How much money was awarded in case 4487360?

Ceiling Insulation: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $294.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,250.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4487360?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4487360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9357497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4487360?

Ceiling Insulation: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $294.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,250.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4487360?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4487360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9357497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4487360 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4487360 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4487360 — net $3,794.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$1,200.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00		Rubbish removal
Floor repair	$294.00		Floor repair
Ceiling insulation	$300.00		Ceiling insulation
Compensation wastewater	$1,000.00		Compensation wastewater
Exemplary damages HHS	$500.00		Exemplary damages HHS
Exemplary damages tenancy agreement	$750.00		Exemplary damages tenancy agreement
Rent arrears to 10 March 2023		$2,250.00	Rent arrears to 10 March 2023
Total award	$6,044.00	$2,250.00
Net award	$3,794.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,794.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.

Sandy Marie Gosling must pay [The landlord/s] $3,794.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on 17 July 2023. The hearing followed a telephone hearing and the Tribunal’s order made on 24 February terminating the tenancy and making directions in relation to the parties’ other claims. There was another telephone hearing and order on 1 May in which the tenant’s claims were specified.

The tenant’s claims are for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the contents of the tenancy agreement, failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards, failing promptly to repair a blocked toilet and permitting interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, painting and carpet replacement following the end of the tenancy. Background

The premises are a character cottage in a rural location. It has many of its original features, including a coal range. Water is provided from a bore in a field that was included in the tenancy. Wastewater discharges to a septic tank.

The landlords have owned the premises for approximately three years. They used it as a holiday home. They live some two hours drive from the premises. They were not intending to rent out the premises, but they saw the tenant’s post on Facebook seeking accommodation in the area and they responded to it.

The tenant and her family were homeless and desperate for accommodation. The parties agreed a tenancy which began at the end of June 2022. The landlords used a local person to prepare the tenancy agreement and to manage the tenancy.

The tenancy agreement is handmade. Given the resources that are available from Tenancy Services, including template tenancy agreements that fully comply (assuming they are correctly completed) with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), it is surprising to see landlords generating their own agreements. Doing so seldom ends well, and this case is no exception.

There was some insulation in the roof space of the premises, but the landlords wanted to install more. They bought pink batts and delivered them to the premises. The tenants agreed to install them and in return the landlords waived the first weeks rent.

The tenant said that the premises were not clean when they were provided to her and there was rubbish that she had to remove. There was no photographic evidence of that or messages at the time referring to it. The tenant referred to expenses she incurred such as dump fees but there was no evidence of that either. In any case, I accept the landlords’ evidence that any cleaning or rubbish removal that was needed was offset by the rent waiver. I note here that there was no ingoing report or photographs.

Neighbours of the premises drew water from the bore for their chickens and they also grazed some sheep on the paddock belonging to the premises. This resulted in some disagreement and claims from the tenant. Evidence

All parties gave oral evidence. I found the landlords’ evidence to be more reliable than the tenant’s evidence. The tenant tended to make statements that were inconsistent with the evidence contained in the messages between the parties and with other documentary evidence. This was particularly obvious in relation to dates. The landlords’ evidence tended to be consistent with the other evidence. My impression was that the tenant tended to exaggerate and embellish her evidence.

Where there was a direct conflict of evidence between the parties, I preferred the landlords’ evidence unless there was contrary independent evidence. Landlords’ Claims Rent

The tenancy ended on 10 March 2023. The landlord provided rent records proving the amount owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $2,250. The tenant did not dispute the rent claim. Rubbish Removal and Cleaning

The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and rubbish was not removed. The rubbish and uncleanliness were at the extreme end of the scale. There was a substantial amount rubbish to remove inside and outside the house and the premises needed extensive cleaning including walls.

The landlords have produced calculations of the time that they and others helping them spent removing rubbish and cleaning and they have claimed $22.75 per hour for the time which is reasonable. I must make my own assessment of how much time is reasonable for the work that was needed.

The landlords claim for travelling expenses. A modest amount for that is justified but not in so far as it relates to the landlord’s remoteness from the premises. The tenant should not have to pay more because the landlords live a relatively long distance from the premises.

The landlords claim for the cost of hiring two skips to remove the rubbish. The only evidence they have produced for that is an internet quote for one skip. A party who wishes to recover substantial sums for expenses is expected to provide good evidence of the expenses. A quote is no good enough. That said, the rubbish had to be removed and if it was not removed by skip, it would need to be removed by car and trailer and dumped. I can include that in my assessment.

I must also consider the cost of cleaning and rubbish removal in other comparable cases.

In my assessment a total of $1,200 is reasonable compensation for cleaning the premises including tidying around the house.

I assess reasonable compensation for the rubbish removal and disposal at $2,000. Painting

The landlords said that the premises were freshly painted inside immediately before the tenancy. They said that after the walls had had been washed down, they needed to be painted. They claim $800 for painting.

The evidence that the walls needed painting after cleaning was thin. There were no photographs showing the condition of the walls after they had been cleaned. The state of the walls and the cleaning needed would have to be quite extreme for painting to be needed.

Overall, I am not satisfied that the claim for painting has been proved. Other Claims

The landlords claim $2,200 for the cost of carpet replacement. The carpet was old and there is no hard evidence of its condition at the start of the tenancy. My sense is that it was probably at the end of its life and would have been replaced anyway. I therefore make no award for the carpet.

I accept that there was some floor damage and the claim for the cost of repairing in the sum of $294 is reasonable.

The landlords claim $616 for the cost of installing the ceiling insulation. Given that there was a rent waiver of a weeks rent and that may have included some cleaning and rubbish removal I think the claim is overstated. I award $300. Tenant’s Claims Tenancy Agreement

A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides information regarding insulation, healthy homes standards compliance and insurance.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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 tenancy agreement did not provide the tenants with any information regarding the premises’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), the type and extent of insulation in the premises or any insurance information.

That amounts to three unlawful acts. They result from an amateurish approach to the tenancy and a failure to make themselves aware of what was required.

The effect of these failings on the tenant I find was limited. I deal with the substantive insulation and HHS claims below and I have found that the premises were largely compliant or at least the tenant has not proved that they weren’t.

I find that there does need to be an award of exemplary damages. The requirements are important. Landlords need to be aware of them and aware that if they are not, and they don’t comply, there will be consequences.

Considering the situation overall, I find that an award in the sum of $750 for the breaches is appropriate. Healthy Homes Standards

The Act requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

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.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.

The burden of proving any claim rests with the person making the claim. The tenant must produce enough evidence to prove that the premises failed to comply with HHS. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, meaning that the facts needed to prove the claim are more likely than not to be true.

The landlords were required to ensure that the premises complied with all HHS by 22 September 2022, 90 days after the tenancy began.

There is a dispute over whether the fault for not installing the additional insulation in the roof space lies with the landlords or the tenant. The tenant says that the landlord did not provide the tools needed to install the insulation safely. The landlords reject that.

But the tenants must first prove that the existing insulation was not up to standard. There is no report to that effect and the photographs do not show clearly that the insulation was inadequate. The tenant has no produced enough evidence to prove that the insulation in the roof space was inadequate.

If I had been satisfied that the original insulation was below the standard, I am satisfied that the fault for that lay with the tenant not the landlord. There was an agreement that the tenant would install the insulation. That is not generally a task that needs any special skill or equipment. If there had been something preventing the insulation and the landlords were required to provide some equipment, I would have expected the tenants to request it at the time. There were no messages at the time making such a request.

The tenant did not produce any evidence in relation to insulation under floor of the premises, but the landlords admitted that there was none. They said that there was limited space under the floor and because the premises were built on a slope, at best, only a small area at the front of the premises would have allowed insulation to be installed.

Possibly, I could find that there was a breach in relation to a small area under the premises that could have been insulated but given that the burden of proof rests on the tenant, I decline to do so.

The tenant did not prove that the heating in the premises was inadequate. The landlords said that there was a wood burner and an electric wall heater in the living area and other electric heaters elsewhere in the premises. The tenant had no evidence of the heating capacity for the premises.

There was no rangehood or extractor fan in the bathroom. They are required by the HHS and so the landlords were in breach in those respects. They seem to have been unaware of the requirements.

I doubt whether the absence of them had much of an effect on the use of the premises. There were adequate opening windows and being an old property, it is likely that there was adequate ventilation.

Still, it was a breach and my comments relating to exemplary damages and the tenancy agreement pertain to HHS as well. The landlords should have known the requirements and complied with them. Given the acceptable condition of the premises generally, an award near the low end of the scale is sufficient and I award $500. Toilet – Septic Tank

In December 2022 the tenant reported to the landlord that the toilet was not emptying. The landlord arranged for the septic tank to be emptied but the tenant still reported that the toilet was still not emptying. The landlord then called out plumbers and the line between the toilet was cleared. The landlords also installed a new toilet.

Within this sequence of events there are disputed facts. First, the timing is disputed. The tenant says that it took a month before she had an operating toilet. The landlords’ timeline is that the report was made on 19 December, it was emptied on 21 December, due the holiday period it was not possible to get a plumber to the premises until 9 January, when the problem was fixed. That is a total period of 21 days. I prefer the landlords’ evidence. It is supported by the messages at the time.

The tenant claimed that the septic was not emptied and that the contractors who attended on 21 December worked for only about 30 seconds on emptying the tank. The landlords were not there personally but sent their neighbours along to observe. The tenant was not happy with that, and she then left although she said that he had to leave for an appointment.

The landlords said that they have checked with the contractors, and they have confirmed that they took 2000 litres of material from the tank and that is what the landlords paid for.

I don’t accept the tenant’s evidence. It is inherently unlikely that contractors would attend and effectively do nothing. I am satisfied that they substantially emptied the tank.

I find that given the time of year, and the sequence of events, that the landlords acted reasonably to deal with the problem.

But that is not the end of it. Section 16(2) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 provides that the landlord must provide an adequate drainage system connected to an adequate sewage tank. In my view, the landlords failed to do that.

The problem became apparent six months into the tenancy, but the problem likely has its origins well before the tenancy began. The tank must have been close to full when the tenancy began. Once the tank was full, the pipe from the toilet to the tank then became backed up with material from the toilet until the toilet could not be used without overflowing.

It follows that the landlords did not provide an adequate sewage tank. They should have checked the tank and emptied it before the tenancy or at least before it became full.

There was some disagreement over how the situation affected the tenant and her family. The landlords claim that the tenant and her family were camping away from the premises over the holiday period. The tenant denied that and said the situation was very difficult for her and her family.

I can accept that it is likely that the tenant would have spent some time away from the premises at the time, but she is still entitled to compensation for the time that she was there. I assess that compensation in the sum of $1,000 is reasonable. The premises were hardly habitable without a usable toilet. Quiet Enjoyment

The tenant claims that the landlords breached her quiet enjoyment relates to two incidents. The first concerns their neighbours use of the paddock attached to the premises and the second to their use of the water pumped from the bore in the paddock.

The landlords allowed the neighbours to graze sheep in the paddock and they said that the tenants were made aware of that and were told that it helped to keep the grass down. They also allowed them to use water from the bore for their chickens and they didn’t expect that to be a problem for the tenants.

When the tenants raised them as issues the landlords proposed a splitter tap for the bore and a rent reduction to account for the extra electricity used by the pump. They also said that the tenant could have grazed her own sheep in the paddock if they had identifying marks.

As it turned out the neighbours found their own water supply and the tenants never got any sheep.

It seems to me that these are the sorts of things that arise in a rural situation, and they can usually be resolved happily without much trouble. This is what happened here. The messages do not indicate that they were serious problems for the tenant. I am inclined to think that the tenant has overstated them for her own advantage.

I find that the landlords have not interfered or allowed others to interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and so this claim is dismissed. Result

After the wards have been set off against each other the tenant must pay the landlords $3,794. There is no bond. Suppression

The landlords applied for name suppression on the ground that one of them is employed by a social housing provider and naming them would have an adverse effect out of proportion to the public interest of open justice. I accept that. The landlord’s fault in this case is at the lower end of the scale and has come about due to naivety rather than anything else. Overall, they have been more sinned against than sinning. I have therefore granted them name suppression.

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4487360 — net $3,794.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$1,200.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,000.00		Rubbish removal
Floor repair	$294.00		Floor repair
Ceiling insulation	$300.00		Ceiling insulation
Compensation wastewater	$1,000.00		Compensation wastewater
Exemplary damages HHS	$500.00		Exemplary damages HHS
Exemplary damages tenancy agreement	$750.00		Exemplary damages tenancy agreement
Rent arrears to 10 March 2023		$2,250.00	Rent arrears to 10 March 2023
Total award	$6,044.00	$2,250.00
Net award	$3,794.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,794.00