What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4530509 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 4530509?

Compensation: Breach Of Privacy: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $601.89 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,622.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4530509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4530509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9217627-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4530509 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 4530509?

Compensation: Breach Of Privacy: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $601.89 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,622.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4530509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4530509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9217627-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Peppertree Glade, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4530509 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4530509 — net $1,724.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,622.85		Rent arrears
Window repairs	$601.89		Window repairs
Compensation: failure to maintain		$1,000.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: breach of privacy		$500.00	breach of privacy
Total award	$3,224.74	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,724.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,724.74

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4530509 — net $1,724.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,622.85		Rent arrears
Window repairs	$601.89		Window repairs
Compensation: failure to maintain		$1,000.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: breach of privacy		$500.00	breach of privacy
Total award	$3,224.74	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,724.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,724.74

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 [(Bond number suppressed)] immediately: a. To the landlord $1,724.74 b. To the tenant $195.26
The landlord is awarded a total of $3,224.74 and the tenant $1,500.00 as detailed in the table below. This means that the landlord is to receive $1,724.74 from the bond being $3,224.74 less the amount due to the tenant of $1,500.00. The tenant is to receive the balance of the bond of $195.26.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears to 7 February 2023. b. Compensation for glass repairs. c. Compensation for mowing lawns at the end of the tenancy. d. Compensation for the costs of cockroach treatments. e. Compensation for the repair of the heat pump. f. Compensation for the landlord’s time. g. Compensation for lost rental. h. Exemplary damages in relation to smoke alarms. i. Compensation for blinds and curtains. j. Compensation for rubbish removal and cleaning. k. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claims for h,i and j.
The tenant has applied for: a. Compensation for cleaning and replacement of blinds, curtains and net curtains at the start of the tenancy. b. Breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 (“HHS”). c. Compensation for breaches of the landlord’s duty to maintain the property. See section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). d. Compensation for a breach of the tenant’s privacy. See section 38(2) RTA. e. Compensation for the landlord’s failure to complete some repainting of areas of the property. f. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely. Rent
The parties accepted that the tenant gave notice which the landlord accepted that the tenancy was to end on 6 February 2023.
The parties had agreed that the tenant would have the carpets cleaned at her expense. She agreed to use a contractor nominated by the landlord. She explained that the contractor first appeared on 4 February 2023 while the tenant was still moving out. She agreed with the contractor that he could come back on the last day of the tenancy being 6 February 2023. The tenant advised that she left the key to the property in the letterbox as she left on 6 February 2023. It appears that the carpet cleaner did not return to the property until 7 February 2023.
The parties agree that the last payment of rental made by the tenant was on 22 December 2022 and that this paid rent to 3 January 2023.
The landlord claims that because the tenant did not notify him that she had vacated the property, she is liable for rent on 7 February 2023 when he became aware that she had left.
Having given notice of termination, the tenant is under no legal obligation to notify a landlord when she has vacated the property. The landlord’s claim for rent on 7 February 2023 is dismissed.
The landlord is entitled to rent from 4 January to 6 February 2023. This is a period of 34 days. At a weekly rental of $540.00, this equates to $2,622.85 and this sum is awarded to the landlord. Glass repairs
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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.
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.
The parties agreed that two pieces of glass were broken during the tenancy: one in the first bedroom window and one in a door.
The landlord produced an Inspection Report dated 25 January 2023 which recorded that the tenant agreed to replace these broken pieces of glass. This was signed by both parties. The landlord relied on this as evidence that the tenant accepted responsibility for this damage.
The tenant explained that it was necessary to slam the door shut in order to close it because the lock was faulty. She advised that the glass in the door broke when she slammed it shut. The tenant did not know how the window in the bedroom was broken.
The tenant advised and the landlord accepted that the landlord’s insurance excess was $750.00.
The tenant applied to WINZ for payment of the landlord’s invoice for these repairs but was advised by WINZ that it was a maintenance issue for the landlord.
I am persuaded by the signed Inspection Report and the approach made by the tenant to WINZ that the tenant has accepted responsibility for the damage.
I am not satisfied that the broken windows were caused by fair wear and tear. There is nothing to suggest that the windows were broken intentionally. I am satisfied that the windows were broken carelessly. The tenant is therefore liable for their repair up to the landlord’s insurance excess of $750.00.
I note that it is up to the landlord whether or not he makes an insurance claim. The tenant’s liability for the damage up to the landlord’s excess remains the same regardless of whether a claim is made.
The landlord’s claim for $601.89 for these repairs is proved. Lawns
The landlord claimed that he paid $50.00 to have the lawns mown at the end of the tenancy. He produced a photograph which included part of the lawn and which he accepted was taken at the time of the inspection on 25 January 2023. It did not show that the lawn needed mowing. Indeed, there was very little grass evident.
The tenant advised that she had the lawns mown on either Saturday 4 February 2023 or Sunday 5 February 2023. In any event, these are dates after the landlord’s photograph.
The landlord has not persuaded me on the balance of probabilities that the lawns needed mowing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Cockroaches
The landlord produced a photograph of a cockroach on a ceiling in the property which he said was taken on the inspection on 17 February 2023. He also produced in evidence at the hearing a brief video showing cockroaches swarming in the hot water cupboard.
The landlord provided an email dated 20 February 2023 from the contractor tasked with eradicating the cockroaches from the property, [pest control], that “this is the worst German cockroach infestation we have ever seen in a residential property.” The email advised that “The property is uninhabitable currently... The primary cause of any german cockroach infestation is cleanliness and hygiene.”
The landlord also referred to photographs taken at a property inspection showing the state the property was kept in by the tenant.
The landlord’s application is for the costs of [pest control]’s treatments of $634.00.
The tenant acknowledged that cockroaches had been a problem throughout the tenancy and that she had repeatedly complained of them to the landlord. As evidence she referred to a text to the landlord sent 30 June 2022 that read: “Please could you have a look at the heat pump and the light in the kitchen. There also needs to be something done about the holes in the kitchen walls as I keep having to spray and clean cockroaches every day. I have tried to help by lining all the cupboards and covering the holes The neighbour told me they have the same issue.”
The tenant advised at the hearing that the cockroaches were present when she moved in and that she had done her best to eradicate them but that it was an ongoing problem. She explained that she believes they came into the house through gaps in the walls, ceiling and pantry and that they settled in the hot water cupboard because it was warm. She noted that she lined cupboards and tried to fix the gaps so the cockroaches could not enter the property. She advised that she believed it was a problem for the landlord to fix and he failed to do so. She noted that this issue was not raised by the landlord until the inspection on 25 January 2023.
The landlord denied being alerted to the issue but found the text of 30 June 2022 from the tenant on his phone at the hearing.
For the landlord to succeed in his claim, he must prove that the tenant’s behaviour caused the infestation: that by not keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy, she caused the infestation.
The tenant claims that the cockroaches entered the house through and then hid in gaps which she attempted to plug and that she did her best to control and eradicate them.
Wikipedia provides the following information on the German cockroach: “German cockroaches are thigmotactic, meaning they prefer confined spaces, and they are small compared to other pest species, so they can hide within small cracks and crevices that are easy to overlook, thereby evading humans and their eradication efforts. Conversely, the seasoned pest controller is alert for cracks and crevices where it is likely to be profitable to place baits or spray surfaces. To be effective, control measures must be comprehensive, sustained, and systematic; survival of just a few eggs is quite enough to regenerate a nearly exterminated pest population within a few generations, and recolonization from surrounding populations often is very rapid, too.”
It is therefore apparent that the tenant’s complaints about cockroaches and holes in her text to the landlord were well-founded. The tenant requested action from the landlord and none was forthcoming. To avoid the infestation, the landlord would have needed to employ the “comprehensive, sustained and systematic” control measures referred to above. He did not and the property became infested.
The landlord has not persuaded me that the tenant is responsible for the cockroach infestation. Cockroaches are extremely adept at getting into properties, no matter how clean they are. Once they are in the property and the landlord has been notified of the issue, it is the landlord’s responsibility to take appropriate steps to eradicate them and minimise the possibility of their entering the property again. This included both professional treatment and the repair of the holes and gaps of which the tenant complained.
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Heat pump repair
The landlord provided evidence from an electrician that the heat pump required repair because cockroaches had damaged its sensor.
The tenant advised that she never used the heat pump because it did not work. The text of 30 June 2022 drew this to the landlord’s attention but nothing was done to repair during the rest of the tenancy.
As I have held that the tenant was not responsible for the cockroach infestation, it follows that the tenant is not liable for this repair.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Compensation for the landlord’s time
The landlord claimed $1,000.00 for his time in arranging for repairs to the property and the eradication of the cockroaches. No breakdown of how this sum was arrived at was provided.
It is a necessary cost of the landlord being involved in the business of residential rentals that he will need to spend time attending to that business which includes arranging repairs and the attendances when tenants vacate. This is not a cost that it is reasonable to expect the tenant to bear.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Compensation for lost rental
The landlord claimed for rent lost because the property was not able to be rented to new tenants from 7 April 2023 because the property required cleaning and repairs. The landlord provided a copy of an unsigned tenancy agreement for a tenancy that was to start on 7 April 2023 and for a tenancy that the landlord stated had started on 16 March 2023. The landlord’s claim was for rent lost during the period from the end of this tenancy until the new tenancy started.
The landlord has not persuaded me that the length of time that the property could not be tenanted is reasonable nor, for the reasons enumerated above, that the tenant is responsible for the delay.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim for cleaning, blinds and curtains at the start of the tenancy
The tenant provided a photograph of a dirty blind in evidence and an email to the landlord of 16 January 2023 complaining of what she had to do at the start of the tenancy. She did not provide any other evidence of the need for cleaning at the start of the tenancy or the need to replace any of the landlord’s chattels. The tenant did not provide any evidence of the claimed costs of cleaning or replacement.
In the absence of such supporting evidence, the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Breach of HHS
These were not detailed or explained in the tenant’s application. At the hearing, the tenant explained that they were in relation to mould, heating, ventilation and draught stopping.
The tenant’s evidence was photographs of what the tenant claimed was “black mould” and a ceiling, an email to the landlord dated 20 February 2023 (after the tenancy had ended) complaining of various matters not directly related to the HHS, and copies of the landlord’s inspection reports.
I am not satisfied that the tenant’s evidence is sufficiently detailed nor cogent to persuade me on the balance of probabilities of any breach by the landlord of the HHS.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Breaches of the landlord’s duty to maintain
Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that the landlord shall “Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes”.
The obligation applies even if the tenant had notice of the state of repair of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. See section 45(3) RTA.
Section 40(1)(d) RTA requires a tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs. Once the landlord becomes aware of the need for repairs, the landlord must carry out the repairs within a reasonable time frame. What is a reasonable time frame depends on the gravity of the problem and on the attempts made by the landlord to investigate and fix the problem.
The only evidence of the tenant advising the landlord of the need for repair is the text of 30 June 2022 quoted in full above. This notifies the landlord of the need to: a. Repair the heat pump b. Repair the light in the kitchen c. The holes in the kitchen walls d. Rectify the cockroach issue.
As noted above, the landlord confirmed that he had received the text message. He was unable to explain why he took no notice of it.
The tenant also complained of other issues but there was no evidence produced that she had notified the landlord of them during the tenancy. The landlord denied being advised of any other issues during the tenancy.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord was notified of the items listed in the text of 30 June 2023 and that the landlord did not take any steps to address them during the remainder of the tenancy.
The only evidence that the tenant continued to complain to the landlord about these issues is the tenant’s email to the landlord of 20 February 2023 after the tenancy had ended that notes that these issues were raised in June, July, August and October of 2022.
The landlord denied that these issues were raised with him.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
The Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience, stress and loss of amenity of living in a poorly maintained property over an extended period of time. It is well established that where the loss suffered is intangible, awards must be kept modest. Virtually any breach brings with it some degree of disappointment and upset and almost every action could give rise to a claim for intangible loss. It is very difficult to put a price on an intangible as it is not open to mathematical calculation and requires some degree of subjective assessment and impression.
I have determined that a sum of $1,000.00 is appropriate to reflect both the relative seriousness of the breaches and the length of time during which they were unremedied, having taken into consideration the lack of email or text evidence that the tenant continued to make complaints to the landlord. Breach of the tenant’s privacy
The tenant gave evidence and the landlord accepted that at the inspection on 30 June 2023, the landlord took with him a tenant from the neighbouring property.
The tenant claims that this was a breach of the landlord’s obligation under section 38(2) RTA not to cause or permit any interference with the privacy of the tenant.
The landlord’s explanation is that he always takes a witness with him when he inspects a property in the absence of a tenant.
I note that having given the appropriate notice under section 48(2)(b) RTA, a landlord may enter the premises for the purposes of an inspection.
However, this section does not provide authorisation for any person other than the landlord to inspect the premises. It does not allow for the landlord to bring a random person (even if known to the tenant) in to view the property and the tenant’s personal possessions. If this is the landlord’s current practice, then it must stop.
The landlord has breached his obligation under section 38(2) RTA in relation to the tenant’s privacy and it is appropriate that the tenant be compensated monetarily and an amount of $500.00 is appropriate. Compensation for painting
The tenant claimed that at the start of the tenancy, the landlord had agreed to paint the bathroom, kitchen and toilet. It was not recorded in the tenancy agreement.
The only evidence in support of this contention is an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 25 October 2022 providing the name of the landlord’s painter and advising: “Please call him to paint the left-over area - kitchen, bath and toilet.... to your convenience.” and a further email of 4 November 2022 from the landlord to the tenant stating: “Hope you might have called the painter Garry by now. I reproduce my email dated 25th Oct 2022 as under for your ready reference.”
The landlord denied promising to have these rooms painted as a condition of the tenancy. Instead, he advised that he agreed to have the painting done at the request of the tenant and that he had asked her to arrange it directly with the painter so that she could arrange a time that was not inconvenient to her.
The tenant has not persuaded me on the balance of probabilities that the landlord agreed as part of the tenancy agreement to undertake the additional painting.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fees
As both parties have had success in their applications it is appropriate that they each meet their filing fees. Suppression
As the tenant has had some success in her applications, it is appropriate to grant her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4530509 — Rent arrears at 4 Peppertree Glade, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4530509 — Rent arrears at 4 Peppertree Glade, Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions