What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4629693 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,712.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4629693?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Light Shade: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629693?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10406960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4629693 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,712.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4629693?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Light Shade: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629693?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10406960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Brown Street, Hauraki, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4629693 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4629693 — net $1,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Light shade	$100.00		Light shade
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$1,200.00	Section 45
Total award	$100.00	$1,200.00
Net award		$1,100.00
Bond		$3,712.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,100.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,712.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Cherylyn Clitherow must pay [The tenant/s] $1,100.00 as set out in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There were two hearings. The first hearing was held on 15 November 2023 and the second hearing on 5 April 2024.
The tenancy began on 30 September 2001 and ended on 26 May 2022. The tenancy lasted for 20 years and five months.
There were two tenancy agreements. The first agreement was signed in 2001. The second agreement was drafted and signed by the landlord on 5 July 2021.
Included in the second agreement was an increase to the rent effective from 4 September 2021. The new weekly rent amount was $1,190.00.
Almost a year after the tenancy ended the landlord applied for compensation for the cost to replace the carpet, replacement of the dishwasher, kitchen cabinets, sink tap, water filter, gas hob and curtains, replacement of a missing light shade and missing garden urn, repairs of drains, wiring chewed by rats, window frame, pool tiles and pool pump.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair as provided by section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Limitation Act
The Limitation Act 2010 states at section 11(1); It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. Landlord’s application Light fitting
The tenant acknowledged at the hearing the light fitting which was present at the beginning of the tenancy was missing at the end. I have awarded this amount to the landlord. Curtains
The tenant removed the original curtains from two rooms and the landlord seeks compensation for these. The tenant says that these were removed as they were damaged and deteriorated due to mould and dampness.
There is an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 9 February 2015 which refers to the tenant disposing of the curtains.
As the tenant’s actions were more than eight years prior to the filing of the landlord’s application the Limitation Act applies, and the claim cannot be successful. The landlords claim for costs to replace the curtains is dismissed. Carpet
The carpet was replaced on more than one occasion during the tenancy. The last time that the carpet was replaced was in 2007. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was 15 years old.
The landlord referred to stains on the carpet in the bedroom wardrobe and in the lounge. The landlord referred to the tenant spilling a bottle of red wine less than three years after the carpet was replaced. That would have occurred before 2010 (14 years ago). The Limitation Act applies in relation to this stain and therefore that part of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s view was that the stains in the wardrobe were caused by urine. This is denied by the tenant.
The tenant produced photographs of the outside of the concrete block wall where the wardrobe is located. Above the concrete block wall is an internal gutter which shows that at some stage there has been attempts to repair the rivets on the roof flashing with silicone. The landlord did not know about these repairs. It is likely that the silicone was used due to past or potential water ingress. One of the photographs also shows staining on the outside of the concrete block wall suggesting water ingress.
On the evidence produced I consider that it is possible that the staining of the carpet in the wardrobe could have been caused by water ingress from the internal gutter. I also note that there are water drips on the wall inside the wardrobe. While the landlord considers that this is urine it is more likely that it is from water.
In addition, the landlord produced photographs of the wall, and these were taken on 29 May 2022 which is the same date as the invoice from the cleaners employed by the tenant. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the cleaners did not have access to the premises either on or after 29 May 2022. This therefore suggests that some staining continued between the date that the premises were commercially cleaned and when the landlord took the photographs. The tenant cannot be held responsible for this staining of the carpet. That part of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord complained that there were carpet bugs in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. As noted above the carpet was 15 years old at the end of the tenancy. For depreciation purposes the useful life of carpet in rental properties is estimated to be eight years 1 . Given the age of this carpet the tenant cannot be responsible for the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. That part of the claim is dismissed. 1 IRD, Residential Property Chattels Garden urn
There were two concrete garden urns at the beginning of the tenancy. Both urns were located at the front of the property just inside the boundary fence by the entranceway and driveway. There is no gate on the driveway.
The tenant denies removing the missing urn. It is highly possible that the missing urn has been stolen given its proximity to the public footpath. There is a lack of evidence that the tenant removed the urn, especially given his health issues. The landlord’s claim in relation to the garden urn is dismissed. Pool pump and tiles
In an email dated 6 April 2021 from the landlord she attached an invoice because she claimed that the tenant failed to maintain the water level in the pool. She said that she had made a specific request for the tenant to fill the pool water level to the top of the filter box and because he did not do so the pool motor ran dry.
The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for maintaining the pool water level. There is no mention in the first tenancy agreement in relation to maintaining the pool. I do however note that in the rent review document dated 23 January 2020 the landlord has recorded that she cleans the pool weekly, and this was confirmed at the hearing.
It is therefore not clear why the landlord has not been responsible for managing the water level during her weekly visits to the property to clean the pool. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement or the Act that requires the tenant to maintain the pool. The landlord’s claim in respect of the pool pump is dismissed.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for missing mosaic tiles which surround the perimeter and stairs of the pool. There is no evidence in relation to the age of the pool although it has been there for the term of the tenancy. Given the age of the pool I am not satisfied that damage to the tiles is more than fair wear and tear or that the tenant is responsible for the damage. Also, there is correspondence from the landlord dated 2010 in relation to the pool tiles. That part of the claim is also dismissed. Kitchen cabinets, dishwasher, sink tap, water filter, gas hob
The landlord referred to a couple of floods in the kitchen early in the tenancy which she says was caused by the tenant. She says that the kitchen cabinets were damaged by the floods. If the floods occurred early in the tenancy the Limitation Act would apply to any damage.
The landlord referred to other damage including a hole in the back of the kitchen door and damage to the cabinets. There is no evidence to say when this damage occurred other than when there was flooding.
The communication between the parties in relation to rats dates back to 2011 and 2016. The landlord says that the rats chewed through the dishwasher piping. The invoice for this work is dated July 2011 so the Limitation Act applies.
The landlord sought costs to replace the kitchen tap as it was broken at the end of the tenancy, the gas hob and the fan extractor. Given the length of the tenancy the tenant is not responsible for damage to these. Window
The landlord claims for a broken window. The tenant apparently opened the window when he was advised not to.
The window was damaged in 2016. This claim is excluded by the Limitation Act. Tenant application
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 landlord failed to respond to the tenant’s requests for maintenance particularly in relation to mould. I find they have 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.
Between May 2018 and August 2021, the tenant complained on many occasions in relation to mould in the premises. In June 2021 the tenant issued a 14-day notice to the landlord in relation to the mould and insulation. There is no evidence that the landlord rectified the maintenance issues.
It is the responsibility of the landlord to investigate the cause of mould.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, it was said: “A tenant must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this can not be done then it is the landlord problem. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.”
No evidence was produced to show that the landlord investigated or resolved the mould issue during the tenancy. The complaints by the tenant were over a lengthy period during which the landlord increased the rent three times. The tenant also complained of other maintenance issues during this period which the landlord often did not respond to at all in the correspondence produced. It is in the public interest for landlords to maintain premises. The failure to do so in this situation meant that the tenant lived in cold, damp and mouldy conditions.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $1,200.00 is reasonable.
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.
The bond is released to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4629693 — net $1,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Light shade	$100.00		Light shade
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$1,200.00	Section 45
Total award	$100.00	$1,200.00
Net award		$1,100.00
Bond		$3,712.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,100.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,712.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Cherylyn Clitherow must pay [The tenant/s] $1,100.00 as set out in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
There were two hearings. The first hearing was held on 15 November 2023 and the second hearing on 5 April 2024.
The tenancy began on 30 September 2001 and ended on 26 May 2022. The tenancy lasted for 20 years and five months.
There were two tenancy agreements. The first agreement was signed in 2001. The second agreement was drafted and signed by the landlord on 5 July 2021.
Included in the second agreement was an increase to the rent effective from 4 September 2021. The new weekly rent amount was $1,190.00.
Almost a year after the tenancy ended the landlord applied for compensation for the cost to replace the carpet, replacement of the dishwasher, kitchen cabinets, sink tap, water filter, gas hob and curtains, replacement of a missing light shade and missing garden urn, repairs of drains, wiring chewed by rats, window frame, pool tiles and pool pump.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair as provided by section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Limitation Act
The Limitation Act 2010 states at section 11(1); It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. Landlord’s application Light fitting
The tenant acknowledged at the hearing the light fitting which was present at the beginning of the tenancy was missing at the end. I have awarded this amount to the landlord. Curtains
The tenant removed the original curtains from two rooms and the landlord seeks compensation for these. The tenant says that these were removed as they were damaged and deteriorated due to mould and dampness.
There is an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 9 February 2015 which refers to the tenant disposing of the curtains.
As the tenant’s actions were more than eight years prior to the filing of the landlord’s application the Limitation Act applies, and the claim cannot be successful. The landlords claim for costs to replace the curtains is dismissed. Carpet
The carpet was replaced on more than one occasion during the tenancy. The last time that the carpet was replaced was in 2007. At the end of the tenancy the carpet was 15 years old.
The landlord referred to stains on the carpet in the bedroom wardrobe and in the lounge. The landlord referred to the tenant spilling a bottle of red wine less than three years after the carpet was replaced. That would have occurred before 2010 (14 years ago). The Limitation Act applies in relation to this stain and therefore that part of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s view was that the stains in the wardrobe were caused by urine. This is denied by the tenant.
The tenant produced photographs of the outside of the concrete block wall where the wardrobe is located. Above the concrete block wall is an internal gutter which shows that at some stage there has been attempts to repair the rivets on the roof flashing with silicone. The landlord did not know about these repairs. It is likely that the silicone was used due to past or potential water ingress. One of the photographs also shows staining on the outside of the concrete block wall suggesting water ingress.
On the evidence produced I consider that it is possible that the staining of the carpet in the wardrobe could have been caused by water ingress from the internal gutter. I also note that there are water drips on the wall inside the wardrobe. While the landlord considers that this is urine it is more likely that it is from water.
In addition, the landlord produced photographs of the wall, and these were taken on 29 May 2022 which is the same date as the invoice from the cleaners employed by the tenant. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the cleaners did not have access to the premises either on or after 29 May 2022. This therefore suggests that some staining continued between the date that the premises were commercially cleaned and when the landlord took the photographs. The tenant cannot be held responsible for this staining of the carpet. That part of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord complained that there were carpet bugs in the carpet at the end of the tenancy. As noted above the carpet was 15 years old at the end of the tenancy. For depreciation purposes the useful life of carpet in rental properties is estimated to be eight years 1 . Given the age of this carpet the tenant cannot be responsible for the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. That part of the claim is dismissed. 1 IRD, Residential Property Chattels Garden urn
There were two concrete garden urns at the beginning of the tenancy. Both urns were located at the front of the property just inside the boundary fence by the entranceway and driveway. There is no gate on the driveway.
The tenant denies removing the missing urn. It is highly possible that the missing urn has been stolen given its proximity to the public footpath. There is a lack of evidence that the tenant removed the urn, especially given his health issues. The landlord’s claim in relation to the garden urn is dismissed. Pool pump and tiles
In an email dated 6 April 2021 from the landlord she attached an invoice because she claimed that the tenant failed to maintain the water level in the pool. She said that she had made a specific request for the tenant to fill the pool water level to the top of the filter box and because he did not do so the pool motor ran dry.
The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for maintaining the pool water level. There is no mention in the first tenancy agreement in relation to maintaining the pool. I do however note that in the rent review document dated 23 January 2020 the landlord has recorded that she cleans the pool weekly, and this was confirmed at the hearing.
It is therefore not clear why the landlord has not been responsible for managing the water level during her weekly visits to the property to clean the pool. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement or the Act that requires the tenant to maintain the pool. The landlord’s claim in respect of the pool pump is dismissed.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for missing mosaic tiles which surround the perimeter and stairs of the pool. There is no evidence in relation to the age of the pool although it has been there for the term of the tenancy. Given the age of the pool I am not satisfied that damage to the tiles is more than fair wear and tear or that the tenant is responsible for the damage. Also, there is correspondence from the landlord dated 2010 in relation to the pool tiles. That part of the claim is also dismissed. Kitchen cabinets, dishwasher, sink tap, water filter, gas hob
The landlord referred to a couple of floods in the kitchen early in the tenancy which she says was caused by the tenant. She says that the kitchen cabinets were damaged by the floods. If the floods occurred early in the tenancy the Limitation Act would apply to any damage.
The landlord referred to other damage including a hole in the back of the kitchen door and damage to the cabinets. There is no evidence to say when this damage occurred other than when there was flooding.
The communication between the parties in relation to rats dates back to 2011 and 2016. The landlord says that the rats chewed through the dishwasher piping. The invoice for this work is dated July 2011 so the Limitation Act applies.
The landlord sought costs to replace the kitchen tap as it was broken at the end of the tenancy, the gas hob and the fan extractor. Given the length of the tenancy the tenant is not responsible for damage to these. Window
The landlord claims for a broken window. The tenant apparently opened the window when he was advised not to.
The window was damaged in 2016. This claim is excluded by the Limitation Act. Tenant application
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 landlord failed to respond to the tenant’s requests for maintenance particularly in relation to mould. I find they have 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.
Between May 2018 and August 2021, the tenant complained on many occasions in relation to mould in the premises. In June 2021 the tenant issued a 14-day notice to the landlord in relation to the mould and insulation. There is no evidence that the landlord rectified the maintenance issues.
It is the responsibility of the landlord to investigate the cause of mould.
In Warwick Todd Ltd v Tapper TT1381/02, Christchurch, 14/089/2002, it was said: “A tenant must also tell the landlord where there is a mould problem so that the necessary action can be taken. The landlord is also required to provide premises that are not prone to mould. If the premises have an inherent problem, such as bad construction or water lying under the premises, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. Premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal responsible way, without mould developing. If this can not be done then it is the landlord problem. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is available, then it is the tenant’s problem.”
No evidence was produced to show that the landlord investigated or resolved the mould issue during the tenancy. The complaints by the tenant were over a lengthy period during which the landlord increased the rent three times. The tenant also complained of other maintenance issues during this period which the landlord often did not respond to at all in the correspondence produced. It is in the public interest for landlords to maintain premises. The failure to do so in this situation meant that the tenant lived in cold, damp and mouldy conditions.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $1,200.00 is reasonable.
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.
The bond is released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629693 — Exemplary damages at 3 Brown Street, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629693 — Exemplary damages at 3 Brown Street, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions