What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4449468 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 4449468?

Cleaning: $382.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Healthy Homes standard…: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,495.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,295.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4449468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4449468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9401763-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4449468 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 4449468?

Cleaning: $382.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Healthy Homes standard…: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,495.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,295.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4449468?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4449468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9401763-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

43 Highbury Bypass, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4449468 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4449468 — net $1,372.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,295.00		Rent arrears
Carpet replacement	$1,495.00		Carpet replacement
Window repairs	$240.00		Window repairs
Cleaning: and painting	$382.50		Cleaning: and painting
Lawns and Garden work	$500.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Healthy Homes standards		$1,530.00	Healthy Homes standards
Total award	$4,912.50	$1,530.00
Net award	$1,372.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Vinord Limited $1,372.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,010.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Vinord Limited immediately.
All remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 19 December 2016. On 13 December 2021 the parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement which applied from 19 December 2021 until 31 March 2023.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord drafted a document which the tenant signed. That document recorded that the tenant would vacate the premises on 19 January 2023. Therefore, by agreement the parties agreed to end the tenancy on 19 January 2023. The parties say that this date was agreed to because the tenant planned to replace the carpet around that date.
Later in November (around the 15 th ) the landlord went to the tenancy to find that it was 95% empty. He saw the tenant’s partner there painting the premises.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord sent an email to the tenant stating: “As per section 48 of the Tenancy Tribunal, we believe you have abandoned the property. We are giving you 24 hours notice as per your abandonment and you are 3 weeks in arrears of rent as per your fixed Term Tenancy.”
The landlord said he sent this email because he was told to by the Tribunal. While the landlord sent this email, he said that he did not get possession of the premises until 16 January 2023 after he sent another email to the tenant stating: “Entry date is 16 January 2023 at approximately 4pm.”
The tenant considered the email sent on 5 December 2022 to be notice that the tenancy had ended. Her evidence is that while she was living elsewhere due to health issues related to the condition of the premises, she and her partner were returning regularly to carry out repairs and painting. Before the end of the tenancy the tenant had planned to replace the carpet, replace all the curtains, paint the interior, clean and mow the lawns.
The tenant did not return to the premises after 5 December 2023. Landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for termination for abandonment, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The first issue to consider is when the tenancy ended? The parties had agreed for the tenancy to end on 19 January 2023. Then the landlord sent an email dated 5 December 2022 purporting to give the tenant 24 hours’ notice to leave the tenancy. While this notice is not lawful the tenant understood the effect of the email was that the tenancy ended. In the landlord’s application to the Tribunal, it states that the tenant abandoned the property without notice on 5 December 2022. But the landlord did not produce any evidence of that abandonment.
Given the evidence it seems that both parties considered that the tenancy ended on 6 December 2022 being 24 hours after the landlord’s notice. I consider that to be the date that the tenant is liable for rent arrears to.
As the tenancy ended on 6 December 2022 it is not necessary to consider the landlord’s application for termination for abandonment and that application is dismissed.
The landlord claims compensation following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims for a broken window as well as for painting and cleaning. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not provide the tenant with the opportunity to arrange for the window to be fixed and to complete the painting as she had planned to do. However, these costs are reasonable and are ordered.
The landlord claimed for replacement of the keys. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that he did not attempt to retrieve the keys from the tenant after he gave 24 hours’ notice. I am therefore not satisfied that the tenant should be liable for replacement of the keys given the circumstances that the tenancy ended.
The landlord claimed for lawns and disposal of the carpet that the tenant had removed. The invoice produced is from the landlord’s company as initially he said that he carried out the work. Later in the hearing it turns out that he had hired a contractor to carry out the work and when asked for the invoice from the contactor his reply was that most lawnmowers do not provide invoices. This is not true as the Tribunal regularly considers invoices from lawnmowing companies.
The landlord had claimed $718.75 but there is no proof that this is the actual amount paid for the work done. After considering the photographs produced, I accept that the lawns were long, but again the tenant had planned to mow them before the tenancy was due to end. However, the landlord did carry out this work, either by himself or with a contractor, so I award $500.00 for that work which I consider reasonable. If the landlord had produced an invoice from the contractor, it is likely that I would have accepted that amount.
The landlord claimed the cost for replacement of the carpet. The landlord purchased the premises in 2016. He says that the carpet at the time of purchase was “in good nick” but did not produce any evidence to support this. He did not know how old the carpet was in 2016. I note the Tenancy Agreement signed on 19 December 2016 has a special condition on page 3 stating: “4. The house condition is as is what your viewing upon application.” To me this clause suggests that the premises are not in good condition. But the landlord did not produce any photographs from the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant says that she replaced the carpet for the whole premises around the middle of the tenancy. The landlord knew that the carpet had been replaced at the tenant’s cost.
The tenant’s evidence is that the carpet had deteriorated during the second half of the tenancy due to mould issues. Before the end of the tenancy the tenant had removed the carpet and the underlay with a plan to replace the carpet. The tenant had obtained a quote for the replacement carpet which was due to be laid in January 2023.
Due to the email sent on 5 December 2022 the tenant did not replace the carpet as she had planned to do.
It is not clear whether the tenant should be responsible for the cost of replacing the carpet. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy was of a good quality. On the evidence I have decided that the tenant should be liable for half the cost of replacing the carpet as if it weren’t for the landlord’s email the tenant would have replaced all the carpet which she may not have needed to do. I therefore award half of the claim that the landlord is seeking for the carpet. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, compensation for maintenance and exemplary damages related to the condition of the premises.
As I have stated above the tenancy ended on 6 December 2023. This is only 11 days after the tenant filed her application with the Tribunal. As the tenancy ended then it is not necessary to consider the tenant’s application to be released from the fixed term tenancy because the tenancy ended. That claim is dismissed.
The tenant sought compensation for maintenance that was carried out during the tenancy. No evidence was produced to support this claim and therefore it is dismissed.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages relating to the condition of the flat (or minor dwelling) as she says it was not fit to live in. The onus is on the tenant to establish this claim. Unfortunately, due to insufficient evidence I am unable to make any award for exemplary damages in relation to the minor dwelling. Healthy Homes standards
[The tenant/s] claims 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 heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022.
This tenancy was renewed on 19 December 2021, so the compliance date was 19 March 2023. This is the date that the landlord should have complied with the Healthy Homes standards.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards. In the Tenancy Agreement signed on 13 December 2021 the landlord did not complete the insulation statement. At the hearing the landlord produced a document dated 27 June 2019 which states that the house had ceiling insulation, but the minor dwelling had none because of access issues. This information was never provided to the tenant.
At the hearing the tenant complained that there was no heating provided. The landlord said that he did provide a two bar portable heater but had no evidence to support this. Also, the tenant disputes this and in any event the standard states that heaters should be fixed and not portable. I note that there is no evidence of the heating capacity if that heater was provided.
In addition, from the photographs produced by the tenant there is evidence of water ingress at the premises both due to leaking guttering and water penetration in some of the walls. This is highly likely to have contributed to the mould issue at the premises which the landlord conceded he was aware of and asked the tenant to paint over. At the hearing the landlord said he did not think it was mould but the effect of the tenant smoking. I am satisfied that there was mould in the premises, and it was not due to smoking.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that he has not obtained a Healthy Homes assessment. He has clearly not complied with either the heating or water ingress standard. He may also not comply with the other standards but there is no evidence to support this either way. However, on the evidence I find Vinord Limited 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the tenant should be awarded two weeks rent.
The bond is released to the landlord to reduce the award against the tenant.
[The tenant/s]

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4449468 — net $1,372.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,295.00		Rent arrears
Carpet replacement	$1,495.00		Carpet replacement
Window repairs	$240.00		Window repairs
Cleaning: and painting	$382.50		Cleaning: and painting
Lawns and Garden work	$500.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Healthy Homes standards		$1,530.00	Healthy Homes standards
Total award	$4,912.50	$1,530.00
Net award	$1,372.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,372.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Vinord Limited $1,372.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,010.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Vinord Limited immediately.
All remaining applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 19 December 2016. On 13 December 2021 the parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement which applied from 19 December 2021 until 31 March 2023.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord drafted a document which the tenant signed. That document recorded that the tenant would vacate the premises on 19 January 2023. Therefore, by agreement the parties agreed to end the tenancy on 19 January 2023. The parties say that this date was agreed to because the tenant planned to replace the carpet around that date.
Later in November (around the 15 th ) the landlord went to the tenancy to find that it was 95% empty. He saw the tenant’s partner there painting the premises.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord sent an email to the tenant stating: “As per section 48 of the Tenancy Tribunal, we believe you have abandoned the property. We are giving you 24 hours notice as per your abandonment and you are 3 weeks in arrears of rent as per your fixed Term Tenancy.”
The landlord said he sent this email because he was told to by the Tribunal. While the landlord sent this email, he said that he did not get possession of the premises until 16 January 2023 after he sent another email to the tenant stating: “Entry date is 16 January 2023 at approximately 4pm.”
The tenant considered the email sent on 5 December 2022 to be notice that the tenancy had ended. Her evidence is that while she was living elsewhere due to health issues related to the condition of the premises, she and her partner were returning regularly to carry out repairs and painting. Before the end of the tenancy the tenant had planned to replace the carpet, replace all the curtains, paint the interior, clean and mow the lawns.
The tenant did not return to the premises after 5 December 2023. Landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for termination for abandonment, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The first issue to consider is when the tenancy ended? The parties had agreed for the tenancy to end on 19 January 2023. Then the landlord sent an email dated 5 December 2022 purporting to give the tenant 24 hours’ notice to leave the tenancy. While this notice is not lawful the tenant understood the effect of the email was that the tenancy ended. In the landlord’s application to the Tribunal, it states that the tenant abandoned the property without notice on 5 December 2022. But the landlord did not produce any evidence of that abandonment.
Given the evidence it seems that both parties considered that the tenancy ended on 6 December 2022 being 24 hours after the landlord’s notice. I consider that to be the date that the tenant is liable for rent arrears to.
As the tenancy ended on 6 December 2022 it is not necessary to consider the landlord’s application for termination for abandonment and that application is dismissed.
The landlord claims compensation following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims for a broken window as well as for painting and cleaning. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not provide the tenant with the opportunity to arrange for the window to be fixed and to complete the painting as she had planned to do. However, these costs are reasonable and are ordered.
The landlord claimed for replacement of the keys. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that he did not attempt to retrieve the keys from the tenant after he gave 24 hours’ notice. I am therefore not satisfied that the tenant should be liable for replacement of the keys given the circumstances that the tenancy ended.
The landlord claimed for lawns and disposal of the carpet that the tenant had removed. The invoice produced is from the landlord’s company as initially he said that he carried out the work. Later in the hearing it turns out that he had hired a contractor to carry out the work and when asked for the invoice from the contactor his reply was that most lawnmowers do not provide invoices. This is not true as the Tribunal regularly considers invoices from lawnmowing companies.
The landlord had claimed $718.75 but there is no proof that this is the actual amount paid for the work done. After considering the photographs produced, I accept that the lawns were long, but again the tenant had planned to mow them before the tenancy was due to end. However, the landlord did carry out this work, either by himself or with a contractor, so I award $500.00 for that work which I consider reasonable. If the landlord had produced an invoice from the contractor, it is likely that I would have accepted that amount.
The landlord claimed the cost for replacement of the carpet. The landlord purchased the premises in 2016. He says that the carpet at the time of purchase was “in good nick” but did not produce any evidence to support this. He did not know how old the carpet was in 2016. I note the Tenancy Agreement signed on 19 December 2016 has a special condition on page 3 stating: “4. The house condition is as is what your viewing upon application.” To me this clause suggests that the premises are not in good condition. But the landlord did not produce any photographs from the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant says that she replaced the carpet for the whole premises around the middle of the tenancy. The landlord knew that the carpet had been replaced at the tenant’s cost.
The tenant’s evidence is that the carpet had deteriorated during the second half of the tenancy due to mould issues. Before the end of the tenancy the tenant had removed the carpet and the underlay with a plan to replace the carpet. The tenant had obtained a quote for the replacement carpet which was due to be laid in January 2023.
Due to the email sent on 5 December 2022 the tenant did not replace the carpet as she had planned to do.
It is not clear whether the tenant should be responsible for the cost of replacing the carpet. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy was of a good quality. On the evidence I have decided that the tenant should be liable for half the cost of replacing the carpet as if it weren’t for the landlord’s email the tenant would have replaced all the carpet which she may not have needed to do. I therefore award half of the claim that the landlord is seeking for the carpet. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, compensation for maintenance and exemplary damages related to the condition of the premises.
As I have stated above the tenancy ended on 6 December 2023. This is only 11 days after the tenant filed her application with the Tribunal. As the tenancy ended then it is not necessary to consider the tenant’s application to be released from the fixed term tenancy because the tenancy ended. That claim is dismissed.
The tenant sought compensation for maintenance that was carried out during the tenancy. No evidence was produced to support this claim and therefore it is dismissed.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages relating to the condition of the flat (or minor dwelling) as she says it was not fit to live in. The onus is on the tenant to establish this claim. Unfortunately, due to insufficient evidence I am unable to make any award for exemplary damages in relation to the minor dwelling. Healthy Homes standards
[The tenant/s] claims 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 heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022.
This tenancy was renewed on 19 December 2021, so the compliance date was 19 March 2023. This is the date that the landlord should have complied with the Healthy Homes standards.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards. In the Tenancy Agreement signed on 13 December 2021 the landlord did not complete the insulation statement. At the hearing the landlord produced a document dated 27 June 2019 which states that the house had ceiling insulation, but the minor dwelling had none because of access issues. This information was never provided to the tenant.
At the hearing the tenant complained that there was no heating provided. The landlord said that he did provide a two bar portable heater but had no evidence to support this. Also, the tenant disputes this and in any event the standard states that heaters should be fixed and not portable. I note that there is no evidence of the heating capacity if that heater was provided.
In addition, from the photographs produced by the tenant there is evidence of water ingress at the premises both due to leaking guttering and water penetration in some of the walls. This is highly likely to have contributed to the mould issue at the premises which the landlord conceded he was aware of and asked the tenant to paint over. At the hearing the landlord said he did not think it was mould but the effect of the tenant smoking. I am satisfied that there was mould in the premises, and it was not due to smoking.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that he has not obtained a Healthy Homes assessment. He has clearly not complied with either the heating or water ingress standard. He may also not comply with the other standards but there is no evidence to support this either way. However, on the evidence I find Vinord Limited 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that the tenant should be awarded two weeks rent.
The bond is released to the landlord to reduce the award against the tenant.
[The tenant/s]

Tenancy Tribunal case 4449468 — Rent arrears at 43 Highbury Bypass, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4449468 — Rent arrears at 43 Highbury Bypass, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions