How much money was awarded in case 4665274?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665274?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665274?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9560315-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4665274?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4665274?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4665274?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9560315-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Blackwater Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4665274 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4665274?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nadine Cara Amos at 15 Blackwater Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814 is

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Nadine Cara Amos at 15 Blackwater Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814 is terminated, and possession is granted to Xi Feng, at 5pm on Friday 27 th October 2023.

The Bond is not to be returned at this time until the final inspection.

The application of the tenant in relation to all other claims is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Amos had a support person with her.

The landlord had applied for termination of her fixed term tenancy together with a number of other claims. The landlord consented to the termination and agreement was reached between the parties that the tenancy will end on or before Friday 27 th October at 5pm.

The history of this tenancy is that it commenced with the previous tenant introducing this tenant to the landlord. The tenant lived in Christchurch at the time and although sited the property, she signed the tenancy agreement when she was in Christchurch and whilst it commenced on the first of March 2023, the tenant only moved in on the 15 March 2023.

The previous tenant appears to have moved out approximately 26 th February.

The difficulty is there was no pre inspection report for this tenancy and no exit inspection for the previous tenant. The previous tenant arranged a friend to get the key to the new tenant.

On the 20 th March, five days after the tenant moved in, she emailed the landlord stating she had done a significant clean and raising issues she wanted to be addressed. A face to face meeting was held on the 27 March 2023. It is to be noted that some of the issues were mentioned in the text exchange before the tenancy agreement was signed.

The applicant now claims for reimbursement of a number of items she had paid for and for exemplary damages.I shall deal with each of them separately. Cleaning:

The claim is for $6,780.00 for cleaning the house when she arrived. This is for her and three other people on occasion and their travel to Bluff. This is for a two bedroom home (one of the rooms was not included in the tenancy). This does not include exterior window clean carpet clean nor oven clean. This is certainly an excessive amount for this type of claim.

In the email she subsequently sent to the landlord she does not seek reimbursement and states “ Athough some of this is not your responsibility it wasn’t fair for me to arrive to the house in that state”.

There is no photo evidence of the cleaning that was required.

The landlord provided photo evidence of the home just prior to the tenant moving in. Her evidence is that it was clean and tidy.

There is insufficient evidence to support the cleaning that was required and the amount to pay for such a clean. TV Aerial:

The tenant raised in a text message to the landlord prior to moving in and signing the agreement, the connection for the TV. The landlord replied that it was a situation for the tenant to sort out.

The tenant subsequently instructed a company to install an aerial and tune in the tv. She seeks reimbursement for $382.18.

The tenant claim it is the landlord’s responsibility. In her own evidence she has submitted it states: “A landlord can be responsible....” It also states “ if a property’s not set up to receive digital TV, they don’t have to install or upgrade equipment to receive it”

On the evidence I do not accept that the landlord is required to make such a payment to the tenant. She made her views clear in the text exchange. Exterior Window Clean / Weeding Berm:

The tenant claims to have known someone in Tauranga in relation to the company Bro Drove 20120 Ltd whom she contacted to arrange someone to clean the windows and weed eat and mow the berm of the property in Bluff. She advises she paid them the invoices and they sent around the person to do the work.

She provided their invoice from a standard invoice book, number 11997, dated 5 May 2023 for outside windows. It does not provide for a GST number, nor an amount of GST is included.

The following invoice, number 11998 (indicating the next page of the invoice book) is dated a month later 6 th June 2023 for the same company for the Weed eating of the Berm and one off lawn mowing. Again, no GST number is provided and not amount of GST included in this invoice.

This is some time after the tenant moved in. There is no mention of the issue with the berm and in relation to the windows, in the email of 20 March and 1 April for the tenant to the landlord, there is the suggestion to the landlord to get the windows cleaned “as a sign of good will”.

On the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord should make payment for these accounts. There is no evidence that this was required for the tenant to have moved in. Oven Clean:

The tenant claims for the cost she incurred on the 5 May 2023 to clean the oven. She states the delay was due to it not being fixed until later. The evidence from the electrician is that it was fixed on the 30 th March 2023.

The photo evidence is insufficient to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the oven clean was required when the tenant moved in on the 15 March. Contribution for increased electrical costs:

The tenant claims $200.00 for the increase in her electricity claiming she could not use the bath until 10 th May when the shower was fixed. She claimed the use of the bath and the draft as a reason for the electricity doubling in June and July.

There is evidence of her June July account being higher however no independent evidence as to why. They are the winter months and also there is no indication of the invoices being all actual and or all estimates or some actual and some estimates.

Based on the evidence, I do not accept the claim is proven. Failure to supply smoke alarms:

Nadine Cara Amos claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016

Breaching any of the obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The claim is that the landlord failed to provide and supply smoke alarms. The landlord accepted that there were no alarms as she had purchased them and it is her evidence that the tenant would not reply to her messages to arrange to have them fitted. The landlords witness also gave evidence to support this. The tenant stated she only wanted to communicate via email. She stated that the landlord had enough information from the emails to do the work required and would not answer messages to meet up. The installation could not take place.

The landlord has not filed a counter claim in relation to the tenant obstructing the installation.

Based on the evidence I do not accept that the landlord should be punished for failing to instal the smoke alarms under these circumstances. Failing to lodge the bond:

Nadine Cara Amos claims that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord failed to lodge the bond stating that she tried to get the tenant to sign the bond lodgement form and she failed to do so, so she was unable to lodge the form. There was evidence of one message to the tenant about the need to possibly have her sign the form at the beginning of the tenancy. There was no further evidence of a follow up.

There was evidence however of the refusal of the tenant to engage with the landlord unless it was through email. The communication had broken down completely.

The landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing the lodge the bond, the tenant failed to sign the necessary form.

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.

The tenancy was not yet at an end. The tenant has not suffered from the failure to lodge the bond. Further, due to the contributing factors in relation to signing the form I am not prepared to award any costs for exemplary damages on this occasion. Failing to insulate the property:

Nadine Cara Amos claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant has failed to provide the evidence to support this failure. The landlord gave evidence as did her supporting witness that the roof was insulated in the last two years and the left over batts were in the garage.

There is insufficient evidence to support this claim and the claim is dismissed. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards:

Nadine Cara Amos claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Nadine Cara Amos considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.

The first of these claims relate to the ventilation.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

Again, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. The tenant claims that the bedroom window does not open. The evidence does not support that there has been a breach of this section of the Act. There is evidence that the windows were attended to in 2022.

In the email dated 20 March from the tenant listing the issues there is no mention of a window that could not be opened. It refers to hinges and ‘some difficult to open’.

The second is that Nadine Cara Amos claims the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.

The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

In this case whilst some photos have been supplied and correspondence from the tenant with her version of the face to face meeting they had, states “door uneven which is also draughty” there is again insufficient evidence to support a claim for such damages.

On the balance of probabilities, the claims have not been proven. There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the tenant and the landlord. There were issues at the outset in relation to pre inspection reports and this has contributed to the stressors for both parties.