What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832098?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4832098?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832098?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832098?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10331896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832098?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4832098?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832098?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832098?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10331896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 188 Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4832098 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr and Ms Brooklands attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant claimed: a. A work order was required to ensure that the landlord made specified repairs in a timely manner, b. Compensation for not being able to use the oven ($1,600.00), c. Trades people entered the premises without sufficient notice (and other breaches of quiet enjoyment), d. That the landlord was in breach of the Healthy Homes standards, e. The landlord made false claims in a pre-tenancy report. Background
The tenancy began on 20 September 2023.
The owner had purchased the entire block of units and engaged the respondent to manage them.
Extensive refurbishment had been undertaken prior to the units being advertised for rent.
This work included having the properties checked for Healthy Homes compliance and brought up to standard where required.
Invoices confirming this were provided to the Tribunal together with the initial Healthy Homes report.
The tenant looked through a number of the units prior to successfully applying for this property. Work order
The tenant claimed that a number of maintenance matters had not been attended to and that a work order was required to ensure that the landlord attended to these repairs.
Prior to the hearing, the landlord reviewed these requests and attended the property with a builder to make the necessary repairs.
An independent inspection was also commissioned by the landlord to ensure that all necessary matters had been addressed. This inspection report was provided to the Tribunal.
The landlord provided detailed and clear evidence that the work referred to had, in the main, been attended to in a timely fashion.
The evidence included work orders and invoices. There were also emails from tradespeople confirming that they had attempted to make arrangements with the tenant but had not always been able to make contact. In other cases, arrangements had been made but the tenant had not been home at the arranged time.
The tenant confirmed that much of the work had been completed but claimed there was still work outstanding. The landlord had not been advised of this despite emailing Mr Grene to ask if there were any outstanding matters that still required work.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord bent over backwards to appease the tenant. Following an inspection around 20 February 2024 one of three related work orders reads in part, “please fix anything that the tenant brings to your attention, or anything that is detected that needs attention.”
One of the maintenance items the tenant raises is, “remove all mould from the inside and outside of windows.” The landlord has had a painter and the independent inspection company look at this matter. The painter said the discolouration the tenant refers to on the outside of the windows is not mould. The inspection company refers to “no obvious mould but some historical damage”. The moisture readings were all within the appropriate boundaries.
Other items had either been fixed or the landlord had not been notified of them.
Under section 45(1)(a) - (ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), the landlord has an obligation to provide and maintain certain standards and to comply with applicable requirements.
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with any of these obligations, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work under section 78(1)(e) of the Act.
There is nothing before the Tribunal that suggests that the landlord has been anything less than diligent in terms of attending to the tenant’s complaints.
No work order is required or issued, and the claim is dismissed. Compensation for lack of use of oven
The tenant went to the landlord’s office the day after the tenancy began.
He complained that the property had visible mould and was unclean in areas and that the stove had paint on it so was unusable.
The property had been professionally cleaned prior to the tenancy commencing (invoice provided) and there was no evidence of any problem with the oven.
Nevertheless, the landlord gave the tenant a discount of $125.00 off the first weeks rent to compensate for the cleaning that the tenant said had to be completed and agreed to replace the oven (which was completed the next day).
The tenant claimed he could not use the new stove top as the smoke detector was positioned too close to the stove and needed to be moved.
The tenant asked for $50.00 off the rent for each week of the tenancy as compensation for the inability to use the stove top (for a total of $1,600.00).
The landlord gave evidence that the kitchen and living area are open plan and that two smoke detectors were fitted to ensure compliance with the safety requirements.
No evidence was provided to explain why the tenant was unable to use the stove top and despite detailed notes on the February inspection report noting all of the tenants’ other concerns, no mention is made of the stove top except that the tenant was having difficulty making the magnetic stove work but, “he doesn’t mind as the new oven is working well”.
No breach is proved, and no compensation can or should be ordered. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice and/or has harassed him.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance under section 48(1) and (2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Additionally, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under section 38(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00 under section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (see MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
The tenant provided no evidence to support the claim of either unlawful entry or harassment.
Given that the landlord has issued 11 work orders (at the tenant’s request) during the short duration of this tenancy and often for multiple reasons, it is unsurprising that the tenant has had many tradespeople attending the premises.
The landlord provided detailed and thorough evidence to show that all work orders include contact details for the tenant and that often multiple attempts to contact the tenant are required. On some occasions work could not be completed because the tenant was unable to be contacted or the tenant agreed to a time for work but was not home at the allotted time. These communications and attempted communications are documented in the landlord’s record system.
The landlord accepted that on one occasion, surveyors attended to complete work on the outside of the tenant’s premises without notice. The owner had arranged this, and the landlord had not been advised.
On this occasion, the landlord’s records show that they offered the tenant a discount of half a weeks’ rent as compensation for the inconvenience and the tenant accepted this offer.
There is no evidence that the tenant’s quiet enjoyment has been breached so as to amount to harassment and no evidence that the landlord has entered the premises without the tenant’s consent on any occasion.
The tenant was compensated for the one occasion when unexpected survey work was done on the outside of the premises.
Evidence was provided to show that the tenant, at least on one occasion, was having difficulty receiving emails and this may explain why he thought he had not received notice of tradespeople attending. There was no suggestion that anyone had entered the home without invitation.
There has been no unlawful act, intentional or otherwise and no damages can or should be awarded. Healthy Homes compliance
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard, the moisture ingress and drainage standard and heating and ventilation standards.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) of the Act.
An anonymous complaint was made to the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team in relation to the HHS compliance at the tenancy address. The team conducted an investigation and found one minor breach in relation to the underfloor insulation being noted as having an R value of 1.8 when in fact it was
5. The requirement is 1.3 so the property is nevertheless compliant.
Apart from this one matter there were no other issues, the matter was corrected, and the case closed by the Compliance Team.
There is no evidence to suggest that the property is not HHS compliant and all evidence confirms that it is, including the Compliance Team’s report.
There is no unlawful act in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards and no damages can or should be awarded. False claims
The tenant claims that the landlord made claims in its pre tenancy inspection report that were untrue.
These included claiming that the letterbox was in good order when it was not, not disclosing that there had ben a fire in the house, claiming that the locks worked when some did not and other matters.
The landlord acknowledged that on occasion items may be missed in an inspection and may only become obvious after the home has been lived in for a time.
Their practice is to complete the inspection and then ask the tenant to let them know within 14 days of there are any inaccuracies in the report.
The tenant did not recall that he had been asked to do this but acknowledged that he had let the landlord know of his complaints very quickly.
For example, the lock was fixed the day after the tenancy began and the oven was replaced two days after the tenancy began (even without evidence of any problem).
The letterbox problem was notified on 12 March and fixed on 23 March.
The guttering expansion joint issue was repaired prior to the tenancy commencing but had failed by the routine inspection on 1 November 2023 when a work order was generated. It was repaired on 10 November but failed again and was picked up at a routine inspection in February. The expansion joint was then replaced.
The tenant provided no evidence to support his claims or prove any breach on the part of the landlord on the balance of probabilities and therefore the claims must fail.
No damages can or should be awarded and the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832098 — 14-day notice at Flat 1, 188 Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832098 — 14-day notice at Flat 1, 188 Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

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