What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627399 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4627399?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627399?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9458651-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627399 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4627399?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627399?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9458651-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3A St Pauls Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627399 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Mr Neal and Ms Botherway appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 24 July 2012. In 2017, there was a change of landlord. The landlord gave the tenant notice that the owner intended selling the property, and the tenancy ended on 04 July 2023. On 11 July 2023, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant was responsible for damage to the dishwasher that had occurred during the tenancy caused by a cockroach infestation. There is no dispute that electronics of the dishwasher have been damaged by cockroaches. The issue in this case is whether the landlord can establish to the required standard ( more likely than not) , that the tenant, through an act or omission, is responsible for the infestation that damaged the dishwasher.
The previous dishwasher was replaced in September 2022. The replacement unit ceased working in May 2023. The tenant advised the landlord, who then sent a service technician. The technician reported that an infestation of cockroaches had damaged the electronics, causing the unit to cease functioning.
The landlord obtained a quote to repair the unit for $800.00 but was advised that the unit may develop other faults. A decision was made to replace the unit at a cost of $1,650.00. The landlord states that the damage is not covered by their insurance.
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) of the Act. Tenants are liable for the full cost of repairing damage that is intentional. See section 49B (1) of the Act. The rent in this case is $530.00 per week. If the tenant is found to be responsible through carelessness, they are liable for the full cost as it is less than four weeks rent.
The landlord states that the type of cockroaches present, German cockroaches, are not necessarily the result of uncleanliness on the part of the occupant, although uncleanliness can contribute to their breeding, and that the cockroaches may have inadvertently been introduced through luggage, old furniture or pre used electronic items.
The tenant states they did not have any issues with cockroaches until around February 2023 when they detected some in the kitchen around the dishwasher. The tenant states that they purchased and laid bait, which appeared to be affective. On 19 May 2023, a property manager for the landlord conducted an inspection and produced a report which included photographs. In the report, under the heading of work to be carried out by tenant, it is noted that the tenant would “continue to bait for cockroaches”. There is no evidence of infestation in the photographs taken by the property manager.
The tenant states that when the service technician attended and removed the dishwasher from its cavity under the bench near the sink, they discovered that the inside of the wall behind was not lined. The technician took photographs which have been produced by the landlord. These show the unlined wall and the insulation behind.
The tenant states that bending down, light can be seen coming under the wall which faces a footpath running alongside the outside of the house. On the other side of the path is a stone garden area, and a fence bordering a neighbouring property. The tenant states that it is possible that the cockroaches have made their way inside and gravitated toward the nearest place of warmth, being the dishwashers’ electronics.
The landlord states that the wall has never been lined and that there had never previously been an issue with cockroaches. The landlord also denies that there is a gap beneath the wall. Their photographs, however, show that the base of the wall does not sit flush on the ground and appears to be resting on the base of a drainage pipe. The landlord states that the tenant’s son had moved in around October 2023 and may have inadvertently brought cockroaches with them. None of the subsequent inspection reports produced show any sign of infestation
The tenant states that following the technicians visit, they arranged for a pest control company to conduct eradication. The tenant has produced the invoice for $350.00. The tenant states they had been advised by the landlord to do so, and if not, the landlord would arrange eradication and invoice the tenant. The landlord did not dispute this. The tenant was not present when the treatment was completed. Conclusion
There is insufficient evidence on which to be satisfied, more likely than not, that the tenant or another occupant may have inadvertently introduced cockroaches. Furthermore, inadvertence does not necessarily equate to carelessness. The tenant reported the presence of cockroaches to the landlord and took steps for eradication both before and after the discovery of the damage.
There is insufficient to conclude that uncleanliness on the part of the tenant has contributed to an infestation.
There is evidence that cockroaches are attracted to sources of warmth. In this case cockroaches were in just one area, the electronics of the dishwasher, which was next to an unlined exterior wall. The base of the wall does not sit flush on the concrete floor. I cannot rule out the cockroaches have entered from the outside and made their way into the dishwasher. There is no evidence that the cockroaches had migrated to any other part of the kitchen, or other part of the house.
In conclusion, while I am satisfied that the damage to the dishwasher has occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied to the required standard, that it was the result of an act or omission on the part of the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders refund of the bond to the tenant immediately. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression. There is no basis to award the landlord suppression and their application is declined.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,640.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Mr Neal and Ms Botherway appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 24 July 2012. In 2017, there was a change of landlord. The landlord gave the tenant notice that the owner intended selling the property, and the tenancy ended on 04 July 2023. On 11 July 2023, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant was responsible for damage to the dishwasher that had occurred during the tenancy caused by a cockroach infestation. There is no dispute that electronics of the dishwasher have been damaged by cockroaches. The issue in this case is whether the landlord can establish to the required standard ( more likely than not) , that the tenant, through an act or omission, is responsible for the infestation that damaged the dishwasher.
The previous dishwasher was replaced in September 2022. The replacement unit ceased working in May 2023. The tenant advised the landlord, who then sent a service technician. The technician reported that an infestation of cockroaches had damaged the electronics, causing the unit to cease functioning.
The landlord obtained a quote to repair the unit for $800.00 but was advised that the unit may develop other faults. A decision was made to replace the unit at a cost of $1,650.00. The landlord states that the damage is not covered by their insurance.
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) of the Act. Tenants are liable for the full cost of repairing damage that is intentional. See section 49B (1) of the Act. The rent in this case is $530.00 per week. If the tenant is found to be responsible through carelessness, they are liable for the full cost as it is less than four weeks rent.
The landlord states that the type of cockroaches present, German cockroaches, are not necessarily the result of uncleanliness on the part of the occupant, although uncleanliness can contribute to their breeding, and that the cockroaches may have inadvertently been introduced through luggage, old furniture or pre used electronic items.
The tenant states they did not have any issues with cockroaches until around February 2023 when they detected some in the kitchen around the dishwasher. The tenant states that they purchased and laid bait, which appeared to be affective. On 19 May 2023, a property manager for the landlord conducted an inspection and produced a report which included photographs. In the report, under the heading of work to be carried out by tenant, it is noted that the tenant would “continue to bait for cockroaches”. There is no evidence of infestation in the photographs taken by the property manager.
The tenant states that when the service technician attended and removed the dishwasher from its cavity under the bench near the sink, they discovered that the inside of the wall behind was not lined. The technician took photographs which have been produced by the landlord. These show the unlined wall and the insulation behind.
The tenant states that bending down, light can be seen coming under the wall which faces a footpath running alongside the outside of the house. On the other side of the path is a stone garden area, and a fence bordering a neighbouring property. The tenant states that it is possible that the cockroaches have made their way inside and gravitated toward the nearest place of warmth, being the dishwashers’ electronics.
The landlord states that the wall has never been lined and that there had never previously been an issue with cockroaches. The landlord also denies that there is a gap beneath the wall. Their photographs, however, show that the base of the wall does not sit flush on the ground and appears to be resting on the base of a drainage pipe. The landlord states that the tenant’s son had moved in around October 2023 and may have inadvertently brought cockroaches with them. None of the subsequent inspection reports produced show any sign of infestation
The tenant states that following the technicians visit, they arranged for a pest control company to conduct eradication. The tenant has produced the invoice for $350.00. The tenant states they had been advised by the landlord to do so, and if not, the landlord would arrange eradication and invoice the tenant. The landlord did not dispute this. The tenant was not present when the treatment was completed. Conclusion
There is insufficient evidence on which to be satisfied, more likely than not, that the tenant or another occupant may have inadvertently introduced cockroaches. Furthermore, inadvertence does not necessarily equate to carelessness. The tenant reported the presence of cockroaches to the landlord and took steps for eradication both before and after the discovery of the damage.
There is insufficient to conclude that uncleanliness on the part of the tenant has contributed to an infestation.
There is evidence that cockroaches are attracted to sources of warmth. In this case cockroaches were in just one area, the electronics of the dishwasher, which was next to an unlined exterior wall. The base of the wall does not sit flush on the concrete floor. I cannot rule out the cockroaches have entered from the outside and made their way into the dishwasher. There is no evidence that the cockroaches had migrated to any other part of the kitchen, or other part of the house.
In conclusion, while I am satisfied that the damage to the dishwasher has occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied to the required standard, that it was the result of an act or omission on the part of the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders refund of the bond to the tenant immediately. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression. There is no basis to award the landlord suppression and their application is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627399 — Cleanliness at 3A St Pauls Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627399 — Cleanliness at 3A St Pauls Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions