What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4591950?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4591950?

Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Mattress Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,967.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4591950?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4591950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9396796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4591950?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4591950?

Property Damage: $5,000.00 awarded to tenant; Mattress Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,967.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4591950?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4591950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9396796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Normanby Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4591950 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4591950 — net $2,232.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,967.68		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$1,035.00		Rubbish removal
Mattress removal	$230.00		Mattress removal
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain/breach HHS		$5,000.00	Failure to maintain/breach HHS
Total award	$7,232.68	$5,000.00
Net award	$2,232.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,232.68

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers to pay Cirone Limited - As Agent for Songqin Wang & Hong Zhang $2,232.68 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,232.68 () to Cirone Limited - As Agent for Songqin Wang & Hong Zhang immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,207.32 () to Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers immediately.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for lawn and garden maintenance.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for compensation for emotional damage and loss of income.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claim for breach of healthy homes standard (HHS), failure to maintain, compensation for loss of income and effects of mould on their health, filing fee and bond.
The Tribunal cannot consider claims for emotional damage or loss of income in these circumstances. I am dismissing these claims. Landlord application How much is owed for rent
The tenancy ended on 31 May 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $5967.68 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not dispute this claim but say they stopped paying rent due to the poor condition of the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants left rubbish at the property and also mattresses that the landlord had to dispose of. The tenants accept this but were unable to get back to move the rubbish in time.
The landlord has provided photos and invoices for the rubbish and mattress removal.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rubbish and mattress removal.
The landlord is claiming for the cost of lawn and garden maintenance. The landlord has provided photos and invoices for the work needed to be carried out at the ends of the tenancy.
The tenants dispute having to pay this cost and say the property was left in a better condition at the end of the tenancy than the beginning. The tenants had to undertake a lot of work to get the property in order at the start of the tenancy. The tenants provided videos and photos of the state of the garden and lawns when the tenancy began. The videos and photos do show the garden was not in a good condition.
The tenants did complain after carrying out a lot of work themselves on the gardens. The landlord did pay for a gardening company for do an extensive overhaul on the garden after the tenancy had begun.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the lawns and garden maintenance, and I dismiss that claim. Tenants claim
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that the property was not maintained and was not compliant with HHS under the RTA.
The tenants provided videos, and photos of the condition of the property.
The tenants claim the following issues with the property: -Mouldy curtains within 2 weeks of moving into the property -No heat pump installed for 6 months -Wet carpets from leaks in the master bed and hallway -No filter or gutter guards on the water tank -Mould on walls in master bed and wet carpet -Leaks and flooding in master bed, hallway and gym every time it rained -Water Leaks in the main bathroom coming through bath bathroom door -Electrical problems as 3 switches were broken and wires sticking out from wall -Holes in living room wall and in kitchen cupboards -Microwave rusted -Outside brick arch wall was crumbling and dangerous
The tenants claim that the house was dirty at the start of the tenancy and the landlord had to send a cleaner through.
From 10 May 2021 the tenants first complained of wet carpets in the master bedroom. no reply from the landlord. On 8 th July 2022 emailed landlord again about wet carpets and flooding and sent photos. On 12 th July 2022 landlord sent tradesperson around to view the leaks.
18 th July tradesman fixed downpipes outside.
27 th July tenants contacted the landlord again complaining of further flooding and leaks. On 29 th July tradesmen came back to fix the down pipes.
While the downpipes were being fixed, no effort was made to help dry out the carpets. The carpets were wet and smelly every time it rained.
The landlord accepts all of the issues raised by the tenants and had tried to remedy some of the issues without success.
The landlord accepts now that there was no filter or gutter guards on the water tank. I accept that the landlord did not know this until a specialist went to the problem to fix it.
One of the tenants is a roofing, guttering specialist and the landlord believed that he could assist with issues. The tenant did on occasion and billed the landlord for his professional services.
The landlord accepted at the hearing that they did not follow up and remedy the electrical work that needed doing.
The rusty microwave was replaced by the tenants. The landlord had provided a microwave as part of the chattels for the tenancy. The landlord told the tenants to put the rusty microwave in the storage area.
The brick wall was known about and not fixed until after the tenancy ended.
I accept that the landlord did attempt to fix some of the issues with the house but did not follow up with them. Some issues they simply did not attend too.
The landlord was fully aware of the ongoing serious leaking issues.
I accept that they did send trades people around to fix the leaks, but this remained an ongoing and serious issue throughout the tenancy.
The flooding caused very serious issues with large pools of water in the gym and heavily soaked carpets running the entire length of the hallway and into bedrooms.
The ongoing wetness from the leaking caused mould issues and the tenants say major health issues for them and their family.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For the reasons set out above I find the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally.
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case the tenants say that no heat pump was installed until 6 months after the tenancy began. The heat pump was installed on 12 August 2021. The tenants raised the issue with the landlord on 10 th May 2021. The landlord claims they had 90 days to comply after notification. However, as this was a new tenancy the landlord should have been aware of their obligations under the HHS in RTA regarding heating standards.
I find the landlord has breached the heating standard under the RTA.
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes, and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that there were ongoing issues with the the water tank and downpipes.
More should have been done to remedy the breaches.
I find Cirone Limited - As Agent for Songqin Wang & Hong Zhang committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I consider this failure to repair the major leaking problem and dry out the carpets and walls after the flooding to be significant and warrants exemplary damages on the upper end of the range.
I order the landlord pay the tenants $5000.00 in exemplary damages.
As both parties have been partially successful each shall carry the cost of their own filing fee.
The bond is to be split as set out above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4591950 — net $2,232.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,967.68		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$1,035.00		Rubbish removal
Mattress removal	$230.00		Mattress removal
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain/breach HHS		$5,000.00	Failure to maintain/breach HHS
Total award	$7,232.68	$5,000.00
Net award	$2,232.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,232.68

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers to pay Cirone Limited - As Agent for Songqin Wang & Hong Zhang $2,232.68 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,232.68 () to Cirone Limited - As Agent for Songqin Wang & Hong Zhang immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,207.32 () to Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers immediately.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for lawn and garden maintenance.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for compensation for emotional damage and loss of income.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claim for breach of healthy homes standard (HHS), failure to maintain, compensation for loss of income and effects of mould on their health, filing fee and bond.
The Tribunal cannot consider claims for emotional damage or loss of income in these circumstances. I am dismissing these claims. Landlord application How much is owed for rent
The tenancy ended on 31 May 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $5967.68 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not dispute this claim but say they stopped paying rent due to the poor condition of the property.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii) -(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants left rubbish at the property and also mattresses that the landlord had to dispose of. The tenants accept this but were unable to get back to move the rubbish in time.
The landlord has provided photos and invoices for the rubbish and mattress removal.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rubbish and mattress removal.
The landlord is claiming for the cost of lawn and garden maintenance. The landlord has provided photos and invoices for the work needed to be carried out at the ends of the tenancy.
The tenants dispute having to pay this cost and say the property was left in a better condition at the end of the tenancy than the beginning. The tenants had to undertake a lot of work to get the property in order at the start of the tenancy. The tenants provided videos and photos of the state of the garden and lawns when the tenancy began. The videos and photos do show the garden was not in a good condition.
The tenants did complain after carrying out a lot of work themselves on the gardens. The landlord did pay for a gardening company for do an extensive overhaul on the garden after the tenancy had begun.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the lawns and garden maintenance, and I dismiss that claim. Tenants claim
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants claim that the property was not maintained and was not compliant with HHS under the RTA.
The tenants provided videos, and photos of the condition of the property.
The tenants claim the following issues with the property: -Mouldy curtains within 2 weeks of moving into the property -No heat pump installed for 6 months -Wet carpets from leaks in the master bed and hallway -No filter or gutter guards on the water tank -Mould on walls in master bed and wet carpet -Leaks and flooding in master bed, hallway and gym every time it rained -Water Leaks in the main bathroom coming through bath bathroom door -Electrical problems as 3 switches were broken and wires sticking out from wall -Holes in living room wall and in kitchen cupboards -Microwave rusted -Outside brick arch wall was crumbling and dangerous
The tenants claim that the house was dirty at the start of the tenancy and the landlord had to send a cleaner through.
From 10 May 2021 the tenants first complained of wet carpets in the master bedroom. no reply from the landlord. On 8 th July 2022 emailed landlord again about wet carpets and flooding and sent photos. On 12 th July 2022 landlord sent tradesperson around to view the leaks.
18 th July tradesman fixed downpipes outside.
27 th July tenants contacted the landlord again complaining of further flooding and leaks. On 29 th July tradesmen came back to fix the down pipes.
While the downpipes were being fixed, no effort was made to help dry out the carpets. The carpets were wet and smelly every time it rained.
The landlord accepts all of the issues raised by the tenants and had tried to remedy some of the issues without success.
The landlord accepts now that there was no filter or gutter guards on the water tank. I accept that the landlord did not know this until a specialist went to the problem to fix it.
One of the tenants is a roofing, guttering specialist and the landlord believed that he could assist with issues. The tenant did on occasion and billed the landlord for his professional services.
The landlord accepted at the hearing that they did not follow up and remedy the electrical work that needed doing.
The rusty microwave was replaced by the tenants. The landlord had provided a microwave as part of the chattels for the tenancy. The landlord told the tenants to put the rusty microwave in the storage area.
The brick wall was known about and not fixed until after the tenancy ended.
I accept that the landlord did attempt to fix some of the issues with the house but did not follow up with them. Some issues they simply did not attend too.
The landlord was fully aware of the ongoing serious leaking issues.
I accept that they did send trades people around to fix the leaks, but this remained an ongoing and serious issue throughout the tenancy.
The flooding caused very serious issues with large pools of water in the gym and heavily soaked carpets running the entire length of the hallway and into bedrooms.
The ongoing wetness from the leaking caused mould issues and the tenants say major health issues for them and their family.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For the reasons set out above I find the landlord committed an unlawful act intentionally.
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case the tenants say that no heat pump was installed until 6 months after the tenancy began. The heat pump was installed on 12 August 2021. The tenants raised the issue with the landlord on 10 th May 2021. The landlord claims they had 90 days to comply after notification. However, as this was a new tenancy the landlord should have been aware of their obligations under the HHS in RTA regarding heating standards.
I find the landlord has breached the heating standard under the RTA.
Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Kaipo Roslan Makimare and Christina Eve Withers considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes, and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that there were ongoing issues with the the water tank and downpipes.
More should have been done to remedy the breaches.
I find Cirone Limited - As Agent for Songqin Wang & Hong Zhang committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
I consider this failure to repair the major leaking problem and dry out the carpets and walls after the flooding to be significant and warrants exemplary damages on the upper end of the range.
I order the landlord pay the tenants $5000.00 in exemplary damages.
As both parties have been partially successful each shall carry the cost of their own filing fee.
The bond is to be split as set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4591950 — Rent arrears at 32 Normanby Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4591950 — Rent arrears at 32 Normanby Road, Karaka, RD 1, Papakura 2580

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions