What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4829140?

The tribunal order states: Home Rental Services 2022 Limited must pay Murry Peter Cave $140.00

How much money was awarded in case 4829140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4829140?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4829140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4829140?

The tribunal order states: Home Rental Services 2022 Limited must pay Murry Peter Cave $140.00

How much money was awarded in case 4829140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4829140?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4829140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10158760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 Clifford Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4829140 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 3 April 2024.

The tenant seeks compensation for three issues:- a. Loss of work time caused when an electrician turned the power off at the house to fix a broken power point, b. Loss of use of the heat pump in the main living area for about 10 weeks, and c. An overpayment of rent.

I address the issues below. Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for loss of work time caused when the power was turned off by an electrician contracted by the landlord?

The accepted facts are that Murry Cave notified the landlord that a power point in the hallway needed repairing. The landlord instructed an electrician to attend the premises. The electrician did not notify the tenant in advance of the date and time that they planned to come. The tenant was not home when the electrician arrived but his partner (the other occupant at the house) was there and willingly consented to the electrician entering the house to do the work.

As part of repairing the power point, the electrician reportedly switched off the mains power to the whole house which therefore shut down the tenant’s computer/s. Unfortunately, the computer/s were in the midst of what the tenant described as a “complex task” that took several hours to complete.

The tenant reports that significant work was lost, and he links this with the loss of power supply to the computers. He estimates a loss of 4 days of work together with being unable to complete other work during this time. He seeks compensation equivalent to two weeks of rent which is $1,300.00.

Compensation may be awarded to recover expenses or loss where the tenancy contract or the law has been breached. Losses must be reasonably foreseeable or arise as part of the usual course of things.

The tenant alleges a breach of the entry requirements in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). He says that he was not given advance notice of the electrician’s visit and that, if he had been, he would have made sure the computers were not undertaking the complex task at the time.

It is correct that a landlord or their agent (including maintenance contractors) may only enter premises in accordance with section 48 RTA.

This requires a tenant to freely consent to the entry, is allowed if there is an emergency, or there must be at least 24 hours’ prior written notice of the intended entry which may be between 8:00am and 7:00pm on any day; see section 48(1) and (2) RTA.

The tenant’s partner gave consent to the electrician to enter, and Murry Cave agreed in the hearing that it is reasonable that, in his absence, she has the authority to do so. Once consent is given, the entry is lawful.

There is no breach by the landlord or electrician of the entry requirements.

Neither is there any other breach that I can see.

The tenant questions whether it was necessary for the power to be turned off to the whole house when repairing or replacing a power point. He says that another electrician has told him that to do so was “outside of standard practice”.

The tenant supplied a photograph of the switchboard and explained that he had tested the various switches (or fuses) at the beginning of the tenancy and labelled them as to which area of the house they related to. One of the switches is labelled “Hall pwr”. The tenant says that this is the only switch that needed to be turned off when replacing or repairing the power point.

A landlord, or contractor, is specifically prohibited from interfering with the supply of electricity, gas, water and other services except where this is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs; see s45(2) RTA.

However, the tenant is not an electrician and there was no direct evidence from either the electrician who repaired the power point or any other electrician. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s opinion, or the reported (hearsay) opinion of another unknown electrician, that it was not necessary to turn off the power to the extent that it was.

My conclusion is that the electrician who did the work was the best and appropriate person to decide what was necessary to avoid danger and enable the maintenance or repairs. For example, the electrician may not have felt that it was safe to rely on the labelling of switches on the switchboard or may have their own standard practice of turning off the mains power on all occasions.

There is no breach of s45(2) RTA.

In any event, I said in the hearing that even if there had been a breach of a legal obligation, I do not consider the tenant’s loss of employment or work time to be a reasonably foreseeable loss in a residential home.

Neither the landlord nor electrician could be reasonably expected to know that the tenant may have left his computers running a process that could not be interrupted without significant loss. There was no warning note (to not turn off the computers) either on the switchboard or anywhere else in the property.

Similar loss could occur during an unplanned power outage for any other cause. A tenant undertaking work from home may need to consider risk mitigation measures they can put in place. The tenant said that he has a battery back-up system in place (a “UPS”, or uninterrupted power supply) but that this is only useful if he is at home at the time as it allows a short amount of time for a user to save or shut down computers manually.

This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to meet its maintenance obligations to repair the heat pump?

The tenant’s second claim is that he says that it took too long for the heat pump in the main lounge to be repaired and that the inability to use the air- conditioning during a time of hot weather caused the lounge to be too ot to occupy.

The tenant advised the landlord on 12 January 2024 that the unit was not working. He followed up on 30 January 2024. The unit was eventually repaired on 22 March 2024.

The landlord has supplied a letter from the repair company acknowledging that the delay was that company’s fault and due to a communication breakdown.

A landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair; s45(1)(b) RTA. The Tribunal interprets this to include a duty to attend to maintenance and repairs within a reasonable timeframe.

I am satisfied that the landlord did all it could by requesting the repair the same day they were notified of the problem, and by following up with the repairer once told by the tenant that the job had still not been done. My decision is that there is no breach of s45 by the landlord.

Although no fault of the landlord, the tenant did lose use of the appliance for 10 weeks which is a breach of contract. A landlord is usually 1 required to maintain all chattels that it supplies as part of the contract between the parties, so I agree to award some compensation.

I assess compensation at $20.00 per week for 7 weeks which is $140.00. I award this relatively modest amount because air-conditioning is not required by law and the loss of use occurred during summer. It is heating that is stipulated under the Healthy Homes Standards so a delay in repair that affected heating might result in higher compensation. I allow for a 3-week repair period as being reasonable which leaves the additional 7 weeks as the period of loss.

What is the amount of any rent refund due?

The tenant has asked whether his rent was overpaid, and this was discussed during the hearing.

I accept the accuracy of the rent ledger as showing that a rent refund of $50.00 was due and paid to the tenant on 6 March 2024.

The tenancy agreement requires that rent be paid fortnightly in advance and this amount had fallen slightly behind due to previous rent increases. An additional $100.00 paid by the tenant on 4 December 2023 brought the rent back up to fortnightly in advance. A subsequent additional $100.00 paid on 19 December 2023 resulted in the overpayment by $50.00 once the rent increase to $650.00 per week took effect from 29 December 2023. It was this $50.00 that has been correctly refunded. 1 Unless the chattel is not a required item and maintenance, or replacement, is specifically and clearly excluded under the tenancy agreement. Other matters

I note reference in the tenant’s documents to a concern that the owner of the property fixed a gate without giving notice of entry to the premises. Tenants and landlords don’t always realise that a landlord does not strictly have to give notice to enter the outside of a property because section 48(7) RTA (which sets out the entry requirements) excludes land. That said, it is usual for a landlord to let a tenant know and to frequently or unreasonably fail to do so could constitute a breach of a tenant’s right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of the property that they rent.

I also see discussion in the documents about the landlord seeking to access the premises for viewings by prospective tenants.

A landlord has a right to access for this purpose and a tenant cannot unreasonably refuse access; see s48(3), (3A) and (4) RTA. There is no notice requirement stipulated in the law. The implication is that both parties will act reasonably. It may be helpful to note that a tenant does not have to be present while viewings are taking place. I do not consider it reasonable for a tenant to refuse access solely on this basis.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful, so I do not award the filing fee or suppress his name. The landlord did not seek suppression.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 3 April 2024.

I address the issues below. Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for loss of work time caused when the power was turned off by an electrician contracted by the landlord?

Compensation may be awarded to recover expenses or loss where the tenancy contract or the law has been breached. Losses must be reasonably foreseeable or arise as part of the usual course of things.

It is correct that a landlord or their agent (including maintenance contractors) may only enter premises in accordance with section 48 RTA.

There is no breach by the landlord or electrician of the entry requirements.

Neither is there any other breach that I can see.

There is no breach of s45(2) RTA.

This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to meet its maintenance obligations to repair the heat pump?

The tenant advised the landlord on 12 January 2024 that the unit was not working. He followed up on 30 January 2024. The unit was eventually repaired on 22 March 2024.

The landlord has supplied a letter from the repair company acknowledging that the delay was that company’s fault and due to a communication breakdown.

What is the amount of any rent refund due?

The tenant has asked whether his rent was overpaid, and this was discussed during the hearing.

I accept the accuracy of the rent ledger as showing that a rent refund of $50.00 was due and paid to the tenant on 6 March 2024.

I also see discussion in the documents about the landlord seeking to access the premises for viewings by prospective tenants.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful, so I do not award the filing fee or suppress his name. The landlord did not seek suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4829140 — State of repair at 58 Clifford Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4829140 — State of repair at 58 Clifford Street, Whataupoko, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to meet its maintenance obligations to repair the heat pump?

What is the amount of any rent refund due?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to meet its maintenance obligations to repair the heat pump?

What is the amount of any rent refund due?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions