’s decision to terminate the tenancy to do renovations and repairs was made without anyone inspecting or assessing the premises. She says that there was no prior communication with her and that ending the tenancy caused a lot of stress and uncertainty.

The landlord says that members of the committee knew what the condition of the cottage was and decided to upgrade it to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, do improvements inside, as well as remove the fireplace and repair the roof.

I heard oral evidence about the work done which included the fireplace and roof jobs, renovating the kitchen and bathroom, replacing all window latches and stays, and repainting inside. The landlord also sent an email to the tenant on 30 July 2023 that mentioned house foundations, decking and roofing.

I accept the landlord’s oral evidence that extensive work has been done and that this took several months to complete as committee members had to do the work themselves. The uncertain timeframes meant that it was not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain living at the house while the work was done.

The landlord did not act to terminate the tenancy knowing that it was not entitled to do so. I find that the reason for the termination was genuine.

It is accepted by the landlord that it did not communicate well with the tenant about what was planned. She experienced a lot of stress and uncertainty because of that. Breach of privacy

Ms Matenga says she was told that her tenancy was to be terminated by a third party and that this person knew about it before she did. The landlord says that no one was told about the decision before her, except for the committee.

This claim has not been proven. There is not enough evidence for me to find a breach. Failing to give notice of successor or change of contact person of landlord

Ms Matenga said that she was not notified of a change of property manager which meant she did not know who to contact for several months.

Section 16 RTA says that if there is a change of the name or contact details for a person who has been notified to be the contact person for a tenancy, then the other party must be notified of the new details within 10 working days.

The tenant emailed the landlord’s service address on 1 March 2023 to ask who the new property manager was. She did not hear back. The first communication she received was on 16 May 2023 when she was emailed the notice to terminate the tenancy.

I agree that the landlord has breached s16 RTA by not providing the tenant with the new name and contact details for the new property manager, or if there was no new property manager appointed at that time, by not responding to her. However, in practical terms, Ms Matenga did still have the email address for the committee and knew who the other trustees were, so she was able to contact someone. Compensation and exemplary damages

Ms Matenga has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages. She says that she incurred cost and time because of the maintenance breach and distress from not knowing who was managing the tenancy and what was going on.

The tenant has proved two of her claims: the landlord did fail to do the work it promised and did fail to communicate about the new property manager. I have decided that the reason for terminating the tenancy was genuine and the evidence does not show a breach of privacy.

I am satisfied that the settlement offer made by WRI of $1,600.00 compensation is appropriate and fair. It recognises the time, cost, and frustration of the maintenance work not being done and the communication failures. WRI’s representative confirmed in the hearing that this offer is still open. I have ordered payment of this amount.

I record that WRI also waives payment of $228.57 of rent owing at the end of the tenancy.

The bond has been refunded to the tenant in full.

I do not award additional exemplary damages or the filing fee.

Importantly, WRI’s representative said that a written apology or acknowledgement of the issues has been approved by the WRI committee and that this will be given to Ms Matenga as soon as possible.

Neither party seeks suppression of name.