What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4413423 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Helen Zhang $229.56 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4413423?

Compensation: Breach Of Section 45: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4413423?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4413423?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10274259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4413423 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Helen Zhang $229.56 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4413423?

Compensation: Breach Of Section 45: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,050.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4413423?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4413423?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10274259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4413423 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4413423 — net $229.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4/9/2022	$4,050.00		Rent arrears to 4/9/2022
Compensation: Breach of section 45		$1,500.00	Breach of section 45
Exemplary damages: Non-lodgement of the bond		$500.00	Non-lodgement of the bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,050.00	$2,020.44
Net award	$229.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$229.56

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4413423 — net $229.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 4/9/2022	$4,050.00		Rent arrears to 4/9/2022
Compensation: Breach of section 45		$1,500.00	Breach of section 45
Exemplary damages: Non-lodgement of the bond		$500.00	Non-lodgement of the bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,050.00	$2,020.44
Net award	$229.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$229.56

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Helen Zhang $229.56 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 to Helen Zhang immediately.
The tenants’ claim in relation to breach of quiet enjoyment of the premises and privacy is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for outstanding water rates and compensation for cleaning are dismissed.

Reasons

[The applicant/s] (the tenants) entered a tenancy agreement with Helen Zhang (the landlord) for the premises situated at 135A White Swan Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041. The tenancy started on 28 September 2020 and ended on 4 September 2022. The rent was $480.00 per week and the bond was $1,800.00.
The tenants have filed an application claiming various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations including: (i) non-lodgement of the bond, (ii) the failure to repair and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition and comply with healthy homes standards, and (iii) breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy. As a remedy, the tenants seek compensation of $5,000.00, exemplary damages where necessary and refund of the bond.
The landlord has filed a cross application claiming rent arrears, outstanding water charges, compensation for cleaning and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.
The claims were heard over three hearings. The landlord attended the hearings in person. Both tenants attended the first hearing. Mr Mansuri attended the following two hearings for the tenants.
Before I consider the specific issues, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. Both parties need to establish, on the balance of probabilities, their claims. In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not correct.
What is required is for the Tribunal to be satisfied that, overall, it is more probable than not that the facts occurred as described and that the inferences sought to be drawn can reasonably be drawn from the facts as they have been found. Compensation
Before compensation can be awarded a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) or the tenancy agreement must be established.
Compensation, if any, is awarded on the evidence provided together with an assessment of the actual loss suffered or an actual cost recovery basis where that can be ascertained. In assessing loss, the Tribunal takes into account the reasonableness of the conduct of the parties. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are different from ordinary damages. Ordinary damages in the usual sense of the term, is to compensate. The object of exemplary damages is to punish and deter. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty party. They are punitive because they are meant to punish.
To establish whether exemplary damages are appropriate in this case it must first establish that an unlawful act occurred. What constitutes an unlawful act is set out in each section of the RTA and summarised in schedule 1A.
The Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to stated maximums if the landlord or tenant intentionally committed an unlawful act listed in the RTA and it was just or fair to order a penalty, having regard to the tenant or landlord’s intent in doing the unlawful act; the effect of the unlawful act; the interests of the tenant or landlord and the public interest (section 109(3) RTA). The tenants’ application Non-lodgement of the bond
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord did not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The landlord breached her duty to pay the bond to the Bond Centre within 23 working days. It is appropriate to award exemplary damages.
The landlord’s oversight of not lodging the bond within the required timeframe is a serious one. For the tenants it means considerable concern that their ability to recover their bond was compromised because it was not held at the Bond Centre. The bond was not lodged until the tenants filed an application and the Tribunal directed the landlord to lodge the bond.
In this case I accept that the landlord has an obligation under the RTA to understand her obligations. I also accept that this failure to lodge the bond, has disadvantaged the tenants as they have had to wait some time to resolve this matter as the amount in dispute was not held by an independent body.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the landlord intentionally did not lodge the bond within the 23 working day time frame. The effect of this is that the landlord has been able to retain the bond without any justification. There is a very strong public interest in landlords complying with their obligations, particularly in respect of bonds.
Balancing those considerations, I award exemplary damages of $500.00.
The Tribunal takes this matter seriously and urges the landlord to ensure that she lodges the bond within the 23 working day period in the future. Future failures may not be seen in the same light as now. Repair and maintenance issues with the premises
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(b) RTA. In addition, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (section 45(1)(c)).
Breaching any obligations under section 45 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 RTA.
It is well settled law that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, landlords have to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) in respect to heating, ventilation, water ingress, and draught stopping by certain dates. Between 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2025, all private rentals must comply with the HHS within certain timeframes from the start of any new, or renewed, tenancy. In this case, the HHS did not apply because the tenancy commenced in September 2020.
However, under section 45(1)(c), the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 do apply to the tenancy. Regulation 15 states: Every house shall be free from dampness. Regulation 17(1) states: The materials of which each house is constructed shall be sound, durable, and, where subject to the effects of the weather, weatherproof, and shall be maintained in such a condition.
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and keep the house free from dampness, draught and excessive mould. They say that despite repeated requests the landlord often ignored their pleas or made excuses for the delay. Since the beginning of the tenancy the tenants have raised complaints regarding water coming in through the main door and gaps in the windows when it rained onto the carpet causing mould growth and foul smells and attracting an infestation of bugs, there were more than 10 big windows in the house and all were broken, the landlord did not allow them to open the windows in the bedroom or living room, and the broken kitchen shelf. The tenants also say the house lacked an air conditioning/heat pump system, and the gas stove was not working for more than 3 months. The tenants note attempts to repair were ineffective make-shift solutions rather than a permanent solution as the landlord preferred to carry out the work rather than arrange for a qualified tradesperson to undertake the work.
The tenants say the delay and constant attention required to have reasonable maintenance carried out had been exhausting, stressful and a breach of their quiet enjoyment of the tenancy.
In response, the landlord disputed the tenants’ claims. The landlord accepted that there have been problems associated with the property as with most properties. However, the landlord believes she has undertaken reasonable steps to attend to the tenants’ requests in a timely manner. She had not been informed of some of the issues raised by the tenants. She disputed the gravity of the issues and inconvenience as described by the tenants. The landlord stresses that getting repair work done promptly was difficult during 2020 and 2021 because of Covid- 19 restrictions.
The evidence did not establish that the landlord was in breach of her obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, in respect of the claim that the house lacked an air conditioning unit/heat pump system. The landlord considered the built in electrical heater in the living area was sufficient and denied any request from the tenants for an air conditioning/heat pump system. But the tenants say the installed heater was dangerously low to the ground rendering it unsafe for their children. Given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence, I find this claim has not been established. This claim is dismissed.
In relation to the other repair and maintenance issues, I find on the evidence, including photographs of the condition of the property, that the property was not maintained in a reasonable state of repair. I also find maintenance was not done in a timely manner and the landlord did not ensure the house was free from dampness.
The tenant said that the state of the windows meant that the house was very cold and draughty. The tenants gave evidence about 10 broken big windows throughout the property and of water coming in through the main door and gaps in the windows when it rained onto the carpet causing mould growth and foul smells and attracting an infestation of bugs. The tenants say the landlord did not allow them to open the windows in the bedroom or living room. They had personally requested many times that the landlord fix the windows especially when it rained. Eventually the landlord came with a long stick and pushed all the windows up, but problems persisted.
The landlord disputed the extent of the broken windows claimed by the tenants. The landlord considered that the gaps in the doors and windows were normal and that water coming through the gaps was a one off and only when the weather was severe which was denied by the tenants.
I find the landlord could have done more sooner based on the tenants’ repeated concerns. A more robust investigation should have been undertaken. I do not consider that sufficient steps were taken by the landlord to check the premises for any unreasonable gaps and carry out any work necessary.
Weathertightness is a fundamental condition for a rental property. Leaks and flooding in general are serious issues and should be repaired or attended to promptly as it can create mould and an unhealthy and undesirable living environment; and can also reduce the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the property.
Here, I accept that the property was probably not free from dampness due to the recurring problem experienced by the tenants. The ongoing nature of water coming through the gaps although intermittently and maintenance issues which persevered, despite having been attended to, leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the landlord has not maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I accept the tenants have suffered some loss of amenity and have had to deal with the ongoing stress, inconvenience and adverse effects on their health. The problems were exacerbated by other deficiencies in the property.
The tenants gave evidence that they had endured severe mould and flea/insect infestation in the kitchen. The problem originated from a broken kitchen shelf that allowed water to seep in, resulting in the wood rotting, extensive mould and attracting fleas/insects. Repeated requests for repair were made to the landlord but no action was taken. Finally, the landlord took a stick and asked the tenant to put it below the kitchen shelf. The landlord contended that the cause of the disintegration of the kitchen shelf was due to the tenants’ careless spillage of water around the shelf. I do not accept this. I find the broken kitchen shelf was a maintenance issue that the landlord was responsible for. The temporary repair of the kitchen shelf was inadequate. The delay in properly addressing the kitchen shelf caused health and safety issues for the tenants and impacted on their use and enjoyment of the property.
The tenants say the gas stove was non-functional for a period of over 3 months despite repeated requests to the landlord for repair or replacement. I find the landlord failed to address the issue with the stove in a timely manner. The landlord had been dilatory and could not provide me any satisfactory reason to explain the significant delay.
The landlord had presumed that some problems were solely because of the way the tenants were living in the premises. Of course, this cannot be completely ruled out. In this case however, there was no reason to doubt the tenants’ evidence. I do not accept that the problems resulted solely, or in the main, from lifestyle factors.
The tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience of the landlord’s failure to repair in a timely manner. Awards of compensation are generally modest. It is reasonable that the tenants be awarded compensation for the delay as there was a loss of amenity, and I fix that award at $1,500.00 which is meaningful but not excessive.
I do not consider that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. The landlord has been lax but lacks the requisite intent. Breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy
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) RTA.
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.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants say the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises on several occasions and consistently interfered with their privacy by imposing numerous restrictions and regulations on their daily activities. They say the landlord would frequently visit their back house and dictate what they could and couldn’t do. She would shout at them when they forgot to close their bedroom or living room windows which was distressing and uncomfortable for their family. The landlord would enter their premises without proper notice and spoke loudly causing discomfort and embarrassment in front of their neighbours. Furthermore, they say the landlord objected to their children playing in the backyard claiming it was her area due to her plants despite initially assuring them that the garden area belonged to them. This created tension and prevented their children from using that space. They say the landlord was a difficult person to deal with and was often confrontational. When they requested repairs, she would argue and yell. This caused immense distress and disappointment for their family.
The landlord generally denied the allegations and there is no independent corroborating evidence. In that regard, the Tribunal is left to determine one person’s word against another’s word. It is therefore impossible for me to make a finding and for that reason I must dismiss the claim. The landlord’s application Rent arrears and outstanding water rates
As noted above, the Tribunal is required to apply an evidential standard. The burden is on the landlord to prove her claims on the balance of probabilities.
The tenancy ended in September 2022. The landlord claims rent was in arrears at the end of the tenancy. The amount originally claimed was $4,211.70. At the hearing on 3 April 2023, the landlord produced an amended rent summary, claiming rent arrears of $5,850.00. Due to apparent discrepancies, the rent summary was compared to bank statements produced by the landlord. That process revealed a further $1,800.00 in payments not accounted for, reducing the rent arrears to $4,050.00.
The tenants disputed the rent arrears claimed by the landlord and do not believe they owe any rent. They say the landlord never raised any issues with the rent during their tenancy, only at the end. Since filing the application, the tenants say they have received multiple versions of the rent summary. They argue that the landlord did not keep a rent summary during tenancy and only put one together for the purposes of the hearing. They consider the rent summaries produced were confusing and should be treated with caution as the landlord had changed her bank account multiple times during the tenancy. They believe they had already given the landlord proof of payments when she had requested it earlier but were hard pressed to find the details now.
The tenants were given ample opportunity to provide evidence of discrepancies or missed payments not accounted for in the landlord’s rent records. The tenants provided copies of their bank statements but in my assessment, these do not reveal any further payments not accounted for in the landlord’s rent records.
I therefore find the landlord has proved rent arrears of $4,050.00 owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims outstanding water rates of $1,511.70 for the period 30 March 2021 to 4 September 2022. However, the landlord did not provide a full copy of the Watercare invoices to verify the amounts claimed. She only provided a copy of the back page. This is not sufficient for the Tribunal to assess and determine the claim. The claim is therefore dismissed. Cleaning issues
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord says she paid the tenants $110.00 at the start of the tenancy for cleaning as the previous tenants did not leave the premises clean.
The landlord claims however that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and therefore she wants the $110.00 returned.
There is no rule that a tenant must leave the premises in a spotless condition that would enable a new tenant, or somebody else, to occupy the premises as soon as the old tenant moves out. The standard set by the Act is "reasonably" clean and tidy and this does not mean "spotless".
I note the contradictory evidence of the parties regarding the issues raised by this claim. This claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord presented limited photographs. I am not satisfied this evidence was sufficient to prove the landlord’s claim. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression order
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their claims and, therefore, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4413423 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4413423 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions