The tenant claimed the landlord failed to maintain the property while the landlord alleged the tenant had prevented access for repairs.
Tribunal member J.R. Smith found in favour of the tenants and awarded them $3360 in compensation saying there clearly had been a significant loss of amenity.
“A bathroom is a vital part of any home, and the ability for the tenants and the children to use the bathroom safely and without fear of falling through the floor is a fairly basic expectation.”
A plumber fixed the leak on October 20 but after they left the tenant noticed the floor in front of the vanity appeared to be disintegrating and was caving in slightly.
The landlord was promptly made aware of the problem but the tenants didn’t receive a reply so on November 30 they advised the floor was still bad and a crack had developed in the linoleum.
A property inspection was done on December 3, and while the tenant couldn’t be there she left a list of items that needed attention, including the floor.
The landlord later contacted the tenant about rent arrears but made no mention of floor repairs.
On January 10, the tenant again contacted the landlord about the bathroom floor and other repairs required to a hole in the wall and a leaky tap.
The landlord again contacted the tenant about rent arrears but did not address the repairs.
When the tenant was contacted in February about another property inspection, they decided, due to the lack of action in December, they needed to be present.
The family then caught Covid and wound up in hospital so a proposed inspection in March couldn’t take place.
Inspections in April and May also had to be rescheduled until one was finally carried out in July when the problem with the floor was again raised with the landlord claiming they would “get onto it”.
“[The tenant] responded that it had been going on since October the previous year, that it was dangerous, and they were not really able to use the bathroom properly because of those health and safety issues.”
There was no further communication from the landlord until August, when the then property manager, Prashan Jeet, contacted the tenant without notice saying he was at the house with a builder to inspect the floor.
The builder could not get inside the house but was able to get underneath to see the damage and repairs were finally made on September 5, 2022.
The tribunal ruled the tenants’ story was corroborated by text and email messages.
“They said that they felt that the landlord had no issue contacting them when they were in arrears, but when it came to the other way around communications were poor.”
The floor was obviously dangerous from January onwards.
“The floorboards must have been rotting underneath because there was a significant depression in the floor.
“They said that during weekdays when working they had no choice but to use the bathroom however they were forced to stand on two planks of wood placed on either side of the vanity to do basic things like brushing their teeth and [had to] step out of the shower with extreme care.
“On the weekends when they had more time, they ended up showering at the homes of friends or family.”
At the hearing the landlord was forced to accept the tenant had sent the messages regarding the condition of the floor but focused on the fact they had not sent them to the correct person within the company.
The tribunal acknowledged the landlord could operate its business however it saw fit.
“However, if their operational decisions mean that messages from some staff do not get passed on to other appropriate staff then that is a consequence of their own operational setup and is not the fault of the tenants.”
It ruled the landlord had breached its obligation to fix the bathroom floor in a timely manner.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the tenant intentionally denied access to the landlord at any time.
