What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641031?

The tribunal order states: Silvia Gomez Pineda must pay David William James Cray $4,813.93

How much money was awarded in case 4641031?

Cleaning: $820.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Fee: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Fee: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power Account: $771.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Internet Cable Hole In Wall: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Concertina Door: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedroom 2 Mat: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Deck side bedro…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Hallway Mat: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Lounge Mat: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $229.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10546329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4641031?

The tribunal order states: Silvia Gomez Pineda must pay David William James Cray $4,813.93

How much money was awarded in case 4641031?

Cleaning: $820.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Fee: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Dump Fee: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power Account: $771.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Internet Cable Hole In Wall: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Concertina Door: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Bedroom 2 Mat: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Deck side bedro…: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Hallway Mat: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Lounge Mat: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $229.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4641031?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4641031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10546329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Rhodes Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4641031 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641031 — net $4,813.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,800.00	Rent arrears
Power account	$771.00	Power account
Repairs: Lounge concertina door	$400.00	Repairs: Lounge concertina door
Repairs: Deck door repair	$632.50	Repairs: Deck door repair
Replace furnishings: Bedroom 2 mat	$290.00	Replace furnishings: Bedroom 2 mat
Dump fee	$10.00	Dump fee
Replace furnishings: Lounge mat	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Lounge mat
Dump fee	$60.00	Dump fee
Replace furnishings: Deck side bedroom mat	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Deck side bedroom mat
Replace furnishings: Hallway mat	$180.00	Replace furnishings: Hallway mat
Cleaning: Floor clean	$210.00	Cleaning: Floor clean
Repairs: Cat door and glass replacement	$350.00	Repairs: Cat door and glass replacement
Repairs: Internet cable hole in wall	$40.00	Repairs: Internet cable hole in wall
Replace furnishings: Wardrobe replacement	$229.99	Replace furnishings: Wardrobe replacement
Carpet Cleaning: Furniture damage caused by dog	$820.00	Carpet Cleaning: Furniture damage caused by dog
Landlord compensation for time in attendance (10 x	$300.00	Landlord compensation for time in attendance (10 x
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,813.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,813.93

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641031 — net $4,813.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent arrears

$1,800.00

Rent arrears

Power account

$771.00

Power account

Repairs: Lounge concertina door

$400.00

Repairs: Lounge concertina door

Repairs: Deck door repair

$632.50

Repairs: Deck door repair

Replace furnishings: Bedroom 2 mat

$290.00

Replace furnishings: Bedroom 2 mat

Dump fee

$10.00

Dump fee

Replace furnishings: Lounge mat

$550.00

Replace furnishings: Lounge mat

Dump fee

$60.00

Dump fee

Replace furnishings: Deck side bedroom mat

$550.00

Replace furnishings: Deck side bedroom mat

Replace furnishings: Hallway mat

$180.00

Replace furnishings: Hallway mat

Cleaning: Floor clean

$210.00

Cleaning: Floor clean

Repairs: Cat door and glass replacement

$350.00

Repairs: Cat door and glass replacement

Repairs: Internet cable hole in wall

$40.00

Repairs: Internet cable hole in wall

Replace furnishings: Wardrobe replacement

$229.99

Replace furnishings: Wardrobe replacement

Carpet Cleaning: Furniture damage caused by dog

$820.00

Carpet Cleaning: Furniture damage caused by dog

Landlord compensation for time in attendance (10 x

$300.00

Landlord compensation for time in attendance (10 x

Filing fee reimbursement

$20.44

Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

$4,813.93

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$4,813.93

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent and electricity arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord say that the tenant’s dogs used the lounge polished wooden floor as a toilet, causing considerable damage throughout. The damage occurred for a couple of months at the start of the tenancy despite a 14-day notice served on the tenant to remove the extra dogs. The landlord says the tenant had extra dogs concealed in the lounge for additional periods during the tenancy.

The landlord also claims that the tenant made a number of unauthorised alterations/repairs to the premises.

The landlord has brought a number of claims against the tenant, as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Outstanding electricity charges c. Damage to a lounge concertina door d. Damage to a deck door e. Failing to replace deck door original hinges f. Damage to a number of mats caused by tenant’s dogs g. Floor cleaning h. Cat door replacement i. Glass replacement in lounge window j. Curtain washing k. Damage to lounge window sills l. Damage to lounge floor and skirting m. Wall damage from internet cable n. Tree replacement o. Damage to pantry p. Toilet tap damage q. Missing household items r. Rubbish removal s. Missing wardrobe t. Wallpaper replacement u. Exemplary damages v. Loss of rental ability w. Toilet seat replacement x. Time in attendances for Tribunal preparation y. Furniture damage z. Project management costs

Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, the landlord has lodged an application and the tenant has lodged a cross application, that means that it is for the parties to establish their respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Both parties have submitted substantial documentation with their online applications. There was also an oral hearing. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

The tenancy ended on 11 August 2023. The landlord provided rent and electricity records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt. I am also satisfied that the landlord has calculated the electricity amounts correctly.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the floor in a reasonably clean condition. The landlord says that he had to lift and remove all mats, disinfect and mop the entire floor area and wait for the area to dry. The landlord only provided an estimate for this claim. Having sighted the damage caused by the tenant’s dog(s) I am satisfied that this claim is reasonable.

The amount ordered is proved.

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 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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Concertina Door:

The landlord claims that the tenant’s dog damaged the lounge concertina door. The lounge door was intact at the start of the tenancy. The landlord stated that the door was old but in otherwise good condition until damaged by the tenant’s dog. The tenant has attempted to repair the door but not to the required standard. The landlord has filed photographic evidence in support of this claim. I find that the tenant is liable for the cost of this damage.

During the hearing the tenant accepted that her dog chewed the door. She stated that she had trouble finding someone to fix the door. The tenant went out and purchased new material and tried to repair the door herself. This was not to the required standard.

Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that this claim is reasonable.

The claim in respect of the lounge concertina door is proved. Deck door:

The landlord claims that the tenant’s dog has chewed the bottom of the deck door on several occasions. The door is an exterior deck access door. The landlord installed this door a number of years ago for added security. The landlord further stated that the door is visible from the street.

The tenant stated that she repaired the door herself as a result of the damage caused by her dog. She then repaired the door again because further damage caused by her dog.

The landlord says that the tenant’s attempted repairs were completely unsatisfactory. Ultimately the door could not be repaired further and now needs to be replaced.

I have sighted the landlord’s evidence in support of this claim.

The claim in respect of the deck door is proved. Claims for soiled mats in lounge, bedrooms and hallway:

The landlord claims that at the start of the tenancy there were mats in the bedrooms, hallway and lounge.

The landlord says that on inspection the mats had been badly damaged and soiled by the tenant’s dogs. The carpet from the second bedroom had been relocated to the lounge and placed over the top of the main area that the dogs had been using as a toilet.

The landlord says dogs continued to be kept in the lounge. The dogs continued to use the same location as a toilet and ended up urinating on the mats. When the tenant vacated the premises she had the three mats cleaned. Soon after the tenant had left the premises the landlord noticed a bad smell in the second bedroom. On closer inspection it became evident that all mats were soiled. The landlord provided photographic evidence of the various mats showing significant staining. The evidence also showed fungi growing under the mats.

The landlord has provided good quality evidence in support of his claims for damage relating to the flooring mats. I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this damage and is more than fair, wear and tear.

The claim for damage to flooring mats is proved. Cat door replacement:

The landlord claims that the original cat door was replaced by the tenant. He says that there is now a different cat door in its place. The replacement cat door is larger, oversized and flimsy.

The landlord says that the tenant did not advise him of this and did not seek permission to install a replacement cat door. He further states that the replacement cat door is not compliant for draughts and is also a security risk due to its large size.

The landlord says that this cat door needs to be replaced with the type of door which was there in the beginning.

The tenant accepts this claim for the cat door.

The landlord has provided a quote from Auckland Glass in support of this claim. The quote is for $701.07 and includes the repair of a cracked lounge window. I have not allowed the claim in respect of the cracked lounge window for the reasons set out below. I therefore allow a reduced amount of $350.00 for replacement of the cat door. Hole in lounge wall from internet cable:

The landlord claims that the tenant installed an internet cable and as a result left a hole in the wall from where the cable was attached.

I have sighted the evidence in support of this claim and find that the tenant is responsible for this cost. Wardrobe replacement:

The landlord claims that the tenant removed a wardrobe from the second bedroom. The landlord stated during the hearing that the wardrobe was no longer there at the end of the tenancy. It was a new at the start of the tenancy.

The tenant does not accept this claim. She says that it was there when she vacated the premises.

The landlord has provided a receipt from Bunnings for $229.00 for the purchase of a new wardrobe.

Based on the evidence filed in support I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this claim.

The claim in respect of a replacement wardrobe is allowed. Furniture damage caused by tenant’s dog:

The landlord claims that the tenant’s dogs chewed the furniture. Photographic evidence was provided in support of this claim including a quote to repair the furniture. The tenant accepts this claim.

Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that this claim is made out.

The amount ordered is proved. Compensation for time in attendance:

The landlord is seeking compensation for the time he has spent dealing with the various issues caused by the tenant. In my view, the significant number of hours claimed are unreasonable and in part must be absorbed by the landlord as a cost of doing business.

I allow compensation of 10 hours at $30.00 per hour as reasonable compensation for the time spent addressing the necessary repairs. List of landlord claims which are dismissed: Deck door hinges:

The landlord says that the original hinges were not used by the tenant when the door was replaced. He says that the tenant used hinges of an inferior quality.

The tenant says she used the same hinges.

The landlord was unable to provide a receipt for the new hinges.

The claim for new hinges is not supported by the evidence filed with the application. I cannot be satisfied which hinges were used on the replacement door.

The claim in respect of the hinges is dismissed. Lounge floor skirting and window sill:

The landlord says the tenant used the lounge as a dog kennel. The dogs used the lounge floor as a toilet. The landlord issued a 14-day notice to remove extra dogs. He says the tenant wrecked the lounge floor. The tenant repaired the floor which was unauthorised and a breach of the tenancy agreement. As a result of the tenant repair the landlord says that the floor skirting was damaged.

One dog was allowed to live at the tenancy address. The tenant acknowledged during the tenancy that she had 5 dogs living there for approximately two to three weeks.

The landlord’s claim for the skirting is $1300.00. The difference is for the repair of the window sill.

The flooring is the original wooden flooring of the house. He says that for the majority of the time the flooring was covered by matts.

The landlord has only provided a quote for this claim. Unless the tenant accepts such a claim the landlord must show actual loss before the Tribunal can award compensation. Toilet cistern tap and toilet seat:

The landlord claims that tenant is responsible for damage to the toilet cistern tap and other areas of the premises and did not notify landlord promptly of these events. The tenant does not accept this claim. She says that this happened not long after Cyclone Gabrielle.

I consider that the toilet cistern tap is a result of deterioration over an extended period of time and not as a result of any actions of the tenant. These are examples of fair wear and tear which is the responsibility of the landlord. There is also no evidence provided with the landlord’s application which confirms that damage to the toilet seat was caused by the tenant.

The premises are not new and will require maintenance to be kept in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord needs to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. (Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

In the Tribunal decision of Marks v Goddfrey 15/01390/HN, 25 August 2015 at Te Kuiti, the landlord made the submission that the tenant should be liable for damage caused by leaks that were not reported to the landlord. The adjudicator noted that it was highly unlikely that the roof had only deteriorated during the course of the 1-year tenancy and it was more likely that it was already in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. The adjudicator found that the landlord was not proactive in maintaining the premises stating that; All tenancy properties should be checked regularly and maintained as required. There should be preventative maintenance as well as urgent repairs. Damaged tree:

The landlord claims that the tenant destroyed a tree. The tenant then replaced the tree with a tree of a different type of tree.

The tenant does not accept this claim. She stated during the hearing that she was unsure how the tree was damaged. She also stated that it may have been caused by the weather.

There is no evidence provided with the application which persuades me that the tenant is directly responsible for damage caused to the original tree.

This claim is dismissed. Exemplary Damages:

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.

The landlord has claimed exemplary damages in respect of the damage caused by the tenant.

While I accept the tenant acted in ways which were poorly thought through it is my finding that the tenant lacked the intention to make it an unlawful act, which is a requirement for the award of exemplary damages. The oral evidence presented by the tenant during the hearing suggests that a lot of what she did was undertaken with the best of intentions. Loss of rental ability:

The landlord claims for loss of rental ability. He stated that as a result of the damage caused by the tenant he was unable to rent the premises for a period of 4 weeks.

The evidence provided by the landlord does not support this claim. The vast majority of the damage caused by the tenant, whilst an inconvenience to the landlord, would not have prevented the premises from being rented for a period of time. I find that the premises were still habitable and would not have prevented new tenants from moving in without delay. That being said, a reasonable landlord would also foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant.

The claim for loss of rental ability is therefore dismissed.

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Remaining claims for compensation: a. Cracked lounge window b. Lounge curtain smell c. Lounge window sills d. Lounge skirting damage e. Pantry damage f. Missing household items g. Rubbish removal h. Wallpaper replacement

The landlord has only provided quotes for these claims. Unless the tenant accepts such a claim the landlord must show actual loss before the Tribunal can award compensation. The landlord has also failed to provide the required entry inspection photographs in support of the above claims taken at the time the tenancy started. Without such evidence I am unable to determine the state of the premises at the time the tenancy started. While I accept that the tenant’s dog(s) caused some damage to the premises I cannot award compensation for the above without knowing what the condition of the items (such as the window sill) was like in the beginning.

The claim for rubbish removal and missing household items is not supported by the evidence filed with the application.

It was apparent during the hearing that the landlord is a very meticulous, careful person and has certainly prepared detailed and helpful evidence in support of his various claims. The landlord has included a number of claims relating to project management fees and time in attendance preparing his application for the Tribunal.

Those claims are dismissed. It is inevitable that any landlord will have costs which are associated with the decision to own a residential investment property. It is a business, and as such these costs are a consequence of running the business. Tenant Cross Application: Wooden Floor:

The tenant says that the house is approximately 64 years old, and the wooden floor was not to the required standard.

She says that the landlord asked her to pay for repairs to the wooden floor in October 2023. The tenant says that she noticed the scratches from her dog. She says that the area the landlord is claiming damage for is 28m2 and that she should not be responsible for the entire floor.

The tenant highlighted an email from Shaun Thompson dated 26 July 2023 advising that there has been no maintenance on the floor at the property. He further says that there are signs of wear and tear including sun and water damage that looks to be at least 5 to 10 years of deterioration.

The tenant says that she paid $1899.80 to Mr Thompson to fix the floor. She says that only a small part of the floor was damaged by her dog.

The landlord did not ask the tenant to repair the floor. The tenant went ahead and had the floor revarnished on her own volution. Failing to Maintain – Kitchen Cupboard:

The tenant says the landlord failed to maintain the kitchen cupboard. She says that she was not able to store her food and plates. The tenant says that the cupboard was held together by sticky tape.

The landlord says that the tenant moved a wardrobe from the bedroom to the kitchen to use as a pantry. He says that it was not until 3 months later that the pantry was damaged. The landlord says that the wardrobe was moved as a supplementary panty and that as a result of being moved the tenant damaged the pantry.

There is no evidence filed with the tenant’s application which supports this claim. I find that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by moving the pantry.

The tenant’s claim in respect of the kitchen cupboard is dismissed. Gutters:

The tenant says that she paid to have the gutters cleaned. The tenant is seeking to have this money returned to her for paying to have the gutters cleaned. The tenant says that her gardener cleaned the gutters the second time. She says that her son also helped her clean the gutters.

The landlord says that inspection number on 17 October 2023 confirmed that there were some weeds in the gutter above the deck which he would remove. The blocked gutters were also likely caused by the extreme weather events earlier during the year.

I do not see any evidence which suggests that the landlord refused to maintain the premises. It is common for gutters to become blocked and often a landlord will be unaware unless the issue is brought to their attention. The tenant did notify the landlord of this however there is no evidence to suggest that he was refusing to maintain.

The claim in respect of the gutters is dismissed. Garden Shed:

The tenant says the landlord failed to maintain the lock on the garden shed. The tenant says that she had the garden shed lock repaired. She seeks compensation of $500.00.

This was not included in her original application and is therefore dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards:

The tenant says that she did not receive any HHS information at the start of her tenancy. The tenant organised and paid for the Healthy Homes Assessment dated 11 August 2023. She says that the premises failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenant also says that her son was always sick due to the house not being compliant.

The tenant is claiming the maximum of $7200.00 in respect of this breach. The tenant also claims the cost of $200.00 for the Healthy Homes assessment report.

The landlord says that there was a compliance statement provided with the original Tenancy Agreement. The landlord challenges the entire contents of the assessment report and does not agree with the findings in respect of insulation, moisture ingress and drainage, drainage and guttering, draught stopping standards and smoke alarms.

The landlord says that the inspector viewed the house when the house was empty.

The landlord says there was an email sent to him in respect of the son’s sickness. He says that the doctor was ill informed. The landlord says that the previous tenant was his daughter, a nursing lecturer at Unitec, who did not suffer any health issues (nor did any of her flatmates) for 4 years. I have sighted an email from the landlord’s daughter confirming the same.

The landlord says that the assessment report was obtained illegally and should not be admitted as evidence.

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act requires a landlord to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024. 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 2023.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

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 moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The tenancy ended on 11 August 2023. The tenant organised the assessment report on the day she vacated the premises.

The landlord also provided a properly completed Tenancy Agreement with a signed section confirming that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards.

In my view having a Healthy Homes assessment undertaken on the day a tenant vacates a property does not provide the landlord with the opportunity to remedy any shortcomings. I also note that the shortcomings identified in the report are breaches of a technical nature.

Therefore, on balance, I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS in relation to insulation, moisture or ventilation. These parts of the claim are dismissed.

The claim in respect of the tenant’s son is also dismissed. I find no evidence which supports the claim that the premises were the cause of his sickness.

There is also no evidence of the tenant serving the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy in respect of these alleged breaches.

The tenant’s claim for reimbursement of the assessment report fee is therefore dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment:

The tenant says that on several occasions the landlord’s daughter opened the tenant’s letterbox. The tenant asked her not to do this. The daughter said that she needed to open her letterbox to get mail addressed to her. The tenant says that this is a breach of her privacy.

The tenant did not include this claim in her application and therefore this claim is dismissed.

Because David William James Cray has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

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 requested name suppression. She has not succeeded in these proceedings. As there are no countervailing reasons in favour of granting suppression, I therefore do not grant suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4641031 — net $4,813.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,800.00	Rent arrears
Power account	$771.00	Power account
Repairs: Lounge concertina door	$400.00	Repairs: Lounge concertina door
Repairs: Deck door repair	$632.50	Repairs: Deck door repair
Replace furnishings: Bedroom 2 mat	$290.00	Replace furnishings: Bedroom 2 mat
Dump fee	$10.00	Dump fee
Replace furnishings: Lounge mat	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Lounge mat
Dump fee	$60.00	Dump fee
Replace furnishings: Deck side bedroom mat	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Deck side bedroom mat
Replace furnishings: Hallway mat	$180.00	Replace furnishings: Hallway mat
Cleaning: Floor clean	$210.00	Cleaning: Floor clean
Repairs: Cat door and glass replacement	$350.00	Repairs: Cat door and glass replacement
Repairs: Internet cable hole in wall	$40.00	Repairs: Internet cable hole in wall
Replace furnishings: Wardrobe replacement	$229.99	Replace furnishings: Wardrobe replacement
Carpet Cleaning: Furniture damage caused by dog	$820.00	Carpet Cleaning: Furniture damage caused by dog
Landlord compensation for time in attendance (10 x	$300.00	Landlord compensation for time in attendance (10 x
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,813.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,813.93