How much money was awarded in case 4690992?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Glass: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690992?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9874810-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4690992?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Glass: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690992?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9874810-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

87B Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4690992 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4690992?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4690992 — net $1,227.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Broken glass	$207.00	Repairs: Broken glass
Lawns and Garden work	$1,000.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.44

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Lisa Jane Roimata Huntley to pay City Space Realty Limited $1,227.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,227.44 (5971913-001) to City Space Realty Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $122.56 (5971913-001) to Lisa Jane Roimata Huntley immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for compensation for her wardrobe and belongings having been ruined by mould, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord made a cross-application for compensation for window damage and lawns and garden work, rubbish removal, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

I deal with the tenant’s application first.

Is the landlord responsible for the mould damage?

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and provide the premises free from dampness and mould.

The tenancy began on 15 th September 2014 and ended on 3 rd October 2023.

The tenant said that she had raised issues before regarding the mould with the previous property managers from City Space Realty Limited but unfortunately did not have any records due to her changing phones and not having access to her old email account.

The tenant said that the landlord had sent professional mould cleaners in 2016 and 2017 to deal with the mould but then after that the tenant was left on her own to clean them.

The landlord accepted that there had been moisture issues in the past but said that they had been addressed since the house became compliant with Healthy Homes Standards in late 2020.

Both the landlord and the tenant are responsible for managing mould. If the mould issue is due to structural issues or due to the gutters not being maintained, then it is the landlord’s fault.

In this case, the tenant was unable to produce any evidence to say that the mould issue was a result of the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises or that it was a structural issue.

The standing wardrobe and the internal wardrobe were in a corner that may not have been getting enough ventilation.

The inspection photos did not show obvious moisture issues with the house itself.

Therefore, I do not find that the tenant has proven her claim to civil standard of proof. The tenant’ application is dismissed. Compensation for broken glass and lawn and garden work

Having considered the tenant’s application, now I turn to the landlord’s cross- application.

The landlord claimed $207.00 for a broken windowpane and $2,760.00 for the tenant not leaving the lawns and garden reasonably clean and tidy and not removing all rubbish.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, See section 40(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not dispute $207.00 for the broken windowpane but said that the grass had not been mowed at the beginning of the tenancy and that $2,760.00 was too much for the lawns, garden and rubbish removal required.

Having seen the photos of the grass and lawns from the beginning of the tenancy, I agree that the grass had not been mowed at the beginning.

However, I find that the final state of the lawns and garden were much worse than how it was at the beginning of the tenancy. I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord’s figure of $2,760.00 was from a single quote that had been obtained by the landlord through messaging someone. I am not satisfied that it was a reasonable figure. I am aware that the landlord had to reduce the price of his house sale by $3,000.00 to the purchaser. However, I am not satisfied that the work could not have been done any cheaper.

Having considered the photos and the state of the garden including the rubbish, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $1,000.00 for compensation for lawns, garden work and rubbish removal.

Because the landlord had substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

As there were no valid grounds for any suppression and none was sought by the landlord, I make no orders suppressing this decision.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4690992 — net $1,227.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Broken glass	$207.00	Repairs: Broken glass
Lawns and Garden work	$1,000.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Lisa Jane Roimata Huntley to pay City Space Realty Limited $1,227.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,227.44 (5971913-001) to City Space Realty Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $122.56 (5971913-001) to Lisa Jane Roimata Huntley immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for compensation for her wardrobe and belongings having been ruined by mould, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross-application for compensation for window damage and lawns and garden work, rubbish removal, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I deal with the tenant’s application first.

Is the landlord responsible for the mould damage?

Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and provide the premises free from dampness and mould.
The tenancy began on 15 th September 2014 and ended on 3 rd October 2023.
The tenant said that she had raised issues before regarding the mould with the previous property managers from City Space Realty Limited but unfortunately did not have any records due to her changing phones and not having access to her old email account.
The tenant said that the landlord had sent professional mould cleaners in 2016 and 2017 to deal with the mould but then after that the tenant was left on her own to clean them.
The landlord accepted that there had been moisture issues in the past but said that they had been addressed since the house became compliant with Healthy Homes Standards in late 2020.
Both the landlord and the tenant are responsible for managing mould. If the mould issue is due to structural issues or due to the gutters not being maintained, then it is the landlord’s fault.
In this case, the tenant was unable to produce any evidence to say that the mould issue was a result of the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises or that it was a structural issue.
The standing wardrobe and the internal wardrobe were in a corner that may not have been getting enough ventilation.
The inspection photos did not show obvious moisture issues with the house itself.
Therefore, I do not find that the tenant has proven her claim to civil standard of proof. The tenant’ application is dismissed. Compensation for broken glass and lawn and garden work
Having considered the tenant’s application, now I turn to the landlord’s cross- application.
The landlord claimed $207.00 for a broken windowpane and $2,760.00 for the tenant not leaving the lawns and garden reasonably clean and tidy and not removing all rubbish.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, See section 40(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not dispute $207.00 for the broken windowpane but said that the grass had not been mowed at the beginning of the tenancy and that $2,760.00 was too much for the lawns, garden and rubbish removal required.
Having seen the photos of the grass and lawns from the beginning of the tenancy, I agree that the grass had not been mowed at the beginning.
However, I find that the final state of the lawns and garden were much worse than how it was at the beginning of the tenancy. I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s figure of $2,760.00 was from a single quote that had been obtained by the landlord through messaging someone. I am not satisfied that it was a reasonable figure. I am aware that the landlord had to reduce the price of his house sale by $3,000.00 to the purchaser. However, I am not satisfied that the work could not have been done any cheaper.
Having considered the photos and the state of the garden including the rubbish, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $1,000.00 for compensation for lawns, garden work and rubbish removal.
Because the landlord had substantially succeeded with the claim, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.
As there were no valid grounds for any suppression and none was sought by the landlord, I make no orders suppressing this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690992 — Property damage at 87B Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690992 — Property damage at 87B Edmonton Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord responsible for the mould damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord responsible for the mould damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions