What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4436640 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4436640?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Garden Shed: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $35.90 awarded to landlord; Partial Materials For Prayer Area: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $43.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4436640?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4436640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8703324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4436640 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4436640?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Garden Shed: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $35.90 awarded to landlord; Partial Materials For Prayer Area: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $43.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4436640?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4436640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8703324-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4436640 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4436640 — net $270.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: water at end of tenancy	$43.17		Water rates: water at end of tenancy
garden shed	$500.00		garden shed
Lock/key replacement: padlock and keys	$35.90		Lock/key replacement: padlock and keys
Carpet Cleaning: partial	$100.00		Carpet Cleaning: partial
Repairs: partial materials for prayer area	$50.00		Repairs: partial materials for prayer area
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$729.07	$1,000.00
Net award		$270.93
Bond		$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$270.93

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $270.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] with his son and both landlords.
The property is a 1970s home in original condition.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 11 December 2020 and ended on 30 September 2022. It appears the landlord and tenant had a good relationship which struck difficulty in the end.
The tenant applied for refund of bond and claims the landlord did not follow through with promises to renovate the property, stating there was reach of Healthy Homes standards.
The landlord has applied for water usage owing at the end of the tenancy, and compensation for carpet cleaning, repairing bathroom ceiling, replacement of locks and for damages to walls, door and paint following the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s claim
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
Though the claim appeared to have been made out on this ground, it was clear during the hearing that the real issue was the landlord’s failure to provide the home in a reasonable state that became an issue.
Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
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 agrees that he was intending to do further renovation work but allowed the tenant to move in earlier so they could have their pooja for the property. There were promises to paint the walls and install a rangehood that never eventuated. The tenant says the walls in the kitchen were covered in oil stains and the place was unhygienic upon moving in. The tenant said they did not want to complain further as the rent was cheap and they did not want to cause any problems. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord continued to ignore to carry out the renovations and the installing the rangehood as promised at the start of the tenancy. There were no regular inspections of the property over the 2 years.
The tenant said they did not cook inside the house as the house would smell due to not having a rangehood.
The landlord says he did not install a rangehood because the tenant said not to worry about it and asked for a garden shed and gas cooker to be put outside the back door so it could be used for cooking.
The obligation was on the landlord to ensure the property was up to a reasonable standard and keep to the representations made to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. Having a proper vented rangehood would have alleviated the problems of mould and stains in the home. There is no window above the stove and it would have proven difficult to cook on the stove without causing smoke or smells in the home.
The tenant said he had to take the smoke alarm off the ceiling as the first two or 3 days there was cooking in the home, the alarm would go off.
The Tribunal awards $1,000.00 in exemplary damages to the tenant for the breach of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy and failing to maintain the property in good repair. The landlord’s claim
There was no dispute about the final water usage owing at the end of the tenancy being $43.17. The amount is awarded to the landlord.
There was also no dispute that the tenant took the garden shed and agreed to pay $500.00 for the shed. That amount is awarded to the landlord.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not return all the keys, in particular the padlock keys and front door keys. The Tribunal awards $35.90 for the replacement keys.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet stains in the lounge as per the photographs provided and damage to the cupboard/wall of the pooja area. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I award $100.00 as contribution for the cleaning of the carpet and $50.00 to the landlord for the repairs. All other claims for damages are dismissed for lack of evidence. The landlord did not have pre-tenancy photos, any regular inspection information or proper invoices post tenancy to satisfy the Tribunal of the further claims.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Name Suppression
The landlord sought name suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order in his cross-application. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case, both parties have had some success and failure in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case and mindful this was overall a breakdown of relationship between the landlord and tenant that could have been dealt with better between the two, the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4436640 — net $270.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates: water at end of tenancy	$43.17		Water rates: water at end of tenancy
garden shed	$500.00		garden shed
Lock/key replacement: padlock and keys	$35.90		Lock/key replacement: padlock and keys
Carpet Cleaning: partial	$100.00		Carpet Cleaning: partial
Repairs: partial materials for prayer area	$50.00		Repairs: partial materials for prayer area
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,000.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$729.07	$1,000.00
Net award		$270.93
Bond		$1,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$270.93

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $270.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] with his son and both landlords.
The property is a 1970s home in original condition.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 11 December 2020 and ended on 30 September 2022. It appears the landlord and tenant had a good relationship which struck difficulty in the end.
The tenant applied for refund of bond and claims the landlord did not follow through with promises to renovate the property, stating there was reach of Healthy Homes standards.
The landlord has applied for water usage owing at the end of the tenancy, and compensation for carpet cleaning, repairing bathroom ceiling, replacement of locks and for damages to walls, door and paint following the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s claim
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
Though the claim appeared to have been made out on this ground, it was clear during the hearing that the real issue was the landlord’s failure to provide the home in a reasonable state that became an issue.
Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair
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 agrees that he was intending to do further renovation work but allowed the tenant to move in earlier so they could have their pooja for the property. There were promises to paint the walls and install a rangehood that never eventuated. The tenant says the walls in the kitchen were covered in oil stains and the place was unhygienic upon moving in. The tenant said they did not want to complain further as the rent was cheap and they did not want to cause any problems. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord continued to ignore to carry out the renovations and the installing the rangehood as promised at the start of the tenancy. There were no regular inspections of the property over the 2 years.
The tenant said they did not cook inside the house as the house would smell due to not having a rangehood.
The landlord says he did not install a rangehood because the tenant said not to worry about it and asked for a garden shed and gas cooker to be put outside the back door so it could be used for cooking.
The obligation was on the landlord to ensure the property was up to a reasonable standard and keep to the representations made to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. Having a proper vented rangehood would have alleviated the problems of mould and stains in the home. There is no window above the stove and it would have proven difficult to cook on the stove without causing smoke or smells in the home.
The tenant said he had to take the smoke alarm off the ceiling as the first two or 3 days there was cooking in the home, the alarm would go off.
The Tribunal awards $1,000.00 in exemplary damages to the tenant for the breach of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy and failing to maintain the property in good repair. The landlord’s claim
There was no dispute about the final water usage owing at the end of the tenancy being $43.17. The amount is awarded to the landlord.
There was also no dispute that the tenant took the garden shed and agreed to pay $500.00 for the shed. That amount is awarded to the landlord.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not return all the keys, in particular the padlock keys and front door keys. The Tribunal awards $35.90 for the replacement keys.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet stains in the lounge as per the photographs provided and damage to the cupboard/wall of the pooja area. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I award $100.00 as contribution for the cleaning of the carpet and $50.00 to the landlord for the repairs. All other claims for damages are dismissed for lack of evidence. The landlord did not have pre-tenancy photos, any regular inspection information or proper invoices post tenancy to satisfy the Tribunal of the further claims.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Name Suppression
The landlord sought name suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order in his cross-application. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case, both parties have had some success and failure in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case and mindful this was overall a breakdown of relationship between the landlord and tenant that could have been dealt with better between the two, the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4436640 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4436640 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions