What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710509?

The tribunal order states: Jacqui Anne Fyfe is to pay Ranview Trust (Trustee: Nichola Battersby) $984.59

How much money was awarded in case 4710509?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Pathway And Driveway: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $947.86 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $297.05 awarded to landlord; Fireplace Handle: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Heated Towel Rail: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $114.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9916959-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710509?

The tribunal order states: Jacqui Anne Fyfe is to pay Ranview Trust (Trustee: Nichola Battersby) $984.59

How much money was awarded in case 4710509?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Pathway And Driveway: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $947.86 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $297.05 awarded to landlord; Fireplace Handle: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Heated Towel Rail: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $114.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9916959-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Andrew Road, Howick, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710509 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

16 Andrew Road, Howick, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710509 — 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 4710509 — net $984.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023	$947.86		Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023
Repairs: Painting	$114.68		Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Carpet	$297.05		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Heated towel rail	$350.00		Repairs: Heated towel rail
Cleaning	$255.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Fireplace handle	$20.00		Repairs: Fireplace handle
Compensation: Pathway and driveway		$1,000.00	Pathway and driveway
Total award	$1,984.59	$1,000.00
Net award	$984.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$984.59

Claims and awards for application 4710509 — net $984.59 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023

Amount: $947.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $114.68
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Repairs: Carpet

Amount: $297.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Carpet

Repairs: Heated towel rail

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Heated towel rail

Cleaning

Amount: $255.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rent arrears Property damage

Order

Jacqui Anne Fyfe is to pay Ranview Trust (Trustee: Nichola Battersby) $984.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $984.59 (3327298-005) to Ranview Trust (Trustee: Nichola Battersby) immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,335.41 (3327298-005) to Jacqui Anne Fyfe immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant applied for compensation, work orders, breach of Healthy Home standards and refund of the bond. At the hearing, the Tenant withdrew the claim for work orders as the tenancy ended on 7 October 2023.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond.
This was a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 15 September 2020 and was fixed to 14 September 2021. The tenancy continued after that period however there was a dispute as to whether after the fixed term ended, the tenancy converted to a new tenancy or a periodic tenancy.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the party bringing the application must establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means the applicant must prove that what they are claiming is more likely than not by using independent witnesses, supporting documents, oral evidence and/or photographs.
There was a substantial amount of evidence filed which may not be referred to in this decision, however all of it was considered in the making of these Orders.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Breach of Healthy Home Standards

The Tenant has submitted that the Landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards. The date the tenancy commenced is relevant as to when the Landlord must comply with the standards.
The Tenant submitted that when the initial fixed term tenancy ended on 14 September 2021, the Tenant verbally agreed to renew it. She did not sign any documents but continued to reside there. Because this was a new tenancy that commenced on 15 September 2021, the Landlord had 90 days to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Tenant submitted the Landlord was in breach of the moisture ingress, ventilation and insulation standards. The Tenant deposed there was no ground moisture barrier present, there was no efficient drainage to remove the stormwater, no surface water and groundwater and there was no mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen. There were also draughts in the lounge, living area and in the toilet. Photographs were provided showing where the moisture barrier was missing, windows without insulation material, the kitchen vent, widespread mould in the window sills, curtains and garage and flooding in the garage.
The Landlord submitted, there was no new tenancy commenced after 14 September 2021 but rather a continuation into a period tenancy. Neither party gave notice to end the tenancy. The Landlord did not send any new Tenancy Agreement or extension of the Tenancy Agreement to the Tenant.
The Landlord deposed the house complied with Healthy Home standards and provided a Healthy Homes inspection Report dated 8 September 2023. The only issue requiring compliance on this report, was the wall insulation however because this was a tenancy that started before July 2021, they only needed to comply by 1 July 2025. The law
For any tenancy that commenced prior to 11 February 2021, section 60A of the RTA 1986 states at the end of a fixed term tenancy, either- a. The parties agree to renew or extend the fixed term tenancy; or b. The landlord or tenant can give notice during the effective period (90 – 21 days before the FTT end date) that the tenancy would be ending, in which case the tenancy ends on the fixed term end date; or c. No notice is given during the effective period, so at the end of the FTT end date, the tenancy became periodic.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but all private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. Analysis
The Tenant submitted a new tenancy commenced on 15 September 2021. The Landlord submitted there was no new tenancy and the fixed term changed into a period tenancy as per section 60A of the RTA. As there is no evidence of a renewal or extension of the fixed term tenancy and no notice given during the effective period, I find the tenancy became periodic.
The Tenant claimed the Landlord was not in compliance with Healthy Home Standards and provided photographs of mould, vents and a missing ground moisture barrier. There was nothing from an independent expert or Healthy Homes Assessor to support her claim. A house is also not necessarily non- compliant because there is an excess of mould and the Tenant did not demonstrate she had the expertise to assess the Healthy Home Standards.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord is not in breach of Healthy Home Standards because the tenancy commenced before July 2021, the Landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Standards report to demonstrate their compliance and if there are any issues with this, they have until 1 July 2025 to comply.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation Driveway and pathway
The Tenant claimed $13,000.00 in compensation for the defective driveway and pathway to the house due to large cracks to the concrete. The Tenant submitted from her initial meeting with the Landlord, she understood the landlord would not make any repairs to the driveway or retaining wall which was in a poor condition.
In March 2021, the Tenant enquired about the worsening condition of the driveway and was advised to purchase scoria to fill the problem area. She submitted this worked for a few weeks but then it did not improve the issue. In 2022, the Tenant submitted there was further deterioration of the driveway and pathway. The cracks in the concrete were now too dangerous to navigate in the dark and this was the only access into the house. The Landlord finally repaired some of the pathway after the Tenant got into a heated exchange with the Landlord. When the Landlord arranged the repair, it was only a ‘quick fix’ of the pathway and not the full pathway, driveway or retaining wall.
The Tenant claimed the driveway and pathway up until the end of the tenancy continued to be cracked and dangerous. This caused the Tenant to fall over at one stage because of the cracks. She injured her knee however there was no medical evidence provided of the injuries.
The Tenant submitted the Landlord failed to repair in a timely manner because it took two years for the Landlord to take action and only part of it was fixed. The Tenant did not submit all of her evidence of the repeated requests she made to the Landlord. The only corroborating evidence provided was notifications in March 2021, 2022 and via emails in April but there was no year advised in her evidence. Photographs were provided of the cracks to the driveway and pathway taken on 27 March 2021 and in September 2023. It was difficult to ascertain how long the landlord took to action the repairs once they received the notification.
The Landlord submitted she responded to the Tenants request to repair the driveway and pathway in a timely manner. She arranged for the pathway to be repaired. The Landlord had assigned the management of the property to Ray White who were very strict in ensuring rental properties met the relevant standards. The Landlord submitted the condition of the house prior to the tenancy and the condition of the retaining wall, driveway and pathway never changed. The footpath was repaired by East Auckland Property Maintenance Limited however the invoice was never received by the Tribunal. The law
Section 45 of RTA states that a Landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant laws in relation to buildings and health and safety.
A Tenant is obliged to report any damage to the Landlord.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach by the landlord of their statutory obligations. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy or stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when awarding compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; • The effect of the breach on the party.
In considering all of the evidence, I find even allowing for the age of the property, it is more likely than not, that the driveway and pathway were not in a reasonable state of repair.
I find the duration of the breach was approximately two years from March 2021 to September 2023. This is from the Tenants evidence of when she first raised it with the Landlord and the photographs provided of the pathway/driveway taken in September 2023. Despite Ray White being assigned to manage the property, this did not mean that the Landlord could assume the driveway and pathway were in a reasonable state of repair.
The impact of the defective driveway and pathway was the Tenant did not feel safe to use it at night-time for many months. I have no evidence of her medical injury she submits was caused by the cracks. The Tenant submitted this was the only access into the house however I find the Tenant could have walked on the lawn next to the pathway and parked her car on the other side of the driveway. Photographs of the other side of the driveway submitted by the Landlord indicated there was little cracking. These photographs were shown to prove the Tenant left rubbish behind at the end of the tenancy.
I find it was mainly inconvenient and to some extent unsafe at night time. There was nominal loss actually suffered from the Tenant. I consider the appropriate amount to award for compensation from March 2021 to September 2023 is a global amount $1000.00. The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tenant claimed $13,000.00 for the Landlords failure to maintain the balcony and deck in a reasonable state of repair. In her view, the construction never met New Zealand Building standards because the balustrades were not high enough and breached the Building code NZ3604. A qualified Builder advised the Tenant in September 2021, that the frame work was rotten, the foundation of the deck was concerning and the use of trellis as a balustrade was dangerous. They advised her it was of poor standard and would not meet the building requirements in NZ. There was no evidence from the Builder to support this. The Tenant submitted the steps at the bottom rotted to the point her foot went through them. After the Tenant moved out, the Landlord built a new balcony and deck. Photographs were provided of the balcony during the tenancy which appeared fairly worn.
The Landlord submitted this was a solid house and the balcony became worn over time however overall the balcony was compliant with Building standards. The Tenant also had a lot of plants which contributed to the deterioration. A panel on the balcony was broken and as soon as the Tenant notified her, she repaired it.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided expert independent evidence that the balcony was not constructed adequately or was not in a reasonable state of repair. There were photographs which showed a worn out balcony however without any corroborating evidence from an expert or photographs of the rotten steps, this wear and tear could potentially be just cosmetic defects, typical of a house this old. There was no report to state an inspection from an independent expert and nothing from the Tenant qualifying her expertise to make this assessment.
For this reason, the Tenants claim is dismissed. Mould
The Tenant also claimed the lack of reasonable state of repair because there was excessive mould and coldness in the house. She initially reported this to the Landlord in August 2021 and was told to turn on the log burner in the afternoon. In December 2021, the Tenant noticed black mould build up in the bedrooms and was advised by the Landlord how to clean the mould off. The mould started spreading to the curtains and windowsills in 2022 and 2023. Photographs were provided of the mould which showed some staining on curtains and in window sills.
The Landlord submitted there was no sign of mould except in the Tenant’s sons bedroom. She noticed the windows were often closed when she attended the property so she told the Tenant to ensure these were not kept shut all the time.
In considering the evidence, although there was evidence of mould in the house, the Tenant did not produce any reports from an expert to confirm that the cause of the mould and coldness was due to a defect in the property. The property was built in the 1960’s so mould can typically form in the property. The property was also compliant with Healthy Home Standards. Had the Tenant provided evidence there was a defect causing the mould which caused some loss to the Tenant, there may have been grounds for compensation.
The claim is dismissed.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims $510.00 for the cleaning required at the end of the tenancy because the Tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy. The Landlord described the property as filthy and it appeared as if no cleaning was done. She cleaned the property herself. The Landlord submitted there were cobwebs, a dirty laundry, grime in the bedrooms, dirt and dust marks on the walls, sticky residue on the back door, dirty window ledges, the fans requiring cleaning, grime in the shower and excessive dust on the shower dome. The laundry floors required mopping and the venetian blinds in the lounge required cleaning. Everything needed a wipe down. The Landlord assessed the cost to clean from two quotes received from professional cleaners. Photographs were provided of the cobwebs and dirty surfaces.
The Tenant claimed she cleaned the house herself and did a thorough job. She only missed the sticky residue on the door and shower dome.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided six photographs of what appeared to be dirty however not sufficient to prove the extent of all her cleaning. For this reason, I am not satisfied that all of the cleaning would equate to $510.00. I find the appropriate amount to be $255.00.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the walls, carpet, heated towel rail and the fireplace handle.
The Tenant claimed that all the damage caused at the property was general wear and tear. There was never an issue raised by the Landlord during her three year tenancy about any damage. The Landlord however submitted the damage was discovered after cleaning at the end of the tenancy and when the Tenant moved out because a lot of it was covered by furniture.
Painting- The Landlord claimed $114.68 for the cost to repaint the walls which were damaged as a result of the Tenant inserting nail and gunstaple holes in the wall. The Tenant did not obtain the paint colour from the recommended store as advised by the Landlord. When the Tenant went to paint, she noticed it was not the right colour and then did not complete the paint job.
The Tenant acknowledged that she did not purchase the paint from the recommended store but was advised by the retailers at that store that this was the correct colour. The Tenant submitted they made the holes in the walls because the items she wanted to hang would not adhere to the surface. The Tenant however wanted to hang things so that her children could feel this was their family home. She also submitted there were holes already there before she moved into the property.
In considering the evidence, I find that despite the Tenants best intentions to make her children feel like this was their home, nailing holes caused intentional damage to the walls. The damage is beyond wear and tear. The Tenant was aware this would damage the wall and did not paint the wall because the wrong colour was purchased. The Tenant shall reimburse the costs of paint to the Landlord. The amount ordered is proved.
Carpet- The Landlord claimed there were three areas of carpet cut out of the floor which she discovered at the end of the tenancy because these were covered by furniture during the tenancy. The carpets were also heavily stained with dog faeces, urine and hair. The Landlord was unable to patch the carpet so was claiming one quarter of the cost to replace all of the carpet in the house. This amounted to $618.85. The carpet was approximately 13 years old. The landlord provided quotes for replacing the carpet.
The Tenant admitted to cutting the carpet out at the lounge doors because it was worn out. She also submitted she cleaned the carpet twice during the tenancy. She deposed the carpet was old and had no sponge in it so it should have been replaced in any event. She paid a carpet cleaner $200.00 to clean the carpet and the carpet cleaner commented that the carpet was between 25-30 years old. The said it was lucky to have coped with the cleaning process and that there was no quality left. There was no corroborating evidence provided by the carpet cleaner.
The Tenant submitted her dog was toilet trained and never defecated on the carpet. She kept the carpet extra clean because her son was allergic to the dog.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the carpet needed repairs and cleaning. The Tenant admitted to cutting some of the holes in the carpet and should be liable for the repair. The ingoing inspection report of 10 September 2020 also indicates there was no damage to the carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account the general life of carpet is 25 years and the carpet is 13 years old. The Tenant has claimed $618.85 in total. After applying the depreciation rate to the amount claimed, I consider $297.05 to be appropriate.
Heated towel rail- The Landlord claimed $350.00 to repair the heated towel rail which they discovered was detached at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord found the bracket rail was jagged and was advised by an electrician that this was most likely caused by the snapping of the bracket. It was not wear and tear. There was no evidence provided by the electrician. A photograph was provided of the damaged towel rail. The ingoing inspection report indicated there was no issues with the rail. An invoice was provided to substantiate the cost claimed.
The Tenant submitted they never caused any damage to the heated towel rail.
In considering the evidence and ingoing inspection report, I find that it was more likely than not the damage was caused during the tenancy. For this reason, the amounts ordered are proved.
Fireplace handle- The Landlord claimed for repair of the fireplace handle which was chewed by the Tenants dog. A photograph was provided of this. The Tenant submitted that she sanded this handle back and it was repaired. There was no metal exposed and the handle was touched to open the log burner.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant admitted to damaging the handle however it was not repaired to its original state. This damage was more than wear and tear. The amounts ordered are proved. Loss of rent
The Landlord claimed rent to 7 October 2023 because the Tenant left behind rubbish in the garage and inside the house. The landlord was unable to lease the property until this cleared. The rubbish included gardening stuff, pot plants, trampoline, swings, obstacle courses and general rubbish. Photographs were provided of the rubbish which was substantial. As a result of the rubbish not being collected, the Landlord could not rent out the property for 11 days.
The Tenant submitted she vacated the property on 26 September 2023 and only a small amount of items were left behind in the garage and kerbside for collection and disposal. She acknowledged that she also left behind a wheelbarrow at the property. She does not recall the obstacle course being left behind.
In considering the evidence I find from the photographs and admission that the Tenant left items behind after 26 September 2023, that the property was not able to be leased until 7 October 2023. The Landlord lost 11 days of rent.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Neither party has sought name suppression so an Order for suppression has not been made.

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 4710509 — net $984.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023	$947.86		Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023
Repairs: Painting	$114.68		Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Carpet	$297.05		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Heated towel rail	$350.00		Repairs: Heated towel rail
Cleaning	$255.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Fireplace handle	$20.00		Repairs: Fireplace handle
Compensation: Pathway and driveway		$1,000.00	Pathway and driveway
Total award	$1,984.59	$1,000.00
Net award	$984.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$984.59

Claims and awards for application 4710509 — net $984.59 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023

Amount: $947.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears from 27 Sept 2023-7 October 2023

Repairs: Painting

Amount: $114.68
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting

Repairs: Carpet

Amount: $297.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Carpet

Repairs: Heated towel rail

Amount: $350.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Heated towel rail

Cleaning

Amount: $255.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rent arrears Property damage

Order

Jacqui Anne Fyfe is to pay Ranview Trust (Trustee: Nichola Battersby) $984.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $984.59 (3327298-005) to Ranview Trust (Trustee: Nichola Battersby) immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,335.41 (3327298-005) to Jacqui Anne Fyfe immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant applied for compensation, work orders, breach of Healthy Home standards and refund of the bond. At the hearing, the Tenant withdrew the claim for work orders as the tenancy ended on 7 October 2023.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond.
This was a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 15 September 2020 and was fixed to 14 September 2021. The tenancy continued after that period however there was a dispute as to whether after the fixed term ended, the tenancy converted to a new tenancy or a periodic tenancy.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the party bringing the application must establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means the applicant must prove that what they are claiming is more likely than not by using independent witnesses, supporting documents, oral evidence and/or photographs.
There was a substantial amount of evidence filed which may not be referred to in this decision, however all of it was considered in the making of these Orders.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Breach of Healthy Home Standards

The Tenant has submitted that the Landlord breached the Healthy Homes Standards. The date the tenancy commenced is relevant as to when the Landlord must comply with the standards.
The Tenant submitted that when the initial fixed term tenancy ended on 14 September 2021, the Tenant verbally agreed to renew it. She did not sign any documents but continued to reside there. Because this was a new tenancy that commenced on 15 September 2021, the Landlord had 90 days to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Tenant submitted the Landlord was in breach of the moisture ingress, ventilation and insulation standards. The Tenant deposed there was no ground moisture barrier present, there was no efficient drainage to remove the stormwater, no surface water and groundwater and there was no mechanical ventilation in the bathroom and kitchen. There were also draughts in the lounge, living area and in the toilet. Photographs were provided showing where the moisture barrier was missing, windows without insulation material, the kitchen vent, widespread mould in the window sills, curtains and garage and flooding in the garage.
The Landlord submitted, there was no new tenancy commenced after 14 September 2021 but rather a continuation into a period tenancy. Neither party gave notice to end the tenancy. The Landlord did not send any new Tenancy Agreement or extension of the Tenancy Agreement to the Tenant.
The Landlord deposed the house complied with Healthy Home standards and provided a Healthy Homes inspection Report dated 8 September 2023. The only issue requiring compliance on this report, was the wall insulation however because this was a tenancy that started before July 2021, they only needed to comply by 1 July 2025. The law
For any tenancy that commenced prior to 11 February 2021, section 60A of the RTA 1986 states at the end of a fixed term tenancy, either- a. The parties agree to renew or extend the fixed term tenancy; or b. The landlord or tenant can give notice during the effective period (90 – 21 days before the FTT end date) that the tenancy would be ending, in which case the tenancy ends on the fixed term end date; or c. No notice is given during the effective period, so at the end of the FTT end date, the tenancy became periodic.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but all private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. Analysis
The Tenant submitted a new tenancy commenced on 15 September 2021. The Landlord submitted there was no new tenancy and the fixed term changed into a period tenancy as per section 60A of the RTA. As there is no evidence of a renewal or extension of the fixed term tenancy and no notice given during the effective period, I find the tenancy became periodic.
The Tenant claimed the Landlord was not in compliance with Healthy Home Standards and provided photographs of mould, vents and a missing ground moisture barrier. There was nothing from an independent expert or Healthy Homes Assessor to support her claim. A house is also not necessarily non- compliant because there is an excess of mould and the Tenant did not demonstrate she had the expertise to assess the Healthy Home Standards.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord is not in breach of Healthy Home Standards because the tenancy commenced before July 2021, the Landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Standards report to demonstrate their compliance and if there are any issues with this, they have until 1 July 2025 to comply.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation Driveway and pathway
The Tenant claimed $13,000.00 in compensation for the defective driveway and pathway to the house due to large cracks to the concrete. The Tenant submitted from her initial meeting with the Landlord, she understood the landlord would not make any repairs to the driveway or retaining wall which was in a poor condition.
In March 2021, the Tenant enquired about the worsening condition of the driveway and was advised to purchase scoria to fill the problem area. She submitted this worked for a few weeks but then it did not improve the issue. In 2022, the Tenant submitted there was further deterioration of the driveway and pathway. The cracks in the concrete were now too dangerous to navigate in the dark and this was the only access into the house. The Landlord finally repaired some of the pathway after the Tenant got into a heated exchange with the Landlord. When the Landlord arranged the repair, it was only a ‘quick fix’ of the pathway and not the full pathway, driveway or retaining wall.
The Tenant claimed the driveway and pathway up until the end of the tenancy continued to be cracked and dangerous. This caused the Tenant to fall over at one stage because of the cracks. She injured her knee however there was no medical evidence provided of the injuries.
The Tenant submitted the Landlord failed to repair in a timely manner because it took two years for the Landlord to take action and only part of it was fixed. The Tenant did not submit all of her evidence of the repeated requests she made to the Landlord. The only corroborating evidence provided was notifications in March 2021, 2022 and via emails in April but there was no year advised in her evidence. Photographs were provided of the cracks to the driveway and pathway taken on 27 March 2021 and in September 2023. It was difficult to ascertain how long the landlord took to action the repairs once they received the notification.
The Landlord submitted she responded to the Tenants request to repair the driveway and pathway in a timely manner. She arranged for the pathway to be repaired. The Landlord had assigned the management of the property to Ray White who were very strict in ensuring rental properties met the relevant standards. The Landlord submitted the condition of the house prior to the tenancy and the condition of the retaining wall, driveway and pathway never changed. The footpath was repaired by East Auckland Property Maintenance Limited however the invoice was never received by the Tribunal. The law
Section 45 of RTA states that a Landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with any relevant laws in relation to buildings and health and safety.
A Tenant is obliged to report any damage to the Landlord.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach by the landlord of their statutory obligations. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy or stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when awarding compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; • The effect of the breach on the party.
In considering all of the evidence, I find even allowing for the age of the property, it is more likely than not, that the driveway and pathway were not in a reasonable state of repair.
I find the duration of the breach was approximately two years from March 2021 to September 2023. This is from the Tenants evidence of when she first raised it with the Landlord and the photographs provided of the pathway/driveway taken in September 2023. Despite Ray White being assigned to manage the property, this did not mean that the Landlord could assume the driveway and pathway were in a reasonable state of repair.
The impact of the defective driveway and pathway was the Tenant did not feel safe to use it at night-time for many months. I have no evidence of her medical injury she submits was caused by the cracks. The Tenant submitted this was the only access into the house however I find the Tenant could have walked on the lawn next to the pathway and parked her car on the other side of the driveway. Photographs of the other side of the driveway submitted by the Landlord indicated there was little cracking. These photographs were shown to prove the Tenant left rubbish behind at the end of the tenancy.
I find it was mainly inconvenient and to some extent unsafe at night time. There was nominal loss actually suffered from the Tenant. I consider the appropriate amount to award for compensation from March 2021 to September 2023 is a global amount $1000.00. The amounts ordered are proved.
The Tenant claimed $13,000.00 for the Landlords failure to maintain the balcony and deck in a reasonable state of repair. In her view, the construction never met New Zealand Building standards because the balustrades were not high enough and breached the Building code NZ3604. A qualified Builder advised the Tenant in September 2021, that the frame work was rotten, the foundation of the deck was concerning and the use of trellis as a balustrade was dangerous. They advised her it was of poor standard and would not meet the building requirements in NZ. There was no evidence from the Builder to support this. The Tenant submitted the steps at the bottom rotted to the point her foot went through them. After the Tenant moved out, the Landlord built a new balcony and deck. Photographs were provided of the balcony during the tenancy which appeared fairly worn.
The Landlord submitted this was a solid house and the balcony became worn over time however overall the balcony was compliant with Building standards. The Tenant also had a lot of plants which contributed to the deterioration. A panel on the balcony was broken and as soon as the Tenant notified her, she repaired it.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant has not provided expert independent evidence that the balcony was not constructed adequately or was not in a reasonable state of repair. There were photographs which showed a worn out balcony however without any corroborating evidence from an expert or photographs of the rotten steps, this wear and tear could potentially be just cosmetic defects, typical of a house this old. There was no report to state an inspection from an independent expert and nothing from the Tenant qualifying her expertise to make this assessment.
For this reason, the Tenants claim is dismissed. Mould
The Tenant also claimed the lack of reasonable state of repair because there was excessive mould and coldness in the house. She initially reported this to the Landlord in August 2021 and was told to turn on the log burner in the afternoon. In December 2021, the Tenant noticed black mould build up in the bedrooms and was advised by the Landlord how to clean the mould off. The mould started spreading to the curtains and windowsills in 2022 and 2023. Photographs were provided of the mould which showed some staining on curtains and in window sills.
The Landlord submitted there was no sign of mould except in the Tenant’s sons bedroom. She noticed the windows were often closed when she attended the property so she told the Tenant to ensure these were not kept shut all the time.
In considering the evidence, although there was evidence of mould in the house, the Tenant did not produce any reports from an expert to confirm that the cause of the mould and coldness was due to a defect in the property. The property was built in the 1960’s so mould can typically form in the property. The property was also compliant with Healthy Home Standards. Had the Tenant provided evidence there was a defect causing the mould which caused some loss to the Tenant, there may have been grounds for compensation.
The claim is dismissed.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims $510.00 for the cleaning required at the end of the tenancy because the Tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy. The Landlord described the property as filthy and it appeared as if no cleaning was done. She cleaned the property herself. The Landlord submitted there were cobwebs, a dirty laundry, grime in the bedrooms, dirt and dust marks on the walls, sticky residue on the back door, dirty window ledges, the fans requiring cleaning, grime in the shower and excessive dust on the shower dome. The laundry floors required mopping and the venetian blinds in the lounge required cleaning. Everything needed a wipe down. The Landlord assessed the cost to clean from two quotes received from professional cleaners. Photographs were provided of the cobwebs and dirty surfaces.
The Tenant claimed she cleaned the house herself and did a thorough job. She only missed the sticky residue on the door and shower dome.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord provided six photographs of what appeared to be dirty however not sufficient to prove the extent of all her cleaning. For this reason, I am not satisfied that all of the cleaning would equate to $510.00. I find the appropriate amount to be $255.00.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the walls, carpet, heated towel rail and the fireplace handle.
The Tenant claimed that all the damage caused at the property was general wear and tear. There was never an issue raised by the Landlord during her three year tenancy about any damage. The Landlord however submitted the damage was discovered after cleaning at the end of the tenancy and when the Tenant moved out because a lot of it was covered by furniture.
Painting- The Landlord claimed $114.68 for the cost to repaint the walls which were damaged as a result of the Tenant inserting nail and gunstaple holes in the wall. The Tenant did not obtain the paint colour from the recommended store as advised by the Landlord. When the Tenant went to paint, she noticed it was not the right colour and then did not complete the paint job.
The Tenant acknowledged that she did not purchase the paint from the recommended store but was advised by the retailers at that store that this was the correct colour. The Tenant submitted they made the holes in the walls because the items she wanted to hang would not adhere to the surface. The Tenant however wanted to hang things so that her children could feel this was their family home. She also submitted there were holes already there before she moved into the property.
In considering the evidence, I find that despite the Tenants best intentions to make her children feel like this was their home, nailing holes caused intentional damage to the walls. The damage is beyond wear and tear. The Tenant was aware this would damage the wall and did not paint the wall because the wrong colour was purchased. The Tenant shall reimburse the costs of paint to the Landlord. The amount ordered is proved.
Carpet- The Landlord claimed there were three areas of carpet cut out of the floor which she discovered at the end of the tenancy because these were covered by furniture during the tenancy. The carpets were also heavily stained with dog faeces, urine and hair. The Landlord was unable to patch the carpet so was claiming one quarter of the cost to replace all of the carpet in the house. This amounted to $618.85. The carpet was approximately 13 years old. The landlord provided quotes for replacing the carpet.
The Tenant admitted to cutting the carpet out at the lounge doors because it was worn out. She also submitted she cleaned the carpet twice during the tenancy. She deposed the carpet was old and had no sponge in it so it should have been replaced in any event. She paid a carpet cleaner $200.00 to clean the carpet and the carpet cleaner commented that the carpet was between 25-30 years old. The said it was lucky to have coped with the cleaning process and that there was no quality left. There was no corroborating evidence provided by the carpet cleaner.
The Tenant submitted her dog was toilet trained and never defecated on the carpet. She kept the carpet extra clean because her son was allergic to the dog.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the carpet needed repairs and cleaning. The Tenant admitted to cutting some of the holes in the carpet and should be liable for the repair. The ingoing inspection report of 10 September 2020 also indicates there was no damage to the carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account the general life of carpet is 25 years and the carpet is 13 years old. The Tenant has claimed $618.85 in total. After applying the depreciation rate to the amount claimed, I consider $297.05 to be appropriate.
Heated towel rail- The Landlord claimed $350.00 to repair the heated towel rail which they discovered was detached at the end of the tenancy. The Landlord found the bracket rail was jagged and was advised by an electrician that this was most likely caused by the snapping of the bracket. It was not wear and tear. There was no evidence provided by the electrician. A photograph was provided of the damaged towel rail. The ingoing inspection report indicated there was no issues with the rail. An invoice was provided to substantiate the cost claimed.
The Tenant submitted they never caused any damage to the heated towel rail.
In considering the evidence and ingoing inspection report, I find that it was more likely than not the damage was caused during the tenancy. For this reason, the amounts ordered are proved.
Fireplace handle- The Landlord claimed for repair of the fireplace handle which was chewed by the Tenants dog. A photograph was provided of this. The Tenant submitted that she sanded this handle back and it was repaired. There was no metal exposed and the handle was touched to open the log burner.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant admitted to damaging the handle however it was not repaired to its original state. This damage was more than wear and tear. The amounts ordered are proved. Loss of rent
The Landlord claimed rent to 7 October 2023 because the Tenant left behind rubbish in the garage and inside the house. The landlord was unable to lease the property until this cleared. The rubbish included gardening stuff, pot plants, trampoline, swings, obstacle courses and general rubbish. Photographs were provided of the rubbish which was substantial. As a result of the rubbish not being collected, the Landlord could not rent out the property for 11 days.
The Tenant submitted she vacated the property on 26 September 2023 and only a small amount of items were left behind in the garage and kerbside for collection and disposal. She acknowledged that she also left behind a wheelbarrow at the property. She does not recall the obstacle course being left behind.
In considering the evidence I find from the photographs and admission that the Tenant left items behind after 26 September 2023, that the property was not able to be leased until 7 October 2023. The Landlord lost 11 days of rent.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Neither party has sought name suppression so an Order for suppression has not been made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710509 — Rent arrears at 16 Andrew Road, Howick, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710509 — Rent arrears at 16 Andrew Road, Howick, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions