What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4654177 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4654177?

Loss Of Amenity – Fence And Clothesl…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Fixed Water Charge…: $1,474.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654177?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9658092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4654177 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4654177?

Loss Of Amenity – Fence And Clothesl…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Fixed Water Charge…: $1,474.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654177?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9658092-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Suppressed] Road, Otara, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4654177 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4654177 — net $574.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Wall, door, lock, cladding repairs	$1,700.00		Wall, door, lock, cladding repairs
Top up to bond not lodged		$300.00	Top up to bond not lodged
Reimbursement of fixed water charge payments		$1,474.00	Reimbursement of fixed water charge payments
Loss of amenity – fence and clothesline		$500.00	Loss of amenity – fence and clothesline
Total award	$1,700.00	$2,274.00
Net award		$574.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$574.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4654177 — net $574.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Wall, door, lock, cladding repairs	$1,700.00		Wall, door, lock, cladding repairs
Top up to bond not lodged		$300.00	Top up to bond not lodged
Reimbursement of fixed water charge payments		$1,474.00	Reimbursement of fixed water charge payments
Loss of amenity – fence and clothesline		$500.00	Loss of amenity – fence and clothesline
Total award	$1,700.00	$2,274.00
Net award		$574.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$574.00

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,180.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [the tenant] immediately.
Satish Unka must pay [the tenant] $2,274.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Georgina Peterson of Awhi Healthy Homes attended in support of the tenant. 1
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge a bond top-up payment, required her to pay fixed water charges, breached the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS) by failing to insulate the premises, and failed to repair the premises’ backyard fence and clothesline. She seeks exemplary damages for the bond and HHS failures and compensation for her related losses.
The landlord claims the tenant is liable for damage to the premises. He seeks compensation for the cost of repairs. Background
The tenancy began on 3 August 2018 and ended almost five years later on 7 July 2023.
The property has a full 675m 2 section. The house has a floor area of about 140m 2 . It has three bedrooms, a bathroom, and a separate toilet. The weatherboards need repainting, but the interior walls were newly painted shortly before the tenancy began.
The tenant and her partner now have four children, the youngest of whom is only about a year old.
One part of the original tenancy agreement indicated that the premises did not have insulation, but in another part of the tenancy agreement noted the premises did have insulation. In fact, insulation was newly installed about 10 days before the tenancy began. 2
The bulk of the bond was deposited with the Bond Centre. However, in 2022, Mr Unka failed to lodge a $200.00 bond top-up the tenant had paid to match a rent increase.
Early in the tenancy, the landlord and the tenant agreed that the tenant would pay Watercare’s fixed water charges despite that being a landlord obligation. 3
The tenant says that the house’s ceilings were damp and prone to mould. 1 I heard this matter on 13 November 2023. My decision was reserved and delivered on 17 November 2023. 2 Invoice, The Insulation Guys. 12 July 2023 given as the installation date. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 39.
The landlord confirmed that the roof leaked early in the tenancy, so he had the roof replaced. He produced an invoice dated 22 January 2019 for a “complete roof replacement” at a cost of $9,726.98.
About eight months after the roof was replaced, on about 2 September 2019, the tenant emailed the landlord to alert him to wet ceilings and gaps around the front door: Photos attached are of the wet ceilings located in the kitchen lounge and all 3 bedrooms also the front door where the breeze comes through.
The landlord says that on 6 September 2019, he sealed up any gaps in the windows and doors using sealing strips. He says, the tenant later confirmed that the draught problem had been fixed and he understood that the wet ceiling problem had also been alleviated.
The tenant says she mentioned the damp ceilings, the next time she saw the landlord at an inspection. The landlord denies that and says the tenant confirmed she was happy with the premises in writing in early 2020.
There is no evidence of any written complaint from tenant after 2 September 2019 about any dampness issues.
However, the tenant did text the landlord on 11 January 2023 to report that the backyard’s back boundary fence had fallen over. The landlord claimed on his insurance policy and consequently assessors needed to assess the damage. That did not happen for some weeks due to the disastrous weather events at the time and the fence got worse in the meantime. On 13 February 2023, the tenant texted again to report that the fence had now fallen of the clothesline, which was at a tilt and unusable. The fence and the clothesline were not repaired up until the end of the tenancy on 7 July 2023.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond top-up? b. Did the tenant pay the landlord’s fixed water charges? c. Did the landlord fail to insulate the premises? d. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises? e. Is the tenant liable to the landlord for damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond top-up?

The rent was increased in 2022 and the tenant was required to pay an additional $200.00 to top up the bond. She paid the top-up on 9 September 2023. However, the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 4
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5
The landlord failed to lodge the bond. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The landlord explains that he had a lot going on is his personal and work life and simply forgot to lodge the bond.
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. 6
I find the landlord failed to lodge the bond intentionally. At some point he may have forgotten about lodging the bond, so in a sense it could be said that he did not intentionally decide never to lodge the bond. At some point in time though he understood his obligation and failed to perform it. If the Tribunal readily exonerated landlords from fulfilling their bond obligations, the system would be liable to falter. It is appropriate to take a strict approach.
Having regard to the factors mentioned. I find it just to order exemplary damages of $300.00 in this case. Did the tenant pay the landlord’s fixed water charges?
The tenant paid $1,440.00 for the landlord’s fixed water charges.
Section 39 of the RTA provides: (1) The landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that— (a) are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied; and (b) are incurred for common facilities.
Fixed water charges are incurred whether or not the premises are occupies so the landlord is responsible for them. 4 RTA, s 19(1). 5 RTA, s 19(2), Schedule 1A. 6 RTA, s 109(3).
My Unka says that he and the tenant freely agreed that the tenant would pay for the fixed water charges. However, that agreement is void. Under s 11 of the RTA, “[a]ny agreement or arrangement...that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect...”. That provision is subject to limited exceptions which do not apply there.
It follows that Mr Unka must reimburse the tenant for the amount she paid.

Did the landlord fail to insulate the premises?

The tenant claims Mr Unka failed to insulate the premises in breach of s 45(1)(bb) RTA and the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
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.
Mr Unka submitted an invoice dated confirming the premises had been insulated on by 13 July 2018. He also submitted a Healthy Homes Assessment from All Clear dated 17 December 2020 that found the premises was compliant for insulation.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached his insulation obligations.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

The tenant says the premises were damp and mouldy throughout the tenancy.
She also says the back fence and clothesline fell over and were never fixed. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes...
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 7
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 8 The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 9 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 10 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Dampness and mould
Georgina Peterson of AWHI Healthy Homes wrote a letter dated 11 August 2023 in which she states she had visited the premises on 15 June 2023 and found: 7 8 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. 9 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 10 See n 3. When I visited [the tenant], the bedroom walls were damp. There was excessive mould growth on their furniture in the main bedroom. This included all their baby's drawers. The whanau had taken to sleeping in the living room with their two youngest children. The two older children remained in their sperate bedrooms even though these rooms were cold as well. I noted that the flooring felt cold underfoot. The boys were kept in their rooms as one of them had been having ongoing Strep A infections. Strep A if left untreated can lead to Rheumatic Fever. With [the tenant’s] diagnosis of having Rheumatic Fever she was extra cautious around the heath of her children.
The tenant also submitted family medical records to show that family members had suffered from strep throat and rheumatic fever.
However, the landlord disputes the claim that the house is damp. His healthy homes assessment confirms that the house complies with the HHS in respect to the ventilation standard and every other standard. The tenant did not complain in writing about dampness after the landlord had sealed the draughts that the tenant complained of in 2019. There was no medical evidence that correlated the family’s illnesses with the condition of the house.
The tenant submitted that the ceilings and insulation could be damp due to the roof leak in early 2019. That is possible, but there was a lack of evidence of that such as a qualified tradesperson’s professional opinion or photographs of the ceiling cavity indicating dampness or mould.
Damp and mould can be caused by multiple factors other than a fault in the premises, such as high environmental humidity, overcrowding, cooking, showering, and lack of airing out to name a few. It has not been shown that there was any defect in the premises that caused damp and mould to occur.
I do not find that the tenant has sheeted home responsibility for the dampness and mould to the landlord’s maintenance obligations. Fence and clothesline
On tenant reported that the back fence had fallen over on 11 January 2023. The tenant propped the fence up with her wheelie bins, but the landlord did not assist with any temporary repair. Worse was to come on 13 February 2023, when the fence completely collapsed taking the clothesline down with it.
As a result of the fence coming down, the tenant’s use of the backyard was severely impacted because the neighbours had dogs who could now roam onto the backyard much more freely. The tenant and her family no longer felt comfortable using the backyard at all when previously they had used it to play games, relaxing, and socialising. The clothesline had tilted over so was unusable. The tenant had to use the laundromat on occasion to dry clothes.
The tenancy ended on 7 July 2023, by which time the fence and clothesline had not been repaired.
I find the landlord failed to maintain the fence to a reasonable state of repair. The fence should have been temporarily repaired within no more than 21 days of the initial damage. If it had been, it is possible the catastrophic damage that occurred on 13 February 2023 would have been avoided. Thus, the landlord was in breach from 1 February 2023.
The landlord should have been able to fully replace by 31 May 2023 – that is a reasonable time in which to have completed the replacement.
I order the landlord to pay the tenant $500.00 for the tenant’s loss of amenity in the premises due to the lack of the fence.

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that some of the house’s walls, some cladding, a lock, and a door were damaged during the tenancy.
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. 11
The landlord provided photographs of the premises prior to the tenancy beginning showing the house’s walls were in good condition. He also produced photographs of multiple holes and cracks in the walls at the end of the tenancy, which the Tribunal reviewed, one by one. .
Tenant accepts responsibility for some of the damage but not all. Some of the damage she believes was due to ordinary activities such as leaning against the wall resulting in cracking because numerous previous repairs had been poorly done.
The tenant has a couple of boisterous teenage sons, who damaged the walls in some places. That damage was caused carelessly. The tenant is liable for the costs of repair in respect to them. The tenant’s partner made several wall repairs of those but not all of them. 11 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
The landlord and a contractor whom the landlord paid $400.00 did the bulk of the wall repair work in one day. The landlord also paid a painter $6,000.00 plus GST for painting and plastering the house. Repainting was due to be done in any event as wall coverings generally only have a useful lifespan expected lifespan of about five years. The tenant should not have to pay for work that needed to be done anyway due to ordinary wear and tear.
I find the tenant liable for damage to some but not all of the walls.
After reflecting on all of the evidence, I find the tenant should reimburse the landlord $400.00 for the contractor’s day’s labour and pay $600.00 towards the painter’s invoice for the additional labour and cost of materials required to remediate the tenant’s damage.
An internal door was split. The damage was more than fair wear and tear. I am not satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly. The tenant is to pay the landlord $100.00 for the cost of repairing the damage.
Some cladding was torn away adjacent to the back door. The damage is more than fair wear and tears and was likely to have been caused carelessly. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $250.00 for its repair.
The front door lock was broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and was probably caused carelessly. The tenant must pay the landlord $350.00 for the cost of replacing the lock.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off.
The total amount the tenant is liable to the landlord for is $1,700.00. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless 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. 12
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because the of tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 12 RTA, s 95A(1).
It follows, non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654177 — Property damage at [Suppressed] Road, Otara, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654177 — Property damage at [Suppressed] Road, Otara, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond top-up?

Did the landlord fail to insulate the premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond top-up?

Did the landlord fail to insulate the premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions