What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4577613 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 4577613?

Cleaning: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: failure to maintain in…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Missing Fence And Gate: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Partial Rent Refund - Unlawful Resid…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Re-Glazing: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement For Water Filters: $181.12 awarded to tenant; Replace Garage Door Remote And Exten…: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Laminate Flooring: $112.16 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4577613?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4577613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594651-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4577613 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 4577613?

Cleaning: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: failure to maintain in…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Missing Fence And Gate: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Partial Rent Refund - Unlawful Resid…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Re-Glazing: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement For Water Filters: $181.12 awarded to tenant; Replace Garage Door Remote And Exten…: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Laminate Flooring: $112.16 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4577613?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4577613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594651-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

128B Awaroa River Road, Abbey Caves, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4577613 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4577613 — net $726.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$105.00		17. I will award one-third of the cleaning costs claimed.
Replace garage door remote and extension cord	$140.00		Replace garage door remote and extension cord
Rubbish removal	$300.00		Rubbish removal
Replace laminate flooring	$112.16		Replace laminate flooring
Compensation: Missing fence and gate	$1,000.00		Missing fence and gate
Re-glazing	$750.00		the claim for re-glazing is proven.
Filing fee	$20.44		166. I will award $1,000.00.
Compensation: failure to maintain in a reasonable state of		$500.00	failure to maintain in a reasonable state of
Reimbursement for water filters		$181.12	Reimbursement for water filters
Partial rent refund - unlawful residential premises		$1,000.00	Partial rent refund - unlawful residential premises
Filing fee		$20.44	166. I will award $1,000.00.
Total award	$2,427.60	$1,701.56
Net award	$726.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$726.04

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4577613 — net $726.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$105.00		17. I will award one-third of the cleaning costs claimed.
Replace garage door remote and extension cord	$140.00		Replace garage door remote and extension cord
Rubbish removal	$300.00		Rubbish removal
Replace laminate flooring	$112.16		Replace laminate flooring
Compensation: Missing fence and gate	$1,000.00		Missing fence and gate
Re-glazing	$750.00		the claim for re-glazing is proven.
Filing fee	$20.44		166. I will award $1,000.00.
Compensation: failure to maintain in a reasonable state of		$500.00	failure to maintain in a reasonable state of
Reimbursement for water filters		$181.12	Reimbursement for water filters
Partial rent refund - unlawful residential premises		$1,000.00	Partial rent refund - unlawful residential premises
Filing fee		$20.44	166. I will award $1,000.00.
Total award	$2,427.60	$1,701.56
Net award	$726.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$726.04

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay Terry Green and Amy Gardener $726.04 from the bond, calculated per the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: a. $726.04 to Terry Green and Amy Gardener; b. $2,073.96 to [The tenant/s].

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 6 November 2020 and ended on 1 April 2023.
The tenanted premises is a house and a sleepout / cabin on approximately one acre of land in a semi-rural area.
The landlord’s application seeks repairs, compensation for missing chattels, rubbish removal, and cleaning costs.
The tenants’ application raises issues relating to healthy homes, maintenance, and unlawful residential premises.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 13 October 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Landlords’ application Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 1
Mr Green and Ms Gardener submitted that the main house was reasonably clean, except for the bathroom and the ceilings (fly dirt), but the sleepout did not appear to have been cleaned at all at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants submitted that they did clean the sleepout at the end of the tenancy. They submitted that there was fly dirt on the lounge ceiling when they first moved in, to the extent that they talked about painting the ceiling.
The landlords seek $315.00 for work carried out by a professional cleaner. The landlords attempted to submit the cleaning invoice with their online application, but the copy that I have is not legible.
The landlords provided numerous photographs in support of their cleaning claim.
I have made a finding below that the sleepout is unlawful residence premises per the definition in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the Tribunal finds that the premises are unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal “must not order the tenant to pay to the landlord any sum by way of damages or compensation” unless “special circumstances” apply 2 .
This waiver of the tenant’s usual obligation to not cause damage, to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to pay the rent, is clearly intended to 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 78A(3)(a)(ii) RTA discourage and penalise landlords who rent out premises that are not permitted for residential use.
There are no “special circumstances” that apply in this instance.
Therefore I must find that the tenants are not liable for any cleaning costs relating to the sleepout.
The landlords’ own evidence is that most of the cleaning work related to the sleepout.
I will award one-third of the cleaning costs claimed. Blown and missing bulbs, damage to garage light
The landlords’ claim states: 23 light bulbs were either missing or blown in the main house (internally and externally), sleep out and garage. Garage light had been disconnected and damaged beyond repair, and the wiring tampered with.
Tenants are liable for damage that they carelessly or intentionally cause, but they are not liable for items that wear out through normal use (fair wear and tear).
Applying that principle, I cannot hold tenants liable for blown bulbs.
In terms of the garage light, the tenants acknowledged moving the garage light (a fluorescent strip light), but they denied damaging it. The landlord’s photograph shows the light sitting on top a beam in the garage, but it does not show any obvious damage to the light itself, and it does not show that the light was “disconnected” or “tampered with”. This is consistent with the tenants’ explanation. The evidence does not establish that the tenants did anything more than move the garage light. Replace bathroom hand basin
Mr Green and Ms Gardener submitted that the hand basin had a crack in it.
The hairline crack is visible in one of the photographs that the landlords provided.
[Tenant 1] submitted that the crack was present when their tenancy began.
The property inspection report attached to the tenancy agreement was not completed at the beginning of the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the period of the tenancy.
In any claim for damage, the landlord has the burden of proof to establish (to the standard of “more likely than not”) that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear 3 .
In the absence of any evidence of the condition of the basin at the beginning of the tenancy, and having regard to the nature of the damage (a hairline crack), my finding is that is not proven that the damage occurred during the period of this tenancy and it is not proven that the damage was caused by any careless or intentional act by the tenants. Replacement glass for lounge ranchslider and garage window
The landlords’ photographs show chips in two windows next to the ranchslider, and a broken window in the garage.
[Tenant 1] submitted that at the beginning of the tenancy there was a broken pane in the ranchslider, which the landlords repaired soon after the start of the tenancy. [Tenant 1] submitted that the chips were also present at that time and Mr Green told them he was willing to re-glaze those windows as well. The tenants told him they were not bothered about the chips.
Mr Green agreed that he re-glazed a pane in the ranchslider early in the tenancy, but he denied that the chips were present, and he denied the conversation that [Tenant 1] alleges.
The tenants were not aware of the damage to the garage window. They do not know whether it was present when the tenancy began.
The landlords are adamant that the broken window in the garage was not present when the tenancy began. They submitted that they noticed it immediately during the first inspection, and they would have noticed it if it had been present before then.
I accept that the landlords would not be seeking to hold the tenants liable for the ranchslider chips if they had previously offered to re-glaze the windows themselves, and I also accept that the landlords would have noticed the broken window in the garage if it had been present at the start of the tenancy.
Therefore I find that the claim for re-glazing is proven.
The landlords hold insurance with an excess of $250 for glass repairs. This is the tenant’s maximum liability per incidence of damage 4 .
The landlords provided a quote for the re-glazing cost. The cost is $740 plus GST. 3 Section 49B(8)(a) RTA 4 Section 49B(3)(a) RTA
The quote does not allow me to assess the individual cost of repair of each pane. Assuming that the cost of each is the same, the tenants’ maximum total liability is $750.00. Missing garage door remote and extension lead
The tenants accepted the claim for replacement of the garage door remote.
The tenants also accepted the claim for removing the landlords’ extension cord but submitted that it was a 9m standard cord not a 30m heavy duty cord (which the landlords’ claim for $73.98 is based on).
The tenants brought the landlords’ extension cord to the hearing to return it to the landlords, but the landlords did not want it back.
The claim for $120.00 to replace the garage door remote is proven.
The tenants’ description of the cord is accurate. I will award $20.00 for the extension cord. Rubbish removal
The claim seeks $567.64 for rubbish removal and disposal per an invoice from the landlords’ business dated 24 April 2023, and a further $11.50 (plus time and travel) for disposal of a tyre and a piece of glass that the landlords discovered in the garden at a later point.
[Tenant 1] submitted that: a. They were willing to return to the property and remove any rubbish that they had overlooked, but the landlords would not permit them. b. Part of the claim includes dealing with the remains of their outside fire pit. There were the remains of an outdoor fire at the property at the beginning of the tenancy, which they tidied up themselves. c. The quantity of rubbish alleged by the landlords (per their dumping receipt) is disproportionate to what they left behind, and the landlords are probably also including rubbish relating to their own renovations.
My findings are: a. Tenants are obliged to remove all their rubbish at the end of the tenancy 5 . Landlords are not obliged to allow tenants back to the property after the tenancy has ended. b. Landlords are entitled to do their own rubbish removal (or cleaning, or repairs) and to recover the reasonable cost of that work from the tenant. 5 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA The landlords were entitled to use their own business to do the rubbish removal work, but the labour rate charged in their invoice ($65 per hour plus GST) is above market rates for this type of work. c. I agree that the dumping costs claimed are not justified by the landlords’ photographs showing the amount of rubbish left behind by the tenants. d. Given that there were the remains of an outside fire at the premises when the tenancy began, it was reasonable for the tenants to think that this was acceptable to the landlord. e. I will award $300.00 for rubbish removal and disposal. Replacement laminate flooring
The tenants accepted this part of the claim ($112.16). Lounge curtain and kitchen blind
Both were missing at the end of the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] submitted that they disposed of the curtain soon into the tenancy because they found a mason wasp nest on the back of it. They put up their own curtain, which they took with them at the end of the tenancy.
They also disposed of the roman blind, which they submitted broke during the tenancy.
It is unfortunate that the tenants did not inform the landlord about the curtain and the blind.
However, I accept the tenants’ explanation of the damage to the curtain and blind. The damage was not due to any careless or intentional action by the tenants.
The tenants are not liable for the cost of replacing these items. Damage to kitchen benchtop in sleep out
The benchtop was damaged by something hot being placed on top of it. The landlords provided a photograph of the damage.
At the start of the tenancy, [Previous Tenant] occupied the sleepout. [Previous Tenant] moved out after several months, and [Tenant 2] and her partner moved in.
[Tenant 2] submitted that the damage to benchtop was present when she moved in to the sleepout.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. There is no entry inspection report or any other evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy, but I accept that the damage is clear and obvious, and it would have been noted by the landlords and the tenants if it had been present at the start of the tenancy.
However, the sleepout is unlawful residential premises per the definition in the Residential Tenancies Act.
As noted above, where the premises are unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal must not order the tenant to pay the landlord any amount owing for rent or “any other sum by way of damages or compensation” unless “special circumstances” apply.
For the reasons discussed in more detail below, I have not made an order for a full refund of all of the rent for this part of the premises, having regard to the good standard of the accommodation in the sleepout.
However, there are no special circumstances that provide grounds for declining to apply the principle that tenants are not liable for rent arrears or “damages or compensation” in respect of unlawful premises. I am satisfied that the damage is most likely to be careless and not intentional.
Therefore, this part of the landlords’ claim must be dismissed. Garage – missing work bench, water damage to floor
Mr Green submitted that at the beginning of the tenancy there was a bench in the garage with cabinetry underneath the bench.
At the end of the tenancy the bench and cabinetry were missing, and there was water damage to the floor in that area.
[Tenant 1] submitted that the bench was a basic piece of MDF board, which they ultimately threw away because it deteriorated and bowed over time. They submitted that there was no ‘cabinetry’. They submitted that there were some leaks in the garage that caused the water damage to the floor.
Mr Green did not contest the tenants’ description of the bench.
I am satisfied that the MDF board was a makeshift and short lifespan bench, and that it wore out through normal use. It is disputed and not proven that there were any cabinets underneath the bench. The cause of the water damage is not known. There is not sufficient evidence to establish that it was a consequence of any careless or intentional actions by the tenants.
This part of the landlords’ claim is dismissed. Fencing and gate
There is post and rail fencing around a paddock, where the landlords previously kept a horse.
The tenants removed part of the fencing and a gate to create space for parking.
The tenants placed the materials to one side, including the fence.
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlords gave the tenants general permission to make cosmetic alterations to the property. However, this permission does not extend to removing fencing and not reinstating it at the end of the tenancy.
The fencing materials and gate may have been lost or damaged in circumstances beyond the tenants’ control, but they remained responsible for reinstating what they removed.
The claim seeks $3,553.50 to reinstate the fencing, per a quote from [contractor company].
The [contractor company] quote is dated 27 September 2023. It does not specify the materials or give a breakdown of the labour cost of the job – it simply quotes $1,500.00 for labour, $1,500.00 for materials and $90.00 for mileage. There is a comment on the quote “this is an estimate as not sure on how much material is needed to fix some of the existing fence”.
The wording of the quote and the lack of detail makes it difficult to determine whether this quote is only for reinstatement of the section of fencing that the tenants removed. In so far as the quote includes other fencing repairs, there is no evidence that the tenants damaged fencing other than the section that they removed.
On the basis that the quote is not reliable as an assessment of the cost of replacing only the fencing and gate that the tenants removed, I will make an award of compensation based on the very limited evidence that is available to me.
I was provided with one photograph of the missing section. I do not know the length of it. I was not given information about the cost of a new replacement wooden gate, or cost and availability of second-hand gates.
I will award compensation of $1,000.00. Stove
The landlords replaced the stove during the tenancy.
The tenants did not raise any issues about the replacement stove.
After the tenancy ended, the landlords sold the stove on Trade Me.
The purchaser immediately contacted the landlords and told them that the oven did not work (the elements were ok), and that there was rust on the bottom of the oven.
The tenants submitted that the oven was in good working order at the end of their tenancy.
Mr Green did not have any detail about why the oven was not working.
It is not proven that the stove was damaged by some careless or intentional action by the tenants during the period of the tenancy. Missing electric fencing
Mr Green and Ms Gardener submitted that there was an electric fence around the perimeter of the property, comprised of ‘pigtail’ standards and tape. At the end of the tenancy the fence was entirely missing.
[Tenant 1] submitted that they moved parts of the fence during the tenancy (they had the landlords’ permission to keep animals) but they left all of the electrical tape and pigtails behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlords seek $2,017.52 to replace the pigtails and tape.
Again, the evidence available to me is very limited and anecdotal. There are no photographs or inspection reports showing what was present at the beginning of the tenancy. It seems implausible that the tenants would remove, or dispose of, hundreds of pigtails and hundreds of metres of electric fencing tape.
The landlords have the burden of proof.
The claim is not proven. Missing timber
Mr Green left a pile of LVL8 90x45 framing timber outside the shed.
At the end of the tenancy, the pile was gone. Mr Green submitted that there was approximately 780m of timber on the pile.
The tenants did not deny that they burned this timber in the outdoor fire over the course of the tenancy. [Tenant 1] submitted that at the beginning of the tenancy Mr Green told them not to touch the timber that was inside the shed (Mr Green said that he was going to retrieve that timber, but he never did), but told them that they could burn the timber left outside. [Tenant 1] submitted that they burned the timber during the tenancy, the pile went down steadily, and the landlords never made any comment about it. This cost was also not included the landlords’ original claim.
Tenants are liable if they carelessly or intentionally damage the landlord’s chattels.
However, I accept that the tenants would not have burned this timber if they did not have the understanding that they were permitted to do so. The fact that it was stored outside, and that the landlords did not make any comments when the pile very obviously disappeared over the course of the tenancy, would have reinforced their understanding.
All parties have a duty to mitigate (reduce) their loss where possible 6 .
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes between landlords and tenants “according to substantial merits and justice of the case” 7 .
In this instance my finding is that it would be unjust to hold the tenants liable for this timber given that: a. The tenants genuinely understood that the landlords gave them permission to burn it; and b. The landlords had the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding during the tenancy but did not do so. Cut extension cord
The landlords submitted that they had an extension cord running from the garage to a ‘drop saw’ area.
They submitted that at the end of the tenancy the extension cord had been cut and it was no longer useable.
The tenants disputed this.
I was not provided with any evidence of a cut extension cord.
This part of the landlords’ claim is not proven. Tenants’ application Introduction
Some of the issues raised in the tenants’ application relate to compliance with the healthy homes standards, such as the requirement to have mechanical ventilation in the kitchen and the bathroom.
The standards apply to all new tenancies entered into after 1 July 2021, and will apply to every tenancy from 1 July 2025. This tenancy began in November 2020. Therefore, the healthy homes standards did not apply to this tenancy. 6 Section 48 RTA 7 Section 85 RTA
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises 8 .
[Tenant 1] presented the tenants’ claim at the hearing on 13 October. Insulation
The landlord’s obligations in respect of insulation are now ‘bundled up’ in the healthy homes standards, but the insulation requirement came into effect in 2019.
Landlords must ensure that there is compliant underfloor and ceiling insulation in rental properties. There are exemptions if it is not reasonably possible to fit insulation in those areas due to the construction of the dwelling.
[Tenant 1] submitted that there is no ceiling insulation in the sleepout.
Mr Green and Ms Gardener submitted that they purchased insulation to install in the sleep out before the beginning of the tenancy. At that time, most of their dealings with the prospective tenants was through ‘[Previous Tenant]’, who was one of the original tenants and who was an employee of the landlords’ business at that time.
Mr Green and Ms Gardener submitted that [Previous Tenant] offered to fit the insulation, and they agreed to this. They were not aware that [Previous Tenant] had failed to do it.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to fail to comply with the requirements in respect of insulation 9 .
The Tenancy Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act was committed intentionally 10 . Exemplary damages are punitive.
My finding is that it is not appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages in this instance. The landlords were entitled to accept [Previous Tenant]’s offer to fit the insulation himself, and they reasonably believed that he had done the job. I accept that the landlords had purchased the insulation, and they were intending to install it themselves if [Previous Tenant] had not offered. Dampness, cold, mould
[Tenant 1] submitted that: a. The premises were cold and damp throughout their tenancy. 8 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 9 Section 45(1A) RTA 10 Section 109 RTA b. There was condensation on the windows. c. The only means of heating was a 2kW infra-red heater in the lounge. d. The landlords talked about getting a heat pump but did not install one. e. The landlords told them it was not possible to have an HRV home ventilation system, but then obtained a quote for one after they vacated the tenancy.
Mr Green and Ms Gardener submitted that they lived in the house before renting it out. They had no problems with dampness or with mould / condensation (provided that the house was ventilated).
I accept [Tenant 1]’s oral evidence about her experience of living in the property, which was supported by the other tenants.
However: a. Dampness, mould, and condensation can be difficult to evidence. The tenants provided only one relevant photograph, which shows condensation on a ranchslider door. b. The healthy homes standards did not apply to this tenancy. The landlord was not obliged to provide a heat pump or an HRV system. c. There are no proven leaks or other specific ‘property issues’ to link the claim of dampness / mould to a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
On the basis that the healthy homes standards do not apply, there is no proven failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and the evidence of ‘excessive’ dampness, cold, and mould is limited and anecdotal, my finding is that there is no basis for an award of damages under this hearing. “Unsafe living environment”
The issues raised under this heading mostly relate to one of the bedrooms, where the landlords removed a built-in wardrobe but did not complete repairs / remediation.
[Tenant 1] submitted that: a. A power switch was detached form the wall and the wires were exposed. b. Some squares of carpet had been placed on the floor, but the carpet smooth edge was still in place with exposed pins. c. There was a bolt that protruded from the concrete floor. d. There was a sizeable hole in the wall that a pipe went into.
[Tenant 1] provided photographs showing all of the issues listed above.
Mr Green submitted that the switch was not live (the tenants disputed this).
I agree that the photographs are unflattering. The landlords should have completed the repairs / remediation before the tenancy began. The issues are serious enough to support a finding that this part of the premises was not in a reasonable state of repair, but not sufficiently serious to justify the tenants’ claim for substantial compensation.
I will award compensation of $500.00.
The switchboard is located in the ceiling space. It is near an old water tap.
Landlords must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises 11 .
The location of the switchboard is certainly unusual. However, determining whether the installation complies with the relevant legislation would require assessment by a suitably qualified person. It is not enough for the tenants to show that the set-up looks questionable. The question is whether the installation fails to meet the relevant legal requirement. In this instance it is not proven that it is non-compliant. Water filters
The tenants purchased water filters during the tenancy. The total cost was $181.12.
I agree that the provision of filters is part of the landlord’s obligation to provide adequate means for the collection and supply of potable water 12 .
The claim is fair and reasonable. Gorse
The dwellings are on approximately an acre of land. There is a grassed area around the dwellings. Behind the house is a steep hill.
The hill was in a tidy condition at the start of the tenancy, but there is gorse there, and it became very overgrown during the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] submitted that whenever they asked the landlords for assistance with maintaining this area the landlords told them that they had taken on a lifestyle property, and it was up to them to keep on top of it.
The tenants did not have the equipment to deal with the gorse and they had to hire it. It took many hours of work to look after this area. 11 Section 45(1)(c) RTA 12 Section 45(1)(ca) and 45(1)(c) RTA
The claim seeks some compensation for the tenants’ time and costs.
Ms Gardener submitted that three of the tenants were (at various times) employees of her landscaping business. Ms Gardener submitted that the tenants knew what they were taking on, and it was agreed and understood that the tenants would look after the property.
Tenants have a duty to keep “the premises” reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy 13 , and this can legitimately include lawns and gardens if the landlord and tenant so agree.
The Tenancy Tribunal usually holds that tenants are not responsible for the maintenance of large trees or tall hedges.
I accept that if a tenant agrees to rent a property that has land with it, the tenant takes on the whole of the property – their responsibility is not implicitly limited to the land and gardens immediately surrounding the house.
In this instance it would have perhaps been appropriate for the landlords and tenants to share responsibility for taking care of the hill area. The landlords have access to equipment through their business that could have made the job less onerous for the tenants.
However I must respect the agreement that the parties freely entered into. Not all of the current tenants were a party to that original agreement, but they are bound by its terms. The Tenancy Tribunal may set aside any agreement that “is inconsistent with any of the provisions of [the Residential Tenancies Act], or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision” 14 , but in this instance the understanding that the tenants would keep all of the land in a reasonably tidy condition is not contrary to any specific provision in the Act.
The issue is finely balanced, but my finding is that there is no legal basis to retrospectively impose an obligation on the landlords to maintain the gorse (or to pay for the cost of maintaining it).
Therefore this part of the tenants’ claim is dismissed. Driveway
The property has a long, winding, unsealed driveway.
[Tenant 1] submitted that: a. When they moved in (in November 2020), it was apparent that maintenance was required on the driveway. There were potholes and ruts. b. The landlords told them that the work would be done before Christmas. 13 Section 40(1)(c) RTA 14 Section 11(1) RTA c. They did not want the work done around Christmas time and they asked if it could be delayed to the new year. d. The work was not done. e. At an inspection in 2022, Mr Green became angry with them for failing to maintain the driveway. f. The landlords arranged for a contractor to come and work on the driveway in December 2022. The work was carried out, and [Tenant 1] submitted that the driveway looked much better immediately after the contractor finished. Unfortunately, later the same day, there was a heavy rainfall event that caused flash flooding around [City 1]. Much of the remedial work on the driveway was undone.
Mr Green denied getting angry at the inspection. He submitted that he did not expect the tenants to maintain the driveway, but he did expect them to keep the drains clear (in particular, a channel drain that runs across the driveway) because that is an important part of reducing water damage to the driveway.
Landlords are responsible for maintaining driveways in a reasonable state of repair “having regard to the age and character of the premises”. This is a semi- rural property with a long, unsealed driveway.
There are no photographs of the condition of the driveway at the start of the tenancy.
The only photographs of the driveway are in the landlord’s evidence, showing photographs that [Tenant 1] took and sent to Mr Green after the heavy rainfall.
The landlords took steps to maintain the driveway in December 2022.
There is not sufficient evidence to show that the timing of this amounted to a failure by the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I have no good evidence about the condition of the driveway from November 2020 until November 2022.
There is no basis for an award of compensation under this heading. Unlawful residential premises
Unlawful residential premises are: a. Premises that are used as a place of residence, but: i. Cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes; and ii. The landlord’s failure to comply with all legal requirements in respect of building, health and safety caused the occupation to be unlawful 15 .
The sleepout was originally a shed. Mr Green converted it into a rumpus area.
The sleepout has a living area, a bedroom, a basic kitchen, and a bathroom. These facilities meant that the sleepout is effectively self-contained – it is not reliant on the use of facilities in the main house. During this tenancy, the tenants who have occupied it (initially [Previous Tenant], and then a couple) have used it as a self-contained living area.
The sleepout was used as a place of residence but it could not be lawfully used for that purpose. The building was only consented as a shed. The landlords would have required Council consent to add facilities to the shed that effectively converted it into a dwelling.
This part of the tenanted premises was unlawful residential premises.
Where the Tribunal finds that the premises are or were unlawful residential premises, the Tribunal may order the landlord to pay to the tenant “the whole sum found to have been paid by way of rent”. The Tribunal may also order a lesser amount “having regard to the special circumstances of the matter” 16 .
In this instance: a. The sleepout was only part of the premises. b. There is no evidence to indicate that the sleepout was poorly constructed or unsuitable for habitation in any respect.
One of the purposes of the ‘unlawful residential premises’ provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act is to discourage landlords from renting out premises that are not consented for residential occupation.
On that basis, rather than on the basis of any detriment suffered by the tenants, it is appropriate to make an award for partial refund of the rent.
I will award $1,000.00. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
Both parties have been partially successful in their applications and both are entitled to recover the filing fee for their applications 17 .
The tenants sought name suppression. I am satisfied that the tenants were sufficiently successful in terms of their own application and in defending the 15 Section 78A RTA 16 Section 78A(4) RTA 17 Section 104(2)(a) RTA landlord’s application that they are entitled to name suppression on the grounds that they “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings 18 .
The net amount owed by the tenants to the landlord is $726.04. The landlords will receive that amount from the bond. The balance of the bond will be released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4577613 — Cleanliness at 128B Awaroa River Road, Abbey Caves, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4577613 — Cleanliness at 128B Awaroa River Road, Abbey Caves, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions