What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5004132?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5004132?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5004132?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5004132?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11600729-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5004132?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5004132?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5004132?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5004132?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11600729-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Rata Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5004132 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant is required to establish the claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant applied for; • Compensation for the purchase of a lawn mower. • Exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises which referred specifically to; • Tree pruning. • Loose mortar in the driveway and mailbox bricks. • Front door lock. • Fridge . Lawnmower
The tenant said that there had been a misunderstanding between the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties, records that the responsibility for maintaining the gardens and lawns was on the tenant. As a result, the tenant purchased a second hand lawn mower for $60.00 with the intention of being able to mow the lawns himself.
Soon after the start of the tenancy, a contractor arrived at the premises to mow the lawns and then continued to do so on a regular basis throughout the tenancy. The tenant was not charged for this service. It was only when the contractor arrived, that it became clear to the tenant that he would not be responsible for the lawns. The tenant was able to subsequently sell the lawn mower for $40.00.
The tenant did not advise the landlord that he proposed purchasing a lawn mower. The maximum loss to the tenant is $20.00. In considering that loss and taking into account depreciation on the lawnmower, I consider that there has been no actual loss to the tenant and the application is dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 RTA.
There are a number of claims under this heading. The tenant says that the trees at the front and back of the premises were not pruned by the landlord. The tenant said that this did not result in any substantial diminution of the benefit of the property to him. The landlord said that the trees had been pruned on a number of occasions during the course of the tenancy and that it was never a requirement that the tenant complete any pruning.
The tenant said that the bricks in a bench on the property and a brick on the letterbox was loose when he moved in. The tenant raised this with the landlord in a meeting in June 2023. No steps were taken by the landlord to resolve the issue. The tenant said that this resulted in some potential danger and told his children not to sit on the bench. The landlord said that there was a loose brick on the seat and on the letter box. The landlord inspected the property on 1 June 2023. At the meeting the tenant said that he wanted the issue of the loose bricks “noted”. The issue was recorded in an e-mail from the tenant to the landlord dated 1 June 2023. The e-mail did not require the landlord to take any steps.
The tenant said that a tradesman attending the property to repair or replace the dishwasher had heard the refrigerator making a loud noise and he commented that this was often an indication that the fridge was “on the way out”. The tenant said the fridge had continued to operate through until the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that the fridge was still working today.
The tenant said that the front door and sliding door locks were old and did not work well. They were operational, but the front door would not shut when it was not locked. The landlord provided evidence of having arranged for a locksmith to attend the premises to complete repairs. Repairs was completed on 26 June 2023.
The responsibility on a landlord to maintain, is to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. I do not consider that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to show that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in a “reasonable state of repair”.
The tree pruning or lack of, has not had any substantial impact on the tenant. Similarly, the issue with the bricks in the driveway and the letter box has had limited, if any impact on the tenant. The locks operated to lock the appropriate doors. Repairs to the locks were completed within a reasonable period. The fridge remained operational through to the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims, the tenant having failed to prove the claims to the required civil standard of proof, are dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant is required to establish the claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant applied for; • Compensation for the purchase of a lawn mower. • Exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises which referred specifically to; • Tree pruning. • Loose mortar in the driveway and mailbox bricks. • Front door lock. • Fridge . Lawnmower
The tenant said that there had been a misunderstanding between the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties, records that the responsibility for maintaining the gardens and lawns was on the tenant. As a result, the tenant purchased a second hand lawn mower for $60.00 with the intention of being able to mow the lawns himself.
Soon after the start of the tenancy, a contractor arrived at the premises to mow the lawns and then continued to do so on a regular basis throughout the tenancy. The tenant was not charged for this service. It was only when the contractor arrived, that it became clear to the tenant that he would not be responsible for the lawns. The tenant was able to subsequently sell the lawn mower for $40.00.
The tenant did not advise the landlord that he proposed purchasing a lawn mower. The maximum loss to the tenant is $20.00. In considering that loss and taking into account depreciation on the lawnmower, I consider that there has been no actual loss to the tenant and the application is dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 RTA.
There are a number of claims under this heading. The tenant says that the trees at the front and back of the premises were not pruned by the landlord. The tenant said that this did not result in any substantial diminution of the benefit of the property to him. The landlord said that the trees had been pruned on a number of occasions during the course of the tenancy and that it was never a requirement that the tenant complete any pruning.
The tenant said that the bricks in a bench on the property and a brick on the letterbox was loose when he moved in. The tenant raised this with the landlord in a meeting in June 2023. No steps were taken by the landlord to resolve the issue. The tenant said that this resulted in some potential danger and told his children not to sit on the bench. The landlord said that there was a loose brick on the seat and on the letter box. The landlord inspected the property on 1 June 2023. At the meeting the tenant said that he wanted the issue of the loose bricks “noted”. The issue was recorded in an e-mail from the tenant to the landlord dated 1 June 2023. The e-mail did not require the landlord to take any steps.
The tenant said that a tradesman attending the property to repair or replace the dishwasher had heard the refrigerator making a loud noise and he commented that this was often an indication that the fridge was “on the way out”. The tenant said the fridge had continued to operate through until the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that the fridge was still working today.
The tenant said that the front door and sliding door locks were old and did not work well. They were operational, but the front door would not shut when it was not locked. The landlord provided evidence of having arranged for a locksmith to attend the premises to complete repairs. Repairs was completed on 26 June 2023.
The responsibility on a landlord to maintain, is to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. I do not consider that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to show that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in a “reasonable state of repair”.
The tree pruning or lack of, has not had any substantial impact on the tenant. Similarly, the issue with the bricks in the driveway and the letter box has had limited, if any impact on the tenant. The locks operated to lock the appropriate doors. Repairs to the locks were completed within a reasonable period. The fridge remained operational through to the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claims, the tenant having failed to prove the claims to the required civil standard of proof, are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5004132 — State of repair at 3 Rata Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5004132 — State of repair at 3 Rata Road, Devonport, Auckland 0624

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