What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4707110 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $3,419.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4707110?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707110?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10601865-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4707110 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $3,419.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4707110?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707110?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10601865-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707110 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707110 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $3,419.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,419.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $181.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $3,419.00 [The tenant/s]: $181.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference on 26 April 2024 and 1 July 2024.
The parties entered in to a one-year fixed term tenancy to end on 4 April 2024.
The tenants moved out early in October 2023.
The landlord has applied for bond refund, rent arrears to 14 November 2023, compensation for damage to carpet and walls and compensation for rubbish removal.
The tenants have applied for bond refund, reduction of the fixed term tenancy, reimbursement of the cost of filling the water tank and claim compensation for breaches by the landlord for failure to provide smoke alarms, leaks at the premises and failure to maintain.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy to end on 4 April 2024.
The tenants vacated the premises on or about 10 October 2023.
The landlord seeks rent up to the date of new tenants moving into the premises. He seeks rent to 14 November 2023 in the sum of $6750 and has provided a rent summary proving this amount.
The tenants stated that for affordability reasons they sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
A fixed term tenancy can be ended early either by agreement of the parties or by order of the Tribunal.
When the Tribunal orders a release from a fixed term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) the Tribunal may order that the party seeking to be released pay the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss which would result from the release. It is not unusual for the Tribunal to consider rent loss as a result of the release.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord agreed to an early release from the fixed term and refer to text communication that took place on 2 October 2023 which is recorded as follows: Tenant – “Hi [The property manager/s] to affordability reasons sadly we have to move out we should be out this weekend we are happy to sign the 2 weeks rent from the bond” Property Manager – “[The tenant/s]. I believe it is 4 weeks notice. Let me confirm.” Tenant – “[The property manager/s] you advised me that if we need to move out due to not being able to pay you advised that we can just move you must honour your word” Property Manager – “[The tenant/s]. That’s was last time” (stet)
The tenants claim that the above communication means that they could move out immediately and pay nothing more than the two weeks arrears due at the time.
The landlord agrees that the tenants were released from completing the fixed term but seeks rent up until new tenants moved in.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord agreed to an early release from the tenancy but did not waive their right to seek compensation for lost rent.
The invoice for carpet replacement is dated 5 November 2023. The landlord advised that he had taken possession of the property at this time. As the landlord took possession and commenced extensive maintenance work at the premises, I order the tenants to pay rent to 4 November 2023 in the sum of $5850.00.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not remove all rubbish.
The amount of $159.00 for rubbish removal is proved and ordered. A further amount sought by the landlord was not proved and has not been ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to carpet: (a) The landlord claimed that the tenants damaged the carpet during the tenancy and that there were stains that could not be removed requiring full replacement of the carpet. (b) The tenants disputed liability for carpet replacement and claimed that the carpet was already old and damaged before the tenancy commenced. They stated it was water damaged form the flooding and had cuts in it. There were plans to replace the carpet at the beginning of their tenancy which was not done. (c) Both parties agreed that prior to this tenancy there was a flood at the premises due to a hot water cylinder. (d) The landlord claimed that the carpet was in good condition prior to this tenancy and provided photographs. The tenants dispute when these photos were taken. I note the dispute regarding the photographs but this is not material to my decision. (e) I have considered the evidence and for the following reasons I find that the tenants are not liable for carpet replacement at the premises: i. There is written communication early in this tenancy regarding the carpet. A copy of a quote from [H Ltd] dated 14 March 2023 was provided which quoted to replace the upstairs bedroom carpet and downstairs lounge. The quote refers to the carpet being water damaged. This carpet replacement did not take place. ii. [K Ltd] were contracted to do flood remedy work to the carpet. On 5 July 2023 [K Ltd] sent an email stating “the front entrance carpet needs replacing”. The landlord stated this was not done as the insurance company considered it was not necessary. iii. The landlord has not provided evidence of the age of the carpet. However, it is agreed that it is aged and at least five years old. The IRD depreciation for carpet in rental properties is five years. iv. Although some further damage to the carpet may have occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are liable for carpet replacement due to the age of the carpet, some pre tenancy damage and the plans to replace it prior to this tenancy commencing.
Damage to Walls – The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the wallpaper in the premises. Photographs were provided. The tenants dispute the claim on the basis that the wallpaper was old and had existing damage. Having considered the photographs I find that the wallpaper was aged and peeling and with the exception of one tear in the hallway the damage is fair wear and tear. I will not order reimbursement of the full costs due to the age and condition of the wallpaper but will order the tenants to pay $200.00 towards the cost of the hallway tear. Did the landlord fail to provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water as there is no reticulated supply?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
This property is on tank water.
The tenants seek reimbursement for the cost of two water trucks totalling $790.00.
The tenants stated that there was a lot of rain when they first moved into the premises, but water was not getting in to the water tank as it was pouring over the guttering. The tenants paid for a fill of their water tank as there was insufficient water.
The landlord came to check the tank and noticed cracks in the tank and arranged someone to repair it. The contractor emptied the tank but the owner refused to refill the tank.
The tenants have provided invoices for the water. The tenants claim that if the tank system had been working properly and had not been emptied by the contractor there should have been no water cost to them.
It is the responsibility of the landlord to provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord breached this obligation by failing to maintain the tank and as a result there was cost to the tenants. The landlord is ordered to reimburse the amount of $790.00 to the tenants.

Did the landlord fail to provide smoke alarms?

Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
The tenants claim that there were no smoke alarms at the premises and provided photographs of empty holders taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord disputed this and claimed that smoke alarms were provided and that the tenants did not raise this issue during the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement records that smoke alarms were provided.
Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that no smoke alarms were provided at the beginning of this tenancy. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In particular they claim that the landlord failed to remedy leak issues in a timely manner and that the premises were damp and mouldy.
It is important to clarify that there are two leak issues at the premises.
The first leak was the hot water cylinder which burst prior to this tenancy commencing. Although the cylinder had been repaired the tenant claimed that the repairs to the damage it caused had not been completed prior to this tenancy commencing and that there were ongoing issues with this that impacted their enjoyment of the premises.
The second leak occurred during the tenancy upstairs and also affected the downstairs. The tenants provided photographs of damp and mouldy looking patches in an alcove in the bedroom and claimed that this was not repaired during the entire tenancy. They stated that at one stage the water was dripping through the lounge ceiling and it took 2 -3 weeks to fix. Photographs of the lounge ceiling, bedroom alcove ceiling, wet particle board and rotten window sill showing water damage were provided.
The tenants stated that one room of the house was unusable for at least a month while the roofer came multiple times.
The tenants also claimed that there were ongoing issues with the gutters overflowing due to not being cleared. A copy of a text dated 3 April 2023 offering to do the work for gutter cleaning, repairing downpipe and waterblasting the outside of the house was provided. This quote was not accepted by the landlord and the work was still not done by the end of the tenancy.
The landlord responded that the tenants were told about the ongoing leak when they viewed the premises and told it would be repaired. The landlord stated that the leak was confined to the living room and bedroom above and the tenants were not occupying that particular room. The landlord stated that the leak was “finally fixed after a few times”. The damage to the living room ceiling was not repaired because it was not structural.
A landlord has an obligation to remedy maintenance issues in a reasonable time. It is not sufficient to say that the tenants knew of the problem prior to the tenancy commencing the obligation to repair remains. Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the landlord did not provide and maintain these premises in a reasonable state of repair due to the ongoing unresolved leak issues and the failure to do repairs to the water damaged areas once the leak was fixed.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
Rather than out of pocket expenses the Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and health effects of living in property with ongoing leak issues. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest. I find that the delay in repairing the leaks and the failure to remedy the damage to the bedroom affected the tenant’s use of and enjoyment of the premises and rendered one room unusable for periods of time during the tenancy. Having considered the evidence and the combined maintenance issues I find that a lump sum award of compensation is appropriate and order the amount of $1800.00 in compensation which amounts to $300.00 per month for the six month tenancy. Suppression/Filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have had some success with their applications. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of both parties’ details.
As both parties have has some success with their applications I make no order for reimbursement of either filing fee.

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $3,419.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,419.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $181.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $3,419.00 [The tenant/s]: $181.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference on 26 April 2024 and 1 July 2024.
The parties entered in to a one-year fixed term tenancy to end on 4 April 2024.
The tenants moved out early in October 2023.
The landlord has applied for bond refund, rent arrears to 14 November 2023, compensation for damage to carpet and walls and compensation for rubbish removal.
The tenants have applied for bond refund, reduction of the fixed term tenancy, reimbursement of the cost of filling the water tank and claim compensation for breaches by the landlord for failure to provide smoke alarms, leaks at the premises and failure to maintain.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy to end on 4 April 2024.
The tenants vacated the premises on or about 10 October 2023.
The landlord seeks rent up to the date of new tenants moving into the premises. He seeks rent to 14 November 2023 in the sum of $6750 and has provided a rent summary proving this amount.
The tenants stated that for affordability reasons they sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
A fixed term tenancy can be ended early either by agreement of the parties or by order of the Tribunal.
When the Tribunal orders a release from a fixed term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) the Tribunal may order that the party seeking to be released pay the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss which would result from the release. It is not unusual for the Tribunal to consider rent loss as a result of the release.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord agreed to an early release from the fixed term and refer to text communication that took place on 2 October 2023 which is recorded as follows: Tenant – “Hi [The property manager/s] to affordability reasons sadly we have to move out we should be out this weekend we are happy to sign the 2 weeks rent from the bond” Property Manager – “[The tenant/s]. I believe it is 4 weeks notice. Let me confirm.” Tenant – “[The property manager/s] you advised me that if we need to move out due to not being able to pay you advised that we can just move you must honour your word” Property Manager – “[The tenant/s]. That’s was last time” (stet)
The tenants claim that the above communication means that they could move out immediately and pay nothing more than the two weeks arrears due at the time.
The landlord agrees that the tenants were released from completing the fixed term but seeks rent up until new tenants moved in.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord agreed to an early release from the tenancy but did not waive their right to seek compensation for lost rent.
The invoice for carpet replacement is dated 5 November 2023. The landlord advised that he had taken possession of the property at this time. As the landlord took possession and commenced extensive maintenance work at the premises, I order the tenants to pay rent to 4 November 2023 in the sum of $5850.00.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not remove all rubbish.
The amount of $159.00 for rubbish removal is proved and ordered. A further amount sought by the landlord was not proved and has not been ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to carpet: (a) The landlord claimed that the tenants damaged the carpet during the tenancy and that there were stains that could not be removed requiring full replacement of the carpet. (b) The tenants disputed liability for carpet replacement and claimed that the carpet was already old and damaged before the tenancy commenced. They stated it was water damaged form the flooding and had cuts in it. There were plans to replace the carpet at the beginning of their tenancy which was not done. (c) Both parties agreed that prior to this tenancy there was a flood at the premises due to a hot water cylinder. (d) The landlord claimed that the carpet was in good condition prior to this tenancy and provided photographs. The tenants dispute when these photos were taken. I note the dispute regarding the photographs but this is not material to my decision. (e) I have considered the evidence and for the following reasons I find that the tenants are not liable for carpet replacement at the premises: i. There is written communication early in this tenancy regarding the carpet. A copy of a quote from [H Ltd] dated 14 March 2023 was provided which quoted to replace the upstairs bedroom carpet and downstairs lounge. The quote refers to the carpet being water damaged. This carpet replacement did not take place. ii. [K Ltd] were contracted to do flood remedy work to the carpet. On 5 July 2023 [K Ltd] sent an email stating “the front entrance carpet needs replacing”. The landlord stated this was not done as the insurance company considered it was not necessary. iii. The landlord has not provided evidence of the age of the carpet. However, it is agreed that it is aged and at least five years old. The IRD depreciation for carpet in rental properties is five years. iv. Although some further damage to the carpet may have occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are liable for carpet replacement due to the age of the carpet, some pre tenancy damage and the plans to replace it prior to this tenancy commencing.
Damage to Walls – The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the wallpaper in the premises. Photographs were provided. The tenants dispute the claim on the basis that the wallpaper was old and had existing damage. Having considered the photographs I find that the wallpaper was aged and peeling and with the exception of one tear in the hallway the damage is fair wear and tear. I will not order reimbursement of the full costs due to the age and condition of the wallpaper but will order the tenants to pay $200.00 towards the cost of the hallway tear. Did the landlord fail to provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water as there is no reticulated supply?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
This property is on tank water.
The tenants seek reimbursement for the cost of two water trucks totalling $790.00.
The tenants stated that there was a lot of rain when they first moved into the premises, but water was not getting in to the water tank as it was pouring over the guttering. The tenants paid for a fill of their water tank as there was insufficient water.
The landlord came to check the tank and noticed cracks in the tank and arranged someone to repair it. The contractor emptied the tank but the owner refused to refill the tank.
The tenants have provided invoices for the water. The tenants claim that if the tank system had been working properly and had not been emptied by the contractor there should have been no water cost to them.
It is the responsibility of the landlord to provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord breached this obligation by failing to maintain the tank and as a result there was cost to the tenants. The landlord is ordered to reimburse the amount of $790.00 to the tenants.

Did the landlord fail to provide smoke alarms?

Under section 45, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
The tenants claim that there were no smoke alarms at the premises and provided photographs of empty holders taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord disputed this and claimed that smoke alarms were provided and that the tenants did not raise this issue during the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement records that smoke alarms were provided.
Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that no smoke alarms were provided at the beginning of this tenancy. Did the landlord fail to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. In particular they claim that the landlord failed to remedy leak issues in a timely manner and that the premises were damp and mouldy.
It is important to clarify that there are two leak issues at the premises.
The first leak was the hot water cylinder which burst prior to this tenancy commencing. Although the cylinder had been repaired the tenant claimed that the repairs to the damage it caused had not been completed prior to this tenancy commencing and that there were ongoing issues with this that impacted their enjoyment of the premises.
The second leak occurred during the tenancy upstairs and also affected the downstairs. The tenants provided photographs of damp and mouldy looking patches in an alcove in the bedroom and claimed that this was not repaired during the entire tenancy. They stated that at one stage the water was dripping through the lounge ceiling and it took 2 -3 weeks to fix. Photographs of the lounge ceiling, bedroom alcove ceiling, wet particle board and rotten window sill showing water damage were provided.
The tenants stated that one room of the house was unusable for at least a month while the roofer came multiple times.
The tenants also claimed that there were ongoing issues with the gutters overflowing due to not being cleared. A copy of a text dated 3 April 2023 offering to do the work for gutter cleaning, repairing downpipe and waterblasting the outside of the house was provided. This quote was not accepted by the landlord and the work was still not done by the end of the tenancy.
The landlord responded that the tenants were told about the ongoing leak when they viewed the premises and told it would be repaired. The landlord stated that the leak was confined to the living room and bedroom above and the tenants were not occupying that particular room. The landlord stated that the leak was “finally fixed after a few times”. The damage to the living room ceiling was not repaired because it was not structural.
A landlord has an obligation to remedy maintenance issues in a reasonable time. It is not sufficient to say that the tenants knew of the problem prior to the tenancy commencing the obligation to repair remains. Having considered the evidence the Tribunal finds that the landlord did not provide and maintain these premises in a reasonable state of repair due to the ongoing unresolved leak issues and the failure to do repairs to the water damaged areas once the leak was fixed.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
Rather than out of pocket expenses the Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the inconvenience and health effects of living in property with ongoing leak issues. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest. I find that the delay in repairing the leaks and the failure to remedy the damage to the bedroom affected the tenant’s use of and enjoyment of the premises and rendered one room unusable for periods of time during the tenancy. Having considered the evidence and the combined maintenance issues I find that a lump sum award of compensation is appropriate and order the amount of $1800.00 in compensation which amounts to $300.00 per month for the six month tenancy. Suppression/Filing fee
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have had some success with their applications. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of both parties’ details.
As both parties have has some success with their applications I make no order for reimbursement of either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707110 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707110 — Rent arrears

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide smoke alarms?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to provide smoke alarms?