What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5150751?

The tribunal order states: Mary Fisher must pay Anaru West and Tipene Joseph Henare $205.28

How much money was awarded in case 5150751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150751?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11463759-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5150751?

The tribunal order states: Mary Fisher must pay Anaru West and Tipene Joseph Henare $205.28

How much money was awarded in case 5150751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150751?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11463759-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5150751 — State of repair

Order

Mary Fisher must pay Anaru West and Tipene Joseph Henare $205.28 immediately, being reimbursement of an electrical repair.
The tenants’ application for compensation for alleged unlawful entries and for rodent infestation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone on 14 February 2025.
I adjourned the hearing with directions for the tenants to provide further evidence and for the landlord to respond.
I have received the further evidence and submissions. The application
The tenants have applied for the reimbursement of an electrician’s account; compensation for alleged unlawful entries by the landlord; compensation for rodent infestation; and the filing fee. The issues
The issue for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Should the tenants receive reimbursement of the electrician’s account they paid? •Have the tenants proved claims for compensation? The electrician’s account
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(d) RTA requires a landlord to compensate a tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant for repairs if the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement and is likely to cause injury or is otherwise serious and urgent; and the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
I am satisfied that the repair was a required repair in terms of section 45(1)(d) RTA because it was an electrical repair. Without the repair the tenants had no lights in the kitchen. The next query is whether the tenants gave notice to the landlord or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The tenants emailed the landlord about the need for the light switch repair on 23 October 2024 (email produced). The landlord denies receiving it.
At the hearing the landlord said her email was often full. Perhaps that accounts for her not receiving the email. Regardless, I am satisfied that the tenants made a reasonable attempt to notify the landlord.
When the tenants received no response, they went ahead and had the work done.
The landlord objects to paying for the repair because it was carried out by an electrician other than the person she uses.
The repair cost is modest. It is unlikely that any other electrician could have completed the work more cheaply. The repair is one that had to be done. The invoice is accompanied by an Electrical Safety Certificate
I find that the landlord is liable for the cost of this repair and must reimburse the tenants $205.28, the amount they had to pay. Compensation
First, I will address the issue of alleged unlawful entries. The tenants said there were 4 occasions when the landlord came to the premises unannounced. Other than a visit on 29 January 2025, the tenants were not specific as to dates.
A landlord can come into a property without notice but cannot enter the premises (the house) without notice or without consent.
The landlord said without dates she was unable to address these allegations. She said she went to the premises on 28 January at night because she received a text message at 9.10pm saying that two doors had fallen off due to high winds. She thought it was an emergency so immediately went to the premises. But she did not go inside.
Because the landlord did not enter inside the premises there was no unlawful entry as such. Repeated visits by a landlord can, in some instances, amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. However, in this case the allegations are vague. The event on 28 or 29 January was explained by the landlord. The explanation was reasonable. I do not find that the tenants have established a claim for compensation based on the landlord visiting the property, without entry, on the alleged 4 separate occasions.
Second, there is the issue of rodent infestation. The tenants have produced photos of holes where rodents might enter, but no evidence was provided to show that they asked the landlord to carry out repairs, and that she failed to do so.
Rodents in houses are a common phenomenon especially during winter. Generally, that is not a landlord breach. It is something that every householder has to deal with from time to time.
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were dirty on inspection with 8 bags of rubbish, flies and fly marks. She said the tenants seemed unaware that they might need to set traps especially during winter.
At the hearing the tenants said they tried using traps, but the rodents kept coming back.
Compensation is generally awarded following a landlord breach. Here, while the holes shown in the photos the tenants produced in evidence might have allowed rodents entry, the equally probable cause of rodents entering was the presence of rubbish.
The tenants have not proved a claim for compensation the result of a landlord breach. Though they said they had to throw away clothes no details of any loss were provided that would enable the Tribunal to calculate appropriate compensation.
The tenants have not established a claim for compensation against the landlord for any loss due to rodent infestation the result of a breach by the landlord of her statutory responsibilities. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $205.28 being the reimbursement of the electrical repair (the faulty light switch and baton holder in the kitchen). The tenants’ application for compensation is dismissed.
I make no order reimbursing the Tribunal filing fee as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. I make no orders for name suppression. The tenants have only been partly successful. The landlord has only partly succeeded in her defence. The criteria for name suppression are not met – see section 95A RTA.

Order

Mary Fisher must pay Anaru West and Tipene Joseph Henare $205.28 immediately, being reimbursement of an electrical repair.
The tenants’ application for compensation for alleged unlawful entries and for rodent infestation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video/phone on 14 February 2025.
I adjourned the hearing with directions for the tenants to provide further evidence and for the landlord to respond.
I have received the further evidence and submissions. The application
The tenants have applied for the reimbursement of an electrician’s account; compensation for alleged unlawful entries by the landlord; compensation for rodent infestation; and the filing fee. The issues
The issue for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Should the tenants receive reimbursement of the electrician’s account they paid? •Have the tenants proved claims for compensation? The electrician’s account
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45(1)(d) RTA requires a landlord to compensate a tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant for repairs if the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement and is likely to cause injury or is otherwise serious and urgent; and the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
I am satisfied that the repair was a required repair in terms of section 45(1)(d) RTA because it was an electrical repair. Without the repair the tenants had no lights in the kitchen. The next query is whether the tenants gave notice to the landlord or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The tenants emailed the landlord about the need for the light switch repair on 23 October 2024 (email produced). The landlord denies receiving it.
At the hearing the landlord said her email was often full. Perhaps that accounts for her not receiving the email. Regardless, I am satisfied that the tenants made a reasonable attempt to notify the landlord.
When the tenants received no response, they went ahead and had the work done.
The landlord objects to paying for the repair because it was carried out by an electrician other than the person she uses.
The repair cost is modest. It is unlikely that any other electrician could have completed the work more cheaply. The repair is one that had to be done. The invoice is accompanied by an Electrical Safety Certificate
I find that the landlord is liable for the cost of this repair and must reimburse the tenants $205.28, the amount they had to pay. Compensation
First, I will address the issue of alleged unlawful entries. The tenants said there were 4 occasions when the landlord came to the premises unannounced. Other than a visit on 29 January 2025, the tenants were not specific as to dates.
A landlord can come into a property without notice but cannot enter the premises (the house) without notice or without consent.
The landlord said without dates she was unable to address these allegations. She said she went to the premises on 28 January at night because she received a text message at 9.10pm saying that two doors had fallen off due to high winds. She thought it was an emergency so immediately went to the premises. But she did not go inside.
Because the landlord did not enter inside the premises there was no unlawful entry as such. Repeated visits by a landlord can, in some instances, amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. However, in this case the allegations are vague. The event on 28 or 29 January was explained by the landlord. The explanation was reasonable. I do not find that the tenants have established a claim for compensation based on the landlord visiting the property, without entry, on the alleged 4 separate occasions.
Second, there is the issue of rodent infestation. The tenants have produced photos of holes where rodents might enter, but no evidence was provided to show that they asked the landlord to carry out repairs, and that she failed to do so.
Rodents in houses are a common phenomenon especially during winter. Generally, that is not a landlord breach. It is something that every householder has to deal with from time to time.
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were dirty on inspection with 8 bags of rubbish, flies and fly marks. She said the tenants seemed unaware that they might need to set traps especially during winter.
At the hearing the tenants said they tried using traps, but the rodents kept coming back.
Compensation is generally awarded following a landlord breach. Here, while the holes shown in the photos the tenants produced in evidence might have allowed rodents entry, the equally probable cause of rodents entering was the presence of rubbish.
The tenants have not proved a claim for compensation the result of a landlord breach. Though they said they had to throw away clothes no details of any loss were provided that would enable the Tribunal to calculate appropriate compensation.
The tenants have not established a claim for compensation against the landlord for any loss due to rodent infestation the result of a breach by the landlord of her statutory responsibilities. Result
The landlord will pay the tenants $205.28 being the reimbursement of the electrical repair (the faulty light switch and baton holder in the kitchen). The tenants’ application for compensation is dismissed.
I make no order reimbursing the Tribunal filing fee as the application is only partly successful. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. I make no orders for name suppression. The tenants have only been partly successful. The landlord has only partly succeeded in her defence. The criteria for name suppression are not met – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150751 — State of repair at 3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150751 — State of repair at 3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions