Application RT 14/25538
36Application RT 14/25538 was made on the day orders were made in RT 14/22700.
37The reasons for seeking the orders in RT 14/25538 were stated in the application by the tenants as:
"We had a hearing RT 14/22700 today and we feel the Tribunal member did not have time to take part of our application, evidence and documents provided. We feel that the order we got does not include all the issues we were seeking for. Also the property manager/landlord were not available to attend."
38The orders sought in RT 14/25538 are for orders under s 187(1)(d), s 187(1)(e), s 187(1)(f), s 47, s 65(1)(a), s 65(1)(b) and s 65(5).
39The orders sought in RT 14/22700 were for orders under s 187(1)(d), s 187(1)(f), s 45, s 47 and s 65(1)(a).
40The tenants had their application for orders under s 187(1)(d), s 187(1)(f), s 47 and s 65(1)(a) determined by the Tribunal on 16 May 2014. In those orders leave was granted by the Tribunal for the tenants to renew the proceedings until compliance with the orders made on 16 May 2014.
41It is the evidence of the tenants that the order for compensation was complied with on 26 May 2014.
42The order to carry out work gave the landlord until 30 June 2014 to comply.
43The tenants filed their second application on the day the orders were made in the first application. Their intention is clearly and unambiguously stated in the reasons for the application. They were dissatisfied with the result they achieved in the first application.
44It was open to then to appeal the decision in the first application; they did not.
45They sought to re-present their first application by way of having another attempt to achieve the outcome they wanted. They had a right to seek leave to renew the proceedings if the landlord failed to comply with the orders of 16 May 2014.
46In RT 14/ 25538 the order they seek under s 65(1)(b) is for the exact order they obtained on the day they filed the application.
47Although not stated as such, the bringing of application RT 14/25538 may be construed to be in the nature of renewal of the first application, the distinction not being understood by litigants in person.
48The Tribunal directs its further attention as to whether if leave granted to renew proceedings those proceedings have been finally determined.
49It is common practice in the procedure of the Tribunal, particularly in matters brought under the Residential Tenancies Act to grant leave in orders to renew proceedings as an order to promote the resolution of a dispute.
50The difficulty in the matter now being determined by the Tribunal is whether the application is a renewal of the tenants' first application or a fresh application.
51The Tribunal is under an obligation to adhere to the guiding principle of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act in the disposal of applications before it.
52The orders made by the Tribunal in RT 14/22700 granted leave to renew the application until 30 June 2014.
53To effectively dispose of the applications now before it, the Tribunal grants leave for the application RT 14/25538 to be a renewal of application RT 14/22700.
54S 63 of the Act provides that a landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard for the age of, rent payable for and prospective life of the premises. That obligation applies even though a tenant had notice of the state of repair before entering into occupation of the premises.
55The tenants' evidence is that condition of the house was that they were unable to use the first floor of the house. That floor contained 4 bedrooms, a television/lounge room and two bathrooms. The ground floor was mouldy and cold. The kitchen was in such a condition that it could not be used.
56The landlord relied on the negotiated rent being "reduced from $730.00 pw to $670 per week due to the condition" (email dated 11 April 2014 from landlords letting agent to landlords managing agent in Exhibit 1 tendered by the landlord) to justify the condition of the premises.
57The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence adduced by the tenants that the premises were in such poor condition that they should not have been let in the first place. The reduction of rent negotiated was manifestly inadequate compensation for the tenants having to live in premises of such poor repair. The tenants' circumstances at the time of entering into the residential tenancy agreement resulted in an urgency to obtain accommodation for themselves and their children, the consequence of which they found themselves in premises that were totally inadequate.
58S 109 of the Act provides that a tenant may give a landlord a termination notice and the residential tenancy agreement will end on the date specified in the notice if the residential premises become partly or wholly uninhabitable.
59The tenants gave notice to the landlord on 18 June 2014 that they would vacate the premises on 10 July 2014 because they could not use the first floor rooms and the kitchen.
60The Tribunal is satisfied on the civil standard of proof that the premises became uninhabitable despite the tenants efforts to bring the premises to a reasonable condition for them to occupy them. It is the landlord that has failed in its duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition. The premises became uninhabitable as the problems of water leaks resulted in an inability to use 2 of the 3 bathrooms and the inability to use the bedrooms in a 5 bedroom home.