What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641029?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,710.00 (5309435-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4641029?

Compensation: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,635.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $694.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10595241-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641029?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,710.00 (5309435-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4641029?

Compensation: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,635.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $694.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10595241-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13A Halleys Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4641029 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641029 — net $3,829.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2023	$8,635.00		Rent arrears to 14 September 2023
Water rates	$694.15		Water rates
Compensation for loss of amenity following cyclone		$4,800.00	Compensation for loss of amenity following cyclone
Compensation for increased power use following flooding		$200.00	Compensation for increased power use following flooding
Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond as required		$500.00	Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond as required
Total award	$9,329.15	$5,500.00
Net award	$3,829.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,829.15

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,710.00 (5309435-005) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below:

Reasons

This is the third hearing in this matter. The first two hearings were both adjourned to allow the parties to file additional evidence.
Mr Shabani appeared but there was no appearance by Ms Peters. Ms Ma attended in person.
The tenancy began on 7 April 2022 and ended on 20 September 2023.
Both parties have filed claims: a. The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $8,635, water rates of $694.15, compensation refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy; b. The tenants claim that the property was not properly maintained, that they had to maintenance jobs themselves, that the property leaked and was damp and was partially uninhabitable following Cyclone Gabrielle. The tenants also claim exemplary damages based on the landlord’s breaches in respect of the bond. Evidence and onus
Each party must prove their claims to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision. The landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 September 2023 after the landlord served the tenants with a 7 day termination notice on the basis that the property was uninhabitable. The landlord seeks rent until 14 September 2023 and provided an up to date rent summary setting out the arrears in the amount of $8,635. The landlord also provided overdue water invoices in the amount of $694.15.
At the resumed hearing today Mr Shabani had now had the opportunity to review the rent statement filed by the landlord and he accepted that the rent summary is accurate. He also confirmed that he did not contest the landlord’s claim for water rates.
The amounts claimed are proved.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation?

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.
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.
The landlord claims compensation for the following items: a. Wardrobe shelves had been removed and had to be reassembled and installed ($380); b. Shower head was removed and had to be replaced ($320); c. Light fixtures were replaced by landlord at the tenants’ request but the tenants then took them ($230); d. There was a hole in wall that needed to be repaired ($800); e. The carpet replacement in the hall had to be replaced ($500); and f. The carpet had to be cleaned ($510).
The tenant disputed that the landlord was entitled to compensation.
I am unable to find the landlord’s claims proven. The landlord has provided invoices for the compensation claimed but they have not provided ingoing and outgoing inspection photos clearly showing the condition of the property at both the start and end of the tenancy. The landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for compensation are dismissed. The tenant’s claim Maintenance and repairs
The tenants say that the property was not properly maintained generally, which meant that they needed to fix things themselves (put in better lighting, fix the laundry tub etc). They seek compensation for loss of amenity for the lack of maintenance generally.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) the landlord must provide and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant says that they fixed the laundry tub, kitchen sink and toilet flush valve, installed a new shower head, installed LED lighting throughout the house and a security alarm and cut down three trees. They also say that a wardrobe door fell of its runners and very nearly injured one of their children.
Some of the issues raised by the tenant are not maintenance issues. It was the tenant’s decision to install new lighting and a security alarm. It seems that the tenant was initially eager to help and volunteered to help with some jobs initially. There is nothing to suggest that the landlord was not prepared to do maintenance and in fact she did do so, for example installing an additional heat pump at the request of the tenants. The tenant called a handyman, Mr Fish, who gave evidence that he in fact cut down and removed the trees.
I do not find the tenants’ claim in respect of maintenance to be proved. Loss of amenity following Cyclone Gabrielle
The tenants said that there was an issue with flooding following Gabrielle as every time it rained the garage flooded and that there was always moisture in the house and they were constantly running a dehumidifier. They said that there was increased condensation and that their kids began to get sick.
The landlord denied that there were ongoing issues and said that she installed a second heat pump at the request of the tenants so that they could remove moisture with one heat pump while also using the other heat pump to heat their home.
The landlord’s position is however very much at odds with the fact that on 28 July the landlord (through her agent) sent the tenants a report from their insurer regarding the ongoing flooding issues, stating that: “From reading this report it looks like numerous parts of the house are affected by flooding and this will therefore not be a quick repair job and may take several weeks to complete with contractors coming and going daily... It is therefore that the 7-day notice has been issued asking for the property to be vacated”.
The landlord has given notice under Section 59 of the RTA. Section 59 RTA provides:
Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, — (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (2) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 7 days.
In my view the landlord cannot possibly give notice to the tenant on the basis that the property is uninhabitable and requires substantial repairs and then claim that there were no issues with the property. I consider that, taking into account the dampness issues suffered by the tenants, they are entitled to a rent reduction of 20% for the period following the cyclone until the end of the tenancy (using the date of 14 September 2023 as the landlord did not seek rent for the last week), being $4,800.
The tenants did not provide any evidence of increased power usage but I accept that their power bills would have increased due to using a dehumidifier and I award them $200.00 (an estimated amount) for increased power usage. Issues with the bond
The tenants say that the landlord breached the RTA by requesting a bond of more than four weeks rent and failing to lodge the bond within the time frame required. The tenants seek exemplary damages.
A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. See section 18(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 18(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted that she sought six weeks of rent. She said that she did not realise that the maximum amount that she could seek under the RTA was four weeks. She also accepted that she did not lodge the bond as required (although it was later lodged on 4 August 2023, near the end of the tenancy).
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in both instances.
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.
It is essential that landlords know and understand the law relating to tenancies, particularly in matters as fundamental as the charging of and lodging of bonds. The bond is the tenant’s money until the landlord has made a successful claim (or the parties have agreed otherwise) and so it is vital that those funds are safeguarded.
Section 109(2) however provides that a tenant may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the commission of any unlawful act except for in two circumstances, one of which relates to the lodging of the bond (Section 19(2) RTA).
I am therefore unable to award exemplary damages for the landlord charging six weeks of bond, but award exemplary damages for the landlord failing to lodge the bond as required. The landlord did ultimately lodge the bond, and so I order exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale, in the amount of $500.
Both parties have had some success but neither party has been wholly or substantially successful and so I make no orders for reimbursement of the filing fees of for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641029 — net $3,829.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 September 2023	$8,635.00		Rent arrears to 14 September 2023
Water rates	$694.15		Water rates
Compensation for loss of amenity following cyclone		$4,800.00	Compensation for loss of amenity following cyclone
Compensation for increased power use following flooding		$200.00	Compensation for increased power use following flooding
Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond as required		$500.00	Exemplary damages for failure to lodge bond as required
Total award	$9,329.15	$5,500.00
Net award	$3,829.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,829.15

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,710.00 (5309435-005) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below:

Reasons

This is the third hearing in this matter. The first two hearings were both adjourned to allow the parties to file additional evidence.
Mr Shabani appeared but there was no appearance by Ms Peters. Ms Ma attended in person.
The tenancy began on 7 April 2022 and ended on 20 September 2023.
Both parties have filed claims: a. The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $8,635, water rates of $694.15, compensation refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy; b. The tenants claim that the property was not properly maintained, that they had to maintenance jobs themselves, that the property leaked and was damp and was partially uninhabitable following Cyclone Gabrielle. The tenants also claim exemplary damages based on the landlord’s breaches in respect of the bond. Evidence and onus
Each party must prove their claims to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in reaching my decision. The landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 September 2023 after the landlord served the tenants with a 7 day termination notice on the basis that the property was uninhabitable. The landlord seeks rent until 14 September 2023 and provided an up to date rent summary setting out the arrears in the amount of $8,635. The landlord also provided overdue water invoices in the amount of $694.15.
At the resumed hearing today Mr Shabani had now had the opportunity to review the rent statement filed by the landlord and he accepted that the rent summary is accurate. He also confirmed that he did not contest the landlord’s claim for water rates.
The amounts claimed are proved.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation?

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.
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.
The landlord claims compensation for the following items: a. Wardrobe shelves had been removed and had to be reassembled and installed ($380); b. Shower head was removed and had to be replaced ($320); c. Light fixtures were replaced by landlord at the tenants’ request but the tenants then took them ($230); d. There was a hole in wall that needed to be repaired ($800); e. The carpet replacement in the hall had to be replaced ($500); and f. The carpet had to be cleaned ($510).
The tenant disputed that the landlord was entitled to compensation.
I am unable to find the landlord’s claims proven. The landlord has provided invoices for the compensation claimed but they have not provided ingoing and outgoing inspection photos clearly showing the condition of the property at both the start and end of the tenancy. The landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims for compensation are dismissed. The tenant’s claim Maintenance and repairs
The tenants say that the property was not properly maintained generally, which meant that they needed to fix things themselves (put in better lighting, fix the laundry tub etc). They seek compensation for loss of amenity for the lack of maintenance generally.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) the landlord must provide and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant says that they fixed the laundry tub, kitchen sink and toilet flush valve, installed a new shower head, installed LED lighting throughout the house and a security alarm and cut down three trees. They also say that a wardrobe door fell of its runners and very nearly injured one of their children.
Some of the issues raised by the tenant are not maintenance issues. It was the tenant’s decision to install new lighting and a security alarm. It seems that the tenant was initially eager to help and volunteered to help with some jobs initially. There is nothing to suggest that the landlord was not prepared to do maintenance and in fact she did do so, for example installing an additional heat pump at the request of the tenants. The tenant called a handyman, Mr Fish, who gave evidence that he in fact cut down and removed the trees.
I do not find the tenants’ claim in respect of maintenance to be proved. Loss of amenity following Cyclone Gabrielle
The tenants said that there was an issue with flooding following Gabrielle as every time it rained the garage flooded and that there was always moisture in the house and they were constantly running a dehumidifier. They said that there was increased condensation and that their kids began to get sick.
The landlord denied that there were ongoing issues and said that she installed a second heat pump at the request of the tenants so that they could remove moisture with one heat pump while also using the other heat pump to heat their home.
The landlord’s position is however very much at odds with the fact that on 28 July the landlord (through her agent) sent the tenants a report from their insurer regarding the ongoing flooding issues, stating that: “From reading this report it looks like numerous parts of the house are affected by flooding and this will therefore not be a quick repair job and may take several weeks to complete with contractors coming and going daily... It is therefore that the 7-day notice has been issued asking for the property to be vacated”.
The landlord has given notice under Section 59 of the RTA. Section 59 RTA provides:
Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable, — (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (2) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under subsection (1), the period of notice shall be not less than 7 days.
In my view the landlord cannot possibly give notice to the tenant on the basis that the property is uninhabitable and requires substantial repairs and then claim that there were no issues with the property. I consider that, taking into account the dampness issues suffered by the tenants, they are entitled to a rent reduction of 20% for the period following the cyclone until the end of the tenancy (using the date of 14 September 2023 as the landlord did not seek rent for the last week), being $4,800.
The tenants did not provide any evidence of increased power usage but I accept that their power bills would have increased due to using a dehumidifier and I award them $200.00 (an estimated amount) for increased power usage. Issues with the bond
The tenants say that the landlord breached the RTA by requesting a bond of more than four weeks rent and failing to lodge the bond within the time frame required. The tenants seek exemplary damages.
A landlord must not require a bond of greater than four weeks rent. See section 18(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 18(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted that she sought six weeks of rent. She said that she did not realise that the maximum amount that she could seek under the RTA was four weeks. She also accepted that she did not lodge the bond as required (although it was later lodged on 4 August 2023, near the end of the tenancy).
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in both instances.
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.
It is essential that landlords know and understand the law relating to tenancies, particularly in matters as fundamental as the charging of and lodging of bonds. The bond is the tenant’s money until the landlord has made a successful claim (or the parties have agreed otherwise) and so it is vital that those funds are safeguarded.
Section 109(2) however provides that a tenant may not apply for exemplary damages later than 12 months after the commission of any unlawful act except for in two circumstances, one of which relates to the lodging of the bond (Section 19(2) RTA).
I am therefore unable to award exemplary damages for the landlord charging six weeks of bond, but award exemplary damages for the landlord failing to lodge the bond as required. The landlord did ultimately lodge the bond, and so I order exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale, in the amount of $500.
Both parties have had some success but neither party has been wholly or substantially successful and so I make no orders for reimbursement of the filing fees of for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641029 — Rent arrears at 13A Halleys Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4641029 — Rent arrears at 13A Halleys Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation?

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 landlord entitled to compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions