What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608771?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4608771?

Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,633.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $302.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608771?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9362038-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608771?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4608771?

Cleaning: $365.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,633.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $302.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608771?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9362038-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

69 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608771 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

69 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608771 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608771 — net $2,515.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/12/2022	$4,633.00	Rent arrears to 31/12/2022
Cleaning	$365.00	Cleaning
Lock repairs	$215.00	Lock repairs
Rubbish removal	$302.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$2,515.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,515.00

Claims and awards for application 4608771 — net $2,515.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 31/12/2022

Amount: $4,633.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 31/12/2022

Cleaning

Amount: $365.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock repairs

Amount: $215.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $302.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Net award

Landlord $2,515.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,515.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application by Emily-rose Roberts, Jackson Peter Bryant, Opal Waimarie Nikora, Takaterangi O'sullivan, Luke David Clements, Henry Ethan Perry Beliveau, Daniel Tucker, Shaun Redman for exemplary damages is dismissed.
Emily-rose Roberts, Jackson Peter Bryant, Opal Waimarie Nikora, Takaterangi O'sullivan, Luke David Clements, Henry Ethan Perry Beliveau, Daniel Tucker and Shaun Redman must pay Philippa Crick and Rosemary Crick $2,515.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5303640-022) to Philippa Crick and Rosemary Crick immediately.

Reasons

Three tenants and the two landlords attended the rescheduled hearing, two of the tenants by telephone.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for the state of the premises and failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2022 to 31/12/2022. The initial rent was $1,000.00 per week, but this was reduced to $976.00 after two tenants left during the year.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $4,633.00 to 31/12/2022.
In addition, the landlord claimed a further $2,928.00 rent to 22/1/2023, being the date all possessions were removed from the premises.
In support of the claim the landlord provided rent records.
Although agreeing that four of the tenants likely owed rent, the tenant who controlled the flat account from which rent was paid was unable to confirm exactly how much rent was owed.
Despite the confusing records I am persuaded, just, that there were rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy as claimed by the landlord.
An award has been made for the $4,633.00 claimed.
However, the claim for rent to 22/1/2023 fails.
The reason for this is that there is no persuasive evidence any tenant continued to live at the property after the end of the fixed term.
Although the witness for the landlord gave evidence about a vehicle being in the garage, I accept the evidence of the tenant who owned the van that he had parked it there while undertaking cleaning and removal of possessions as required by the landlord.

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 landlord sought compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken on 7/1/2023 and an invoice from a cleaner and handy man.
On the other hand, the tenants suggested that they had left the premises in better condition than when they moved in.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
An award has been made for cleaning and rubbish removal.
However, no award has been made for the initial claim of cleaning and rubbish removal by the landlord because at the hearing the landlord submitted it was only the cleaner’s invoice being claimed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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 landlord claimed compensation for repairs to bedroom and basement locks, curtain hooks, a garage door and dryer.
I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to locks, curtain hooks and the dryer.
However, I consider the damage to the curtain hooks and dryer is fair wear and tear, in particular taking into account the evidence of the witness that the dryer was “obsolete”.
Further I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the damage to the garage door was caused during the tenancy or by any one tenant.
An award has been made for repairs to locks.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

The tenants suggested that at the beginning of the tenancy the premises were not in a clean and well maintained condition, and maintenance issues arose during the tenancy which were not attended to in a timely manner.
Further the tenants believed that an access way was dangerous because it had no railing.
In response, the landlord disputed that the premises were unclean at the beginning of the tenancy, although agreeimg that the tenants did clean the premises.
A witness for the landlord gave evidence that he mowed the lawns regularly and provided invoices for the maintenance undertaken.
The witness agreed the railings were a hazard, although not required under the Building Code, because the drop off was a metre. He unbolted the railings and replaced them with timber.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide, and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
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.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord has committed unlawful acts.
Apart from the agreement by the landlord that the tenants did some cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not persuaded that the premises were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Further I am persuaded by the evidence that some of the delays in attending to issues were the result of COVID isolation rules, over which the landlord had no control.

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim 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) for heating and draught stopping.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. 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 2024.
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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
The landlord provided a certificate of compliance from Betta Property Compliance following a re-inspection on 10/3/2022 certifying compliance with all standards.
The initial report of 28/2/2022 had indicated non compliance with draught standards on wooden window sashes and frames and an open fire in the lounge room.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The initial failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards for draught exclusion was remedied within 69 days of the start of the tenancy.
Moreover, the decision to use the lounge where the heat pump was situated as an additional bedroom, was the tenants not the landlord.
As the landlord has not breached her obligations the claims by the tenants fail and no exemplary damages are available to them.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful with the claims.
Neither party sought name suppression under section 95A

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608771 — net $2,515.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/12/2022	$4,633.00	Rent arrears to 31/12/2022
Cleaning	$365.00	Cleaning
Lock repairs	$215.00	Lock repairs
Rubbish removal	$302.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$2,515.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,515.00

Claims and awards for application 4608771 — net $2,515.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 31/12/2022

Amount: $4,633.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 31/12/2022

Cleaning

Amount: $365.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lock repairs

Amount: $215.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock repairs

Rubbish removal

Amount: $302.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Net award

Landlord $2,515.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,515.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application by Emily-rose Roberts, Jackson Peter Bryant, Opal Waimarie Nikora, Takaterangi O'sullivan, Luke David Clements, Henry Ethan Perry Beliveau, Daniel Tucker, Shaun Redman for exemplary damages is dismissed.
Emily-rose Roberts, Jackson Peter Bryant, Opal Waimarie Nikora, Takaterangi O'sullivan, Luke David Clements, Henry Ethan Perry Beliveau, Daniel Tucker and Shaun Redman must pay Philippa Crick and Rosemary Crick $2,515.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5303640-022) to Philippa Crick and Rosemary Crick immediately.

Reasons

Three tenants and the two landlords attended the rescheduled hearing, two of the tenants by telephone.
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages for the state of the premises and failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 1/1/2022 to 31/12/2022. The initial rent was $1,000.00 per week, but this was reduced to $976.00 after two tenants left during the year.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $4,633.00 to 31/12/2022.
In addition, the landlord claimed a further $2,928.00 rent to 22/1/2023, being the date all possessions were removed from the premises.
In support of the claim the landlord provided rent records.
Although agreeing that four of the tenants likely owed rent, the tenant who controlled the flat account from which rent was paid was unable to confirm exactly how much rent was owed.
Despite the confusing records I am persuaded, just, that there were rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy as claimed by the landlord.
An award has been made for the $4,633.00 claimed.
However, the claim for rent to 22/1/2023 fails.
The reason for this is that there is no persuasive evidence any tenant continued to live at the property after the end of the fixed term.
Although the witness for the landlord gave evidence about a vehicle being in the garage, I accept the evidence of the tenant who owned the van that he had parked it there while undertaking cleaning and removal of possessions as required by the landlord.

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 landlord sought compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
In support of the claim the landlord provided photographs taken on 7/1/2023 and an invoice from a cleaner and handy man.
On the other hand, the tenants suggested that they had left the premises in better condition than when they moved in.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
An award has been made for cleaning and rubbish removal.
However, no award has been made for the initial claim of cleaning and rubbish removal by the landlord because at the hearing the landlord submitted it was only the cleaner’s invoice being claimed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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 landlord claimed compensation for repairs to bedroom and basement locks, curtain hooks, a garage door and dryer.
I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to locks, curtain hooks and the dryer.
However, I consider the damage to the curtain hooks and dryer is fair wear and tear, in particular taking into account the evidence of the witness that the dryer was “obsolete”.
Further I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the damage to the garage door was caused during the tenancy or by any one tenant.
An award has been made for repairs to locks.

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

The tenants suggested that at the beginning of the tenancy the premises were not in a clean and well maintained condition, and maintenance issues arose during the tenancy which were not attended to in a timely manner.
Further the tenants believed that an access way was dangerous because it had no railing.
In response, the landlord disputed that the premises were unclean at the beginning of the tenancy, although agreeimg that the tenants did clean the premises.
A witness for the landlord gave evidence that he mowed the lawns regularly and provided invoices for the maintenance undertaken.
The witness agreed the railings were a hazard, although not required under the Building Code, because the drop off was a metre. He unbolted the railings and replaced them with timber.
Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide, and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
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.
I find the evidence does not support that the landlord has committed unlawful acts.
Apart from the agreement by the landlord that the tenants did some cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not persuaded that the premises were not maintained in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Further I am persuaded by the evidence that some of the delays in attending to issues were the result of COVID isolation rules, over which the landlord had no control.

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim 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) for heating and draught stopping.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 120 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. 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 2024.
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 draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
The landlord provided a certificate of compliance from Betta Property Compliance following a re-inspection on 10/3/2022 certifying compliance with all standards.
The initial report of 28/2/2022 had indicated non compliance with draught standards on wooden window sashes and frames and an open fire in the lounge room.
I find the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
The initial failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards for draught exclusion was remedied within 69 days of the start of the tenancy.
Moreover, the decision to use the lounge where the heat pump was situated as an additional bedroom, was the tenants not the landlord.
As the landlord has not breached her obligations the claims by the tenants fail and no exemplary damages are available to them.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was only partly successful with the claims.
Neither party sought name suppression under section 95A

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608771 — Rent arrears at 69 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608771 — Rent arrears at 69 London Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord comply with Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions