What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression of all parties and all property managers

How much money was awarded in case 4745409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10984644-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745409 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression of all parties and all property managers

How much money was awarded in case 4745409?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10984644-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 Merton Road, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4745409 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders name suppression of all parties and all property managers referred to in this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s].
[The tenant/s] must pay $3,018.16 to [The landlord/s], being the balance of the net award in favour of the landlord as ordered below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings of this matter. There were two hearings and a case management conference. 1
The tenant’s 2 claim is that the premises are unlawful and / or that the landlord has failed in its obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord claims unpaid rent from the tenant as well as damages following the end of the tenancy. 1 At the second hearing, there was a significant amount of additional information supplied by both parties. The parties had the opportunity to view this material during the hearing. 2 Note that I refer to “tenant” and “tenants” interchangeably in this decision. All of the evidence was given by [Tenant 1].
Initially the landlord was also claiming an order for termination but the tenancy has now come to an end.
I will deal first with the tenant’s claim and then with the landlord’s claim. Before doing so I will address the burden of proof. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove that their version of events took place on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, where Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” The tenant’s claim Relevant legal provisions
Under s 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 3
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
The Tribunal has on many prior occasions considered whether or not premises are unlawful for the purposes of s 78A of the RTA. The “step one” of determining whether premises are unlawful is there needs to be a finding that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This first step involves making a finding that the whole property has some sort of regulatory failure which 3 Section 45 of the RTA means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling. In other words, the unlawfulness has been more than, say, just an “outstanding permit for a bathroom”. 4
This application also raises issues of the landlord’s obligations of repair and maintenance. Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 5 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 6 The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 7 Relevant background
A copy of the original plans relating to the property was provided to the Tribunal by the landlord. It showed the property to have three bedrooms plus a “sewing room” upstairs as well as lounge, kitchen and bathroom areas.
The downstairs plan shows two garage spaces, a storage room, laundry and bathroom and a large “rumpus room”.
At some point preceding the landlord’s ownership of the property, the rumpus room has been partitioned into three additional rooms, and a makeshift kitchen had been installed in one of the garages, which appeared to have been converted into a form of lounge.
The landlord freely accepted the kitchen area was illegal. It learned of the illegal kitchen when it purchased the property and commenced renovations on the lower level to remove anything illegal to renovate the area entirely.
When the tenant first saw the property, she claims it was then advertised as a 6 bedroom, 3 bathroom home.
The tenants were shown the property by an agent, [The agent], who worked for the Property Manager, [The previous property management company] (now in liquidation). The bottom level was then still under renovation when it was shown to the tenants but they claim [The agent] said the whole property was available to be rented once the renovations were complete. [The agent] also allegedly said the 4 See Mansfield v Silk and another [2020] NZ TT 4246581, at [16]. 5 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 6 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 7 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15] pool would be cleaned for the tenant to use and the cleaning of the pool would be done by the landlord.
The tenants said [The agent] never clarified with them that this was only a 4 bedroom home.
The tenant’s evidence was that she intended to reside at the premises with four children she looks after through Oranga Tamariki, as well as her own daughter. She also said initially at the first hearing that her older son, aged 24, would also be living at the property, (although later during the first hearing she said he would not).
The property was not going to be available until all the renovations had been done, but at the second hearing, the tenant said she wanted her older son to move in and live upstairs until the work had been done. An arrangement was reached for that to be happen, with a discounted rent payment of $600 changing hands.
The tenant claims that there were prior draft versions of the tenancy agreement however these not were provided to the Tribunal. The version that was provided to the Tribunal and the version that governed the relationship of the parties records the tenant’s name along with her husband, plus names for four other residents. For two of those, they are noted that the tenant is the “caretaker”. The other two are described as the tenant’s children of the tenancy agreement. The move in date was to be mid May 2021.
The maximum number of tenants is described as 9. The tenants put that number there because [Tenant 1] is a caregiver of Oranga Tamariki children and she said the numbers of children go up and down. She also said that she has two Oranga Tamariki children to a bedroom.
It proved a complicated exercise to extract the correct information regarding the number of additional children from [Tenant 1] during the hearing.
During the second hearing, she said that one of the names recorded as her son the tenancy agreement was in fact an Oranga Tamariki child. She claimed he is trying to adopt him and that is why she called her son. Her own son is not mentioned on the agreement, but he was meant to be living there. On top of the tenants expressly mentioned in the tenancy agreement, she was insistent there were to be an additional two people, one being an Oranga Children, to bring the number of Oranga children up to four, and one being her older son. She said the names were not added because there was no room to do so on the form.
[The agent] gave evidence at the second hearing and said there were only to be 6 tenants in total. He said that the reason he wrote 9 was in the event family came to stay. He could see there were a number of children involved and assumed family would come and stay. It was for that purpose that he assumed the areas downstairs might be used.
Regarding the property being advertised as a seven bedroom home, he provided a written statement in which he said that this was a clerical error, which she corrected with the tenants.
He also said that the tenant said the downstairs area would be used for her older son’s IT business.
The downstairs area was being renovated at the time.
He said that it was clear that the pool was never going to be available to be used. It was in the process of being drained and then once empty it would be covered.
He recalled discussion about the illegal kitchen being removed but recalled the tenants raising this issue subsequently asking for the kitchen to be reinstalled.
The landlord claims that she personally was there at this initial visit. I return to that evidence below.
Photographs were provided showing one of the rooms downstairs indeed comprising desks and computers. The tenant said it was a “gaming room”.
Other photographs that were produced show the partitioned rumpus area with beds in it. It is not clear who was sleeping there.
A written statement was supplied from [builder], a builder who was hired by the landlord to perform some renovation works at the property. He claimed to have been at the property when the tenants met with the landlord. He recalls a discussion where the landlord [The landlord’s representative], apologised for the error in the original listing and stating that the property was in fact a four-bedroom home with a large rumpus area downstairs. This was also confirmed by the written submission of the landlord.
Prior to the tenant moving on, there were many messages between the tenant and the property manager regarding issues to do with the property.
The tenant claimed that the windows are very small and in the first hearing she said that when you open the windows the insects come in. When it rains, she said the smell is very bad in these rooms. In the second hearing she said that the windows would not open at all.
She claimed that the lounge upstairs has a heat pump and one of the bedrooms upstairs has a heat pump too but it does not work. That heat pump has never worked. She said that she told the landlord about this right from the outset and she did follow this up with the property manager from time to time.
After the flood in January last year, the carpets had to be replaced because the area flooded. When the carpets were pulled up, the tenant discovered that there was no lining underneath the carpet.
The carpet was not replaced, instead there was a wooden floor installed, however, she claims that the downstairs area of the home still smells very damp.
After the flooding, the tenant had to stop using the downstairs area until it was repaired. The landlord reduced the rent to $960 per week. The rent then increased back to the normal rate once repairs had been done.
There were discussions between the parties at this time. During those discussions, the landlord made it clear to the tenants that the downstairs area was not intended for use as bedrooms.
The tenant produced some email exchanges from this timeframe between herself and the prior property manager in which the property manager records that she is not to use the three bedrooms downstairs. The tenant produced this information as evidence of the fact that the landlord knew she was using the area downstairs bedrooms. The precise wording of the email is: the property comprises a four-bedroom plus main living upstairs & three bedrooms downstairs, at my inspection late last year 2 of the rooms downstairs were not in use and I believe you were looking to rent this area out. You had converted an additional space of the garage into a bedroom with 2 sets of bunks. At this stage it is definitely not safe for anyone to be sleeping in the three bedrooms downstairs
The email therefore suggests the landlord was aware of the downstairs use of the property but also that the tenant had plans to rent the downstairs area out presumably to a third party.
The increase in the rent back to $1340 per week again came after a negotiation between the parties which resulted in a variation to the tenancy agreement dated
3.23. This now directly included the tenant’s adult son and so recorded that there would be three adults living there plus four children. The landlord made it plain that the tenant should not be sleeping in the downstairs area.
Regarding reinstallation of the illegal kitchen in the garage, the tenant’s explanation in the hearing was she wanted this for use by her son. She did not mention that she wanted to rent this area out.
From the tenant’s point of view, the issue is she would not have agreed to pay so much to have lived there had she not been able to use the downstairs area. She latched onto the idea that the property had been advertised as seven bedrooms and would therefore be with less in the rental market with less bedrooms available.
I asked the tenant during the hearing if the downstairs area remained so unsuitable for sleeping, why did she stay there and take on the Oranga Tamariki children at that accommodation and in those conditions? I did not get a clear answer in that regard, but I note that eventually she has indeed finally moved out, although that has taken place only in around early September 2024. The landlord agreed to reduce the fixed term to allow that to happen. I note that the tenant had not made any application for reduction of the fixed term.
The tenant has a raft of other complaints. She claimed that there are a lot of rats at the property. She produced a photograph of a rat as part of her evidence.
The tenant claimed that there were no curtains at the house and that the ones that were there were smelly. She also claimed that there were stains all over the carpet on the house when she moved in. She claimed that there was no lock on the garage door.
There was a significant amount of evidence generally given in relation to the tenant’s complaints and I have not recorded everything that was said for the purposes of this decision, but I have taken it into account. The landlord’s position
[The landlord’s representative] gave evidence on behalf of the owner /landlord.
The owner purchased the property in 2021. [The landlord’s representative] confirmed that there are four bedrooms upstairs and one bathroom. One of the bedrooms upstairs is very small but it fits a single bed. Downstairs was three additional rooms with two bathrooms and a lounge, although it was under substantial renovations when the tenants first saw it.
The owner said that the downstairs area also had an illegal kitchen installed at the time the landlord bought the property and the landlord did renovations to take it out.
The landlord produced council plans which show the house was consented for three bedrooms plus one sewing room upstairs. Downstairs plans had two garages, a storeroom, a laundry room and a large rumpus room.
The landlord has only recently received these plans and was unaware of the these plans until after the application was filed.
When the landlord bought the property, the large rumpus room had already been converted to three rooms. The landlord says that there is no law against doing this.
The owner produced an email to its agent, [The agent], employee of [The previous property management company], where she requested that the property be advertised as a 4 bedrooms one bathroom and one toilet.
She pointed to the statement supplied by [The agent] where he said that the property was wrongly advertised as a 7 bedroom home but that the error was corrected and the tenants were verbally advised that it was only a four bedroom home, before they signed the tenancy agreement.
[The landlord’s representative] explained in her submission is that she was actually there on the day when the tenants first viewed the property and recalls the discussion with her about the error in the advertising. She recalled that the tenants said that they wanted to run a small home-based IT business from the premises and that when the landlord agreed to that, the tenants immediately said that they wanted to take the property and asked the property manager to cancel all other viewings that day.
The landlord said the tenant was not allowed to use the area downstairs for sleeping.
The landlord produced evidence showing all of the repairs that were undertaken at the outset of the tenancy. The landlord denies all the tenants claims about issues with the property. The landlord points to evidence showing new curtain rails being installed as evidence that there were indeed curtains at the property, contrary to what the tenant said.
The landlord purchased the property in a good and tidy condition and says that all house was cleaned at the outset of the tenancy. It says that the carpets were all in a very clean and tidy condition. The house had been presented well for sale and that it is not correct that there were stains all over the carpet.
They accept that there were issues raised by the tenants but say that all issues were attended to mainly before the commencement of the tenancy. In relation to the pool, this was never agreed to be part of the tenancy, indeed it could not be used. The landlord arranged for its builder to dig a hole to slowly drain the pool. That became clogged allowing for a water build up and when the landlord realised this, it arranged for its builder to slowly drain the pool and eventually the pool was covered.
The landlord has made its own claim for post termination damages. It provided before and after photos which show that during the course of the tenancy there has been a lot of wear and tear on the property. Wear and tear is generally to be expected with a rental property.
The landlord produced photographs showing plenty of rubbish left scattered around the property and under the deck and alleges that this would have attracted the rats.
As with the tenants, there is plenty of additional evidence which was referred to at the hearing and is relied upon by the landlord which although I do not expressly mention I have taken it into account.

Were the premises unlawful?

A key thrust of the tenant’s case is that the premises were unlawful because downstairs area should not have had any bedrooms in it or have been used in any way for sleeping.
There was a significant amount of evidence given as to whether the landlord knew the tenant intended to use the area downstairs for sleeping and whether the tenant told the landlord that she intended to do so.
I found the tenant’s evidence often contradictory, subject to change and difficult to always follow, for instance, in regard to the numbers of parties who would be living at the property. I remained unconvinced that the tenant had adequately conveyed to the landlord that she would be using three rooms downstairs for the sleeping purposes of young children. I also note that the email that she referred to during the hearing from the landlord’s agent, sent after the 2023 flooding, reflected that she had herself converted a small area downstairs into a makeshift bunkroom, presumably for the Oranga Tamariki children. If the area downstairs was unsuitable because it was cold, then I found it difficult to understand how the tenants could have continued to put the children down there.
In the end, I consider that in the context of this case, the use of that area is not the relevant aspect; the relevant aspect is whether or not the premises as a whole were unlawful.
I consider that the tenant has not proven that these premises were unlawful.
The landlord produced plans that showed the layout of the downstairs area. I am satisfied that the illegal kitchen downstairs had been removed before the tenancy commenced. The mere fact that the area marked as a rumpus room is now being used as a bedroom(s) area does not and of itself make the premises unlawful. I was not provided with any information which could have proven that the installation of partitioning made any part of the downstairs area unlawful, in and of itself and in the absence of any other information.

Has the landlord complied with its obligations under s 45 of the RTA?

There was a great deal of evidence given by the parties on this issue.
The Tribunal not infrequently encounters cases where a dispute arises between the parties and then one of the parties then brings a shopping list of other complaints to the Tribunal for determination as well. Such cases often raise an issue as to whether the other complaints are genuine although frequently such other complaints will of course be upheld. But nevertheless, late raising of an issue will often give rise to the question as to why the matter was not raised before the Tribunal at an earlier time.
I consider that what has most likely happened in this case is that there was an initial period of cooperation, signified by the fact the landlord allowed the tenants older son to live in the property at a discounted rent until it was ready for her to move in too. At this point the tenants were very much keen to secure the premises and I consider they saw the potential to use the large area downstairs, whether for children sleeping or other business purposes, as being an attractive part of this tenancy.
The tenant has then moved in with all of the children and whilst there have been a number of issues she may have been dissatisfied with, to a larger or greater extent these have been resolved by the landlord. I found the owner/landlord overall to be a fairly straightforward and reliable witness and had no reason to disbelieve her evidence. On the contrary, the tenant’s evidence as I have note above was sometimes confusing and not straightforward.
I consider that the parties have fallen into dispute following the flooding incident which then led to the realisation by the owner (as opposed to possibly an earlier property manager) being aware that the tenants may have been using the downstairs area for sleeping purposes. This caused an issue because the landlord did not want the tenants to be using the area downstairs for sleeping purposes.
This then led to the tenant feeling dissatisfied at the level of rent she was paying, which she wanted to renegotiate downwards. When the landlord sought to increase the rent back to that higher level after the repairs were done, the tenant remained dissatisfied, refused to pay the increased amount and reduced the weekly rent to an extent she felt appropriate. This then led to the matter being put before the Tribunal because the landlord made a claim for termination on the basis of rent arrears. The tenants responded two months later with their own claim.
I disagree that the pool was to be included as part of the tenancy. The pool was unable to be used from the outset of the tenancy and the landlord’s builder dug holes so that it could slowly drain. I accept the landlord’s evidence that during the various Covid lockdowns and different levels that applied, it took some time for the pool to drain properly when it became blocked, with a cover then placed over the pool. I find that the landlord has taken whatever steps were appropriate to secure the pool, which in any event was surrounded by fencing.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that there were rats in and around the property. The tenant produced a photograph of a rat at the property, taken as it was making its way down a carpeted staircase. The rats would have been attracted to the water in the pool but more likely all the rubbish that the tenant had left outside and under the deck would have attracted rats. I am therefore not prepared to uphold any claim with respect to this rat.
Regarding the other complaints the tenant had about the curtains, the carpet stains and the like, I consider that there has simply been inadequate proof of those complaints, in the form of corroborating documents and photographs. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the tenants to prove their case.
Other issues that the tenant was complaining about such as the garage lock, the removal of green waste and window latches upstairs were addressed by the landlord and remedied during the tenancy.
I accept the tenant’s evidence however that the downstairs area suffered from dampness and cold.
Although it is hard to understand why the tenants did not earlier take steps to bring the tenancy to an end and find alternative premises when they realised the premises were cold and damp downstairs and unsuitable for sleeping purposes, I nevertheless accept their evidence that the temperature downstairs was significantly colder than upstairs, that the windows, when opened would let in insects crawling in the weeds and dirt just outside the window, and that the downstairs area would be damp.
Even after the renovations that were undertaken by the landlord following the 2023 flooding, I consider that the area downstairs still remained cold and damp.
The tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that there has been a failure to provide and maintain the premises with respect to the downstairs area.
I consider that it does not matter that the landlord did not want the areas downstairs to be used for sleeping. At the end of the day, the landlord’s responsibility is to provide the premises and maintain them in a reasonable condition. There were rooms partitioned downstairs and the entire premises was tenanted to the tenants. The rooms downstairs would not have been usable for any purpose if they were damp and cold.
The tenants claim for damages was grossly exaggerated in my view, however. The tenant sought an amount well in excess of $50,000. She claimed the damages should be calculated based on the amount she agreed to pay, less the amount she did pay.
I explained at the hearing that this was not the way that I would be approaching calculating any damages award in this case.
I consider it appropriate to award the tenant’s the lump sum of $15,000 with respect to this breach. This is a lump sum that I consider suitable, given the overall amount of rent paid, the damage suffered by the tenants, and to reflect the need for landlords to provide premises that are warm and dry.

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.
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.
As with the tenant’s claims, I consider that the landlord’s claims to be inflated. The landlord has claimed for example damages for $10,430 for “filling and holes, sanding and repainting and various rooms”. This is one of the higher claims I have ever seen for this sort of work. Much of the wear and tear that has been the subject of this work I would consider to be the sort of normal wear and tear that a landlord should expect to encounter as a cost of doing business as a landlord.
The claim for lightbulb replacement of $550.28 is grossly exaggerated as well in my view and once again one of the higher claims I have ever seen for this sort of item. I consider I do not have adequate evidence that the lightbulbs required replacement or that this sort of cost was justified.
As for remediation of the fence in the deck, my examination of the photographs of these items shows that they were already old and somewhat dilapidated. I am not prepared to allow reimbursement for the costs of their repair.
Regarding the carpet replacement, whilst this may well have been damaged by the tenants’ cats, I consider it likely that this carpet was already very old and most likely past its by date. The Tribunal is required to take into account depreciation and betterment in connection with any of this sort of cost, even assuming it can be proven the tenants have caused he alleged damage.
I am prepared to allow a lump sum for replacement of doorknobs, rubbish collection, locks, tidy up of the lawns, fumigation, reinstallation of the disconnected cooktop, replacement of the missing curtain rod and new door locks and keys in the sum of $3000. I am not prepared to allow the full costs for all of these items. The Tribunal does not always award the precise cost that may be incurred by landlord in remedying what the landlord perceives to be breaches by the tenants of their obligations at the end of the tenancy. Claimed amounts need to be measured against other rates that apply for say rubbish collection and professional cleaning. Further, I need to take into account that the tenant’s obligation in relation to cleaning is to simply leave the premises clean and tidy, not return the premises to a spick-and-span condition, ready for a new tenant.
The landlord provided rent records that satisfied me that $20,378.16 was owing by the tenants to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. I have deducted from the amount claim the filing fee that was included in the landlord’s calculation.
I have found that the tenants must pay the landlord $23,378.16 and the landlord must pay the tenants $15,000. The net sum that must be paid by the tenants to the landlord is $8,378.16 and I find that once the bond of $5,360.00 is paid to the landlord as ordered above, the balance to be paid by the tenants to the landlord is $3,018.16 as is ordered above.
Both parties have had a measure of success and I do not intend to reimburse the filing fee to either party.
As both parties have had a measure of success, I consider it appropriate to suppress both parties names as well as the name of all property managers involved in this matter.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745409 — Rent arrears at 30 Merton Road, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745409 — Rent arrears at 30 Merton Road, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises unlawful?

Has the landlord complied with its obligations under s 45 of the RTA?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Were the premises unlawful?

Has the landlord complied with its obligations under s 45 of the RTA?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions