What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960840?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4960840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351453-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960840?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4960840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960840?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351453-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Mill Road, Kelso, RD 2, Tapanui 9587 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4960840 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The case continued before me today having been adjourned from 9 th December 2023. All parties appeared by teleconference. Ms King had legal Counsel, Mr Belcher, and Mr Atkinson from Good Hands Property Works Limited, the agent acting for Ms King for much of the tenancy also appeared.
The background to this case is confirmed in my previous decision and I shall summarise as follows:
The tenancy commenced on 20 April 2019 and ended when the tenants purchased the property by way of a Sale and Purchase agreement that the parties entered into on 16 th August 2023 and the settlement occurred shortly after.
These proceedings were filed a year later, on the 3 August 2024. The tenants seek compensation of $50,000 for having to purchase water for the ‘223 weeks’ of the tenancy and a refund of the rent of $27,700 given they had no ‘potable water.’
Toward the end of the tenancy Mr Atkinson ceased as property manager. The tenants ceased making rental payments and advised Ms King that they used that money to make some repairs, such as locks changed and to fix a broken window.
There was evidence of discussions where the tenants were advised that all that could be done given finances and the age of the property regarding the water situation had been done and perhaps they should move out and ultimately the answer from the tenants to the solution was for them to purchase the property, in which they did.
I am advised that there was no claim in relation to the Vendors warranties under Section 7 of the Slae and Purchase agreement after the sale in relation to the water and there was also no mention of this issue when other proceedings were bought to the District Court in relation to this sale.
The issue for determination based on the tenant’s application is: a) Did the landlord breach her obligations under Section 45 of the Residential

Tenancies Act?

b) Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards and the Building Act?

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach her obligations under Section 45 of the Residential

Tenancies Act?

The applicant claimed that the landlord failed to provide “potable water” they claimed that this was in breach of Section 45 of the Act.
The relevant section of Section 45 of the Act states: Section 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (ca) if the premises do not have a reticulated water supply, provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water;
It was accepted that the landlord did supply the means for collection and storage, however the tenant claimed it was not ‘adequate’.
The Oxford dictionary defines adequate as “good enough”.
The tenant claims that more could have been done.
The evidence submitted by Mr Atkinson shows that a significant amount of work was in fact undertaken on behalf of the landlord for the water issues. The evidence is that the solution was for the tenants to move out, and they sought to purchase the property.
Mr Atkinson submitted that in relation to Section 45 (1)(b) that the landlowner did “maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises ..” I accept this did occur given the evidence submitted that included the correspondence between the parties, the fact the tenants stayed for so long before ultimately purchasing the property and given the property inspection reports.
There is evidence of property inspections which did not confirm that this was such an issue that meant the tenants could not reside there, in fact they chose to purchase the property having been the tenants for over four years.
Having considered all of the evidence and submissions filed by the parties, on the balance of probabilities I find that the landlord did not breach her obligations as she did provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water and the tenants were able to stay in the property and did so until purchasing the property.
Further they purchased the property without claiming that the vendor breached her warranties in relation to the water supply under the agreement for sale and purchase.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards and the Building Act?

The tenancy was before the implementation of the Standards as discussed at the hearing. Further the applicants could not identify what breach was made.
In relation to what they believed was the breach of the Building Act, I do not have such Jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the partiers discussed at the hearing.
Therefore, the applicant has not satisfied me that they have proven their case to be awarded compensation for $50,000, made up of rent reimbursement and the need to buy in drinking water and the case is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The case continued before me today having been adjourned from 9 th December 2023. All parties appeared by teleconference. Ms King had legal Counsel, Mr Belcher, and Mr Atkinson from Good Hands Property Works Limited, the agent acting for Ms King for much of the tenancy also appeared.
The background to this case is confirmed in my previous decision and I shall summarise as follows:
The tenancy commenced on 20 April 2019 and ended when the tenants purchased the property by way of a Sale and Purchase agreement that the parties entered into on 16 th August 2023 and the settlement occurred shortly after.
These proceedings were filed a year later, on the 3 August 2024. The tenants seek compensation of $50,000 for having to purchase water for the ‘223 weeks’ of the tenancy and a refund of the rent of $27,700 given they had no ‘potable water.’
Toward the end of the tenancy Mr Atkinson ceased as property manager. The tenants ceased making rental payments and advised Ms King that they used that money to make some repairs, such as locks changed and to fix a broken window.
There was evidence of discussions where the tenants were advised that all that could be done given finances and the age of the property regarding the water situation had been done and perhaps they should move out and ultimately the answer from the tenants to the solution was for them to purchase the property, in which they did.
I am advised that there was no claim in relation to the Vendors warranties under Section 7 of the Slae and Purchase agreement after the sale in relation to the water and there was also no mention of this issue when other proceedings were bought to the District Court in relation to this sale.
The issue for determination based on the tenant’s application is: a) Did the landlord breach her obligations under Section 45 of the Residential

Tenancies Act?

b) Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards and the Building Act?

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Did the landlord breach her obligations under Section 45 of the Residential

Tenancies Act?

The applicant claimed that the landlord failed to provide “potable water” they claimed that this was in breach of Section 45 of the Act.
The relevant section of Section 45 of the Act states: Section 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (ca) if the premises do not have a reticulated water supply, provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water;
It was accepted that the landlord did supply the means for collection and storage, however the tenant claimed it was not ‘adequate’.
The Oxford dictionary defines adequate as “good enough”.
The tenant claims that more could have been done.
The evidence submitted by Mr Atkinson shows that a significant amount of work was in fact undertaken on behalf of the landlord for the water issues. The evidence is that the solution was for the tenants to move out, and they sought to purchase the property.
Mr Atkinson submitted that in relation to Section 45 (1)(b) that the landlowner did “maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises ..” I accept this did occur given the evidence submitted that included the correspondence between the parties, the fact the tenants stayed for so long before ultimately purchasing the property and given the property inspection reports.
There is evidence of property inspections which did not confirm that this was such an issue that meant the tenants could not reside there, in fact they chose to purchase the property having been the tenants for over four years.
Having considered all of the evidence and submissions filed by the parties, on the balance of probabilities I find that the landlord did not breach her obligations as she did provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water and the tenants were able to stay in the property and did so until purchasing the property.
Further they purchased the property without claiming that the vendor breached her warranties in relation to the water supply under the agreement for sale and purchase.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards and the Building Act?

The tenancy was before the implementation of the Standards as discussed at the hearing. Further the applicants could not identify what breach was made.
In relation to what they believed was the breach of the Building Act, I do not have such Jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the partiers discussed at the hearing.
Therefore, the applicant has not satisfied me that they have proven their case to be awarded compensation for $50,000, made up of rent reimbursement and the need to buy in drinking water and the case is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960840 — State of repair at 51 Mill Road, Kelso, RD 2, Tapanui 9587

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960840 — State of repair at 51 Mill Road, Kelso, RD 2, Tapanui 9587

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act?

Tenancies Act?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards and the Building Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act?

Tenancies Act?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards and the Building Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions