What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4682689?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Gene Walker and Yazmin Hendrix must pay Adam Nooyen $6,017.77

How much money was awarded in case 4682689?

Cleaning: $79.99 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $993.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Showers: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,750.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $45.84 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $189.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $68.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $580.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $687.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,052.85 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $752.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in loung…: $328.90 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in two b…: $455.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,561.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $571.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10630155-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4682689?

The tribunal order states: Nathan Gene Walker and Yazmin Hendrix must pay Adam Nooyen $6,017.77

How much money was awarded in case 4682689?

Cleaning: $79.99 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $993.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Showers: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,750.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $45.84 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $189.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $68.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $580.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $687.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,052.85 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $752.50 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in loung…: $328.90 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: carpet in two b…: $455.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,561.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $571.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10630155-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Cameron Road, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4682689 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

32 Cameron Road, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4682689 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682689 — net $6,017.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,052.85		Rent arrears
Cleaning: 50	$993.75		Cleaning: 50
Pest control: 50	$189.86		Pest control: 50
Rubbish removal	$1,561.00		Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: yard	$571.98		Rubbish removal: yard
Lock/key replacement	$68.00		Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs/batteries	$45.84		Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: internal walls and doors	$752.50		Repairs: internal walls and doors
Replace furnishings: carpet in lounge	$328.90		Replace furnishings: carpet in lounge
Replace furnishings: carpet in two bedrooms	$455.50		Replace furnishings: carpet in two bedrooms
Carpet Cleaning	$79.99		Carpet Cleaning
Damaged chattels	$580.00		Damaged chattels
Repairs to gas pipes	$687.60		Repairs to gas pipes
Compensation: Loss of use of showers		$1,600.00	Loss of use of showers
Exemplary damages: Failing to comply with		$3,750.00	Failing to comply with
Total award	$11,367.77	$5,350.00
Net award	$6,017.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,017.77

Claims and awards for application 4682689 — net $6,017.77 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $5,052.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning: 50

Amount: $993.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: 50

Pest control: 50

Amount: $189.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control: 50

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,561.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Rubbish removal: yard

Amount: $571.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: yard

Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage Pest Control Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Nathan Gene Walker and Yazmin Hendrix must pay Adam Nooyen $6,017.77 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and both tenants attended three hearings held by the Tribunal.
These have been lengthy and complex proceedings after a six-year tenancy.
The tenants first applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation and fines (exemplary damages) against the landlord saying there were numerous maintenance problems with the house and that the dwelling was illegal.
The landlord then applied to terminate the tenancy because the rent was in arrears, the bond had not been paid, and alleging damage.
The parties came to an agreement in the first hearing to terminate the tenancy on Sunday 21 January 2024 and for rent to be paid up until that date.
This order is about the money claims.
The tenants seek compensation and fines (exemplary damages) saying that:- a. the landlord did not keep the premises reasonably well maintained over the 6-year tenancy, and b. did not comply with building laws.
The landlord has applied for – a. payment of rent owing, b. compensation for costs and damage after the tenancy ended, and c. compensation for loss of rent because there was a delay until the house could be rented out again due to the tenants’ breaches. Background
The landlord bought this property in 2015 and did some renovations before renting it out. He added a second toilet and shower into the laundry of the 3- bedroom house and added to an existing conversion of the detached garage into outdoor rooms.
This tenancy started on 1 December 2017. The tenants and their three young children lived in the main house and a dependent adult family member lived in one of the outdoor rooms. At times, other adult family members or friends lived in the other outdoor rooms, and sometimes with young children.
The rent of $540.00 per week was not increased during the 6-year tenancy. The tenants have not paid the $2,000.00 bond despite requests and notices of breach from the landlord.
The rent records show that the rent was in arrears for more than two-thirds of the tenancy.
Landlord inspections were infrequent and, as the tenancy was partly during the time of the covid-19 pandemic, at least two inspections were video, or virtual, inspections.
The tenants say that there were numerous problems with maintenance over the tenancy and that the landlord did not respond readily or fix things properly. In July 2021 they gave the landlord a notice of breach requiring him to remedy certain maintenance issues.
Matters escalated from August 2023 when the shower leaked into the hallway and the tenants discovered that the second bathroom and converted outdoor rooms may not have council approval or building consent.
They stopped paying rent and there was a dispute about access to get repairs done. Both parties made applications to the Tribunal.

What are the issues to be decided?

The issues to be decided are:- a. How much rent is owing by the tenants? b. Did the landlord fail to reasonably maintain the premises? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded? c. Are these unlawful residential premises? d. Has the landlord failed to comply with building laws? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded? e. Did the tenants fail to comply with their cleaning and other obligations at the end of the tenancy? f. Are the tenants liable to compensate the landlord for damage or loss to the premises or chattels? g. Should the tenants have to pay the landlord compensation for loss of rent?

How much rent is owing?

The tenants’ agreed at the first hearing that the landlord’s rent summary, showing arrears of $4,320.00 up to 3 November 2023, is correct.
The landlord provided a rent ledger calculated up to the end date of the tenancy of 21 January 2024. This proves that the amount of rent owing is $5,052.85. Did the landlord fail to reasonably maintain the premises? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded?
A landlord must provide and maintain tenancy premises in a reasonable state of repair; see section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) do not apply to this tenancy because it began before 1 July 2021. The landlord did upgrade the insulation in November 2019 and had a Healthy Homes Standards assessment done in October 2020. A heatpump was installed in July 2021.
Repairs and maintenance are a normal part of owning and living in a house. Tenants have a duty to tell landlords when repairs are needed, and a landlord will not usually be in breach unless they have taken an unreasonably long time to address issues.
If a landlord has breached their maintenance obligations, compensation for loss or detriment may be awarded. An intentional breach of duty is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants raised the following specific maintenance issues:- a. The main shower was blocked for two years, b. That the outside gutters caused flooding, c. They had no oven for months at a time, d. A hot water tap leak, e. Damage to the outside room caused by building next door, f. Leaks from the two showers, g. Gas leak from old gas heater in lounge.
The parties provided numerous emails and texts, and the landlord supplied copies of invoices from tradespeople.
After reviewing the evidence, my findings on the specific issues raised by the tenants are set out below. A blocked shower for two years: (the main shower)
The tenants did report blocked drains, and showers not draining, in March 2019, July 2021, May 2022, January 2023, and August 2023. Qualified plumbers attended on every occasion and unblocked drains, replaced various minor parts (such as shower handles and shower waste buckets) and on one occasion (in March 2023) undid the shower plumbing under the house and discovered 3 toy cars and a plastic spoon that were blocking the pipe.
I do not agree that the landlord failed in his duty. He sent tradespeople when told of a problem. On at least one occasion (the toys in the pipe), and maybe more (the plumbers note the drain being blocked from hair), the blockages may have been caused by the tenants. There is no evidence of an unremedied maintenance issue. Outside gutters causing “flooding”
The tenants raised concerns about leaking gutters on the outside room in February and August 2020, again in April 2021, and in the breach notice in July 2021.
The landlord undertook more than one fix himself and engaged plumbers on at least two occasions (replacing and relocating a downpipe in late June 2022 and a gutter (near the lean to) in March 2023).
The tenants did not supply photos to show “flooding” or water pooling. The landlord’s evidence includes a photo showing a downpipe discharging into what he says is an existing soak hole at one corner of the outside room and he acknowledges that he ran out of downpipe so did not finish one piece of work.
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to show that there was a flooding issue caused by inadequate maintenance. No oven for months at a time:
The tenants notify the landlord of problems with the oven multiple times over the tenancy.
The first repair is in May 2018, and a replacement second-hand oven is installed 4 days after problems are reported in July 2021. There is a delay of nearly two months before a thermostat is replaced in March 2022 and the repairers report problems contacting the tenants. In March 2023, the tenants again raise issues with the oven, some repairs are done, and the landlord then decides to replace the oven. He says that he later discovered that there was nothing wrong with the oven but that the timer was switched on which prevented the bake function working.
It is not proven that the landlord failed to respond to maintenance requests. I accept that the tenants were without a fully functioning oven at times but once they alerted the landlord, he took action. Hot water tap leak (main bathroom):
The evidence does not show an ongoing leak. A washer is replaced in January 2023 and the tenants notify the landlord that it is again a problem on 4 August 2023. The plumber replaces the tap handle on 14 August 2023.
It is not proven that the issue was not addressed within a reasonable time. Damage from building next door:
It is not clear from the evidence what this refers to or for how long there was any problem. No breach is proven. Leaks from the two showers from August 2023:
On 4 August 2023, the tenants notified the landlord that the main shower was “flooding”. A plumber attends on 14 August 2023, unblocks the shower drain. The plumber’s invoice notes that both showers are “leaking badly” and should be taken apart and resealed.
It is unclear whether the plumber’s recommendation to reseal the showers was communicated to the landlord. The tenants contact him again on 27 August 2023 to say that the hallway carpet is very wet. The landlord arranges for at least two contractors to inspect and assess the issues. The evidence is that the leaking from the main shower was from one or more corners of the shower tray and from the silicon join on the wall of the second shower.
The emails show high levels of conflict between the parties through this time. This may have contributed to the time taken to have the necessary repairs done. The second shower is resealed on or about 6 October 2023. The main shower is replaced over the following month. The tenants then advise of wet coming through from the new main shower into the master bedroom in early December but review by the plumber who installed it does not find a leak. The tenancy ends without this issue being resolved.
My decision is that the landlord took reasonable and prompt action to investigate and attend to the leaks from both showers once he knew about them. Nevertheless, the tenants were inconvenienced. The second shower could be used provided that water from the leak was mopped up but there was damp carpet, one shower was out of action and the stress to the family is evident in the emails. The landlord agreed to compensate the tenants and I agree that this is reasonable. I award a total of $1,600.00 assessed at $200.00 per week for the approximately 8 weeks of significant detriment. Gas leak from the old lounge heater
I record that near the end of the tenancy, a gas leak was discovered from an old gas heater that had been removed from the lounge early in the tenancy. The leak is described by the gasfitter as almost undetectable and there is no evidence that it was a safety issue. I do note that it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that all gas fittings are safe which may mean arranging regular safety tests. Summary comment on maintenance issues
Overall, I am satisfied that the landlord did respond to maintenance requests from the tenants as they arose. His communication was prompt and he engaged tradespeople to contact the tenants and come to the property. There are invoices which substantiate the work done.
There were several maintenance issues over the tenancy and some of them did recur. The tenants took the step of preparing a 14-day notice of breach in July 2021 however I am satisfied that the landlord was already responding to issues at this time and continued to do so. An email from the landlord to the tenants on 15 March 2023 included a comprehensive list of maintenance issues that had been discussed at a meeting between the parties at that time. This indicates active management.
The tenants claim their power and gas bills are higher than they should be. I do not find this to be proven. The summary they provided does not show a significant difference in usage across the tenancy and without information about the number of occupants at the property it is not possible to compare.
The last six months of the tenancy saw an escalation of problems after the showers leaked and questions about the compliance of the property.

Are these unlawful residential premises?

The tenants initially alleged that the premises were illegal (or unlawful) because they found out that the council had not been notified that the garage had been converted into outdoor rooms.
The RTA defines “unlawful residential premises” and provides a range of remedies for a tenant including being able to give 2 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy and being awarded a refund of all or some of the rent paid during the period that the premises were unlawful. See s78A RTA.
These are not unlawful residential premises, because the main 3-bedroom house is a lawful residential dwelling. Has the landlord failed to comply with building laws? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded?
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages, saying that the landlord has failed to comply with all building laws and that parts of the premises are unlawful as a result.
Landlords must comply with all relevant laws in relation to buildings, health and safety; see s45(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord has carried out the below work without a building consent:- a. The addition of a second bathroom into the main house (a new toilet and shower) and installation of a gas hot water heater, in what was previously a laundry, and b. Conversion of the detached garage into 3 rooms. The landlord says that the garage was already converted into one room when he bought the property and that he did the work to add two additional rooms.
The landlord has breached section 40 of the Building Act 2004 (BA2004) by carrying out work to install the new toilet and shower without a building consent. 1
The work the landlord did to add a ranchslider, internal walls and doors and ceiling insulation in the garage may be exempt from requiring a building consent provided it does not modify load-bearing walls or bracing elements and does not relate to a firewall; see clauses 8 – 13 of Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004.
However, the landlord has breached section 114 of the Building Act 2004 by failing to give written notice to the territorial authority (that is, the Council) of a change of use of the garage. The building was originally consented by council (in 1988) as a garage.
The purpose of the requirement to notify a change of use is so that the building authority can check whether the new use of the building will comply with the building code regarding escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance; section 115 Building Act 2004.
I find that the landlord has breached s40 BA2004 in regard to the second bathroom and s114 BA2004 in regard to the change of use of the garage to a new habitable use. 1 There is an exemption from requiring a building consent if a registered plumber does work to repair or replace existing bathroom sanitary plumbing fixtures, but the exemption does not apply if the work is to add new fixtures; see clauses 32 and 35 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004.
It is relevant that the landlord has supplied evidence that the plumbing and electrical work in the second bathroom and the outside room was done by registered tradespeople.
Electrical certificates of compliance (“COC”) have been provided for both areas of work as follows:- a. COC dated 13 April 2015: “Bathroom alteration, wired 3in1 unit into ceiling, wired 1 towel rail, 1x double point via RCD @ SW/B”; b. COC dated 13 March 2015: “Wire garage as follows: Wire 7 recessed lights, 7 double points, new splitter switchboard, 2 sensor lights”.
A Certificate of Acceptance (COA) was issued by the local council on 25 January 2024 for the second bathroom. The documents submitted include a Plumbing Pressure Test memorandum dated 16 October 2023 and “as-built” plan from the plumber who did the sanitary fixtures work. I note that the COA states that it is limited in scope and does not certify compliance with the building code as to structure, durability, internal moisture, water supply or foul water.
An invoice for the installation of the Rinnai gas hot water heater and gas pipework dated 6 March 2015 was also supplied. A Gas Safety Certificate dated 18 November 2023 confirms the pipework is safe to use.
The landlord said that the council has advised that it is not possible to obtain a COA for the building work done in the outdoor room/garage. The evidence does not disclose the reasons for this. I infer that it would not be possible for the council to certify that the alterations comply with the relevant parts of the building code. The landlord should clarify with council whether the outdoor room can be used for sleeping purposes.
The breaches of the Building Act 2004 mean the landlord has failed to comply with s45(1)(c) RTA which is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has not shown that he made enquiries as to whether a building consent was needed or took any other steps to check what was required. For this reason, I am satisfied the breaches were intentional which means it is relevant to assess whether exemplary damages should be awarded.
I am required to consider the below factors:- a. Intent: I infer that the landlord’s intent was to reduce the additional cost and time of the required regulatory steps. It is important that he did engage qualified and licensed tradespeople to do the electrical and plumbing and gas fitting work. This shows an intention to ensure work was safe and fit for purpose. b. Effect: The evidence does not show that the plumbing in the second bathroom was deficient. There is some evidence that the outdoor rooms were damp (photographs show some mould and water damage). The evidence does not link any damp issues with substandard work but without council certification and oversight, this is possible. c. Interests of the tenants: the interests of the tenants are that the landlord comply with building laws as this ensures work is safe and fit for the purpose, or use, it is being rented out for. d. Public interest: it is important as a matter of public policy that all parts of residential premises are compliant with the building code, healthy and safe.
After considering these factors, I do consider it is just to award exemplary damages. I award 50% of the maximum which is $3,750.00. There were two breaches in two significant areas of the house.
I have not awarded compensation because there is no easily quantifiable loss to the tenants from the regulatory breaches. However, I note that one of the remedies in s78A RTA (where premises as a whole are unlawful) is that usually a landlord will not be awarded compensation against a tenant (unless it would be unjust not to do so); s78(A)(3) RTA. I have decided that this is a useful principle to apply in this case.
The landlord has made compensation claims against the tenants and some of these relate to the outdoor room. The council has not confirmed that the outdoor room can be used for living in. For this reason, I have decided that I will not award compensation to the landlord for the claims related to the outdoor room. Did the tenants fail to comply with their cleaning and other obligations at the end of the tenancy?
At the end of a tenancy, a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and belongings and did not return all keys.
I address the landlord’s claims below.
Cleaning: The landlord supplied photographs taken before the tenancy started showing a clean and tidy, partly furnished house. Photographs taken the day after the tenancy ended prove that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and that extensive cleaning was needed. The tenants say that a lot of the problem was because the house was damp and mouldy and that they cleaned constantly during the tenancy. They say they gave up from about four months before the tenancy ended because of the leaks from the showers. The cleaning invoice is for $1,987.50 for the house and 3 outside rooms (3 cleaners for 26.5 hours). I award 50% of this amount which is $993.75. The tenants are not required to pay to clean or flea bomb the outdoor rooms. It also recognises that some of the main house cleaning may be related to the shower leaks. I award 50% of the cost of flea bombs and treatment for the same reasons.
Rubbish removal: The landlord provided photographs taken on the day after the tenancy ended showing a large pile of rubbish bags, mattresses, unwanted lounge and other furniture, and household items on the grass verge outside the front of the house. The invoiced cost to remove these is $1,561.00 (including labour). The tenants say that at least half of the pile is not theirs and that there is an ongoing problem with dumped rubbish in this street. The landlord found mail addressed to the tenants in the rubbish pile. I award the full amount claimed to the landlord. Tenants must remove all rubbish and belongings: they did not do so. They say some of the rubbish was already in the pile, but they did not supply photographs or any other evidence to prove this.
Yard rubbish removal: The landlord’s photos show items left behind in the back yard (a large steel frame, a 44-gallon drum full of ashes, broken furniture, glass jars and garden pots, a large pile of branches. The tenants had kept a goat in the backyard and used the garden shed as a goat house. Goat poo and grass clippings were in the shed, in at least two corners of the yard, and along a garden bed beside the outdoor room. An itemised invoice for $671.98 to remove all of the above was supplied by the landlord. I reduce this by $100.00 as this was a large section and I consider it reasonable that a landlord provides an area for tenants to dispose of grass clippings. This is $571.98.
Keys: the tenancy agreement records the tenants being given 6 keys at the start. The landlord says these were not returned. I award the invoiced cost to replace which is $68.00.
Lightbulbs: this was a long tenancy, and it is expected that tenants will replace lightbulbs as they use them. The landlord said only 3 working bulbs remained in the main house. There are receipts for replacing 2 heat lamp bulbs for the bathrooms ($21.48) and 8 LED bulbs ($48.72). I award the heat lamp replacement cost and half of the cost of the LED bulbs as it is likely that the previous bulbs were the lesser quality incandescent bulbs, so it is fair the landlord covers some of this upgrade. This is $45.84. Are the tenants liable to compensate the landlord for damage or loss to the premises or chattels?
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property.
A tenant is liable for any intentional or careless damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When working out compensation, 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. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
If a landlord has insurance that covers the type of damage done, then tenant liability can be no more than the amount of an excess for each damage event. The excess in this case is $500.00.
Repairs to walls and doors: The evidence proves careless or intentional damage during the tenancy to internal walls and doors. I award $752.50 which is the labour for the interior work ($472.50), $250.00 for paint, and $30.00 travel. The balance of the invoice relates to exterior work which was not proven as damage by the tenants or relates to the outside room. The proven damage is:- a. seven or eight medium to large sections of wallpaper torn from the wall (the tenants accept that their children were responsible for this), b. one large, plastered patch of wall that needed to be smoothed and repainted, c. one dent in a wall, d. chips and scribble on the lounge mantle, e. crayon marks on one bedroom wall, f. marks more than wear and tear on two internal and two exterior doors.
Damage to carpet: My decisions in regard to the carpet are:- a. The landlord’s photographs taken before and after the tenancy prove that the carpet in the lounge and in two bedrooms of the main house was extensively stained and worn through in a way that is more than wear and tear from normal use. This is careless damage, and the tenants are liable. b. The lounge carpet replacement cost is $1,644.50 (including GST). This carpet was more than 6 years old, so I depreciate the cost by 80%. The loss caused by the tenants is valued at $328.90. This is awarded as it is less than the insurance excess. c. The replacement cost of carpet in the two main house bedrooms is $1,821.60 (including GST) and the carpet was 6 years old. I depreciate this by 75% so the loss caused by the tenants is valued at $455.40. d. I do not award compensation for the replacement of the hallway carpet as the reported strong smell may have been due to the leaks from the showers in the last part of the tenancy. e. I do not award compensation for cleaning or replacement of carpet in the outside room/s. f. I award the cleaning invoice to test whether the carpet stains could be removed which is $79.99.
Landlord chattels damaged: The premises were provided partly furnished and a list of chattels was confirmed between the parties in an email at the start of the tenancy. The landlord claims compensation for loss and damage to some of the chattels. I list these and my decisions below:- a. 2 x tallboy drawers: the tenants put these outside in the outdoor shed which caused damage. I award $80.00 for each at second-hand value. $160.00 b. 1 x outdoor table: this was provided in a covered outdoor area but the tenants left it outside in the open. These tables have a limited life unless they are regularly oiled or stained so I do not award compensation. c. 1 x double bed: the tenants agreed to buy this at the start of the tenancy for $250.00. It was damaged when left behind. I award this amount. d. 1 x white double bed: the tenants agreed to buy this at the start of the tenancy for $120.00. It was damaged when left behind. I award this amount. e. 1 x kitchen cabinet: this was damaged and left outside at the end of the tenancy. I award $50.00.
Damage to gas hot water pipes: the landlord’s photographs and a report from the plumber and gas fitter who repaired these pipes satisfy me that these were damaged by the tenant’s goat biting the pipes. The plumber’s report states that the pipes were not leaking but that it was recommended the damaged section be replaced as the teeth marks had come close to penetrating the water and gaslines and there was potential for a leak in the future. I award the repair cost of $687.60.

Should the tenants have to pay the landlord compensation for loss of rent?

The landlord has applied for compensation for lost rent as he says that the time it took to repair and clean up the property affected his ability to quickly re-rent the premises. New tenants were found from 28 February 2024 which is just over 5 weeks after this tenancy ended.
The Tribunal does sometimes award compensation for lost rent where a property has been severely damaged or other breach by a tenant has caused a significant delay. I have not done so in this case. There were multiple factors at play and not all of these were caused by the tenants. Filing fees and suppression of names
I make no award for filing fees as both parties have been partially successful.
The Tribunal may suppress the name of a party that is wholly or substantially successful in their claims. Both parties have breached the RTA, so the public interest weighs in favour of publication. No suppression orders apply.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682689 — net $6,017.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$5,052.85		Rent arrears
Cleaning: 50	$993.75		Cleaning: 50
Pest control: 50	$189.86		Pest control: 50
Rubbish removal	$1,561.00		Rubbish removal
Rubbish removal: yard	$571.98		Rubbish removal: yard
Lock/key replacement	$68.00		Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs/batteries	$45.84		Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: internal walls and doors	$752.50		Repairs: internal walls and doors
Replace furnishings: carpet in lounge	$328.90		Replace furnishings: carpet in lounge
Replace furnishings: carpet in two bedrooms	$455.50		Replace furnishings: carpet in two bedrooms
Carpet Cleaning	$79.99		Carpet Cleaning
Damaged chattels	$580.00		Damaged chattels
Repairs to gas pipes	$687.60		Repairs to gas pipes
Compensation: Loss of use of showers		$1,600.00	Loss of use of showers
Exemplary damages: Failing to comply with		$3,750.00	Failing to comply with
Total award	$11,367.77	$5,350.00
Net award	$6,017.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,017.77

Claims and awards for application 4682689 — net $6,017.77 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $5,052.85
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning: 50

Amount: $993.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: 50

Pest control: 50

Amount: $189.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Pest control: 50

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,561.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Rubbish removal: yard

Amount: $571.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: yard

Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Property damage Pest Control Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Nathan Gene Walker and Yazmin Hendrix must pay Adam Nooyen $6,017.77 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and both tenants attended three hearings held by the Tribunal.
These have been lengthy and complex proceedings after a six-year tenancy.
The tenants first applied to the Tribunal seeking compensation and fines (exemplary damages) against the landlord saying there were numerous maintenance problems with the house and that the dwelling was illegal.
The landlord then applied to terminate the tenancy because the rent was in arrears, the bond had not been paid, and alleging damage.
The parties came to an agreement in the first hearing to terminate the tenancy on Sunday 21 January 2024 and for rent to be paid up until that date.
This order is about the money claims.
The tenants seek compensation and fines (exemplary damages) saying that:- a. the landlord did not keep the premises reasonably well maintained over the 6-year tenancy, and b. did not comply with building laws.
The landlord has applied for – a. payment of rent owing, b. compensation for costs and damage after the tenancy ended, and c. compensation for loss of rent because there was a delay until the house could be rented out again due to the tenants’ breaches. Background
The landlord bought this property in 2015 and did some renovations before renting it out. He added a second toilet and shower into the laundry of the 3- bedroom house and added to an existing conversion of the detached garage into outdoor rooms.
This tenancy started on 1 December 2017. The tenants and their three young children lived in the main house and a dependent adult family member lived in one of the outdoor rooms. At times, other adult family members or friends lived in the other outdoor rooms, and sometimes with young children.
The rent of $540.00 per week was not increased during the 6-year tenancy. The tenants have not paid the $2,000.00 bond despite requests and notices of breach from the landlord.
The rent records show that the rent was in arrears for more than two-thirds of the tenancy.
Landlord inspections were infrequent and, as the tenancy was partly during the time of the covid-19 pandemic, at least two inspections were video, or virtual, inspections.
The tenants say that there were numerous problems with maintenance over the tenancy and that the landlord did not respond readily or fix things properly. In July 2021 they gave the landlord a notice of breach requiring him to remedy certain maintenance issues.
Matters escalated from August 2023 when the shower leaked into the hallway and the tenants discovered that the second bathroom and converted outdoor rooms may not have council approval or building consent.
They stopped paying rent and there was a dispute about access to get repairs done. Both parties made applications to the Tribunal.

What are the issues to be decided?

The issues to be decided are:- a. How much rent is owing by the tenants? b. Did the landlord fail to reasonably maintain the premises? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded? c. Are these unlawful residential premises? d. Has the landlord failed to comply with building laws? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded? e. Did the tenants fail to comply with their cleaning and other obligations at the end of the tenancy? f. Are the tenants liable to compensate the landlord for damage or loss to the premises or chattels? g. Should the tenants have to pay the landlord compensation for loss of rent?

How much rent is owing?

The tenants’ agreed at the first hearing that the landlord’s rent summary, showing arrears of $4,320.00 up to 3 November 2023, is correct.
The landlord provided a rent ledger calculated up to the end date of the tenancy of 21 January 2024. This proves that the amount of rent owing is $5,052.85. Did the landlord fail to reasonably maintain the premises? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded?
A landlord must provide and maintain tenancy premises in a reasonable state of repair; see section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) do not apply to this tenancy because it began before 1 July 2021. The landlord did upgrade the insulation in November 2019 and had a Healthy Homes Standards assessment done in October 2020. A heatpump was installed in July 2021.
Repairs and maintenance are a normal part of owning and living in a house. Tenants have a duty to tell landlords when repairs are needed, and a landlord will not usually be in breach unless they have taken an unreasonably long time to address issues.
If a landlord has breached their maintenance obligations, compensation for loss or detriment may be awarded. An intentional breach of duty is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants raised the following specific maintenance issues:- a. The main shower was blocked for two years, b. That the outside gutters caused flooding, c. They had no oven for months at a time, d. A hot water tap leak, e. Damage to the outside room caused by building next door, f. Leaks from the two showers, g. Gas leak from old gas heater in lounge.
The parties provided numerous emails and texts, and the landlord supplied copies of invoices from tradespeople.
After reviewing the evidence, my findings on the specific issues raised by the tenants are set out below. A blocked shower for two years: (the main shower)
The tenants did report blocked drains, and showers not draining, in March 2019, July 2021, May 2022, January 2023, and August 2023. Qualified plumbers attended on every occasion and unblocked drains, replaced various minor parts (such as shower handles and shower waste buckets) and on one occasion (in March 2023) undid the shower plumbing under the house and discovered 3 toy cars and a plastic spoon that were blocking the pipe.
I do not agree that the landlord failed in his duty. He sent tradespeople when told of a problem. On at least one occasion (the toys in the pipe), and maybe more (the plumbers note the drain being blocked from hair), the blockages may have been caused by the tenants. There is no evidence of an unremedied maintenance issue. Outside gutters causing “flooding”
The tenants raised concerns about leaking gutters on the outside room in February and August 2020, again in April 2021, and in the breach notice in July 2021.
The landlord undertook more than one fix himself and engaged plumbers on at least two occasions (replacing and relocating a downpipe in late June 2022 and a gutter (near the lean to) in March 2023).
The tenants did not supply photos to show “flooding” or water pooling. The landlord’s evidence includes a photo showing a downpipe discharging into what he says is an existing soak hole at one corner of the outside room and he acknowledges that he ran out of downpipe so did not finish one piece of work.
Overall, the evidence is insufficient to show that there was a flooding issue caused by inadequate maintenance. No oven for months at a time:
The tenants notify the landlord of problems with the oven multiple times over the tenancy.
The first repair is in May 2018, and a replacement second-hand oven is installed 4 days after problems are reported in July 2021. There is a delay of nearly two months before a thermostat is replaced in March 2022 and the repairers report problems contacting the tenants. In March 2023, the tenants again raise issues with the oven, some repairs are done, and the landlord then decides to replace the oven. He says that he later discovered that there was nothing wrong with the oven but that the timer was switched on which prevented the bake function working.
It is not proven that the landlord failed to respond to maintenance requests. I accept that the tenants were without a fully functioning oven at times but once they alerted the landlord, he took action. Hot water tap leak (main bathroom):
The evidence does not show an ongoing leak. A washer is replaced in January 2023 and the tenants notify the landlord that it is again a problem on 4 August 2023. The plumber replaces the tap handle on 14 August 2023.
It is not proven that the issue was not addressed within a reasonable time. Damage from building next door:
It is not clear from the evidence what this refers to or for how long there was any problem. No breach is proven. Leaks from the two showers from August 2023:
On 4 August 2023, the tenants notified the landlord that the main shower was “flooding”. A plumber attends on 14 August 2023, unblocks the shower drain. The plumber’s invoice notes that both showers are “leaking badly” and should be taken apart and resealed.
It is unclear whether the plumber’s recommendation to reseal the showers was communicated to the landlord. The tenants contact him again on 27 August 2023 to say that the hallway carpet is very wet. The landlord arranges for at least two contractors to inspect and assess the issues. The evidence is that the leaking from the main shower was from one or more corners of the shower tray and from the silicon join on the wall of the second shower.
The emails show high levels of conflict between the parties through this time. This may have contributed to the time taken to have the necessary repairs done. The second shower is resealed on or about 6 October 2023. The main shower is replaced over the following month. The tenants then advise of wet coming through from the new main shower into the master bedroom in early December but review by the plumber who installed it does not find a leak. The tenancy ends without this issue being resolved.
My decision is that the landlord took reasonable and prompt action to investigate and attend to the leaks from both showers once he knew about them. Nevertheless, the tenants were inconvenienced. The second shower could be used provided that water from the leak was mopped up but there was damp carpet, one shower was out of action and the stress to the family is evident in the emails. The landlord agreed to compensate the tenants and I agree that this is reasonable. I award a total of $1,600.00 assessed at $200.00 per week for the approximately 8 weeks of significant detriment. Gas leak from the old lounge heater
I record that near the end of the tenancy, a gas leak was discovered from an old gas heater that had been removed from the lounge early in the tenancy. The leak is described by the gasfitter as almost undetectable and there is no evidence that it was a safety issue. I do note that it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that all gas fittings are safe which may mean arranging regular safety tests. Summary comment on maintenance issues
Overall, I am satisfied that the landlord did respond to maintenance requests from the tenants as they arose. His communication was prompt and he engaged tradespeople to contact the tenants and come to the property. There are invoices which substantiate the work done.
There were several maintenance issues over the tenancy and some of them did recur. The tenants took the step of preparing a 14-day notice of breach in July 2021 however I am satisfied that the landlord was already responding to issues at this time and continued to do so. An email from the landlord to the tenants on 15 March 2023 included a comprehensive list of maintenance issues that had been discussed at a meeting between the parties at that time. This indicates active management.
The tenants claim their power and gas bills are higher than they should be. I do not find this to be proven. The summary they provided does not show a significant difference in usage across the tenancy and without information about the number of occupants at the property it is not possible to compare.
The last six months of the tenancy saw an escalation of problems after the showers leaked and questions about the compliance of the property.

Are these unlawful residential premises?

The tenants initially alleged that the premises were illegal (or unlawful) because they found out that the council had not been notified that the garage had been converted into outdoor rooms.
The RTA defines “unlawful residential premises” and provides a range of remedies for a tenant including being able to give 2 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy and being awarded a refund of all or some of the rent paid during the period that the premises were unlawful. See s78A RTA.
These are not unlawful residential premises, because the main 3-bedroom house is a lawful residential dwelling. Has the landlord failed to comply with building laws? If so, should compensation or a fine be awarded?
The tenants have applied for exemplary damages, saying that the landlord has failed to comply with all building laws and that parts of the premises are unlawful as a result.
Landlords must comply with all relevant laws in relation to buildings, health and safety; see s45(1)(c) RTA.
The landlord has carried out the below work without a building consent:- a. The addition of a second bathroom into the main house (a new toilet and shower) and installation of a gas hot water heater, in what was previously a laundry, and b. Conversion of the detached garage into 3 rooms. The landlord says that the garage was already converted into one room when he bought the property and that he did the work to add two additional rooms.
The landlord has breached section 40 of the Building Act 2004 (BA2004) by carrying out work to install the new toilet and shower without a building consent. 1
The work the landlord did to add a ranchslider, internal walls and doors and ceiling insulation in the garage may be exempt from requiring a building consent provided it does not modify load-bearing walls or bracing elements and does not relate to a firewall; see clauses 8 – 13 of Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004.
However, the landlord has breached section 114 of the Building Act 2004 by failing to give written notice to the territorial authority (that is, the Council) of a change of use of the garage. The building was originally consented by council (in 1988) as a garage.
The purpose of the requirement to notify a change of use is so that the building authority can check whether the new use of the building will comply with the building code regarding escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance; section 115 Building Act 2004.
I find that the landlord has breached s40 BA2004 in regard to the second bathroom and s114 BA2004 in regard to the change of use of the garage to a new habitable use. 1 There is an exemption from requiring a building consent if a registered plumber does work to repair or replace existing bathroom sanitary plumbing fixtures, but the exemption does not apply if the work is to add new fixtures; see clauses 32 and 35 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004.
It is relevant that the landlord has supplied evidence that the plumbing and electrical work in the second bathroom and the outside room was done by registered tradespeople.
Electrical certificates of compliance (“COC”) have been provided for both areas of work as follows:- a. COC dated 13 April 2015: “Bathroom alteration, wired 3in1 unit into ceiling, wired 1 towel rail, 1x double point via RCD @ SW/B”; b. COC dated 13 March 2015: “Wire garage as follows: Wire 7 recessed lights, 7 double points, new splitter switchboard, 2 sensor lights”.
A Certificate of Acceptance (COA) was issued by the local council on 25 January 2024 for the second bathroom. The documents submitted include a Plumbing Pressure Test memorandum dated 16 October 2023 and “as-built” plan from the plumber who did the sanitary fixtures work. I note that the COA states that it is limited in scope and does not certify compliance with the building code as to structure, durability, internal moisture, water supply or foul water.
An invoice for the installation of the Rinnai gas hot water heater and gas pipework dated 6 March 2015 was also supplied. A Gas Safety Certificate dated 18 November 2023 confirms the pipework is safe to use.
The landlord said that the council has advised that it is not possible to obtain a COA for the building work done in the outdoor room/garage. The evidence does not disclose the reasons for this. I infer that it would not be possible for the council to certify that the alterations comply with the relevant parts of the building code. The landlord should clarify with council whether the outdoor room can be used for sleeping purposes.
The breaches of the Building Act 2004 mean the landlord has failed to comply with s45(1)(c) RTA which is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has not shown that he made enquiries as to whether a building consent was needed or took any other steps to check what was required. For this reason, I am satisfied the breaches were intentional which means it is relevant to assess whether exemplary damages should be awarded.
I am required to consider the below factors:- a. Intent: I infer that the landlord’s intent was to reduce the additional cost and time of the required regulatory steps. It is important that he did engage qualified and licensed tradespeople to do the electrical and plumbing and gas fitting work. This shows an intention to ensure work was safe and fit for purpose. b. Effect: The evidence does not show that the plumbing in the second bathroom was deficient. There is some evidence that the outdoor rooms were damp (photographs show some mould and water damage). The evidence does not link any damp issues with substandard work but without council certification and oversight, this is possible. c. Interests of the tenants: the interests of the tenants are that the landlord comply with building laws as this ensures work is safe and fit for the purpose, or use, it is being rented out for. d. Public interest: it is important as a matter of public policy that all parts of residential premises are compliant with the building code, healthy and safe.
After considering these factors, I do consider it is just to award exemplary damages. I award 50% of the maximum which is $3,750.00. There were two breaches in two significant areas of the house.
I have not awarded compensation because there is no easily quantifiable loss to the tenants from the regulatory breaches. However, I note that one of the remedies in s78A RTA (where premises as a whole are unlawful) is that usually a landlord will not be awarded compensation against a tenant (unless it would be unjust not to do so); s78(A)(3) RTA. I have decided that this is a useful principle to apply in this case.
The landlord has made compensation claims against the tenants and some of these relate to the outdoor room. The council has not confirmed that the outdoor room can be used for living in. For this reason, I have decided that I will not award compensation to the landlord for the claims related to the outdoor room. Did the tenants fail to comply with their cleaning and other obligations at the end of the tenancy?
At the end of a tenancy, a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and belongings and did not return all keys.
I address the landlord’s claims below.
Cleaning: The landlord supplied photographs taken before the tenancy started showing a clean and tidy, partly furnished house. Photographs taken the day after the tenancy ended prove that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, and that extensive cleaning was needed. The tenants say that a lot of the problem was because the house was damp and mouldy and that they cleaned constantly during the tenancy. They say they gave up from about four months before the tenancy ended because of the leaks from the showers. The cleaning invoice is for $1,987.50 for the house and 3 outside rooms (3 cleaners for 26.5 hours). I award 50% of this amount which is $993.75. The tenants are not required to pay to clean or flea bomb the outdoor rooms. It also recognises that some of the main house cleaning may be related to the shower leaks. I award 50% of the cost of flea bombs and treatment for the same reasons.
Rubbish removal: The landlord provided photographs taken on the day after the tenancy ended showing a large pile of rubbish bags, mattresses, unwanted lounge and other furniture, and household items on the grass verge outside the front of the house. The invoiced cost to remove these is $1,561.00 (including labour). The tenants say that at least half of the pile is not theirs and that there is an ongoing problem with dumped rubbish in this street. The landlord found mail addressed to the tenants in the rubbish pile. I award the full amount claimed to the landlord. Tenants must remove all rubbish and belongings: they did not do so. They say some of the rubbish was already in the pile, but they did not supply photographs or any other evidence to prove this.
Yard rubbish removal: The landlord’s photos show items left behind in the back yard (a large steel frame, a 44-gallon drum full of ashes, broken furniture, glass jars and garden pots, a large pile of branches. The tenants had kept a goat in the backyard and used the garden shed as a goat house. Goat poo and grass clippings were in the shed, in at least two corners of the yard, and along a garden bed beside the outdoor room. An itemised invoice for $671.98 to remove all of the above was supplied by the landlord. I reduce this by $100.00 as this was a large section and I consider it reasonable that a landlord provides an area for tenants to dispose of grass clippings. This is $571.98.
Keys: the tenancy agreement records the tenants being given 6 keys at the start. The landlord says these were not returned. I award the invoiced cost to replace which is $68.00.
Lightbulbs: this was a long tenancy, and it is expected that tenants will replace lightbulbs as they use them. The landlord said only 3 working bulbs remained in the main house. There are receipts for replacing 2 heat lamp bulbs for the bathrooms ($21.48) and 8 LED bulbs ($48.72). I award the heat lamp replacement cost and half of the cost of the LED bulbs as it is likely that the previous bulbs were the lesser quality incandescent bulbs, so it is fair the landlord covers some of this upgrade. This is $45.84. Are the tenants liable to compensate the landlord for damage or loss to the premises or chattels?
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property.
A tenant is liable for any intentional or careless damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When working out compensation, 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. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
If a landlord has insurance that covers the type of damage done, then tenant liability can be no more than the amount of an excess for each damage event. The excess in this case is $500.00.
Repairs to walls and doors: The evidence proves careless or intentional damage during the tenancy to internal walls and doors. I award $752.50 which is the labour for the interior work ($472.50), $250.00 for paint, and $30.00 travel. The balance of the invoice relates to exterior work which was not proven as damage by the tenants or relates to the outside room. The proven damage is:- a. seven or eight medium to large sections of wallpaper torn from the wall (the tenants accept that their children were responsible for this), b. one large, plastered patch of wall that needed to be smoothed and repainted, c. one dent in a wall, d. chips and scribble on the lounge mantle, e. crayon marks on one bedroom wall, f. marks more than wear and tear on two internal and two exterior doors.
Damage to carpet: My decisions in regard to the carpet are:- a. The landlord’s photographs taken before and after the tenancy prove that the carpet in the lounge and in two bedrooms of the main house was extensively stained and worn through in a way that is more than wear and tear from normal use. This is careless damage, and the tenants are liable. b. The lounge carpet replacement cost is $1,644.50 (including GST). This carpet was more than 6 years old, so I depreciate the cost by 80%. The loss caused by the tenants is valued at $328.90. This is awarded as it is less than the insurance excess. c. The replacement cost of carpet in the two main house bedrooms is $1,821.60 (including GST) and the carpet was 6 years old. I depreciate this by 75% so the loss caused by the tenants is valued at $455.40. d. I do not award compensation for the replacement of the hallway carpet as the reported strong smell may have been due to the leaks from the showers in the last part of the tenancy. e. I do not award compensation for cleaning or replacement of carpet in the outside room/s. f. I award the cleaning invoice to test whether the carpet stains could be removed which is $79.99.
Landlord chattels damaged: The premises were provided partly furnished and a list of chattels was confirmed between the parties in an email at the start of the tenancy. The landlord claims compensation for loss and damage to some of the chattels. I list these and my decisions below:- a. 2 x tallboy drawers: the tenants put these outside in the outdoor shed which caused damage. I award $80.00 for each at second-hand value. $160.00 b. 1 x outdoor table: this was provided in a covered outdoor area but the tenants left it outside in the open. These tables have a limited life unless they are regularly oiled or stained so I do not award compensation. c. 1 x double bed: the tenants agreed to buy this at the start of the tenancy for $250.00. It was damaged when left behind. I award this amount. d. 1 x white double bed: the tenants agreed to buy this at the start of the tenancy for $120.00. It was damaged when left behind. I award this amount. e. 1 x kitchen cabinet: this was damaged and left outside at the end of the tenancy. I award $50.00.
Damage to gas hot water pipes: the landlord’s photographs and a report from the plumber and gas fitter who repaired these pipes satisfy me that these were damaged by the tenant’s goat biting the pipes. The plumber’s report states that the pipes were not leaking but that it was recommended the damaged section be replaced as the teeth marks had come close to penetrating the water and gaslines and there was potential for a leak in the future. I award the repair cost of $687.60.

Should the tenants have to pay the landlord compensation for loss of rent?

The landlord has applied for compensation for lost rent as he says that the time it took to repair and clean up the property affected his ability to quickly re-rent the premises. New tenants were found from 28 February 2024 which is just over 5 weeks after this tenancy ended.
The Tribunal does sometimes award compensation for lost rent where a property has been severely damaged or other breach by a tenant has caused a significant delay. I have not done so in this case. There were multiple factors at play and not all of these were caused by the tenants. Filing fees and suppression of names
I make no award for filing fees as both parties have been partially successful.
The Tribunal may suppress the name of a party that is wholly or substantially successful in their claims. Both parties have breached the RTA, so the public interest weighs in favour of publication. No suppression orders apply.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682689 — Rent arrears at 32 Cameron Road, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682689 — Rent arrears at 32 Cameron Road, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the issues to be decided?

How much rent is owing?

Are these unlawful residential premises?

Should the tenants have to pay the landlord compensation for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the issues to be decided?

How much rent is owing?

Are these unlawful residential premises?

Should the tenants have to pay the landlord compensation for loss of rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions