What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4630654 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay Tarona-Taimana Apiata Takimoana $1,789.14

How much money was awarded in case 4630654?

Compensation: Bond Refunded: $2,360.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Maintenance: $1,770.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,770.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Hole: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $444.96 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630654?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9565834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4630654 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay Tarona-Taimana Apiata Takimoana $1,789.14

How much money was awarded in case 4630654?

Compensation: Bond Refunded: $2,360.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Maintenance: $1,770.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,770.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Hole: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $444.96 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630654?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9565834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

40 Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630654 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630654 — net $1,789.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,770.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$25.90		Water rates
Repairs: Wall hole	$100.00		Repairs: Wall hole
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$444.96		Replace furnishings: Curtains
Compensation: Maintenance		$1,770.00	Maintenance
Compensation: Bond refunded		$2,360.00	Bond refunded
Total award	$2,340.86	$4,130.00
Net award		$1,789.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,789.14

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

The tenancy began on 5 June 2023 and was for a fixed term due to end on 8 July 2023.

While the tenant thought that the tenancy was for twelve months as she says she was advised by the Property Manager, the tenancy agreement records the end date and the tenant acknowledged that she had a copy of the tenancy agreement.

The tenant moved out of the tenancy on 6 June 2023. The landlord secured new tenants and that new tenancy commenced on 25 June 2023. Bond

At the beginning of the tenancy the tenant paid a bond of $2,360.00. That money was lodged with the Bond Centre.

The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 27 June 2023. The landlord’s evidence is that she applied for the bond to be refunded on 8 June 2023. The bond was refunded to the landlord on 30 July 2023 even though it was in dispute.

It is not clear why the bond was refunded while there were pending applications in the Tenancy Tribunal. Nonetheless I have taken account in the calculation of the bond money that the landlord has already received. Landlord application

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

While the tenancy was due to end on 8 July 2023, the tenant moved out on 6 June 2023 and new tenants moved in on 25 June 2023.

While there is no recorded agreement to end the tenancy early, by their actions the landlord agreed to a new tenancy. Therefore, the tenant is liable to rent arrears up to 24 June 2023 which is ordered.

There is one water rates invoice which remains unpaid for the period when the tenant lived at the tenancy and that is ordered. Compensation

The landlord applied for compensation in relation to a damaged vanity, a broken window, a hole in the wall and missing curtains and curtain tracks.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

In relation to the vanity, window and hole in the wall, the 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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.

In relation to the vanity the tenant’s explanation is that the mirror, which was hanging above the vanity, broke and damaged the vanity. According to the landlord the previous tenant had installed the mirror which can be seen from the photographs, had no backing or structure to it. The landlord said that it was attached securely but I saw no evidence of that. I accept the tenant’s explanation that the mirror damaged the vanity. In the circumstances the tenant cannot be held liable for damage caused by a mirror that was not securely or safely installed. That part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

In relation to the window, the tenant said that it broke during a storm. The window is located in the back room, which had significant mould and the tenant would leave the window open at all times for ventilation.

With many of the issues the tenant did not advise the landlord of the damage because she did not believe that the landlord would fix it due to other issues that had not been fixed. The tenant should have advised the landlord of the broken window. Instead, she closed the door to that room that was not used.

The landlord said that if the tenant had advised of the broken window, it would have been repaired. But at the hearing the landlord said that they did not believe the tenant’s explanation and instead thought that the tenant broke it intentionally or by using force.

I do not accept that the tenant would have broken the window intentionally or carelessly. For that reason, I do not consider that the tenant should be liable for the cost of repair. That part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

The landlord claimed for a hole in the wall in the lounge. It was agreed that it was about the size of a 50-cent coin. The tenant acknowledged causing the damage. The landlord had a quote for repair of $230.00. I consider the quote to be excessive for the size of the hole. I have therefore awarded $100.00 to repair the hole.

The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing five sets of curtains and the curtain tracks which they say were missing at the end of the tenancy. There were no clear photographs of the curtains from the beginning of the tenancy or at the end of the tenancy. The landlord was also not clear which curtains were there at the end or not. For example, there is a photograph of a curtain that belonged to the tenant that was still at the tenancy.

The tenant’s evidence is that she removed the curtains due to mould and replaced some of them with her own.

The landlord has replaced one set of curtains at a cost of $148.32. Given the uncertainty of the number of curtains missing and the condition of the curtains at the beginning of the tenancy I have awarded the landlord $444.96, being the cost of replacing three sets of curtains. Tenant’s application

The tenant has claimed compensation in relation to maintenance issues at the premises that the landlord either failed to remedy or did not effectively do so.

Many of these issues were present at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant sent an email to the landlord on 22 June 2023 recording her concerns. They included a hole in the down pipe, a gap between the ceiling and the top of the rangehood, the heat pump not working, a crack in the chimney, water damage and mould in the back bedroom wall and wardrobe and outside the bathroom door, and the need for fumigation. Also, there was an issue raised with the electrics around the water damaged areas.

Some of these issues were addressed but not always effectively as the landlords seldom used professionals. For example, an electrician was never employed to look into the electrical issues raised by the tenant. In relation to the chimney the landlord did not employ a professional to look at it and instead decided that it looked OK and as the crack was there when they purchased the property, they decided to do nothing about it. The fumigation was never arranged and instead the landlord asked the tenant if she knew anyone who could do it and what they would charge. For some of the issues raised the landlord did not do anything because they were waiting for the tenant to complain again.

The most concerning issue was the mould that had formed in the bedroom which backed on to the bathroom. The tenant says that they never used the wardrobe and only used this room for the first six months of the tenancy and thereafter it was closed and not used. That was because of the smell and presence of mould. The tenant had tried to stop the mould smell coming out by putting tape around the door and above the skirting board.

The landlord said he fixed the issue causing the mould by applying silicone along the edge of the bath. I do not accept that this fixed the issue as the mould can also be seen growing up high.

Initially the landlord came to demolish the wall adjoining the bathroom on 27 June 2022 but left the debris behind. The gib board on the wall in the wardrobe was removed to show significant mould on the back of the aqua gib as well as throughout the framing.

After further contact from the tenant the landlord came back to remove the debris on 5 July 2022. Again, after further contact the landlord returned on 8 July 2022 but covered the exposed mouldy framing with real estate signs. The landlord came back in August 2022. He did not touch the rotten framing and applied four pieces of gib board and used duct tape to cover the joins.

At the hearing the landlord said that in July 2023 the rotten and mouldy framing was removed and replaced but this was after the tenancy ended. The landlord acknowledged that this issue was not addressed adequately.

Because of the landlord’s failure to deal with the bathroom leak and the significant mould professionally and appropriately, the tenant had little faith in the landlord responding to issues raised. She therefore was reluctant to raise maintenance issues, such as the stove not working, the broken window, the heat pump not working, the leak in the lounge.

The landlord also did not seem to notice maintenance issues and did not carry out regular inspections. I note from a recent photograph produced by the landlord that the fireplace is covered by the current tenants with a sheet of plastic. The landlord did not wonder why this was in place. The tenant said that she also used a sheet to cover the fireplace to stop draughts and the smell of mould.

The failure to address maintenance issues and to carry out regular inspections has resulted in the tenant living in inadequate conditions which she says impacted on her health and the health of her young baby. The tenant also says she was desperate for accommodation at the beginning of the tenancy and this may have contributed to her reluctance to raise issues. What she was certain of was that at the end of the tenancy she needed to move because of the issues she had endured.

In the circumstances I consider that the tenant should be compensated for the condition that she lived in particularly in relation to the mould which was never adequately addressed. I consider that she should be awarded compensation of three weeks rent being $1770.00.

As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord seeks suppression and as they have had some success, I order that.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630654 — net $1,789.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,770.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$25.90		Water rates
Repairs: Wall hole	$100.00		Repairs: Wall hole
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$444.96		Replace furnishings: Curtains
Compensation: Maintenance		$1,770.00	Maintenance
Compensation: Bond refunded		$2,360.00	Bond refunded
Total award	$2,340.86	$4,130.00
Net award		$1,789.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,789.14

Both parties attended the hearing. Background

The tenancy began on 5 June 2023 and was for a fixed term due to end on 8 July 2023.

The tenant moved out of the tenancy on 6 June 2023. The landlord secured new tenants and that new tenancy commenced on 25 June 2023. Bond

At the beginning of the tenancy the tenant paid a bond of $2,360.00. That money was lodged with the Bond Centre.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

While the tenancy was due to end on 8 July 2023, the tenant moved out on 6 June 2023 and new tenants moved in on 25 June 2023.

There is one water rates invoice which remains unpaid for the period when the tenant lived at the tenancy and that is ordered. Compensation

The landlord applied for compensation in relation to a damaged vanity, a broken window, a hole in the wall and missing curtains and curtain tracks.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenant’s evidence is that she removed the curtains due to mould and replaced some of them with her own.

The tenant has claimed compensation in relation to maintenance issues at the premises that the landlord either failed to remedy or did not effectively do so.

The landlord said he fixed the issue causing the mould by applying silicone along the edge of the bath. I do not accept that this fixed the issue as the mould can also be seen growing up high.

As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord seeks suppression and as they have had some success, I order that.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630654 — Rent arrears at 40 Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630654 — Rent arrears at 40 Oran Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions