What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014408?

The tribunal order states: 100 Percent Rentals Limited must pay Anthony Richard Gore the sum of

How much money was awarded in case 5014408?

Compensation: $190.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $54.29 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014408?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11072482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5014408?

The tribunal order states: 100 Percent Rentals Limited must pay Anthony Richard Gore the sum of

How much money was awarded in case 5014408?

Compensation: $190.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $54.29 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014408?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11072482-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 8, 5 George Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014408 — Leaks

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014408 — net $244.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent	$54.29	Rent
Compensation leaking roof	$190.00	Compensation leaking roof
Net award	$244.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$244.29

Both parties attended the hearing which concerned a boarding house tenancy that began on 21 February 2023 and ended on 17 August 2024 when the landlord gave the tenant 28 days’ notice. The landlord was represented by Mr Chapman.

The onus is on the tenant, as the applicant, to prove his claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that he must provide sufficient evidence for Tribunal to find that a fact he relies on is more likely than not to be correct. Notice

The tenant said that the notice was not reasonable and there was no basis for it.

Under section 66A of the Residential Tenancies Act, certain provisions of the Act do not apply to boarding house tenancies. That includes the notice provisions.

Section 66U sets out the ways in which landlords of boarding tenancies may lawfully terminate the tenancy. That includes by giving 28 days’ notice if no reason is given. 1

On 19 July 2024 the landlord gave the tenant 28 days’ notice effective from 20 July. It said that the last day of the tenancy would be 17 August, which is 28 days from 20 July. The tenant received the email on 20 July.

I am satisfied that the notice given was valid. The tenant’s claim in relation to the notice is dismissed. Rent

Even though the tenant did not tell the landlord that he was moving out two days before the notice period expired, the landlord agreed that there may have been a misunderstanding about the tenant’s notice requirements and he agreed to reimburse the tenant two days’ rent, which comes to $54.29. Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims that the landlord did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. He says that the premises were damp and mouldy. Under section 66I(1)(bb) a landlord must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Those standards relate to insulation, heating, moisture ingress, ventilation and draught-stopping. Each of the standards sets out the factors which must be complied with.

There is a Healthy Homes Statement attached to the tenancy agreement. It records compliance with all standards.

Dampness and mould may be the result of non-compliance but first the tenant must prove how the landlord failed to comply with any of those standards. He did not refer to any specific standard. The evidence was of some photos of some common areas which he said were mouldy.

In fact, the landlord provided evidence if a Healthy Homes assessment that was conducted in 2021 and invoices of work that was done to make the premises compliant. 1 Section 66U(1)(d)

It was an agreed fact that there is a leak in the kitchen ceiling, but that does not automatically mean that there is a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenant did not provide evidence to prove that any of the requirements in the Healthy Home Standards were met.

Section 66I(1)(b) provides that a landlord must ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

The notice of hearing that was sent to the parties included reference to a failure to maintain.

The landlord said that he had asked someone to look at the leak in 2021 but had been unable to ascertain the cause of it. This is an old building, at least 100 years old.

I find that the landlord has not taken sufficient steps to ascertain the cause of the leak and to maintain the building, notwithstanding the age of the building.

The tenant’s evidence of the impact of the leak was that the occupants had to use receptacles to catch the water when it rained. This was not an issue that he raised with the landlord. The landlord was aware of the leak, but not necessarily the extent of the impact of the leak on the tenants.

Because there was no evidence that the tenant asked the landlord to repair the leak and he did not provide evidence of a significant impact of the leak on him, any order for compensation is not significant. In these circumstances I order that the landlord pay the tenant the equivalent of one week’s rent, being $190.00.

The tenant’s success is not substantial and so I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee and no orders for non-publication of name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014408 — net $244.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent	$54.29	Rent
Compensation leaking roof	$190.00	Compensation leaking roof
Net award	$244.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$244.29

Order

100 Percent Rentals Limited must pay Anthony Richard Gore the sum of $244.29 immediately, as calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which concerned a boarding house tenancy that began on 21 February 2023 and ended on 17 August 2024 when the landlord gave the tenant 28 days’ notice. The landlord was represented by Mr Chapman.
The onus is on the tenant, as the applicant, to prove his claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that he must provide sufficient evidence for Tribunal to find that a fact he relies on is more likely than not to be correct. Notice
The tenant said that the notice was not reasonable and there was no basis for it.
Under section 66A of the Residential Tenancies Act, certain provisions of the Act do not apply to boarding house tenancies. That includes the notice provisions.
Section 66U sets out the ways in which landlords of boarding tenancies may lawfully terminate the tenancy. That includes by giving 28 days’ notice if no reason is given. 1
On 19 July 2024 the landlord gave the tenant 28 days’ notice effective from 20 July. It said that the last day of the tenancy would be 17 August, which is 28 days from 20 July. The tenant received the email on 20 July.
I am satisfied that the notice given was valid. The tenant’s claim in relation to the notice is dismissed. Rent
Even though the tenant did not tell the landlord that he was moving out two days before the notice period expired, the landlord agreed that there may have been a misunderstanding about the tenant’s notice requirements and he agreed to reimburse the tenant two days’ rent, which comes to $54.29. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims that the landlord did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. He says that the premises were damp and mouldy. Under section 66I(1)(bb) a landlord must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. Those standards relate to insulation, heating, moisture ingress, ventilation and draught-stopping. Each of the standards sets out the factors which must be complied with.
There is a Healthy Homes Statement attached to the tenancy agreement. It records compliance with all standards.
Dampness and mould may be the result of non-compliance but first the tenant must prove how the landlord failed to comply with any of those standards. He did not refer to any specific standard. The evidence was of some photos of some common areas which he said were mouldy.
In fact, the landlord provided evidence if a Healthy Homes assessment that was conducted in 2021 and invoices of work that was done to make the premises compliant. 1 Section 66U(1)(d)
It was an agreed fact that there is a leak in the kitchen ceiling, but that does not automatically mean that there is a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The tenant did not provide evidence to prove that any of the requirements in the Healthy Home Standards were met.
Section 66I(1)(b) provides that a landlord must ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The notice of hearing that was sent to the parties included reference to a failure to maintain.
The landlord said that he had asked someone to look at the leak in 2021 but had been unable to ascertain the cause of it. This is an old building, at least 100 years old.
I find that the landlord has not taken sufficient steps to ascertain the cause of the leak and to maintain the building, notwithstanding the age of the building.
The tenant’s evidence of the impact of the leak was that the occupants had to use receptacles to catch the water when it rained. This was not an issue that he raised with the landlord. The landlord was aware of the leak, but not necessarily the extent of the impact of the leak on the tenants.
Because there was no evidence that the tenant asked the landlord to repair the leak and he did not provide evidence of a significant impact of the leak on him, any order for compensation is not significant. In these circumstances I order that the landlord pay the tenant the equivalent of one week’s rent, being $190.00.
The tenant’s success is not substantial and so I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee and no orders for non-publication of name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014408 — Leaks at Room 8, 5 George Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014408 — Leaks at Room 8, 5 George Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions