What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4674332?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4674332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674332?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587531-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4674332?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4674332?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674332?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587531-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

123 Crummer Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4674332 — Mould & damp

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Circumstances
The tenancy began on 15 April 2023 and was initially for a period of four months, which was subsequently extended once and ended on 30 October 2023.
The property in question is a good quality free-standing house in the suburb of Grey Lynn, Auckland. The rent had been advertised at $2,300.00 per week and on negotiation had been set at $1,900.00 per week.
Some outstanding issues were raised by the landlord before the tenancy began, including the following: a. An outdoor blind was in the process of being repaired; b. The spa-pool was in the process of being repaired;
The tenants required a rental property urgently, and they accepted these issues.
The landlord had been expecting downtime between the last tenant and the next agreement in which to address the issues, but agreed to rent the property immediately.
A number of other issues became apparent after the tenants moved in.
The tenants are seeking compensation of $7,200.00, including $500.00 per week for the three weeks that two dish drawers were not operational, and three weeks’ full rent rebate for the general inconvenience caused by the other problems, which required ongoing liaising with the landlord and required repairmen to come and go from the property.
The tenants’ view is that the property should not have been rented out with the outstanding problems. The tenants’ complaints
The tenants referred to “a myriad” of problems became apparent after the tenancy had begun, including the following: a. A downstairs bedroom blind didn’t function properly and needed rewinding manually; b. The frame of a downstairs bed was damaged and needed replacing; c. Approximately forty percent of the lightbulbs in the property needed replacing; d. The outdoor heaters needed repairing; e. The pool pump was noisy; f. A latch on the back door needed repairing; g. The garage remote needed a new battery; h. A neighbour’s wheelie bin was on the property;
The landlord submitted that he addressed all of the problems as soon as he was made aware of them, although some of the problems took longer than others to resolve.
Amongst his submissions, the landlord made the following points: a. Assembling the replacement bed was delayed due to a worker being off work sick. However there were five other beds in the property and the tenant wasn’t ever without a sufficient number of beds. b. Replacement lightbulbs were supplied the very next day but he didn’t install them. It was his expectation that the tenants would install the lightbulbs but when they didn’t, his electrician installed them when he next attended, which he conceded was several weeks later. c. The pool pump had been replaced less than a year before, and his technician advised there was nothing actually wrong with it, despite it being noisy.
With the exception of the not-working lightbulbs, I consider all of these issues to be of a minor nature and even when looked at globally I do not believe the landlord was breaching his obligations. With regard to the lightbulbs, I accept the landlord’s submission that he supplied replacement lightbulbs immediately and believed at that point that the problem was resolved.
Both parties accepted that within two months of the beginning of the tenancy, all of the issues, except for the pool pump being noisy, had been resolved.
The tenant raised a complaint that the rooms with a south facing wall were cold and damp. The tenant did not provide any further information to support their claim and the landlord denied any part of the house was cold and damp. The landlord stated there were heat pumps upstairs and radiators downstairs and he believed the property was well heated.
Later in the tenancy the dishwasher drawers ceased working and at one point for a period of 22 days and possibly a little more, both drawers were not operational at the same time.
The landlord sought a price on two replacement Fisher and Paykel drawers and was quoted a price in the vicinity of $1,800.00 with a lead time of two weeks. The landlord requested a loan dish drawer from Fisher and Paykel, and then approached EZ Rentals, neither of whom were able to provide an appliance as a stop-gap measure. This two-weeks lead time stretched out to three weeks. The tenants in this time found a supplier who could supply two dish drawers immediately, but at a cost of over $4,000.00.
The landlord checked with the owner, but they believed the extra cost wasn’t justified. Discussion
The tenants’ complaints generally concerned chattels and fittings at the property and not the property itself. I do not consider the landlord was in breach of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which requires among other things that the landlord: “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes;”
Specifically in the case of the dishwasher drawers, the tenant was inconvenienced to the extent that they were without a dish drawer for possibly one or two weeks longer than if an alternative supplier had been used, although even this timeframe involves some conjecture. I do not believe this situation goes beyond an inconvenience at the lower end of the scale.
The landlord eventually offered a rent reduction of $200.00 per week to the tenant for the period being without the dish drawers, but the tenant declined the offer.
The tenants are well resourced peopled who know the rental market, had other rental options available to them and who knew to conduct their due diligence before signing the tenancy agreement. They successfully negotiated the rent at the outset of the tenancy and managed to get a significant discount off the advertised price. Unfortunately, they missed some things.
Prior to the signing of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was moving quickly to accommodate a prospective tenant’s urgent requests. In the circumstances I do not consider he had a significantly greater obligation to notice every detail of the condition of the property, than the tenants had to conduct thoroughly their due diligence.
I believe the landlord made genuine efforts to address the tenants’ complaints in a timely manner and that he acted in good faith. There was no suggestion that any of the defects were concealed before the tenancy agreement was signed. It may have been the case that the landlord didn’t communicate in as much as detail as the tenants would have liked in sorting out the issues, and it may have been the case that the tenants didn’t get everything they wanted as soon as they wanted. However, the landlord’s failings do not go so far as to breach the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and in my view the landlord has not failed in his contractual obligations to such an extent that intervention of the Tenancy Tribunal is warranted.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Circumstances
The tenancy began on 15 April 2023 and was initially for a period of four months, which was subsequently extended once and ended on 30 October 2023.
The property in question is a good quality free-standing house in the suburb of Grey Lynn, Auckland. The rent had been advertised at $2,300.00 per week and on negotiation had been set at $1,900.00 per week.
Some outstanding issues were raised by the landlord before the tenancy began, including the following: a. An outdoor blind was in the process of being repaired; b. The spa-pool was in the process of being repaired;
The tenants required a rental property urgently, and they accepted these issues.
The landlord had been expecting downtime between the last tenant and the next agreement in which to address the issues, but agreed to rent the property immediately.
A number of other issues became apparent after the tenants moved in.
The tenants are seeking compensation of $7,200.00, including $500.00 per week for the three weeks that two dish drawers were not operational, and three weeks’ full rent rebate for the general inconvenience caused by the other problems, which required ongoing liaising with the landlord and required repairmen to come and go from the property.
The tenants’ view is that the property should not have been rented out with the outstanding problems. The tenants’ complaints
The tenants referred to “a myriad” of problems became apparent after the tenancy had begun, including the following: a. A downstairs bedroom blind didn’t function properly and needed rewinding manually; b. The frame of a downstairs bed was damaged and needed replacing; c. Approximately forty percent of the lightbulbs in the property needed replacing; d. The outdoor heaters needed repairing; e. The pool pump was noisy; f. A latch on the back door needed repairing; g. The garage remote needed a new battery; h. A neighbour’s wheelie bin was on the property;
The landlord submitted that he addressed all of the problems as soon as he was made aware of them, although some of the problems took longer than others to resolve.
Amongst his submissions, the landlord made the following points: a. Assembling the replacement bed was delayed due to a worker being off work sick. However there were five other beds in the property and the tenant wasn’t ever without a sufficient number of beds. b. Replacement lightbulbs were supplied the very next day but he didn’t install them. It was his expectation that the tenants would install the lightbulbs but when they didn’t, his electrician installed them when he next attended, which he conceded was several weeks later. c. The pool pump had been replaced less than a year before, and his technician advised there was nothing actually wrong with it, despite it being noisy.
With the exception of the not-working lightbulbs, I consider all of these issues to be of a minor nature and even when looked at globally I do not believe the landlord was breaching his obligations. With regard to the lightbulbs, I accept the landlord’s submission that he supplied replacement lightbulbs immediately and believed at that point that the problem was resolved.
Both parties accepted that within two months of the beginning of the tenancy, all of the issues, except for the pool pump being noisy, had been resolved.
The tenant raised a complaint that the rooms with a south facing wall were cold and damp. The tenant did not provide any further information to support their claim and the landlord denied any part of the house was cold and damp. The landlord stated there were heat pumps upstairs and radiators downstairs and he believed the property was well heated.
Later in the tenancy the dishwasher drawers ceased working and at one point for a period of 22 days and possibly a little more, both drawers were not operational at the same time.
The landlord sought a price on two replacement Fisher and Paykel drawers and was quoted a price in the vicinity of $1,800.00 with a lead time of two weeks. The landlord requested a loan dish drawer from Fisher and Paykel, and then approached EZ Rentals, neither of whom were able to provide an appliance as a stop-gap measure. This two-weeks lead time stretched out to three weeks. The tenants in this time found a supplier who could supply two dish drawers immediately, but at a cost of over $4,000.00.
The landlord checked with the owner, but they believed the extra cost wasn’t justified. Discussion
The tenants’ complaints generally concerned chattels and fittings at the property and not the property itself. I do not consider the landlord was in breach of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which requires among other things that the landlord: “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes;”
Specifically in the case of the dishwasher drawers, the tenant was inconvenienced to the extent that they were without a dish drawer for possibly one or two weeks longer than if an alternative supplier had been used, although even this timeframe involves some conjecture. I do not believe this situation goes beyond an inconvenience at the lower end of the scale.
The landlord eventually offered a rent reduction of $200.00 per week to the tenant for the period being without the dish drawers, but the tenant declined the offer.
The tenants are well resourced peopled who know the rental market, had other rental options available to them and who knew to conduct their due diligence before signing the tenancy agreement. They successfully negotiated the rent at the outset of the tenancy and managed to get a significant discount off the advertised price. Unfortunately, they missed some things.
Prior to the signing of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was moving quickly to accommodate a prospective tenant’s urgent requests. In the circumstances I do not consider he had a significantly greater obligation to notice every detail of the condition of the property, than the tenants had to conduct thoroughly their due diligence.
I believe the landlord made genuine efforts to address the tenants’ complaints in a timely manner and that he acted in good faith. There was no suggestion that any of the defects were concealed before the tenancy agreement was signed. It may have been the case that the landlord didn’t communicate in as much as detail as the tenants would have liked in sorting out the issues, and it may have been the case that the tenants didn’t get everything they wanted as soon as they wanted. However, the landlord’s failings do not go so far as to breach the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and in my view the landlord has not failed in his contractual obligations to such an extent that intervention of the Tenancy Tribunal is warranted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674332 — Mould & damp at 123 Crummer Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674332 — Mould & damp at 123 Crummer Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions