What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4729451?

The tribunal order states: The landlord previously provided a waste disposal service for the tenant

How much money was awarded in case 4729451?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4729451?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4729451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9846381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4729451?

The tribunal order states: The landlord previously provided a waste disposal service for the tenant

How much money was awarded in case 4729451?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4729451?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4729451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9846381-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 33, 294 Mairehau Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8083, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4729451 — Unit Titles

Order

The landlord previously provided a waste disposal service for the tenant consisting of weekly collection of bagged rubbish from outside the front door of the premises and disposal of the rubbish.
The landlord must immediately reinstate and continue to provide that service to the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.
If the landlord sells the premises before the tenancy ends, they must ensure that the purchaser is aware of this order, has agreed to comply with it and has agreed to ensure that any subsequent purchasers comply with it..
BMR Limited must pay Kathleen Edith Hardy the $20.44 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Jack Hodgins of counsel represented the tenant. Ms Reid and Ms Kearney, from Wolfbrook Property Management, who manage the tenancy, represented the landlord. The tenant gave evidence to the Tribunal by telephone. Background
The premises is one of 40 units in a unit title development in Mairehau, Christchurch which was built in the first decade of the 2000s. It was originally an over-60s development but that no longer applies.
The tenant and her late husband were the unit owners of the premises. The tenant’s husband has since died, and the tenant sold the premises to the landlord in 2021. That was part of a sale of all the units in the development. Most of the units were sold to another entity. The premises, and possibly one other, were sold to the landlord.
The sale process was protracted, and it involved a committee representing the unit owners. Some of the original owners sold outright and gave vacant possession to the purchasers and others accepted a tenancy back from the purchasers. The tenant accepted a tenancy back from the landlord. It seems that because the unit owners were represented by a committee, the documentation used for the sale and the tenancies back was standardised.
During the time that the tenant owned the premises, the Body Corporate provided a rubbish collection service for the unit owners. It consisted of collecting bagged rubbish from outside the front door of the units every week, depositing the rubbish in large bins and then putting the bins out on the road for collection. This suited the unit owners, many of whom were elderly and would have had difficulty taking the rubbish to and lifting it into the large bins.
This service continued to be provided after the sale of the units until August of 2023 when it was altered. The large bins are still provided and taken to the roadside for collection weekly. But the collection of rubbish from the units was discontinued.
The tenant has applied for an order requiring the landlord to fully reinstate the previous service including collecting the rubbish from outside the tenant’s unit.
The tenancy agreement sets out the effect of some of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 including that the landlord must not interfere with the supply of any services to the premises. It also provides that the Body Corporate will keep the property free of debris, rubbish and waste. The property means the premises.
The landlord opposes the application. They say that the tenancy agreement does not oblige them to collect rubbish from the units and therefore the landlord has not interfered with the provision of services to the premises.
The landlord argues that the word “interfere” is broad enough to include what has happened in this case. Evidence
The parties have produced some documentary evidence including the tenancy agreement, a contract for the provision of services for the development, a letter dated 9 August 2023 cancelling the contract and some communications between the tenant’s legal representatives and Wolfbrook.
An email from KT Law to Wolfbrook dated 15 September 2023 states, “Moreover the clients were told at the point that they sold their properties and agreed to stay on as tenants that nothing would change for them. We expect that to be the case”.
The tenant gave evidence by telephone and said that she had a meeting with Bill Riding who owns the landlord company. The meeting took place before the tenant agreed to sell the premises to the landlord and take a tenancy from them. At that stage the landlord was trying to persuade the tenant to sell the premises to them.
The tenant said that Mr Riding told her that “nothing would ever change here”. By “here” Mr Riding must have referring to the premises if not the whole development so far as anything affecting the tenant was concerned.
There was no evidence from Mr Riding, and I therefore accept the tenant’s evidence. Discussion and Decision
I accept that when s45(2) of the Act refers to the supply of services to the premises it means services supplied or expected to be supplied to the premises at the time of the tenancy agreement. I reject the landlord’s argument that it is limited to services that the landlord has an obligation to provide to the premises. Afterall, landlords do not have an obligation to supply power to the premises. But where power is provided to the premises, the landlord must not interfere with it.
The rubbish collection service was provided to the premises when the tenancy was granted and so the landlord must not interfere with it.
But I do not accept that the landlord has interfered with the supply of the rubbish collection service from the premises. There is no evidence of that. It is likely that it is the Body Corporate that has made that decision. Therefore, the landlord has not acted in breach of s45(2) of the Act in that respect.
But I find that the landlord has an obligation to provide the rubbish collection service in the form that it was when the tenancy was granted. That is because the landlord represented to the tenant that nothing would ever change, and by doing so represented to the tenant that the service would continue as it was for as long as the tenancy continued.
It was obvious from the tenant’s evidence that she was induced to enter the sale agreement and the tenancy by the landlord’s representation. That created an estoppel by representation and so the landlord is estopped from denying it or resiling from it.
Given the relationship of the parties and the nature of the remedy that the tenant seeks, it is appropriate to make an order by way of an injunction requiring the landlord to reinstate and continue to provide the service. The alternative would be to award compensation, but because it is a continuing obligation, that would be problematic and inappropriate. It should not be difficult or costly to reinstate it. There are caretaker services provided to the unit occupiers and reinstating this aspect of the services will, at most, entail a small additional fee.
This is plainly the fair result. Frankly, I am surprised that the landlord has allowed this to come to the Tribunal. The tenant is an elderly lady who has obviously been distressed by the withdrawal of a service that has been provided to her and others for many years and that she was led to believe would continue after she sold the premises to the landlord. The cost of the service will be minimal, and refusing to reinstate it was, in my view, a mean and petty decision.
Because Kathleen Edith Hardy has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must pay her the filing fee.

Order

The landlord previously provided a waste disposal service for the tenant consisting of weekly collection of bagged rubbish from outside the front door of the premises and disposal of the rubbish.
The landlord must immediately reinstate and continue to provide that service to the tenant for the duration of the tenancy.
If the landlord sells the premises before the tenancy ends, they must ensure that the purchaser is aware of this order, has agreed to comply with it and has agreed to ensure that any subsequent purchasers comply with it..
BMR Limited must pay Kathleen Edith Hardy the $20.44 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Jack Hodgins of counsel represented the tenant. Ms Reid and Ms Kearney, from Wolfbrook Property Management, who manage the tenancy, represented the landlord. The tenant gave evidence to the Tribunal by telephone. Background
The premises is one of 40 units in a unit title development in Mairehau, Christchurch which was built in the first decade of the 2000s. It was originally an over-60s development but that no longer applies.
The tenant and her late husband were the unit owners of the premises. The tenant’s husband has since died, and the tenant sold the premises to the landlord in 2021. That was part of a sale of all the units in the development. Most of the units were sold to another entity. The premises, and possibly one other, were sold to the landlord.
The sale process was protracted, and it involved a committee representing the unit owners. Some of the original owners sold outright and gave vacant possession to the purchasers and others accepted a tenancy back from the purchasers. The tenant accepted a tenancy back from the landlord. It seems that because the unit owners were represented by a committee, the documentation used for the sale and the tenancies back was standardised.
During the time that the tenant owned the premises, the Body Corporate provided a rubbish collection service for the unit owners. It consisted of collecting bagged rubbish from outside the front door of the units every week, depositing the rubbish in large bins and then putting the bins out on the road for collection. This suited the unit owners, many of whom were elderly and would have had difficulty taking the rubbish to and lifting it into the large bins.
This service continued to be provided after the sale of the units until August of 2023 when it was altered. The large bins are still provided and taken to the roadside for collection weekly. But the collection of rubbish from the units was discontinued.
The tenant has applied for an order requiring the landlord to fully reinstate the previous service including collecting the rubbish from outside the tenant’s unit.
The tenancy agreement sets out the effect of some of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 including that the landlord must not interfere with the supply of any services to the premises. It also provides that the Body Corporate will keep the property free of debris, rubbish and waste. The property means the premises.
The landlord opposes the application. They say that the tenancy agreement does not oblige them to collect rubbish from the units and therefore the landlord has not interfered with the provision of services to the premises.
The landlord argues that the word “interfere” is broad enough to include what has happened in this case. Evidence
The parties have produced some documentary evidence including the tenancy agreement, a contract for the provision of services for the development, a letter dated 9 August 2023 cancelling the contract and some communications between the tenant’s legal representatives and Wolfbrook.
An email from KT Law to Wolfbrook dated 15 September 2023 states, “Moreover the clients were told at the point that they sold their properties and agreed to stay on as tenants that nothing would change for them. We expect that to be the case”.
The tenant gave evidence by telephone and said that she had a meeting with Bill Riding who owns the landlord company. The meeting took place before the tenant agreed to sell the premises to the landlord and take a tenancy from them. At that stage the landlord was trying to persuade the tenant to sell the premises to them.
The tenant said that Mr Riding told her that “nothing would ever change here”. By “here” Mr Riding must have referring to the premises if not the whole development so far as anything affecting the tenant was concerned.
There was no evidence from Mr Riding, and I therefore accept the tenant’s evidence. Discussion and Decision
I accept that when s45(2) of the Act refers to the supply of services to the premises it means services supplied or expected to be supplied to the premises at the time of the tenancy agreement. I reject the landlord’s argument that it is limited to services that the landlord has an obligation to provide to the premises. Afterall, landlords do not have an obligation to supply power to the premises. But where power is provided to the premises, the landlord must not interfere with it.
The rubbish collection service was provided to the premises when the tenancy was granted and so the landlord must not interfere with it.
But I do not accept that the landlord has interfered with the supply of the rubbish collection service from the premises. There is no evidence of that. It is likely that it is the Body Corporate that has made that decision. Therefore, the landlord has not acted in breach of s45(2) of the Act in that respect.
But I find that the landlord has an obligation to provide the rubbish collection service in the form that it was when the tenancy was granted. That is because the landlord represented to the tenant that nothing would ever change, and by doing so represented to the tenant that the service would continue as it was for as long as the tenancy continued.
It was obvious from the tenant’s evidence that she was induced to enter the sale agreement and the tenancy by the landlord’s representation. That created an estoppel by representation and so the landlord is estopped from denying it or resiling from it.
Given the relationship of the parties and the nature of the remedy that the tenant seeks, it is appropriate to make an order by way of an injunction requiring the landlord to reinstate and continue to provide the service. The alternative would be to award compensation, but because it is a continuing obligation, that would be problematic and inappropriate. It should not be difficult or costly to reinstate it. There are caretaker services provided to the unit occupiers and reinstating this aspect of the services will, at most, entail a small additional fee.
This is plainly the fair result. Frankly, I am surprised that the landlord has allowed this to come to the Tribunal. The tenant is an elderly lady who has obviously been distressed by the withdrawal of a service that has been provided to her and others for many years and that she was led to believe would continue after she sold the premises to the landlord. The cost of the service will be minimal, and refusing to reinstate it was, in my view, a mean and petty decision.
Because Kathleen Edith Hardy has wholly succeeded with the claim, the landlord must pay her the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4729451 — Unit Titles at Unit 33, 294 Mairehau Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8083,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4729451 — Unit Titles at Unit 33, 294 Mairehau Road, Mairehau, Christchurch 8083,

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