What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677969?

The tribunal order states: The application for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy of Gagandeep Singh

How much money was awarded in case 4677969?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677969?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9684237-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677969?

The tribunal order states: The application for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy of Gagandeep Singh

How much money was awarded in case 4677969?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677969?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9684237-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70 Derwent Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677969 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy of Gagandeep Singh Nangla, Amandeep Kaur and Rajindeer Singh Bhullar at 70 Derwent Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023 is dismissed.
The applications for work orders and compensation are also dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Coulston representing the landlords.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 7 June 2024.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy (and terminate it earlier) where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants circumstances?

The tenants (two couples: one couple with a child and the other with a baby on the way) found the premises advertised on TradeMe and contacted one of the landlords to arrange a viewing. Two viewings were completed by each couple. They were impressed with the property which they described as beautiful. The landlord advised them that there was interest in the property from another person. Therefore, they would need to decide reasonably quickly if they wished to rent it. The tenancy agreement was then signed for a fixed term starting on 7 June 2023 and expiring on 7 June 2024.
The tenants say that after they shifted into the property, they noticed a problem with the size and location of the basins in the ensuite bathroom and in the main bathroom and other amenities. The details of the tenants’ complaints are: a. The ensuite basin is very small and there is a bathroom cabinet located directly above it. The tenants say that they are unable to wash their hands or brush their teeth without spilling water over the floor or banging their heads on the cabinet; b. The basin in the main bathroom is also small such that water spills on the floor when the tenants are washing their hands and brushing their teeth. The landlord replaced the tap over the basin with a smaller tap to try and give additional room. However, the tenants complain that the unintended consequence of this is that the tap is too low to the basin and there is not enough room to wash hands; c. The location of the basin in the main bathroom is also unsuitable because their knees knock against it when sitting on the toilet; d. It is difficult to bathe their small child in the main bath because of a glass screen running halfway along the side of bath. It is awkward and hard on their knees and back to bend down and supervise their child in the bath. There is a shower over the bath and the screen prevents water splashing on the floor when the shower is in use; e. They contend that their concerns are related to health and safety as there is serious risk of slipping on the floor. One of the tenants is pregnant and so she is particularly concerned about slipping. She also says that she cannot use the ensuite without her abdomen pressing against the basin which is causing pain and discomfort; f. The tenants also raised the issue of a non-compliant towel rail in the ensuite bathroom. I consider this claim separately as, even if it is non- compliant, it is not grounds for terminating the tenancy.
The tenants argue that the above matters are serious health and safety issues. While the configuration and the amenities in each bathroom have not changed since they viewed the property and started the tenancy, they did not realise the problems that would occur. They advised the landlord of their concerns the day after they shifted into the property and the landlord has reviewed if there was anything they could do. However, it is not possible to change the sizes of the basin without considerable expense and the landlord also feels that they are not obliged to do so. Therefore, the tenants seek early termination of the tenancy.
I have considered the tenant’s evidence and submissions. Unfortunately, I am not persuaded that they have established that there has been an “unforeseeable change in their circumstances.” They had the opportunity of viewing the property, including both bathrooms, before they entered the tenancy agreement, to ascertain whether the property suited their needs. There were no changes to the bathrooms between the time of viewing and the tenancy starting. As the landlord suggested, the problem with water spilling can be alleviated by using bathmats. In summary, after carefully reviewing all the available evidence, I am not satisfied there is an unforeseen change of circumstances. That being the case, It is not necessary to consider the other elements for reducing the fixed term tenancy. The claim is therefore dismissed.
It also follows that I consider there are no grounds for awarding compensation to the tenants because of any inconvenience caused by the bathroom amenities.

Is the landlord liable for a non-compliant towel rail?

It is not disputed that the landlord’s electrician who attended the property on or about 9 November 2023 advised them that the placement of the towel rail in the ensuite bathroom does not comply with the rules. However, evidence was produced that the landlord has instructed the electrician to take the necessary steps to replace and relocate the towel rail so that it is compliant. The electrician is waiting for parts to arrive and will then complete the work on the landlord’s instructions.
Under section 45(1)(c) RTA, the landlord has an obligation to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with an obligation, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not know there was a problem with the towel rail and took steps to remedy the issue as soon as they were notified. They expect the remedial work to be completed soon. Therefore, I consider a work order is redundant and there are no grounds for compensation because the landlord has taken reasonable steps to remedy the matter. If the work is not completed in a reasonable timeframe, then the tenants are granted leave to request that the Tribunal re-open the case and consider compensation.
As explained at the hearing, while I have dismissed the claim for early termination of the tenancy, it is open to the parties to negotiate a solution, whereby a new tenant (subject to the landlord’s approval) could be found to take over the tenancy.
As the tenants have not succeeded with their application, they are not entitled to suppression nor reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

The application for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy of Gagandeep Singh Nangla, Amandeep Kaur and Rajindeer Singh Bhullar at 70 Derwent Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023 is dismissed.
The applications for work orders and compensation are also dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Coulston representing the landlords.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 7 June 2024.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy (and terminate it earlier) where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants circumstances?

The tenants (two couples: one couple with a child and the other with a baby on the way) found the premises advertised on TradeMe and contacted one of the landlords to arrange a viewing. Two viewings were completed by each couple. They were impressed with the property which they described as beautiful. The landlord advised them that there was interest in the property from another person. Therefore, they would need to decide reasonably quickly if they wished to rent it. The tenancy agreement was then signed for a fixed term starting on 7 June 2023 and expiring on 7 June 2024.
The tenants say that after they shifted into the property, they noticed a problem with the size and location of the basins in the ensuite bathroom and in the main bathroom and other amenities. The details of the tenants’ complaints are: a. The ensuite basin is very small and there is a bathroom cabinet located directly above it. The tenants say that they are unable to wash their hands or brush their teeth without spilling water over the floor or banging their heads on the cabinet; b. The basin in the main bathroom is also small such that water spills on the floor when the tenants are washing their hands and brushing their teeth. The landlord replaced the tap over the basin with a smaller tap to try and give additional room. However, the tenants complain that the unintended consequence of this is that the tap is too low to the basin and there is not enough room to wash hands; c. The location of the basin in the main bathroom is also unsuitable because their knees knock against it when sitting on the toilet; d. It is difficult to bathe their small child in the main bath because of a glass screen running halfway along the side of bath. It is awkward and hard on their knees and back to bend down and supervise their child in the bath. There is a shower over the bath and the screen prevents water splashing on the floor when the shower is in use; e. They contend that their concerns are related to health and safety as there is serious risk of slipping on the floor. One of the tenants is pregnant and so she is particularly concerned about slipping. She also says that she cannot use the ensuite without her abdomen pressing against the basin which is causing pain and discomfort; f. The tenants also raised the issue of a non-compliant towel rail in the ensuite bathroom. I consider this claim separately as, even if it is non- compliant, it is not grounds for terminating the tenancy.
The tenants argue that the above matters are serious health and safety issues. While the configuration and the amenities in each bathroom have not changed since they viewed the property and started the tenancy, they did not realise the problems that would occur. They advised the landlord of their concerns the day after they shifted into the property and the landlord has reviewed if there was anything they could do. However, it is not possible to change the sizes of the basin without considerable expense and the landlord also feels that they are not obliged to do so. Therefore, the tenants seek early termination of the tenancy.
I have considered the tenant’s evidence and submissions. Unfortunately, I am not persuaded that they have established that there has been an “unforeseeable change in their circumstances.” They had the opportunity of viewing the property, including both bathrooms, before they entered the tenancy agreement, to ascertain whether the property suited their needs. There were no changes to the bathrooms between the time of viewing and the tenancy starting. As the landlord suggested, the problem with water spilling can be alleviated by using bathmats. In summary, after carefully reviewing all the available evidence, I am not satisfied there is an unforeseen change of circumstances. That being the case, It is not necessary to consider the other elements for reducing the fixed term tenancy. The claim is therefore dismissed.
It also follows that I consider there are no grounds for awarding compensation to the tenants because of any inconvenience caused by the bathroom amenities.

Is the landlord liable for a non-compliant towel rail?

It is not disputed that the landlord’s electrician who attended the property on or about 9 November 2023 advised them that the placement of the towel rail in the ensuite bathroom does not comply with the rules. However, evidence was produced that the landlord has instructed the electrician to take the necessary steps to replace and relocate the towel rail so that it is compliant. The electrician is waiting for parts to arrive and will then complete the work on the landlord’s instructions.
Under section 45(1)(c) RTA, the landlord has an obligation to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. Where the Tribunal finds that the landlord has failed to comply with an obligation, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not know there was a problem with the towel rail and took steps to remedy the issue as soon as they were notified. They expect the remedial work to be completed soon. Therefore, I consider a work order is redundant and there are no grounds for compensation because the landlord has taken reasonable steps to remedy the matter. If the work is not completed in a reasonable timeframe, then the tenants are granted leave to request that the Tribunal re-open the case and consider compensation.
As explained at the hearing, while I have dismissed the claim for early termination of the tenancy, it is open to the parties to negotiate a solution, whereby a new tenant (subject to the landlord’s approval) could be found to take over the tenancy.
As the tenants have not succeeded with their application, they are not entitled to suppression nor reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677969 — Tenancy dispute at 70 Derwent Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677969 — Tenancy dispute at 70 Derwent Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants circumstances?

Is the landlord liable for a non-compliant towel rail?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants circumstances?

Is the landlord liable for a non-compliant towel rail?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions