What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4642494?

The tribunal order states: Ashweeni Gounder and Avin Kumar must pay Chan Thou Sok $40.00

How much money was awarded in case 4642494?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Removal Of Mattress: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642494?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11019534-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4642494?

The tribunal order states: Ashweeni Gounder and Avin Kumar must pay Chan Thou Sok $40.00

How much money was awarded in case 4642494?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Removal Of Mattress: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642494?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11019534-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4642494 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4642494 — net $40.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 06/08/2023	$1,020.00		Rent arrears to 06/08/2023
Removal of mattress	$20.00		Removal of mattress
Compensation - Breach of obligation to provide		$1,000.00	Compensation - Breach of obligation to provide
Total award	$1,040.00	$1,000.00
Net award	$40.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4642494 — net $40.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 06/08/2023	$1,020.00		Rent arrears to 06/08/2023
Removal of mattress	$20.00		Removal of mattress
Compensation - Breach of obligation to provide		$1,000.00	Compensation - Breach of obligation to provide
Total award	$1,040.00	$1,000.00
Net award	$40.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.00

Order

Ashweeni Gounder and Avin Kumar must pay Chan Thou Sok $40.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Ashweeni Gounder and Mr Avin Kumar were the tenants (referred to as “the tenants”) and Ms Chan Thou Sok was the landlord (referred to as “the landlord”) under a tenancy agreement for the premises situated at 50 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland (“the premises”). The property consisted of a main house and a fully self-contained sleep out, with the tenants renting the sleep out. The main house was rented by other tenants. The tenancy started on 17 July 2021 and ended on 6 August 2023. The rent was $350.00 per week and the bond was $1,050.00.
The tenants have applied for a refund of rent paid and compensation ($5,250.00) due to several alleged breaches by the landlord, including: • The landlord failed to provide electricity to the sleepout for 3 months. • The landlord allowed tenants from the main house to remove the fuse which connects power to the sleepout. • When they gave the landlord a 14-day breach notice to remedy the electricity issue, the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy. The tenants believe the notice was unlawful and/or retaliatory. • The sleep out was an unlawful residential premises and was in a state of disrepair and did not comply with healthy home standards, in particular draught issues.
The landlord has filed a cross application disputing the tenants’ claims and seeking rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy ($1020.00), and compensation for the following: • changing the locks ($293.00) • skip bin hire and rubbish removal ($350.00) • cleaning/labour ($800.00) • repair and maintenance of toilet and bathroom ($3,367.75) • window and door repair ($341.48) • petrol costs to attend to issues relating to the tenancy ($300.00)
The landlord has also applied for a refund of the overpaid bond ($300.00)
Before addressing the current claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. This is referred to as the “onus of proof”. In other words, the applicant must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.
This matter was heard over two hearings on 11 January 2024 and 25 July 2024. The landlord attended both hearings. Mr Kumar attended the first hearing for the tenants. Both tenants attended the second hearing. Interpreters of the Cambodian and Hindi language attended the hearings. The tenants’ application

Did the landlord fail to ensure the property had adequate power?

The tenants say the landlord failed to provide electricity and demanded full rent even though she knew there was a baby on the property.
The property has a single electricity meter, with the power box located at the main house. The tenants in the sleepout reported power interruptions over a three- month period starting approximately around April/May 2023, frequently experiencing power outages from approximately 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. on most days. They allege that the tenants in the main house removed the fuse connecting to their dwelling, a claim confirmed by Vector, and that the landlord permitted this action.
On 21 July 2023, the tenant issued a 14-day notice to the landlord, stating that she was in breach of her responsibilities by failing to provide electricity for the past three months and by allowing interference from the main house tenants, which affected their enjoyment of the premises.
In response, the landlord's solution included providing an extension cord, a six-pin adapter, and arranging for power supply from a neighbour, along with supplying light bulbs. The tenants considered this inadequate and a health and safety hazzard. They are seeking a refund of rent and compensation for the three months they were without reliable power.
The landlord disputed claims that she permitted the tenants in the main house to interfere with the electricity of the tenants in the sleepout, stating that the situation was part of a larger conflict between the two groups. She noted that the tenants from both the main house and the sleepout frequently argued and fought, leading to complaints from neighbours. To support her position, the landlord provided a written statement from a neighbour confirming ongoing disturbances, including loud arguments.
The landlord mentioned that she attempted to mediate and find an amicable solution, but the problems escalated. She believed both parties were at fault, noting that the tenants in the sleepout were also contributing to the tensions. One specific issue arose when the tenants requested to have a cat, which she allowed. However, during an inspection, she discovered that they had several cats— potentially up to five. Tensions worsened when the tenant’s son from the main house accidentally ran over one of the cats.
Despite her efforts to provide solutions, including asking the main house tenants not to remove the fuse, the landlord found herself in a difficult position. Given the severe breakdown in relationships, she suggested that the tenants in the sleepout consider moving out. She felt she had taken reasonable steps to address the situation, but ultimately it had become unmanageable.
The landlord stated that she arranged for an electrician to investigate electrical issues in February 2023, following severe weather conditions. The entry box needed to be replaced due to damage from strong winds impacting the power lines. She provided a copy of the invoice to demonstrate her prompt response when the tenants raised concerns about the tenancy. The landlord emphasised that she was actively involved in resolving issues and was not a landlord who took a back seat or delayed addressing problems.
Furthermore, she disputed the severity of the situation as described by the tenants, believing they were exaggerating their claims. She argued that it would be unrealistic for anyone to live normally without power for three months. Overall, she maintained that she had taken reasonable steps to address the issues and was committed to finding solutions.
Landlords are required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the property has and continues to have adequate infrastructure for services, including power. Failing to provide a reliable electricity supply may be considered a breach under this section. See section 45(2) of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (“the RTA”).
Landlords are obliged to ensure tenants’ “quiet enjoyment” of the property without undue interference. Allowing other tenants to control or disrupt electricity to the sleepout could be viewed as a failure to maintain quiet enjoyment. See section 45(1)(e) of the RTA.
The tenants in the sleepout experienced regular power interruptions over three months, reportedly due to the tenants in the main house removing the fuse. Vector confirmed this claim, suggesting that interference was deliberate and possibly preventable by the landlord.
On 21 July 2023, the sleepout tenants issued a 14-day notice, asserting a breach due to the lack of a reliable power supply and the main house tenants’ interference. This notice emphasised their reliance on the landlord to remedy the situation by providing consistent electricity and preventing interference.
The landlord’s approach of offering an extension cord, a six-pin adapter, and arranging for power from a neighbouring property falls short of providing a permanent, secure solution, raising potential health and safety concerns.
The landlord claims to have attempted to mediate conflicts and encouraged the main house tenants not to disrupt the sleepout’s power. However, allowing ongoing control of the sleepout’s power supply by another tenant appears contrary to her duty to not interfere with electricity supply and ensure quiet enjoyment.
While the landlord provided some temporary solutions, these measures did not sufficiently address the sleepout tenants’ fundamental need for reliable electricity.
Additionally, the landlord arranged an electrician to repair damage after severe weather in February 2023, suggesting some responsiveness to maintenance concerns. However, the continued issues reported by the tenants indicate that more permanent measures should have been implemented to prevent ongoing disruptions.
Even if the main house tenants’ interference was part of a broader interpersonal conflict, the landlord’s duty under section 45(1)(e) to protect quiet enjoyment implies a responsibility to prevent such interference with essential services.
I find the landlord has breached section 45(2) of the RTA. The landlord’s reliance on temporary fixes constitutes a breach, as these do not provide a stable and reliable electricity supply for the sleepout.
I also find the landlord breached section 45(1)(e) of the RTA. By allowing the main house tenants to control access to power for the sleepout, the landlord indirectly permitted interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the property.
In conclusion, although the landlord provided temporary measures, these were inadequate for meeting her obligations to ensure a consistent electricity supply and protect quiet enjoyment.
A landlord is liable to pay compensation to a tenant if there has been a breach of a duty owed by the landlord to the tenant.
A tenant making a claim for compensation must prove their claim. The tenants are only entitled to compensation if they can demonstrate that they have been inconvenienced by the landlord’s breach of duty or have suffered a loss of amenity.
The amount of compensation awarded, if any, is assessed on the evidence provided together with an assessment of the actual loss suffered by the tenant. In assessing the tenant’s loss, the Tribunal takes into account the reasonableness of the conduct of the parties and what attempts have been made by the tenant (the applicant) to mitigate (reduce) the amounts claimed (see section 49 of the RTA). A party is not entitled to damage for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered.
In this case, the tenants had the opportunity to mitigate their losses—specifically, the inconvenience caused by the landlord's failure to provide adequate power—by taking steps to enforce their legal rights under the RTA as soon as it became clear that the landlord was not addressing the issue effectively. Their delay in taking action to enforce these rights is an important factor in determining the amount of compensation they may be entitled to.
The tenants are seeking a full rent refund for the three-month period during which they claim to have lost power. However, I believe the circumstances do not justify such a refund, as there is no evidence to support that they were without power for the entire duration. While I acknowledge that the landlord's failure to provide a reliable and consistent power supply affected the habitability of the premises and significantly impacted the tenants' enjoyment, the situation appeared not as extreme as they assert.
Considering the hardship and potential health risks associated with prolonged power outages, and taking into account the factors mentioned, I find that a global award of $1,000.00 is fair compensation for the loss of amenity, as well as the distress and inconvenience experienced by the tenants.

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

The tenants believe the landlord issued a notice to end the tenancy in retaliation for their 14-day notice regarding the electricity issue. For a notice to be deemed retaliatory, the tenant must demonstrate that the landlord was motivated, either wholly or partly, by the tenant exercising their rights under the tenancy agreement or any relevant Act, or by any complaint against the landlord (as outlined in section 54(1) of the RTA).
On 22 July 2023, the landlord issued a notice to end the tenancy, citing her intention to put the property up for sale. She also mentioned that her decision was influenced by the ongoing arguments and conflicts between the tenants.
While the tenants associate the termination notice with their complaints regarding the lack of electricity and the landlord’s obligations under the RTA, I do not find this connection convincing. I believe the timing of the notice was coincidental, and there is no causal link between the tenants exercising their rights under the RTA and the landlord's issuing of the termination notice.
I am satisfied that the landlord's notice to end the tenancy was based on a separate, valid, and genuine reason. The evidence does not support a breach of section 54. In any event, the notice has been superseded by the tenants' agreement with the landlord to vacate the property earlier, on 6 August 2023.Therefore, the claim of retaliatory notice is dismissed. Was the sleep out an unlawful premises and did the landlord fail to meet repair and maintenance obligations, and comply with healthy home standards?
The question arises whether the sleepout constituted an unlawful residential premises and was in a state of disrepair, failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (see sections 45 and 78A(2) of the RTA). Specifically, there are concerns regarding draught issues (section 138B of the RTA).
In the Tribunal, the burden of proof lies with the applicant to substantiate their claims. In this case, the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to support their assertions regarding the unlawfulness or disrepair of the sleepout, nor have they demonstrated non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. Without robust documentation or testimony to back up their claims, I find it challenging to accept the allegations as valid.
As a result, the claims regarding the unlawfulness of the sleepout and its alleged state of disrepair are dismissed due to insufficient evidence. This conclusion is based on the requirement for clear proof in the Tribunal and the lack of compelling support from the tenants. The landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent arrears?

A tenant must pay rent as and when it falls due. See section 40 of the RTA.
The tenancy ended on 6 August 2024. The landlord claims that the tenants failed to pay rent for the last couple of weeks of the tenancy (totalling $1,020.00) and provided rent records, including bank statements, to support this claim.
The tenants, on the other hand, did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that they paid rent for the last weeks. Their failure to provide documentation to support payment of rent undermines their position.
While the lack of electricity may have diminished the tenants’ enjoyment of the premises, it does not alter their fundamental obligation to pay rent. The law does not allow tenants to withhold rent due to disputes or issues with the rental property.
Based on the evidence presented, I find that the landlord has successfully proven the amount owed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy. Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy, and did they cause any damage to the premises?
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) of the RTA.
A landlord claiming compensation 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.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was “exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances:” Mercier v Smith & Greenan 14/12/98, Dunedin TT 228/93.
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.
“Fair wear and tear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises and the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear.
A tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear as things wore out in the course of reasonable use: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition. ... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.” (Nixon v Gear-Otter DC North Shore, TT 216/94, 30 January 1996, pages 26, 27)
The landlord must provide sufficient evidence to discharge their burden of proof for each claim.
Accordingly, whether the claim is against the bond or is a claim for compensation, the tenant’s obligations are limited by fair wear and tear, and the tenant is not liable for any deterioration in the condition of the premises while they are in residency that is the result of fair wear and tear. The mere fact that any part of the premises is in a lesser state at the end of a tenancy than at the beginning does not automatically mean that the tenant is liable to pay compensation. In the absence of clear evidence as to the lesser state being due to misuse or damage by the tenant, or that the premises are not reasonably clean, the landlord has not discharged their obligation to prove that the tenant is liable to pay compensation and the claim will be dismissed. The tenant is not expected to leave the premises in a pristine condition which will be the condition the landlord may wish to have the premises in to show them to prospective tenants.
I address the claims below. • Changing the Locks ($293.00): The landlord asserts that she did not receive the keys back from the tenants at the end of the tenancy. The tenants contend that they returned the two keys provided to them upon moving in. They claim that when they arrived to return the keys, the landlord was already present, and a key was in the door, with their belongings still inside the sleepout. Additionally, the landlord's invoice for the locksmith services is dated September 2023, a month after the tenancy ended, raising questions about the validity of the claim. Given the conflicting accounts and the lack of corroborating evidence, I dismiss this claim. • Skip Bin Hire and Rubbish Removal ($350.00): The landlord presented photographs showing rubbish outside the property. The tenants admit to leaving only a mattress and deny responsibility for the other items. Due to the conflicting views and insufficient evidence to establish that the remaining rubbish belonged to the tenants, I will only allow a portion of the claim. Since the tenants acknowledged leaving a mattress, I award $20.00 for this specific item, but the remaining claim is dismissed. • Cleaning/Labour ($800.00): The landlord did not provide an exit property inspection report, and the photographic evidence was limited, failing to substantiate the claim for general cleaning. Notably, the invoice for lounge and carpet cleaning is dated 13 January 2024, which is five months after the tenancy ended. Based on the evidence presented, I find that the claim for cleaning and labour was not proven to the required standard and therefore award no costs for this claim. • Repair and Maintenance of Toilet and Bathroom ($3,367.75): The tenants assert that the damages claimed by the landlord were present before they moved in. The landlord did not provide an entry inspection report or any inspection reports during the tenancy, only photographs of the property when it was advertised and of the damages at the end of the tenancy. Since there is insufficient evidence to support the landlord's claims and I cannot exclude the possibility that the issues are due to normal wear and tear or a maintenance issue, this claim is dismissed. • Window and Door Repair ($341.48): The tenants disputed this claim, and the landlord failed to produce any photographs of the alleged damage. Therefore, this claim is dismissed due to a lack of evidence. • Petrol Costs ($300.00): The landlord seeks reimbursement for petrol costs incurred while addressing issues related to the tenancy. However, these costs are considered part of the normal responsibilities of being a landlord. There are no grounds to award such expenses, and this claim is dismissed. • Refund of the Overpaid Bond ($300.00): The landlord claims a refund of an overpaid bond, referencing a letter dated 29 July 2023, signed by all parties. This letter states the tenants would vacate on 6 August 2023, and outlines conditions related to the return of the keys and the state of the property. The tenants argue that the landlord gave them $300.00 as part of a negotiation to move out early due to the property's condition which was denied by the landlord. The letter signed by all parties essentially represents an agreed settlement, which binds the parties to the agreed terms. Since I have not fully ruled in favour of the landlord regarding cleaning, rubbish removal, and the return of keys, and given that I have awarded $20.00 for removal of the mattress, I find the landlord has no grounds to claim refund of the $300.00 paid to the tenants. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Overall, the landlord has not sufficiently substantiated the majority of her claims, leading to their dismissal. Filing fee and suppression order
Neither party has been fully successful in their claim. Both parties have paid a filing fee and I do not consider it appropriate for either party to reimburse the other.
I note both parties have applied for a suppression order.
The Tribunal must usually order suppression of names or identifying particulars where a party who applies for it has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings. However, suppression may be declined where the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case; section 95A(1) RTA.
As neither party has been wholly successful with their claims, and there are no other grounds, they are not entitled to a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642494 — Rent arrears at 50 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642494 — Rent arrears at 50 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to ensure the property had adequate power?

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to ensure the property had adequate power?

Was the notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions