What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4664909 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4664909?

Compensation: Maintenance: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $43.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4664909?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9466480-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4664909 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4664909?

Compensation: Maintenance: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $43.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4664909?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9466480-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13A Ladies Mile, Manly, Whangaparaoa 0930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4664909 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4664909 — net $1,436.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$43.76		Water rates
Compensation: Maintenance		$1,480.00	Maintenance
Total award	$43.76	$1,480.00
Net award		$1,436.24
Bond		$2,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,436.24

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] $1,436.24 immediately as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates and compensation. Background
The tenancy began on 29 May 2014 and ended on 8 March 2023.
The landlord lodged the bond of $2,100.00 with the Bond Centre. Tenant application
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes Standards but as the tenancy began in 2014 the compliance date is not until 1 July 2025. Therefore, the tenant’s claim in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed.
The tenant claimed for compensation in relation to the landlord failing to maintain the premises. The tenant referred to the ceiling tiles falling, the front steps breaking from rot, door handles not working and leaking from French doors and a skylight.
The tenant produced photographs showing that the ceiling tiles were falling in both the lounge and one of the bedrooms. When the issue first came to light two ceiling supports were installed in these rooms and remained there for around two weeks. The tenants had to live with that situation.
For up to a year the tenants lived with the ceiling open to the iron roof which they described as draughty. One of the tiles apparently fell and hit the tenant’s daughter. A photograph shows a length of rope used to temporarily hold the tiles in place but apparently the rope eventually snapped.
The landlord acknowledged that the ceiling tiles were original and explained that the tiles were glued to the ceiling battens, but the glue started failing a couple of years ago. He said it was a major to get this fixed. After the tenants left the landlord remedied the situation by replacing the roof, installing insulation and replacing the ceiling tiles with gib. But that is of no comfort to the tenants who lived with the uncertainty of the failing ceiling tiles for at least two years of the tenancy.
The tenants complained of the front steps which were rotten and broke causing injury to the tenant’s daughter. They said that the stairs were never fixed properly up until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said that he knew two years ago that the stairs were rotting, and he gave instructions to a contractor to make the stairs safe which he said was done with a block of wood presumably under the broken tread. The stairs were finally replaced after the tenancy ended. The landlord said that he felt bad about the injury but said that there was not much he could do due to the building industry being in crisis following the COVID situation.
The other maintenance issue raised by the tenants relates to two internal door handles which broke resulting in one of the tenants being locked in the bathroom and being freed by the fire brigade. The other incident involved the tenant’s daughter being locked in her bedroom. The tenants say that they rang the landlord on the day that this occurred.
In addition, the tenants referred to the French doors and the skylight leaking. They say that the skylight was repaired around five times, but the repairs did not last.
The landlord said that the type of French doors always leaked and the skylight was old, and condensation caused dripping. The landlord knew about these issues, but they were not remedied.
The main reason given by the landlord in relation to the maintenance issues is that New Zealand had a building crisis due to the after affects of COVID. He said that he could not get a builder to carry out repairs.
While it is accepted that it has been difficult to engage contractors to carry out repairs in the meantime the landlord has received the full rent for the premises when the tenants have lived in substandard conditions. It is reasonable for the tenants to be reimbursed for the inconvenience and the difficult living conditions. I consider that compensation of two weeks rent is reasonable. Landlord application
The landlord sought rent arrears equivalent to one day. The rent summary produced by the landlord does not clearly show that this amount is owed and therefore I am unable to award the amount sought.
The landlord claims for water rates. The amount sought is for the six month period prior to the tenancy ending. Even though the landlord receives monthly invoices from Watercare he did not pass these on to the tenant because he calculated the amount owed by reading a check meter.
The tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. This has been detailed in precedent by the District Court.
For this reason, I am only going to allow the landlord’s claim for the last water invoice from March 2023 which amounts to $43.76.
The landlord claimed for the tenant to meet the cost of repairing two laundry taps, one of which was broken when the tenant turned it. I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for replacing two laundry taps when one of them has broken from normal use. I understand that they are the original taps from when the tenancy began, and it is likely since the house was built. This is therefore a maintenance issue which is the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for the repair of lights and switches. The invoice produced by the landlord includes electrical work carried out at the next-door property which is also owned by the landlord. Also, the landlord did not produce any evidence to establish that the lights and switches were broken during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. No photographic evidence was produced by the landlord. He says that the oven and stove required cleaning and the walls and ceilings were filthy and smelt. He said that he could not provide photographs of the smell, which is accepted.
The tenant produced photographs showing that the premises were left in a reasonably clean condition which is what is required under the Residential Tenancies Act. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenants should be responsible for the cleaning that was carried out at the end of the tenancy. That claim is dismissed.
Finally, the landlord claimed that he should have compensation for problems he experienced with late rent payments throughout the tenancy. The landlord did not produce sufficient evidence to support a claim for compensation and that claim is dismissed. Suppression
The landlord was adamant that there should be no suppression in relation to these proceedings.
The tenant has applied for suppression and on the basis that they have substantially succeeded with their claim I must grant suppression (see section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4664909 — net $1,436.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$43.76		Water rates
Compensation: Maintenance		$1,480.00	Maintenance
Total award	$43.76	$1,480.00
Net award		$1,436.24
Bond		$2,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,436.24

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] $1,436.24 immediately as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes Standards, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates and compensation. Background
The tenancy began on 29 May 2014 and ended on 8 March 2023.
The landlord lodged the bond of $2,100.00 with the Bond Centre. Tenant application
The tenant applied for a claim relating to the Healthy Homes Standards but as the tenancy began in 2014 the compliance date is not until 1 July 2025. Therefore, the tenant’s claim in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed.
The tenant claimed for compensation in relation to the landlord failing to maintain the premises. The tenant referred to the ceiling tiles falling, the front steps breaking from rot, door handles not working and leaking from French doors and a skylight.
The tenant produced photographs showing that the ceiling tiles were falling in both the lounge and one of the bedrooms. When the issue first came to light two ceiling supports were installed in these rooms and remained there for around two weeks. The tenants had to live with that situation.
For up to a year the tenants lived with the ceiling open to the iron roof which they described as draughty. One of the tiles apparently fell and hit the tenant’s daughter. A photograph shows a length of rope used to temporarily hold the tiles in place but apparently the rope eventually snapped.
The landlord acknowledged that the ceiling tiles were original and explained that the tiles were glued to the ceiling battens, but the glue started failing a couple of years ago. He said it was a major to get this fixed. After the tenants left the landlord remedied the situation by replacing the roof, installing insulation and replacing the ceiling tiles with gib. But that is of no comfort to the tenants who lived with the uncertainty of the failing ceiling tiles for at least two years of the tenancy.
The tenants complained of the front steps which were rotten and broke causing injury to the tenant’s daughter. They said that the stairs were never fixed properly up until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said that he knew two years ago that the stairs were rotting, and he gave instructions to a contractor to make the stairs safe which he said was done with a block of wood presumably under the broken tread. The stairs were finally replaced after the tenancy ended. The landlord said that he felt bad about the injury but said that there was not much he could do due to the building industry being in crisis following the COVID situation.
The other maintenance issue raised by the tenants relates to two internal door handles which broke resulting in one of the tenants being locked in the bathroom and being freed by the fire brigade. The other incident involved the tenant’s daughter being locked in her bedroom. The tenants say that they rang the landlord on the day that this occurred.
In addition, the tenants referred to the French doors and the skylight leaking. They say that the skylight was repaired around five times, but the repairs did not last.
The landlord said that the type of French doors always leaked and the skylight was old, and condensation caused dripping. The landlord knew about these issues, but they were not remedied.
The main reason given by the landlord in relation to the maintenance issues is that New Zealand had a building crisis due to the after affects of COVID. He said that he could not get a builder to carry out repairs.
While it is accepted that it has been difficult to engage contractors to carry out repairs in the meantime the landlord has received the full rent for the premises when the tenants have lived in substandard conditions. It is reasonable for the tenants to be reimbursed for the inconvenience and the difficult living conditions. I consider that compensation of two weeks rent is reasonable. Landlord application
The landlord sought rent arrears equivalent to one day. The rent summary produced by the landlord does not clearly show that this amount is owed and therefore I am unable to award the amount sought.
The landlord claims for water rates. The amount sought is for the six month period prior to the tenancy ending. Even though the landlord receives monthly invoices from Watercare he did not pass these on to the tenant because he calculated the amount owed by reading a check meter.
The tenants have the obligation to pay for their water usage. However, there is a corresponding implied obligation on a landlord to advise the tenant of the costs clearly and within a reasonable time frame. A tenant must be provided with the actual provider invoices and be able to clearly identify what is their usage. This has been detailed in precedent by the District Court.
For this reason, I am only going to allow the landlord’s claim for the last water invoice from March 2023 which amounts to $43.76.
The landlord claimed for the tenant to meet the cost of repairing two laundry taps, one of which was broken when the tenant turned it. I am not satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for replacing two laundry taps when one of them has broken from normal use. I understand that they are the original taps from when the tenancy began, and it is likely since the house was built. This is therefore a maintenance issue which is the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for the repair of lights and switches. The invoice produced by the landlord includes electrical work carried out at the next-door property which is also owned by the landlord. Also, the landlord did not produce any evidence to establish that the lights and switches were broken during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. No photographic evidence was produced by the landlord. He says that the oven and stove required cleaning and the walls and ceilings were filthy and smelt. He said that he could not provide photographs of the smell, which is accepted.
The tenant produced photographs showing that the premises were left in a reasonably clean condition which is what is required under the Residential Tenancies Act. On the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenants should be responsible for the cleaning that was carried out at the end of the tenancy. That claim is dismissed.
Finally, the landlord claimed that he should have compensation for problems he experienced with late rent payments throughout the tenancy. The landlord did not produce sufficient evidence to support a claim for compensation and that claim is dismissed. Suppression
The landlord was adamant that there should be no suppression in relation to these proceedings.
The tenant has applied for suppression and on the basis that they have substantially succeeded with their claim I must grant suppression (see section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664909 — Tenancy dispute at 13A Ladies Mile, Manly, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664909 — Tenancy dispute at 13A Ladies Mile, Manly, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions