What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983669?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4983669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983669?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11171458-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983669?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4983669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983669?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11171458-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Ide Street, Harwood, RD 2, Dunedin 9077 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983669 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.

The tenants sought work orders, compensation for financial loss due to issues with the septic tank and potable water and a refund of rent paid.

In addition, the tenants sought exemplary damages for the continued failure to lodge the bond, non-appointment of an agent while overseas, failure to provide receipts for rent, failure to provide smoke alarms, the state of the premises and unlawful entry.

A case conference was held on 1 November 2024 in which Adjudicator Young clarified and confirmed the nine matters claimed by the tenant.

The adjudicator directed that if the landlord had a claim he wanted dealt with at the next hearing he needed to file an application with Tenancy Services no later than 4pm on 4 November 2024.

The landlord did not file a claim with Tenancy Services but instead sent six pages of written information which at the hearing he indicated he wanted to be considered as his claims and a defence to the tenants’ claims.

I explained to the landlord that I was unable to accept his information as an application as it did not meet the requirements set out in section 86 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

However, the landlord was afforded the opportunity to speak to the written information.

As the tenancy has ended, the tenants having vacated the premises on 18/11/2024, the issue of work orders is now mute and need not be looked at.

The following issues cannot be re-litigated because they were dealt with by decision dated 1/5/2024, application4826118: a. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards, b. Failure to maintain septic tank, c. Failure to appoint an agent while living overseas, d. Failure to lodge the bond, e. Unlawful entry, f. Failure to provide insulation information in the tenancy agreement.

This means that the claims for refund of rent and electricity costs due to the state of the premises cannot be considered.

For the avoidance of doubt the issues left to be determined by the Tribunal at this hearing relate to the failure to issue receipts for rent, rent records and supply of potable water.

Did the landlord fail to provide receipts for rent and keep rent records?

The tenants submitted that they had received no receipts for the rent they had paid since the tenancy began.

In support of their claim the tenants provided a transaction history from their bank for rent payments made from 5/7/2023 to 6/11/2024 at $360.00 per week.

The tenants did not believe they owed any arrears.

In response the landlord agreed he had not provided any receipts for the rent paid because he did not believe he needed to do so.

The landlord confirmed he kept rent records on his computer and suggested that the tenants owed arrears of $9,806.20 to 19/11/2024 at $380.00 per week.

A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See sections 29(5) and 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).

I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act because of the exclusions in subsection (4)(a)&(b) relating to payments made from and to bank accounts.

However, as the renting of premises is a business I consider it would behove the landlord to make sure he complies with the obligations in section 30 to keep records for 7 tax years after the date to which they relate.

Did the landlord comply with his obligations?

The tenants submitted that they were unable to use the water in the water tank for showering or washing and it was not drinkable due to debris in the tank and blocked gutters feeding the tank.

Instead, the tenants said they used a gymnasium to shower, a laundromat to wash their clothes and obtained potable water from a recognised local source.

The tenants wanted a refund of gymnasium fees and laundromat costs and provided transaction details of the amounts spent.

In response the landlord disputed there were any issues with the quality of the water in the tank or guttering, the latter of which he expected the tenant to clean out from time to time.

The landlord submitted that when he retook possession of the premises the pipe was disconnected from the water tank and the wrong number of rings had been connected to the outlet.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide adequate means for collection and storage of water if the premises do not have a reticulated water supply.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The applicant, in this case the tenants, are required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The evidence provided by the tenants has not persuaded me that it is more likely than not the landlord failed to provide an adequate means of collection and storage of water.

At best the maintenance of the water tank and guttering may have been limited but there is not enough evidence to show the tenants advised the landlord of these issues or took steps to remedy the situation or mitigate loss.

I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

Should compensation and or exemplary damages be awarded?

As I have found the landlord did not commit any unlawful acts with respect to his obligations no exemplary damages are available to the tenant.

Likewise, as the claims have failed or been previously determined no compensation can be awarded. Further issue

I noted with concern the advice from the landlord about the lack of a Code Compliance Certificate for the addition of a bedroom constructed in 1992 which forms part of the premises rented out.

The Tribunal and District Court have both confirmed that the lack of a Code Compliance Certificate may be a technical breach and bring premises under the provisions of section 78A relating to unlawful residential premises. This is an issue the landlord needs to address if he continues to rent out the premises.

No filing fee is awarded because the tenants were unsuccessful with their claims.

Although the tenants asked for suppression this is not available to them because they were unsuccessful with their application.