What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666409 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 4666409?

Compensation: failure to maintain di…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain in…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain ou…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Vinyl: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666409?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4666409 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 4666409?

Compensation: failure to maintain di…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain in…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: failure to maintain ou…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Vinyl: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666409?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 95 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4666409 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666409 — net $450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: vinyl	$100.00		Repairs: vinyl
Repairs: walls	$50.00		Repairs: walls
Compensation: failure to maintain internal stairs		$300.00	failure to maintain internal stairs
Compensation: failure to maintain outdoor stairs		$200.00	failure to maintain outdoor stairs
Compensation: failure to maintain dishwasher		$100.00	failure to maintain dishwasher
Total award	$150.00	$600.00
Net award		$450.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$450.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666409 — net $450.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: vinyl	$100.00		Repairs: vinyl
Repairs: walls	$50.00		Repairs: walls
Compensation: failure to maintain internal stairs		$300.00	failure to maintain internal stairs
Compensation: failure to maintain outdoor stairs		$200.00	failure to maintain outdoor stairs
Compensation: failure to maintain dishwasher		$100.00	failure to maintain dishwasher
Total award	$150.00	$600.00
Net award		$450.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$450.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The order dated 2 January 2025 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to the terms of this order.
Phoenix Property Management Limited as agent for Ruth King must pay [the applicant/s] $450.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 December 2024. This was the third time the matter was scheduled for hearing after two adjournments. Extensive evidence was presented and submissions were made.
On 2 January 2025, I issued an order requiring the landlord to pay the tenant compensation of $800.00 for breaching their obligations under section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). In my order, I found that the landlord had failed to maintain the following items in a reasonable state of repair and ordered compensation as follows: a. Handrail for internal stairs:$300.00 b. Outdoor stairs:$350.00 c. Dishwasher:$300.00
In determining the amount of time it took the landlord to investigate and repair the outdoor stairs and dishwasher, I incorrectly recorded the end date of the tenancy as being 19 June 2024 instead of 19 June 2023. This error influenced my finding regarding the appropriate amount of compensation payable by the landlord to the tenant for these issues.
On 5 January 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the basis of this error. On 13 January 2025, I granted the landlord’s application for a rehearing. In my order, I directed that the rehearing would solely focus on the appropriate amount of compensation payable by the landlord for failing to maintain the outdoor stairs and dishwasher in a reasonable state of repair.
The rehearing was held on 14 February 2025. The landlord attended. The tenant contacted the Tribunal in the lead up to the hearing to advise that they did not wish to attend.
The purpose of this order is to recall the original order dated 2 January 2025 and amend the amount of compensation payable by the landlord to the tenant for breaching their obligations in respect of the outdoor stairs and dishwasher. In all other respects, the order dated 2 January 2025 remains the same.
Phoenix Property Management Limited managed the tenancy on behalf of the owner, Ruth King. Kim Dutton-Govorko was the property manager. Ms Dutton- Govorko and Ms King attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant claims the landlord breached their obligations and seeks compensation.
The tenant’s written application included a claim that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards. At the hearing on 9 December 2024, the tenant withdrew this claim, accepting that the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the regulations.
The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
In Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, the District held: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before the 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.
A lot of evidence was presented by both parties at the hearing. Whilst I might not refer to all of it in this decision, the parties can be assured that I have considered it as part of my reasoning.
I provide a brief background to this tenancy, before dealing with the tenant’s claims first and the landlord’s claims second.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy began on 16 December 2017 and ended on 19 June 2023.
The owner of the property is Ruth King. Ms King lived elsewhere during the tenancy and instructed Phoenix Property Management Ltd to manage the tenancy. Kim Dutton-Govorko was the property manager.
On 15 March 2023, Ms Dutton-Govorko sent the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy. The end date recorded in the notice was 23 June 2023. The notice stated: ...The last day of the tenancy will be Tuesday 23 June 2023...
As it transpired, Ms Dutton-Govorko made a mistake when recording 23 June 2023 as the end date for the tenancy. She should have recorded 19 June 2023. Ms King gave evidence that she intended to move into the property on 19 June 2023 and had organised for movers and tradespeople to attend the property on this date. Ms King gave evidence that she was not aware that the incorrect date had been recorded on the notice until she began preparing for the hearing.
The tenant gave evidence that she believed the end date of the tenancy to be 23 June 2023, as recorded in the termination notice. This was a reasonable assumption. The tenant gave evidence that on 19 June 2023, Ms Dutton-Govroko visited the property and enquired why the tenant had not packed up her belongings and finished cleaning. The tenant claims that Ms Dutton-Govroko told her that she needed to be out of the property that day. This was irrespective of the fact that the notice recorded 23 June 2023 as the end date for the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that she was not expecting to have to move out of the property on 19 June 2023. The tenant claims she moved out of the property on this date, but was not able to pack all of her belongings or clean the property properly. The tenant gave evidence that she had to seek emergency accommodation at a Motel for herself and her daughter who has special needs, as she had nowhere to go on 19 June 2023. The tenant provided a letter from the emergency accommodation provider confirming that she arrived at the Motel at 7:00pm on 19 June 2023 in a frantic state.
Ms Dutton-Govroko could not remember much about what happened on 19 June 2023. I found her evidence about what occurred on this date to be evasive. In contrast, the tenant was able to clearly recall the events on that day in detail and her version of events made sense. I prefer the tenant’s evidence about what occurred on 19 June 2023.
These background circumstances are important when considering the landlord’s claims for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal following the end of the tenancy. TENANT’S CLAIMS Failure to maintain
Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires a landlord to “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.”
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem.
A tenant has a duty under section 40(1)(d) RTA to advise a landlord of any defects. A tenant should do this promptly and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before becoming liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to remedy several repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. I consider each issue in turn below. Handrail for internal stairs
The tenant claims there was no handrail for the internal stairs. The stairs go from the ground floor to the first floor and in doing so, they turn around a corner. The tenant claims this corner was difficult to navigate without a handrail, because the stairs are narrow near the turning point.
The tenant has a daughter with special needs and low muscle tone. The tenant gave evidence that she had to carry her daughter up and down the stairs during the tenancy, which was difficult without a handrail. The tenant claims that on one occasion when she was carrying her daughter down the stairs, she fell and broke her ankle. After this happened, the tenant raised the lack of an internal handrail with Ms Dutton-Govorko and requested that one be installed. The tenant could not remember the exact date that she raised the issue with Ms Dutton-Govorko, but claims it was around the time of the first Covid-19 lockdown. The tenant states it took the landlord two years to install an internal handrail.
Ms King gave evidence that the absence of an internal handrail was brought to her attention by Ms Dutton-Govorko in June 2020. Ms King submitted an email sent to her by Ms Dutton-Govorko on 15 June 2020 which states: ... The tenant apparently fell down the stairs a little while back in the dark and now it has come to light that she has in fact broken her ankle after being told that she pulled a ligament and had been in a moon bot for 6 weeks. She has asked for a handrail to be installed as well as a light switch upstairs. I asked Beau to quote the rail and he has indicated that this will be expensive. Happy to discuss.
Ms King replied to Ms Dutton-Govorko’s e-mail on 22 June 2020 with the following: Hi Kim ... Once I know the cost of the handrail we can take it from there – I know I have other things that need to be done at the house so it may just be a case of priorities.
The landlord gave evidence that the handrail was installed in April 2022 and submitted an invoice dated 13 April 2022 for $968.30 (including GST).
The landlord claims the reason for the delay was due to the first and second Covid-19 lockdowns.
On 25 March 2020, New Zealand entered a nationwide lockdown. The country returned to Level 1 of the Covid-19 Alert Level Framework on 8 June 2020. On 12 August 2020, Auckland entered Alert Level 3 and returned to Alert Level 1 on 7 October 2020. On 14 February 2021, Auckland entered Alert Level 3 and returned to Alert Level 1 on 22 February 2021. On 28 February 2021, Auckland entered Alert Level 3 and returned to Alert Level 1 on 12 March 2021. 1
The landlord gave evidence that these lockdowns caused a delay in getting the builder to visit the property to provide a quote. The landlord claims the lockdowns also caused a backlog of work for the builder and created supply chain issues, which made it difficult for the builder to get the proper materials to complete the job.
Ms King was living out of Auckland at the time. There was a handrail in the garage of the house she had recently purchased. Ms King states that she tried to have this handrail installed to quicken the process, but it was not suitable for internal use.
The landlord claims that the tenant blacked out a window in the stairwell and did not use the correct sized lightbulb. The landlord claims these two factors contributed to the tenant’s fall down the stairs.
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord investigated and repaired the missing handrail within a reasonable timeframe after the tenant reported the issue to them. For the following reasons, I find that they did not: a. The lack of an internal handrail was first raised with the landlord around mid- June 2020. Auckland entered Alert Level 1 on 12 March 2021 and did not revert to Alert Level 3 again. The handrail was installed on 6 April 2022, which is just over one year later. Whilst I accept that the series of lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 most likely contributed to some delay in organising a builder to attend the property to provide a quote and complete the work, I do not consider that the lockdowns excuse a delay of just over 1 year after Auckland returned to and remained at Alert Level 1. No evidence from the landlord’s preferred builder or any other tradesperson working in Auckland at the time was submitted confirming this to be the case. b. The Tribunal asked the landlord whether they made enquiries with other tradespeople to determine if the handrail could be installed sooner. Ms Dutton-Govorko gave evidence that she made no enquiries because she 1 Author unknown “Timeline: A year of Covid-19 lockdowns in NZ” (26 March 2021) 1 News <www.1news.co.nz/2021/03/25/timeline-a-year-of-covid-19-lockdowns-in-nz/> does not trust other tradespeople. I do not consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances. The lack of an internal handrail on stairs that go from the ground floor to the first floor of the property is a safety issue that required prioritisation. This was especially the case after the tenant reported breaking her ankle when falling down the stairs. In these circumstances, the landlord ought to have made enquiries with other tradespeople to try to have the handrail installed more quickly.
The tenant has proven that the landlord failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair by not having an internal handrail for the stairs. I consider $300.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation the landlord must pay the tenant for breaching this obligation. This sum fairly reflects the fact that the lack of an internal handrail was a safety issue and that it took the landlord just over one year after Auckland entered and remained at Alert Level 1 to remedy the issue. Driveway fence
The tenant claims the driveway fence was kept in a poor state of repair. The tenant gave evidence that the fence is on the landlord’s property, not the correct boundary line. Therefore, the driveway is particularly narrow. The tenant gave evidence that the narrowness of the driveway meant that ambulances could not drive down it when her daughter required them. The tenant states that the narrowness of the driveway was exacerbated when the fence caved in, which the tenant claims happened often. The tenant produced photographs of the fence leaning inwards towards the driveway.
The tenant could not specifically recall the exact date they raised the issue about the fence with the landlord, but claims the issue was brought to Ms Dutton- Govorko’s attention verbally at the beginning of the tenancy and regularly during inspections. The tenant gave evidence that the landlord secured the fence once on 5 August 2021, but this temporary measure did not last and it caved in again shortly thereafter.
The landlord accepts that the driveway is narrower than usual, but claims it is wide enough to fit a normal sized car and trailer. Ms King gave evidence that she currently lives at the property with her elderly mother. When an ambulance arrives, the paramedics walk down the driveway to the property to transport her mother to the ambulance. Ms King states this is not an issue.
The landlord gave evidence that the condition of the fence was brought to their attention by the tenant twice, once in August 2021 and again in February 2023. The landlord claims that they had the fence resecured in August 2021. The landlord gave evidence that the reason the fence leant in sometimes was due to overgrown trees and plants pushing on it from the neighbouring property. Ms Dutton-Govorko gave evidence that she spoke with the landlord of the neighbouring property, Kainga Ora, about the problem in August 2021, but no action was taken by them to tame the garden. The landlord gave evidence that they offered to remove the fence in February 2023, but received no reply from the tenant.
The tenant claims that the offer to remove the fence was unhelpful, because they had pets at the property, including a dog, which needed to be secured.
No expert evidence was submitted by the tenant from a tradesperson about the state of repair of the fence. This makes it difficult for me to ascertain whether it was in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. The photographs submitted by the tenant show the fence leaning in slightly however, the wooden palings appear to be intact and in a reasonably good condition. From the photographs, it appears that the neighbour’s garden is growing through gaps in the fence palings and pushing on it, causing it to lean in slightly. The inference is that it was the overgrown neighbour’s garden that caused the fence to lean in slightly, rather than the state of the fence itself.
In the absence of expert evidence regarding the condition of the fence, I am left uncertain about whether it was in a reasonable state of repair at the time, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
The tenant was also unable to confirm with certainty the dates upon which the fence was brought to the attention of the landlord. This means I am also unable to accurately assess whether the landlord investigated and repaired the issue within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord resecured the fence once in August 2021, which the tenant accepts. The landlord also attempted to address the overgrown garden of the neighbouring property by speaking with the landlord around the same time.
The tenant has not proven their claim in relation to the fence. Outdoor stairs
Both parties accept that the tenant raised the issue about the state of repair of the backdoor steps sometime in January 2023.
The tenant claims that they had a washing machine delivered to the address and one of the movers fell through the steps near the backdoor. The tenant called a witness, Vanessa Greenwood, who was present on the day and gave evidence that this occurred. The tenant provided photographs of the backdoor steps showing one step missing and one step broken. The tenant claims the steps were rotten and were not repaired by the end of the tenancy on 19 June 2023.
The landlord accepts that the steps were not fixed by the end of the tenancy. Ms King submitted emails sent to Ms Dutton-Govorko following up on the issue.
Ms Dutton-Govorko gave evidence that the reason for the delay was due to the severe flooding Auckland experienced in January 2023 and Cyclone Gabriel in February 2023. Ms Dutton-Govroko gave evidence that these events created a backlog of work for their builder, which caused a delay in repairing the steps. Ms Dutton-Govorko claims that her preferred builder was also still dealing with a backlog of work from the 2020 and 2021 Covid-19 lockdowns.
Ms King now lives in the property and gave evidence that she has had the steps removed.
At the hearing, the landlord gave evidence that they did not believe the tenant used the stairs very often. Photographs taken inside the property during the tenancy show some of the tenant’s personal items sitting near the backdoor.
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord investigated and repaired the broken steps within a reasonable timeframe after the tenant reported the issue to them. For the following reasons, I find that they did not: a. The issue was reported to the landlord sometime in January 2023. The tenancy ended on 19 June 2023. The steps were not fixed by the end of the tenancy. This is a period of approximately 5 months. I consider the need to have functioning, stable stairs to be a safety issue that required prioritisation. Whether the tenant used the stairs frequently or not is irrelevant. A delay of approximately 5 months is unreasonable. b. I do not accept Ms Dutton-Govorko’s submission that the reason for the delay of approximately 5 months was because the builder was experiencing a backlog of work from severe weather events experienced in Auckland in January and February 2023. No evidence from the landlord’s builder confirming this to be the case was submitted to the Tribunal. Even if it was, Ms Dutton-Govorko gave evidence that she did not make enquiries with other tradespeople to have the repair completed more quickly. Considering the safety issue that the broken stairs posed, this should have been done.
The tenant has proven that the landlord failed to maintain the backdoor steps in a reasonable state of repair. In the order dated 2 January 2025, I ordered the landlord to pay the tenant compensation of $350.00 for this breach. In doing so, I wrongly concluded that the stairs were not investigated or repaired for a period of 17 months. The correct period was approximately 5 months.
At the rehearing the landlord submitted that the appropriate level of compensation should be $102.95. I consider $200.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Calculating compensation is not always a mathematical endeavour. I consider $200.00 fairly reflects the fact that the broken stairs were a safety issue and that no tradesperson was sent to investigate or repair the defect after it was reported. Window frames
The tenant claims that her family frequently got sick in winter because the windows were rotten and drafty, and the house was moist. The tenant gave evidence that the windows in the lounge, bathroom, kitchen and her son’s bedroom downstairs had very little putty. The tenant claims that the curtains would blow because the windows were very drafty. The tenant gave evidence that the issue was raised verbally with Ms Dutton-Govoroko at every house inspection since 2020 and formally in an email on 15 February 2023. The tenant submitted photographs of the windows as part of their evidence.
The landlord claims that the windows were only ever raised with them by the tenant in their email dated 15 February 2023. The landlord denies that the property is moist and claims it has an HRV system installed. Ms King submitted an email that she sent to Ms Dutton-Govorko on 16 February 2023 asking if the builder could put some putty in the windows. The landlord accepts this never occurred and that a builder never visited the address to investigate the issue before the end of the tenancy on 19 June 2023. The landlord was unable to advise why this was the case.
Ms King claims that the windows have not been re-puttied as at the date of the hearing and she has not experienced any issues with drafts since returning to live in the property. Ms King accepts that she has had a heat pump installed since the tenancy ended.
The photographs of the windows provided by the tenant do not show any obvious defect. No expert evidence was submitted by the tenant from a tradesperson about the state of repair of the windows. This makes it difficult for me to determine the condition of the windows and whether there was any defect that required repair. The tenant claims the windows required putty, but Ms King claims they did not and states that she has not experienced any issues with the windows since returning to live in the property. In these circumstances, I am left uncertain about the state of repair of the windows and whether there was a defect that required investigation and repair by the landlord.
The tenant has not proven their claim in respect of the windows. Rangehood
The kitchen does not have a rangehood or extractor fan above the stovetop. There is a window nearby and kitchen cupboards are fitted above half of the stovetop. The tenant claims this made cooking difficult because steam would build up under the kitchen cupboards and drip back down into the cooking. The tenant cannot remember the exact date that they brought this issue to the landlord’s attention and claims it was mentioned verbally during inspections.
The landlord accepts that the kitchen does not have an extractor fan or rangehood. The landlord claims that a rangehood is required as part of the Healthy Homes Standards and that they had until 1 July 2025 to comply.
I consider this claim by the tenant more properly falls into their original claim that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant withdrew this claim at the beginning of the hearing and accepted that the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to comply with the regulations.
The property appears quite old from the photographs submitted by both parties. This, together with the fact that the landlord had until 1 July 2025 to install an appropriate ventilation system in the kitchen, means I do not consider the absence of a rangehood renders the premises to be in an unreasonable state of repair having regard to its age and character.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the absence of a rangehood is dismissed. Dishwasher
The premises had a dishwasher when the tenancy began. The landlord gave evidence that this dishwasher was purchased in 2012 and was 5 years old at the time the tenancy began.
The tenant gave evidence that the first dishwasher broke and a second-hand dishwasher was installed to replace it. The tenant claims that this subsequent dishwasher broke sometime in early 2023. The tenant claims she raised the issue with the landlord verbally at an inspection. The tenant claims numerous other appliances blew at the same time.
The landlord gave evidence that they received a request for a new dishwasher in March 2023. The landlord accepts that they did not investigate the issue or repair the dishwasher. Ms King gave evidence that the dishwasher was broken when she moved back into the property and she purchased a new one. Ms King claims that the dishwasher must have broken due to unreasonable use, as the tenant went through two dishwashers during the tenancy, which was seven years long. Ms King claims this is a short amount of time for a person to go through two dishwashers.
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord investigated and repaired the broken dishwasher within a reasonable timeframe after the tenant reported the issue to them. By the landlord’s own admission, they did not. The issue was reported sometime in March 2023 and by the end of the tenancy on 19 June 2023, approximately 3 months later, nothing had been done. No expert evidence was submitted by the landlord confirming the tenant’s use of the dishwasher was unreasonable. In the absence of this type of evidence, I am not convinced it was.
The tenant has proven that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair by not fixing the dishwasher. The provision of a functioning dishwasher was an amenity that the tenant paid for as part of their rent.
In the order dated 2 January 2025, I ordered the landlord to pay the tenant compensation of $300.00 for this breach. In doing so, I wrongly concluded that the broken dishwasher was not investigated or repaired for a period of 15 months. The correct period was approximately 3 months.
At the rehearing, the landlord gave evidence that more notice than was required was given by her to terminate the tenancy and this should be considered by the Tribunal. I do not consider this is relevant to the tenant’s claim and I also consider that it is countered by the inconvenience the tenant experienced at the end of the tenancy due to Ms Dutton-Govorko advising the tenant with the correct date for termination.
At the rehearing the landlord submitted that the appropriate level of compensation should be $60.00. I consider $100.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Calculating compensation is not always a mathematical endeavour. I consider $100.00 fairly reflects the fact that nothing was done to investigate the broken dishwasher after it was reported, and the inconvenience the tenant experienced being without a dishwasher for approximately 3 months. Bathroom floor
The tenant gave evidence that one part of the house had moved causing the bathroom floor to be lower than the floor in the adjoining room. The tenant claims this caused the carpet in the adjoining room to pull away.
The tenant gave evidence that they raised the issue verbally with Ms Dutton- Govorko during an inspection in late 2022, but could not recall the exact date. The tenant claims a builder was sent to the property and provided a temporary fix by nailing the wood and carpet down, but this did not last. The tenant gave evidence that the nails and wood pulled away, exposing nails and screws. The tenant claims that Ms Dutton-Govoroko advised her to put a mat or towel on top of the exposed flooring, but she could not do this, because it prohibited the bathroom door from closing.
The tenant submitted a photograph of the bathroom showing the carpet in the adjoining room had pulled away slightly. The tenant also gave evidence that she stepped on a nail which went into her foot.
The landlord disputes that the house had moved and gave evidence that the height difference between the floor of the bathroom and adjoining room was 1cm. The landlord could not recall when the issue was raised, but states that they sent a carpet layer to fix the problem. The landlord produced an invoice from Easy Lay Carpets Ltd dated 24 September 2022 for $195.50.
The tenant claims that they raised the issue in late 2022 and the landlord submitted an invoice from a carpet layer dated 24 September 2022. This suggests that the landlord investigated and repaired the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenant claims that the repair did not last and the landlord disputes this. The landlord submitted photographs of the bathroom floor taken after she moved back into the property. No defect is apparent. The tenant claims the landlord must have fixed the problem after she moved into the property. The evidence is conflicting, and I am left uncertain about whether the defect reappeared after the carpet was relayed on 24 September 2022. I am also uncertain about when the tenant raised the issue with the landlord after 24 September 2022.
The tenant has not proven their claim in relation to the bathroom floor. Outgoings – Two fixed-line charges for power
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. See section 39(3) RTA.
The tenant claims that she was charged two fixed-line charges by her power company during the tenancy.
Both parties gave evidence that there are two power meters at the property, one upstairs and one downstairs.
Ms King gave evidence that she purchased the property with two power meters. She now lives in the property and does not intend to convert the two power meters to one single meter. Ms King claims previous tenants have not raised an issue about there being two power meters.
Ms Dutton-Govorko gave evidence that at the beginning of the tenancy she helped the tenant to organise power for the property. Ms Dutton-Govorko claims that she telephoned Contact Power and helped the tenant set up an account with them. Ms Dutton-Govorko claims she negotiated with Contact Power that the tenant would only be charged for one fixed-line. Ms Dutton-Govorko claims this conversation happened in the presence of the tenant and that the tenant subsequently changed power companies to Powershop.
The tenant does not remember the conversation Ms Dutton-Govorko claims to have had with Contact Power. The tenant claims Ms Dutton-Govorko had a telephone conversation with a third party about the cost to amalgamate the two power meters into one. The tenant claims Ms Dutton-Govroko advised her that this would cost approximately $1,200.00 and the landlord could not afford this.
The tenant accepts that they knew that the property had two power meters at the beginning of the tenancy, one upstairs and one downstairs. The tenant occupied both levels of the property during the tenancy. Therefore, I find that the two fixed line charges are an outgoing exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises and use of the facilities. The fact that the property had two power meters and therefore received two fixed-line charges does not amount to a breach of section 39(3) RTA or any other provision. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Cleaning and rubbish removal
A tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii).
I bear in mind the circumstances surrounding the end of this tenancy outlined at paragraphs [10] – [16] when considering the landlord’s claims for cleaning and rubbish removal. Cleaning
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted five photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs include close-up shots of a couple of areas in the house where it appears a small amount of dirt or dust is present. There is also a photograph of what appears to be a small amount of spillage on the kitchen floor. There are no photographs taken at a wide angle, which makes it difficult to assess the overall state of the property.
Based on the photographs provided by the landlord, I am not convinced that the tenant left the property in an unreasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord returned the bond to the tenant in full sometime in mid-July 2023. This casts doubt on the landlord’s claim that the tenant left the property in an unreasonably clean and tidy state. If this were the case, I consider it more likely that the landlord would not have agreed to refund the bond to the tenant in full.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $400.00 for cleaning is dismissed. Rubbish removal
The landlord claims that the tenant left a bin full of rubbish at the property, as well as a small amount of furniture at the end of the driveway. The landlord provided photographs of these items, as well as invoices for $143.75 and $36.90 to remove the rubbish. The landlord claims there are still some items belonging to the tenant under the deck. The landlord submitted photographs of a ball and some other miscellaneous household items under the deck.
Although the tenant left some rubbish and furniture at the property following the end of the tenancy, I do not consider it fair or reasonable to award compensation to the landlord for this. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were not expecting to move out of the property on 19 June 2023, but rather 23 June 2023, which was the date recorded in the notice. I accept that the tenant was taken by surprise when Ms Dutton-Govorko arrived at the address on 19 June 2023 and asked them to leave immediately. These background circumstances explain why the tenant might not have been able to remove all of their rubbish and furniture in time.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for rubbish removal is dismissed. Damage
With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that the damage 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 49B, 66K(2)(a) and 66L RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: a. Torn lino in the kitchen b. Marks/holes in walls c. Crack in bathroom sink d. Burn marks on the deck e. Broken toilet
I deal with each matter in turn below. Torn lino in the kitchen
The landlord provided photographs of the lino in the kitchen at the beginning of the tenancy. No damage is apparent. The landlord provided photographs of the lino in the kitchen at the end of the tenancy. Some damage is apparent.
The tenant accepts that they are responsible for the damage to the lino where their fridge used to sit. The tenant denies liability for any other damage and gave evidence that Ms King’s partner damaged the lino when replacing the stove.
Based on the evidence presented, I find that the tenant is responsible for tearing the lino in the kitchen where her fridge formally sat. The damage is relatively small. It has not been repaired and the landlord has obtained a quote.
The landlord gave evidence that the lino was installed in 2016. The landlord claims the life expectancy of lino is 20 years however, according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates, the life expectancy of lino is 10 years. The lino was 7 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the lino is granted for a nominal amount of $100.00. I consider this sum fairly reflects the size of the damage and age of the lino at the end of the tenancy. Marks to walls
The landlord claims the tenant put decal stickers on the wall without their permission. The landlord claims these stickers peeled off paint when removed. The landlord provided a photograph of the stickers and parts of the wall showing some paint missing. The landlord has not repainted the wall and did not provide a quote for the repair.
On basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I consider the damage to the wall to be minimal. The landlord did not provide evidence about the likely cost to repaint the wall. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for a nominal amount of $50.00, which I think fairly reflets the size and nature of the damage. Vanity sink
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for a crack in the vanity sink. The landlord provided a close-up photo of the sink with a crack in it. The landlord gave evidence that they have purchased and installed a new vanity at a cost of $1,800.00 and were seeking compensation from the tenant of $450.00. The landlord did not submit an invoice or any other paperwork as proof.
The landlord submitted photographs of the vanity taken at the beginning of the tenancy and during inspections. These photographs are taken at a distance, rather than close-up images like the photograph taken at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant denied intentionally or carelessly damaging the vanity and claimed the crack was fair wear and tear.
The landlord gave evidence that the sink was approximately 15 years old by the end of the tenancy. From the photographs provided by the landlord, the crack does not appear deep, nor is it large. No expert evidence was submitted about the nature of the crack. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I consider the crack to be small and more consistent with fair wear and tear, particularly considering the age of the vanity at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant damaged the vanity. Their claim for compensation is dismissed. Burn marks on the deck
The landlord claims the tenant burnt parts of the deck. The landlord submitted photographs of the deck taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which do not show any marks present. The landlord also submitted photographs of the deck taken on 22 March 2024, which show some dark marks present. The landlord claims these dark marks are burns to the deck.
The landlord seeks compensation of $320.00 to replace three boards of timber on the deck. The landlord has not repaired the deck yet and did not provide a quote to support their estimate.
The tenant denied causing burn marks to the deck.
The photographs of the deck with the dark marks were taken 9 months after the tenancy ended. Ms King was living in the property during this time. Considering the significant lapse of time between when the tenancy ended and when the photographs of the deck were taken, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the marks occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant damaged the deck. Their claim for compensation is dismissed. Toilet
The landlord claims the upstairs and downstairs toilets were replaced in 2019 and the tenant is responsible for damaging one of them. The landlord claims one of the toilets began making a noise around April 2023. The landlord gave evidence that they replaced the mechanism in the cistern, but this did not fix the issue. The landlord claims the tenant added something to the toilet, but was vague on this point. The landlord claims a plumber eventually confirmed that the seal between the cistern and pipe was extremely compressed. The landlord gave evidence that the plumber told them that this could only have occurred from something very heavy being placed on top of the toilet. The landlord invited the Tribunal to infer that the tenant must have placed something very heavy on top of the toilet and compressed the seal between the cistern and pipe.
The landlord seeks compensation of $576.57 to cover plumber fees and provided invoices for this amount.
The tenant denies damaging the toilet or placing anything heavy on it.
The landlord has not convinced me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged the toilet during the tenancy. The damage alleged is not visible from photographs and the landlord did not call the plumber as a witness to confirm the nature of the damage or how it might have occurred. The tenant denies damaging the toilet or placing anything heavy on top of it. In these circumstances, I am left uncertain about the nature of the damage, how it might have occurred and whether the tenant is responsible.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant damaged the toilet. Their claim for compensation is dismissed. Breach of tenant’s obligations – exceeding pet limit
The tenancy agreement permitted the tenant to keep two shiatzu dogs, Harry and Indy, at the address. The landlord claims the tenant kept additional pets in the property, including a cat, fish and turtles.
The tenant accepts that they fostered a cat for a period of time who had a litter of kittens under the house. The tenant also accepts that they kept fish in a fishtank and turtles at one point.
The landlord gave evidence that the house smelt badly of urine at the end of the tenancy and the carpets were in a poor state. The landlord has not had the property or carpets professionally cleaned.
I find that the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by keeping more pets than permitted however, the landlord has not convinced me on the balance of probabilities that the property was damaged as a result or that they have suffered any loss. If the property smelt very badly of urine and the carpets were in a poor state, I consider that the landlord would not have agreed to refund the bond to the tenant in full almost one month after the tenancy ended. Further, the landlord would most likely have had the property and carpets professionally cleaned shortly after moving into the property, which has not occurred.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for breach of the tenant’s obligations in keeping more than two pets is dismissed. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression and therefore, I do not order it.
The tenant requested name suppression in their written application. I consider that the tenant has been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I order that their name and identifying details be suppressed. See section 95A(1) RTA. Filing fee
Both parties have been substantially successful in their claims and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the other the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666409 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 95 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666409 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 2, 95 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions