What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4730569?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3189269-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4730569?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Discount To Pay: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4730569?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4730569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9966155-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4730569?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3189269-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4730569?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Discount To Pay: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4730569?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4730569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9966155-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 The Esplanade, Raumati South, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4730569 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

A. The Tenant’s Application

Do Healthy Homes Standards apply in this tenancy?

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4730569 — net $2,445.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent discount to pay	$2,400.00	Rent discount to pay
Water rates	$25.22	Water rates
Landlord’s filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Landlord’s filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,445.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,445.66

The tenant has claimed that the landlord failed to provide premises that meet Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord has submitted that the short duration of the tenancy means that Healthy Homes Standards do not apply.

The landlord is correct. The tenancy was for a period of 84 days. If the premises failed in respect of any healthy Homes Standards, the landlord had a further 36 days to comply. Currently a landlord cannot be in breach of Healthy Homes Standards until 120 days after the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages relating to this matter are dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant has claimed that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. He referred to the gate keypad not functioning, previous flooding and the bath being unsafe.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to maintain the premises. If there are maintenance matters that the tenant is aware of, the RTA requires the tenant to notify the landlord of those issues. The Tribunal will order a landlord to compensate a tenant regarding maintenance if the landlord is aware of maintenance needed but fails to rectify issues within a reasonable time.

The tenant has claimed that his use of the house was limited by previous flooding. There had been a leak in the garage from a flexihose which had been repaired before the start of the tenancy. Some damage the landlord’s property in the garage resulted in an insurance claim. The tenant was aware of this. His claim regarding loss of use of the premises is an exaggeration. None of the living areas and bedrooms were affected in any way. His claim for compensation regarding this has no merit.

The tenant claims that the gate keypad did not work. He knew it was not a means of entry when the tenancy began. The gate could be operated using a radio transmitter dongle, manually and from a keypad inside the house. The tenant did not ask the landlord to have the gate keypad repaired during the tenancy. His claim regarding this has no foundation.

The tenant has claimed the bath was unsafe to use because it caused fuses to blow. There is insufficient evidence to prove that claim.

In the current case the tenant notified the landlord of maintenance concerns on the last day of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord failed to carry out maintenance within a reasonable time.

For the reasons given above, the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?

The tenant has claimed that his quiet enjoyment was breached when roofing people turned up without notice.

It is not a breach for maintenance people to arrive at the property without notice. It is only a breach if they enter the premises without notice.

The tenant has claimed a breach of quiet enjoyment because the landlord made frequent contact.

The parties set up an arrangement where the tenant would carry out work at the property. This arrangement invited more frequent contact between landlord and tenant than would normally be the case. There is insufficient evidence that the contact made by the landlord was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. Other claims made by the tenant.

I am satisfied that the landlord did not require full payment of the rent at the start of the tenancy. There was no breach section 23 RTA by the landlord regarding rent in advance.

I have considered all other matters raised in the tenant’s application and find no other matters that need to be addressed in this order. Filing Fee

Because the tenant has not been successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 for his application is not ordered to be paid by the landlord. Name Suppression

Because the tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant’s request for name suppression is not granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the RTA. B. The Landlord’s Application Should additional rent be paid by the tenant because maintenance services were not carried out?

The documentation provided in evidence shows that the parties came to an agreement that the rent would be reduced from $900 to $700 per week because the tenant would provide property maintenance services to the landlord.

It is clear from the evidence that the services promised by the tenant were not provided during the tenancy. This is a simple breach of the contract the parties made that formed part of their tenancy agreement. I am satisfied that there was no value provided to the landlord by any work carried out by the tenant. It is reasonable for the original $900.00 per week to be paid by the tenant because he did not carry out the work set out in his emails. The tenancy was for a period of 12 weeks. $2,400.00 is ordered to be paid to the landlord from the bond. Should the tenant pay for electrical work due to ‘tampering with the wiring’.

The landlord claims a loss due to having an electrical inspector carry out work at the property. This work came about because the tenant notified the landlord of wiring in the premises that he considered to be dangerous. He discovered a green earth wire connected to a positive red wire on a light fitting. The green earth wire was not sleeved.

I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the tenant to notify the landlord about this. While it turned out that the wiring was safe, it did not have the appearance of being safe. The claim that the tenant pay compensation for the electrician is dismissed.

The claim for exemplary damages of $1,800.00 on the grounds that the premises was used for an unlawful act when the tenant pulled down the light fitting is absurd. There is no connection between Section 40(3A)(c) of the RTA and the exposure of an electrical wire. Water Rates

There is no dispute regarding the amount of water rates owing at the end of the tenancy. This is to be paid from the bond. Filing Fee

Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Costs

The landlord has claimed costs relating to the hearing. Section 102 RTS provides, ‘Except in a case to which any of subsections (2), (4), or (5) apply, the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it.’

Subsections (2), (4) or (5) do not apply in this case. The claim for costs must be dismissed.

Reasons

A. The Tenant’s Application

Do Healthy Homes Standards apply in this tenancy?

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4730569 — net $2,445.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent discount to pay	$2,400.00	Rent discount to pay
Water rates	$25.22	Water rates
Landlord’s filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Landlord’s filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,445.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,445.66