What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103901?

The tribunal order states: The Trustees of Christchurch Memorial R.S.A. Museum And Support Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5103901?

Compensation: Health & Safety: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103901?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11579449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103901?

The tribunal order states: The Trustees of Christchurch Memorial R.S.A. Museum And Support Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5103901?

Compensation: Health & Safety: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103901?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11579449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 54 Pages Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103901 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103901 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment	$300.00	Quiet Enjoyment
Compensation: Health & Safety	$750.00	Health & Safety
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,077.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations in that it demolished gardens sheds being used for storage by the tenants and failed to carry out a proper Health & Safety assessment before commencing work which exposed tenants to asbestos.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Premises includes facilities, such as a garden shed.

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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

These premises are a unit within a block of other flats. The same landlord owns the whole complex. There were a number of garden sheds at the property. The landlord decided to demolish them as they were close to a boundary and unsightly. The landlord says that there was never any permission given to the tenant to use the sheds, and that they were full of junk. The tenant says it was clear that the sheds were used for storage.

A reasonable landlord would have notified tenants that the sheds were being demolished and given them and opportunity to remove any items. This landlord did not do that. Its failure amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The tenant said that he arrived home to find the shed demolished and items missing. There was insufficient evidence of what was in the shed or its replacement value. I award compensation of $300 having regard the parties’ descriptions of what was in the shed and its size.

The action was intentional but did not amount to harassment, so I do not award exemplary damages.

The tenant claims that asbestos was released during the demolition of the sheds and that the landlord failed to properly assess and manage that risk.

Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations 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 landlord engaged a contractor to demolish the sheds. Neither it, nor the contractor carried out a proper risk assessment. The sheds were constructed of a material which contained asbestos. A third party made a complaint to the Christchurch City Council during the demolition. Work immediately stopped and a licenced contractor was engaged to complete the demolition.

There is useful guidance for landlord on Tenancy Services website regarding asbestos. See: www.tenancy.govt.nz/maintenance-and-inspections/regular- maintenance/landlords-managing-asbestos-at-the-property

I find that the landlord has failed to meet its obligations under s45 and has committed an unlawful act. The landlord’s actions were negligent or careless, rather than intentional. It may wish to review the contractors it engages to carryout work at the premises.

There was no evidence of the extent or duration of any asbestos contamination at the premises or the impact on tenants. Nor was there any evidence of the extent to which the original contractor failed to comply with reasonable health and safety standards. The landlord referred to a report regarding the asbestos. This was lab tests results and was not particularly helpful without explanation from the licensed contractor. It does seem to show that there is no residual asbestos at the premises.

On the evidence available to me, I find that a nominal award of compensation is appropriate and award $750. However, the landlord is now on notice of its obligations. Any further breach of this nature is likely to attract exemplary damages.

As the tenant was successful, I must award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5103901 — net $1,077.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Quiet Enjoyment	$300.00	Quiet Enjoyment
Compensation: Health & Safety	$750.00	Health & Safety
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,077.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

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. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The action was intentional but did not amount to harassment, so I do not award exemplary damages.

The tenant claims that asbestos was released during the demolition of the sheds and that the landlord failed to properly assess and manage that risk.

Under section 45, a landlord must comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations 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.

As the tenant was successful, I must award reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103901 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 54 Pages Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103901 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 54 Pages Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

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