What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4472623?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4472623?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $211.38 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $28.82 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4472623?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4472623?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9340678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4472623?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4472623?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $211.38 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $28.82 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4472623?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4472623?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9340678-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49B Meander Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4472623 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4472623 — net $982.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,800.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$211.38		Water rates
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond		$200.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: Ventilation standard		$800.00	Ventilation standard
Part reimbursement water rates invoice		$28.82	Part reimbursement water rates invoice
Total award	$2,011.38	$1,028.82
Net award	$982.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$982.56

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Lily Arabin must pay Stacey Relph $982.56 immediately, being rent arrears to 16 March 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared and the tenant attended by telephone.
The tenancy began on 30 June 2022 and ended on 16 March 2023 after the landlord gave notice that she was selling the property. The sale was completed in June 2023.
During the tenancy the tenant found a leak with the hot water cupboard, this was attended to by a Plumber. The tenant then checked under the house and discovered stained and wet flooring in the laundry, toilet and bathroom area.
The landlord sent her father around who found the connection to the washing machine was causing a leak. This was fixed and the landlord believed that the problem was solved.
The tenant disagreed and said that there was an active leak damaging the flooring in these areas.
The tenant claimed for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the filling fee. The landlord filed a cross application for water rates and rent arrears and refund of the filling fee following the end of the tenancy.
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard:
It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”. The bond
Lily Arabin claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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,RTA.
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 landlord agreed that she did not lodge the bond until the end of the tenancy. She said that she did not have computer access and believed that the parties agreed she would hold it until the tenancy ended. When their relationship deteriorating the landlord called tenancy services who told her to lodge the bond and she did. I find they have 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 said they were a first-time landlord so were not aware of their responsibilities, however this is no excuse. The bond is the tenant’s money to be held for end of tenancy claims. The tenant did not have the benefit of using this money while the landlord held it.
It is in the interest of both parties and the public that a bond is held securely by an independent third party.
The landlord took responsibility for this breach; however this was an intentional act. I find it just to award $200.00 for this breach. Did the landlord comply with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS)?
Lily Arabin 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). Lily Arabin considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation 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 after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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).
The landlord agreed that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen. She thought the windows either side and the home ventilation unit provided was enough. No evidence provided or exemption to the standard was applied for.
I find Stacey Relph 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 landlord was not aware of their responsibilities under the RTA. Extractor fans with a minimum defined extraction capacity are required to be installed and promote a dry and warm premises.
Its is important that tenants have premises that provide a healthy environment and that landlords comply with the requirements of the RTA. This is the first time the landlord has breached the standards and I find it appropriate exemplary damages of $800.00.
The tenant bought a claim about an ongoing leak that was not addressed, and it is appropriate to discuss it here.
The parties agreed that there was a leak in the hot water cylinder that was attended to by a plumber. A subsequent leak of the washing machine was found and addressed.
The parties disagree about the extent and type of the leaks. The tenant claimed that the landlord had plumbed the property herself but had no evidence to support this. She said the leak was in the toilet and shower area and provided photos of the wet floorboards and a video of a drip from the bathroom pipes under the house.
The landlord agreed with the damage but said that it had come from the leak in the laundry as this was next to the toilet. She said that leak was of such a size that it affected the floor of the laundry, toilet and bathroom. She provided photographs of the floor under the toilet before and after it dried out. The tenant provide d a photo of a toilet roll absorbing moisture from the floor.
Although there was evidence of water and damage to the floors in all areas there was no evidence that the tenant had communicated her concerns about an ongoing leak to the landlord. The landlord believed that the issue had been resolved and said she would not put her biggest asset at risk by ignoring this problem. A tenant is to notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage. See section 40(1)(d) RTA. If a landlord does not know about a leak they cannot attend to it.
As stated, the party bringing the claim needs to provided evidence to establish it. End of tenancy
Both parties gave evidence of how stressful the end of the tenancy was. The tenant believed that the landlord had not addressed the leak issue and wanted her to leave after saying that this would be a long term rental. The result was the tenant had to move her family overseas to find a new property to live in, resulting in another change of schools and loss of family connections.
The landlord said this was originally her home, rented for the first time, and the stress of the damage caused by the leak and inability of the tenant to communicate resulted in her not wanting to be a landlord anymore. She gave notice and sold the house.
There was no specific breach of the RTA claimed by the tenant to be determined other than stress and fairness. Both parties laid claim to this without evidence to support it. This claim is dismissed.
At the end of the tenancy the bond was signed over to the landlord before the last day of the tenancy. The tenant questioned the landlord’s application of it at the hearing but no evidence was provided supporting her claims. This claim is dismissed. Landlords application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 16 March 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had previously claimed the full amount of water rates however a tenant is responsible only for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. See section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is refunded the extra paid for the first invoice.
The tenant claimed that due to an active leak at the premises she used more water and the responsibility for payment was the landlords.
The landlord engaged a plumber to rectify the first leak and claimed that the washing machine leak was fixed.
A video was supplied of a drip under the shower, but I do not find that there was enough evidence of a substantial leak that would cause this increase in the water rates account.
The water rates based on usage are awarded.
The landlord provided rent records establishing the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant signed the bond over to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. She said that because the landlord had left it to the last minute to lodge it she did not believe that they would so stopped paying rent 3 weeks before the tenancy ended. She believed that she owed one weeks rent.
The tenant did not attend the end of tenancy inspection or respond to the landlords’ requests to meet at the premises and for her to rectify some end of tenancy claims. The tenant said that this was because of the landlord’s behaviour towards her and the deteriorating relationship.
The landlord said that the bond was used to cover end of tenancy costs such as cleaning, lawns, damages and gardens. Due to there being no claim against the bond in the tenants application no evidence was bought to the hearing.
The primary obligation of the tenant is to pay rent as and when due and payable under the tenancy agreement. See section 40(1)(a) RTA. A bond is held by the independent bond centre for end of tenancy costs claimed by the landlord.
The tenant knew that the bond had eventually been lodged and that she owed some rent and lawn work. I find that the tenants breached the requirement to pay rent and the landlord established that three weeks rent was owing,
There was no evidence that the parties agreed that the bond was to be used only for rent arrears. I find that the tenant owes the rent claimed.
As both parties have been partly successful in their claims brought to the Tribunal, I do not consider it appropriate that the either party pay the other the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4472623 — net $982.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,800.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$211.38		Water rates
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond		$200.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Exemplary damages: Ventilation standard		$800.00	Ventilation standard
Part reimbursement water rates invoice		$28.82	Part reimbursement water rates invoice
Total award	$2,011.38	$1,028.82
Net award	$982.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$982.56

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Lily Arabin must pay Stacey Relph $982.56 immediately, being rent arrears to 16 March 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared and the tenant attended by telephone.
The tenancy began on 30 June 2022 and ended on 16 March 2023 after the landlord gave notice that she was selling the property. The sale was completed in June 2023.
During the tenancy the tenant found a leak with the hot water cupboard, this was attended to by a Plumber. The tenant then checked under the house and discovered stained and wet flooring in the laundry, toilet and bathroom area.
The landlord sent her father around who found the connection to the washing machine was causing a leak. This was fixed and the landlord believed that the problem was solved.
The tenant disagreed and said that there was an active leak damaging the flooring in these areas.
The tenant claimed for compensation, exemplary damages and refund of the filling fee. The landlord filed a cross application for water rates and rent arrears and refund of the filling fee following the end of the tenancy.
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard:
It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”. The bond
Lily Arabin claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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,RTA.
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 landlord agreed that she did not lodge the bond until the end of the tenancy. She said that she did not have computer access and believed that the parties agreed she would hold it until the tenancy ended. When their relationship deteriorating the landlord called tenancy services who told her to lodge the bond and she did. I find they have 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 said they were a first-time landlord so were not aware of their responsibilities, however this is no excuse. The bond is the tenant’s money to be held for end of tenancy claims. The tenant did not have the benefit of using this money while the landlord held it.
It is in the interest of both parties and the public that a bond is held securely by an independent third party.
The landlord took responsibility for this breach; however this was an intentional act. I find it just to award $200.00 for this breach. Did the landlord comply with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS)?
Lily Arabin 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). Lily Arabin considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation 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 after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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).
The landlord agreed that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen. She thought the windows either side and the home ventilation unit provided was enough. No evidence provided or exemption to the standard was applied for.
I find Stacey Relph 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 landlord was not aware of their responsibilities under the RTA. Extractor fans with a minimum defined extraction capacity are required to be installed and promote a dry and warm premises.
Its is important that tenants have premises that provide a healthy environment and that landlords comply with the requirements of the RTA. This is the first time the landlord has breached the standards and I find it appropriate exemplary damages of $800.00.
The tenant bought a claim about an ongoing leak that was not addressed, and it is appropriate to discuss it here.
The parties agreed that there was a leak in the hot water cylinder that was attended to by a plumber. A subsequent leak of the washing machine was found and addressed.
The parties disagree about the extent and type of the leaks. The tenant claimed that the landlord had plumbed the property herself but had no evidence to support this. She said the leak was in the toilet and shower area and provided photos of the wet floorboards and a video of a drip from the bathroom pipes under the house.
The landlord agreed with the damage but said that it had come from the leak in the laundry as this was next to the toilet. She said that leak was of such a size that it affected the floor of the laundry, toilet and bathroom. She provided photographs of the floor under the toilet before and after it dried out. The tenant provide d a photo of a toilet roll absorbing moisture from the floor.
Although there was evidence of water and damage to the floors in all areas there was no evidence that the tenant had communicated her concerns about an ongoing leak to the landlord. The landlord believed that the issue had been resolved and said she would not put her biggest asset at risk by ignoring this problem. A tenant is to notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage. See section 40(1)(d) RTA. If a landlord does not know about a leak they cannot attend to it.
As stated, the party bringing the claim needs to provided evidence to establish it. End of tenancy
Both parties gave evidence of how stressful the end of the tenancy was. The tenant believed that the landlord had not addressed the leak issue and wanted her to leave after saying that this would be a long term rental. The result was the tenant had to move her family overseas to find a new property to live in, resulting in another change of schools and loss of family connections.
The landlord said this was originally her home, rented for the first time, and the stress of the damage caused by the leak and inability of the tenant to communicate resulted in her not wanting to be a landlord anymore. She gave notice and sold the house.
There was no specific breach of the RTA claimed by the tenant to be determined other than stress and fairness. Both parties laid claim to this without evidence to support it. This claim is dismissed.
At the end of the tenancy the bond was signed over to the landlord before the last day of the tenancy. The tenant questioned the landlord’s application of it at the hearing but no evidence was provided supporting her claims. This claim is dismissed. Landlords application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 16 March 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had previously claimed the full amount of water rates however a tenant is responsible only for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises. See section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is refunded the extra paid for the first invoice.
The tenant claimed that due to an active leak at the premises she used more water and the responsibility for payment was the landlords.
The landlord engaged a plumber to rectify the first leak and claimed that the washing machine leak was fixed.
A video was supplied of a drip under the shower, but I do not find that there was enough evidence of a substantial leak that would cause this increase in the water rates account.
The water rates based on usage are awarded.
The landlord provided rent records establishing the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant signed the bond over to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. She said that because the landlord had left it to the last minute to lodge it she did not believe that they would so stopped paying rent 3 weeks before the tenancy ended. She believed that she owed one weeks rent.
The tenant did not attend the end of tenancy inspection or respond to the landlords’ requests to meet at the premises and for her to rectify some end of tenancy claims. The tenant said that this was because of the landlord’s behaviour towards her and the deteriorating relationship.
The landlord said that the bond was used to cover end of tenancy costs such as cleaning, lawns, damages and gardens. Due to there being no claim against the bond in the tenants application no evidence was bought to the hearing.
The primary obligation of the tenant is to pay rent as and when due and payable under the tenancy agreement. See section 40(1)(a) RTA. A bond is held by the independent bond centre for end of tenancy costs claimed by the landlord.
The tenant knew that the bond had eventually been lodged and that she owed some rent and lawn work. I find that the tenants breached the requirement to pay rent and the landlord established that three weeks rent was owing,
There was no evidence that the parties agreed that the bond was to be used only for rent arrears. I find that the tenant owes the rent claimed.
As both parties have been partly successful in their claims brought to the Tribunal, I do not consider it appropriate that the either party pay the other the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4472623 — Rent arrears at 49B Meander Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4472623 — Rent arrears at 49B Meander Drive, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions