What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4568156?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4568156?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4568156?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4568156?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9397507-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4568156?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4568156?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4568156?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4568156?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9397507-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

550 Great South Road, Manukau, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4568156 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4568156 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4568156 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$200.00	Compensation
Net award	$200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$200.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rani Kumari Singh and Amit Kumar Singh must pay Radhika Walia and Simranjit Singh $200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
This was a brief periodic tenancy which commenced on 31 December 2022 and ended on 19 July 2023. Prior to moving in, the Tenants inspected the property with the Landlord on 30 December 2022.
The Landlord submitted the property was built in the 1960’s and was renovated in 2017. The Landlord lived in the property with their family for approximately four years before they rented it to the Tenants.
For any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to prove their claims. This is referred to as the “onus of proof”.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Landlord’s failure to provide a clean and tidy property

The Tenants submitted the property was not clean when they moved in. On 24 December 2022, they emailed the Landlord requesting the house be cleaned because it was ‘unliveable’ and the tenancy was conditional upon this being completed.
The Tenants depose the Landlord undertook minor cleaning themselves rather than assign professional cleaners. They submitted the oven was ‘greasy, dirty and not in useable condition’. They provided photographs which pointed to the ‘bottom hinge having a lot of food and dust particles glued to the bottom of the oven and the trays being stained’. There was also cobwebs inside the oven door and grime on the inside of the oven walls. A photograph of the rangehood showed brown staining. The Tenants pointed this out to the Landlord at the inspection on the 30 December 20. An email dated 6 January 2023 between the parties confirmed the Landlord agreed to arrange a cleaner for the oven door cobwebs only. The Tenants submit a cleaner for the oven was never sent so they never used it.
The Tenants also submitted a photograph of a kitchen drawer frame which showed what appeared to look like tea leaves but they submit was pest faeces. As the photograph was blurred, this was difficult to distinguish how it was not noted in the property inspection report.
The Landlord submitted the house was clean and tidy when the Tenants moved in and they described themselves as ‘proud house owners’. They organised a professional carpet cleaner, ‘Ashotush Hygiene cleaning’ on 24 December 2023. They presented an invoice, text messages and photographs of the carpet to prove this had been cleaned. They also provided photographs of the entire property taken on 27 December 2022 to substantiate the condition of the house prior to the Tenants moving in. These show the house was in a clean and tidy condition.
The Landlord submitted the oven was clean when the Tenants moved in. They referred to the ingoing inspection report which showed that the Tenants had confirmed that the oven was in an acceptable condition. The Landlord also provided a photograph of the oven dated 27 December 2022 which appeared in a clean and reasonable state. They submitted that it was the Tenants responsibility to keep the oven and rangehood clean and tidy during the tenancy. The law
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the property was in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy. The photographs of the property filed by the Landlord which were dated before the Tenants moved in and carpet cleaning invoice substantiate this. The Tenant’s photographs were limited to the oven and kitchen drawer yet they described the house as ‘unliveable’. If the house was as filthy as they described, one would expect they would hire a cleaner themselves or they would have presented evidence of the other filthy areas of the house. The Tenant’s photographs were also not date stamped which meant they could have been taken after they moved into the property. In terms of the cobwebs in the oven door, I accept these were present at the start of the tenancy and the email of 6 January 2023 verified that the Landlord promised to have this cleaned. I am satisfied that this was never attended to.
The claim is dismissed except for the aspect of the cobwebs in the oven door. I award $200.00 for the failure to clean the oven door. Failure to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair
The Tenants made multiple claims for the Landlord’s failure to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair. They claimed $5,600.00 which equates to half of 16 weeks of rent. This was compensation for not being able to use all of the amenities of the property.
The relevant law is that a ‘Landlord must 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’. (section 45(1)(b) RTA 1986). Painting the property
The Tenants submitted that on 24 December 2022, they emailed the Landlord requesting the interior of the house be painted. The Landlord agreed to do it but they claim never did. There was a remark in the ingoing inspection report confirming this agreement which stated, ‘One coat of painting to be done- complete house’. The Landlord agreed to complete this by 30 December 2022 and then extended this to another 10-15 working days.
The Landlord submitted they agreed to paint but did not provide a timeframe as to when they would complete it. There was no reference to a deadline in the ingoing inspection report either. On 3 January 2023 they text messaged the Tenants to ask if the painter could attend the property and provided evidence of this message. The Tenants on the same day, called the Landlord back and said they did not require the painting anymore. The Landlord sent an email back to the Tenants, confirming that the Tenants no longer required the painting. The email was also submitted as evidence. After this email, the Landlord submitted the Tenants never requested the painting.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Tenants cancelled their request for the painting from the email evidence provided by the Landlord. There was also no evidence from the Tenants showing follow up requests for painting to the Landlord after it had not been done. The lack of painting of the property did not constitute a failure of the landlord to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair.
The claim is dismissed. Lack of hot water in kitchen sink
The Tenants claimed that there was no hot water in the kitchen sink. They reported this to the landlord at the initial inspection on 30 December 2022 and at that time, the Landlord told them that the hot water comes after two minutes of running the tap. On 6 January 2023 the Tenants reported there was still no hot water in the kitchen tap even after running the water for five minutes. The Landlord advised it was due to the low-pressure cylinder they installed and the tap design. They assured the Tenants they would attend to this issue but never did. Up until the end of the Tenancy in July 2023, the Tenants did not have hot water in the kitchen tap despite repeated requests via email and phone calls.
The Landlord claims the Tenants inspected the property thoroughly on 30 December 2022 over a two-hour period. They received the Tenants complaint via email on 6 January 2023 stating there was no hot water in the kitchen despite moving the tap to the far left and right. It also stated that hot showers affected the flow of water in the kitchen. The Landlord organised a Plumber to attend on 11 January 2023. The Plumber advised the issue was due to the low pressure hot water cylinder which provide low pressure water.
The Landlord submitted low pressure systems are common features in older homes. If hot water taps are turned on simultaneously, then depending on the piping lay out, the flow or pressure will be affected. The Landlord submitted this was just another false claim the Tenant was making. There was nothing raised in the ingoing inspection report and the Tenant raised this a week after moving in. The Landlord had lived there for four years prior to the tenancy and this was never an issue.
The Landlord also never promised to have a high pressure hot water cylinder system installed and was not required by law to provide one. They did however eventually have one installed on 30 April 2023. An invoice was provided to substantiate this.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that there was hot water in the kitchen but the water output may have been affected when other hot water taps were turned on simultaneously. The Tenant submitted there was no hot water for the entire period of their tenancy in the kitchen. One would have expected however that the Tenants would organise their own Plumber or raise a 14-day notice to remedy if they had been waiting months for the issue to be fixed. The Tenants did not provide any evidence from a third party that there was a lack of hot water in the kitchen either.
For these reasons, I dismiss the Tenants claim. Low water pressure in the shower
The Tenants submitted that the water pressure in the shower was extremely low which made it difficult to bath because of the time it took for hot water to flow out. They notified the Landlord in the first week of their tenancy via telephone and email. The Landlord responded that this was a design issue but also sent a Plumber. When the Plumber attended the property, they advised the Tenants to change the hot water cylinder. The Landlord refused to at first because it was not required by law and it was expensive. During the winter months, the Tenant depose this issue was so unbearable, they stopped paying rent.
On or about April 2023, the Landlord organised another Plumber who advised the Tenants they should make a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal because the Landlord refused to replace the hot water cylinder. To work around this issue, the Tenants warmed water over the gas cylinder then filled the bath with this water. They referred to a video which showed the poor flow of water however this evidence was unable to be viewed by the Tribunal. The Tenants submitted the water flow in the bathroom sink had no issues.
The Landlord refuted this claim stating that during the two-hour inspection on 30 December 2022, the Tenants checked the shower and there was no concern raised with the water pressure. The Landlord referred to the ingoing inspection report which did not note any issues with the shower either.
The Landlord deposed the video may have misrepresented the actual water flow because all of the hot water taps in the house could have been turned on simultaneously. In any event, the Landlord replaced the hot water cylinder on 30 April 2023 without being legally required to.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Landlord did not act unreasonably in repairing the hot water pressure in the shower. The evidence provided showed the Landlord responded promptly by sending a Plumber within a few days of being notified in January 2023. It took a few days because most Plumbers were away on holiday in January. This was also an older house so it is not unreasonable that the house would have a low pressure hot water cylinder. The Tenants also failed to provide any evidence from the Plumber or an expert to show that the water pressure system was in breach of the Building Code or any legislation. Whilst the Tenants video evidence may have shown the lack of waterflow, there was no proof that other hot water taps were not turned on in the house. The onus of proof lies on the Tenants to prove their claim. In this instance, the evidence provided was insufficient.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to provide a mirror in a reasonable state
The Tenants submitted that the bathroom mirror was in an unacceptable condition because there were dark stains on the mirror that blocked the view of the mirror.
The Landlord refuted this submitting the mirror had dark stains on the edge but it was still functional and barely blocked the view. A photograph was provided of the mirror which showed black spots at the bottom right-hand side of the frame. Again, the landlord submitted the Tenant did not raise this issue in the ingoing inspection report.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not from the photograph provided that the mirror was in a reasonable state of repair. The black spots only covered the edge of the mirror and there was still sufficient view, contrary to the claim made by the Tenants. It was a house built in the 1960’s so the condition of the mirror was reasonable given the age. Had the mirror been cracked or the coverage of the spots been more extensive, then the mirror should be replaced but in this case it was in an acceptable condition.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim regarding the lack of smoke alarms
The Tenants claimed during the inspection on 30 December 2022, they found there were no smoke alarms in the house. This was noted in the inspection report. Approximately six days after the start of the tenancy, the Landlord attended the property to install the smoke alarms themselves. Two days later the alarms started beeping. The Tenants notified the Landlord of the issues on 13 January 2023 however the Landlord never responded.
The Landlords claim there were smoke alarms in the house but when the Landlords painted the house before the tenancy started, they temporarily removed the alarms from their mounting location. This was noted in the inspection report that the Tenants signed. The Landlord replaced these with new ones and provided a receipt from Bunnings for the purchase of twin pack of smoke alarms. They agreed with the Tenants to mount these on 6 January 2023 so there was never any unlawful entry by the landlords as claimed by the Tenants. A text message was provided to show the Landlords notified the Tenants of their visit to the property. On 13 th January 2023, the Landlords were emailed by the Tenants that a smoke alarm was beeping so they removed the batteries.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied from the inspection report that there were smoke alarms present and temporarily removed from the mounting location due to painting. New ones were installed which was verified by the receipt and text message correspondence between the parties on 6 January 2023. Whilst these should have been mounted when the Tenants moved in, I accept the Landlords were new to the role and there was no intention to breach this obligation. I find that there was no lack of smoke alarms as the Tenants submitted. If they were not working after the 13 January 2023, the Tenants provided any evidence of this.
The claim is dismissed. Faulty heated towel rail
The Tenants submitted that the heated towel rail was faulty and never repaired. They told the Landlord on 6 January 2023 via email correspondence and were concerned it could cause electrical shocks. The Landlord assured the Tenant they were looking for a handyman to repair the towel rail but it was never repaired. A photograph was provided which showed that the rail was slightly protruding out of the wall. Whether this affected the function was uncertain because no evidence was provided from an electrician or tradesperson.
The Landlord submitted on 30 December 2022, the Tenants inspected the property thoroughly and the hot rail was intact. A photograph was provided to substantiate this. There was no reference to it being defective in the inspection report. The Landlord arranged for the Plumber to inspect this however the Tenants cancelled two appointments scheduled for 24 January 2023 and 31 January 2023. The Tenants were supposed to then organise directly with the Plumber but they failed to. Email correspondence was provided between the Plumber and Landlord confirming this. When the Landlord followed up with the Tenant as to whether the Plumber attended, the Tenant told them that they were working so they asked the Landlord if they could attend instead with the Plumber or the Plumber attend after 5.30pm or in the weekends.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the Landlord responded to the repair of the heated rail in a reasonable amount of time and appropriately. The email correspondence shows the Tenant was to arrange the time directly with the Plumber because they had cancelled their attendances. The Tenants did not show evidence of any further efforts with the Plumber to work out a time to attend and there was also no evidence from the Tenant that the heated rail was defective either. The photograph showed slight loosening from the wall but whether this affected the function or was a safety hazard was not supported by evidence.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to provide pest control
The Tenants claimed the Landlord failed to fumigate the property prior to the Tenants moving in. On 30 December 2022, the Tenants asked the Landlord at the inspection, if the property had been fumigated. The Landlord confirmed this was done but there was no proof provided to the Tenants. The Tenants started to receive bites from insects after a few days of moving in and saw cockroaches in the house. They submit photographs were provided of this however the only photograph provided was of the dirty kitchen drawer. The Tenant submitted there was pest faeces under the drawer but the photograph was unclear so they looked like tea leaves.
The Landlord claimed the Tenants undertook a thorough inspection of the property on 30 December 2022 and no insects, pests or bugs were found. The Tenants signed the inspection report but did not request pest control. The Tenants lifestyle could have also been the cause of the pest infestation.
In considering the evidence, the Tenants never provided any evidence of notifying the Landlord of a cockroach infestation or when they started receiving insect bites. The only evidence of the Tenants requesting a fumigation was prior to the Tenants moving in. A fumigation of the property is also not a requirement for Landlords prior to the Tenants moving in unless there is an issue with pests. There was nothing noted in the inspection report.
For these reasons the claim is dismissed. Cooktop issue
The Tenants claimed that two of the cooktop burners did not work and the third burner worked intermittently. They claim the Landlord took nearly three months to fix it despite making several phone calls and emails to the Landlord requesting repair.
The Landlord submitted the gas stove was checked and tested by the Tenant during the inspection on 30 December 2022. The inspection report was then signed and there was no reference to defective burners. On 13 January 2023, the Landlord received notification from the Tenants that two of the gas burners were not working and the third one was working intermittently. The Landlord sent a Gas fitter to repair it on 18 February 2023 based on the Tenants availability. The gas fitter found only one burner required repair of the ignition spark and they needed to send away for the part. This was repaired on 8 March 2023 and an invoice was provided to verify this. The invoice stated ‘call, front left wok burner ignitor isn’t working, unable to fault other elements’.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied from the invoice provided that there was only one defective cooktop burner and the repair was attended to in a reasonable amount of time from timeline of events provided by the Landlord. I also note there was a further delay with availability of parts.
For these reasons the claim is dismissed. Faulty door knobs and locks
The Tenants claimed the door knobs and locks of the house were faulty. The key was unable to be removed from the back entrance door. The toilet lock door was unable to be opened. These were listed in the inspection report but never repaired.
The Landlord claimed that all the locks and door knobs were in working condition. This was noted in the inspection report as acceptable except in bedroom 1 where the door was noted as ‘a bit hard to lock from outside’. There were no other issues with the doors and locks noted in the inspection report as the Tenant claimed.
In considering the evidence, there was no evidence from the Tenant that they notified the Landlord of the issues with the locks and door-knobs. There was nothing in the inspection report except a note that one of the doors was hard to open. The Landlord cannot be responsible for failing to repair something they were not notified of.
The claim is dismissed. Reimbursement of Tenants costs to repair kitchen sink overflow
The Tenant claimed the costs to repair the kitchen sink overflow caused by the Auckland flooding event on 31 January 2023. The Tenants reported this immediately to the Landlord however because the Landlord did not answer their phone call, they organised a Plumber themselves. This attendance was charged $150.00 plus GST which the Landlord assured through a phone call they would reimburse. This was not reimbursed by the landlord.
The Landlord claimed their property was not in the flood zone or in the flood path and provided the Auckland Council flood zone report. The Tenants complained the overflow in the kitchen basin was due to the floods however it was only possible if the flood water level went above the kitchen basin level. This would have meant there was massive damage to the property but the Tenants never claimed this was the case or provided evidence of it. The Landlord sent a Plumber who repaired this by plunging the blockage. The invoice from the Plumber was provided which stated ‘kitchen sink seems to be filling up. Assume its blocked as the waste disposal draining the waste then bringing it all back up. Plunged the blockage clear as required’.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the damage was caused by the Tenant blocking the waste disposal. The flood zone map and Plumbers invoice was persuasive. I also accept that there would have been other damage to the property if this was caused by the floods.
The claim is dismissed. Landlord threatening to end the tenancy
The Tenants claimed the Landlord threatened to end the tenancy because of the Tenants complaints. They stopped paying the rent because of the ongoing issues and were stressed when they received an email from the Landlord threatening to end the tenancy. They had just received good news of becoming parents so this was threat was extremely distressing.
The Landlord claimed that the Tenants stopped paying their rent from 22 April 2023. They then sent a 14-day notice to remedy the rent arrears on 29 April 2023 which they stated was within their rights as Landlords.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the Landlord was asserting their right pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in an effort to remedy the rent arrears. The Tenant’s admitted that they ceased paying rent so the Landlord sending a 14-day notice was an appropriate step for the Landlord to take. Termination of the tenancy is one of the consequences of not paying rent pursuant to the RTA which the Landlord was making the Tenant aware of.
The claim is dismissed. Misrepresentation of the property in the advertisement
The Tenants claimed the Landlord advertised the property as having two bathrooms including showers. When they inspected the property, they found only one complete bathroom and a shower. They found this representation of the property as unreasonable and untrustworthy.
The Landlord submitted the actual advertisement in ‘myrent’ website which showed the house as having 1 bathroom and 1 separate additional toilet. This was filed as evidence. The Tenants also inspected the property on 30 December 2022 and did not raise this issue at the time. If they felt like they were being mis-led they had an opportunity not to proceed with the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the Landlord did not misrepresent the property from the advertisement provided by the Landlords.
The claim is dismissed. Fixed waste water charges
The Tenant claimed the Landlord charged them for fixed water waste charges of $68.72 and it was only when the Tenants were informed by a Property Manager of this that they pointed this out to the Landlords.
The Landlord submitted they were initially not aware of this and then rectified the over-charge with the Tenants. This was the first property they had ever rented out privately so this mistake was due to inexperience rather than an attempt to dupe the Tenants.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s 39(3) RTA). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s 39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed water charges.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord has acknowledged they overcharged the Tenant fixed water charges and have rectified this payment.
The claim is dismissed. Failure to conduct a Healthy Homes assessment
The Tenants claimed the Landlord failed to provide a Healthy Homes Standard assessment on time because they moved into the property on 30 December 2022 and the assessment was completed on 5 July 2023. The Tenants depose had this been undertaken within the appropriate time frames, the Tenants may not have suffered from the various issues with the property.
The law provides that a Healthy Homes assessment requires all rental homes to comply with specific regulations regarding insulation, heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, and draught stopping. 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.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord was late in conducting their healthy home assessment by approximately three months. The Tenants requested that the Tribunal to look into this matter and take the appropriate measures. The Tenants have not specifically sought compensation or exemplary damages for this issue and it is not for the Tribunal to decide this. The Tenants need to be specific with what they are seeking in terms of the late assessment. Nothing was requested so the Tribunal acknowledges the Landlord was outside of the required days. Claim for compensation due to harassment and mental agony
The Tenants claimed $15,000.00 for the Landlord harassing them and causing them mental agony as a result of the ongoing issues with the property.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder [1987] NZTT Palmerston North TT 12/87, the Adjudicator noted that: although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant claimed the stress of the tenancy affected their pregnancy of their first child which unfortunately resulted in the miscarriage of their child. They did not provide medical evidence to substantiate this and I find that the majority of claims they made, were not caused by breaches made by the Landlord. There was no intention by the Landlord to breach any of their obligations either.
For these reasons, the claim is dismissed.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the gas stove and smoke detectors. Damage to the gas stove
The Landlord claimed compensation of $214.42 for damage to the gas stove caused by the Tenants. The ingoing inspection report indicated it was in an acceptable condition at the start of the tenancy. They claimed the Tenant caused the damage.
The Tenants claim they did not damage the stove. It was already broken and it appeared to be wear and tear issue.
The claim is dismissed. Damage to smoke detectors
The Landlord claimed compensation of $17.28 for the damage to the smoke detectors. There is no evidence that the Tenants caused this damage.
The claim is dismissed. Claim for unauthorised use of the property for commercial purposes
The Landlord claimed the Tenants were in breach of the Tenancy Agreement for using the property for business purposes by running a company in the name of “Insight Immigration Limited” since 23rd March 2023. This company is NZ limited company. They provided the link for the company website. They submitted this was a breach of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. It also rendered their property ineligible for home insurance cover, increased wear and tear leading to damage, diminished the value of the property and disrupted the neighbours with increased noise, traffic, and disturbance to neighbouring properties. There was also potential legal implications which meant they would be in contravention of local zoning regulations.
The Tenants submitted they did not conduct their business from home. The Tenant was a contractor and provided a letter from his previous employer to confirm this. They had registered the property as the business address for service. The letter confirmed that the Tenant used to work full time from the office but currently works from home.
In considering the evidence I am not satisfied the Tenant was conducting a business from the property based on the letter provided. The claim is dismissed. Claim for mental distress
The Landlord claimed for mental distress because of the ongoing false complaints made by the Tenants. They submitted that the Tenant would contact them nearly every Friday complaining about something within the property. This because very stressful so the Landlord had to engage a Property Manager to avoid communicating with the Tenants. The Landlord suffered from high blood pressure and depression from the repeated false claims the Tenants made.
The Tenant’s submitted they did not cause the mental distress and were just telling the Landlord about the issues that arose at the house. They wanted the Landlords to be honest and ensure that everything was safe. They suffered from having a miscarriage yet they paid rent every week on time and were good Tenants.
In considering the evidence, I am not persuaded that the Tenants intentionally harassed or caused mental stress for the Landlord. They were merely raising issues as they happened within the tenancy and what they believed were breaches of the tenancy. There was also no medical evidence of the Landlord suffering depression and anxiety and this being caused by the Tenants actions.
For these reasons the claim is dismissed.
As neither party has been wholly successful in their claims, name suppression is not granted and the parties shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4568156 — Tenancy dispute at 550 Great South Road, Manukau, Auckland 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 4568156 — Tenancy dispute at 550 Great South Road, Manukau, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions