What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4750869?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5852887-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4750869?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $77.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $43.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10785728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4750869?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5852887-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4750869?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $77.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $43.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750869?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10785728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 Central Park Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4750869 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4750869 — net $1,841.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 December 2023 (21 days	$1,950.00		Rent arrears to 16 December 2023 (21 days
Water rates from 30 October 2023 to 25 November 2023	$43.63		Water rates from 30 October 2023 to 25 November 2023
Rubbish removal	$77.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages for failing to provide healthy homes		$250.00	Exemplary damages for failing to provide healthy homes
Total award	$2,091.07	$250.00
Net award	$1,841.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,841.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4750869 — net $1,841.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 December 2023 (21 days	$1,950.00		Rent arrears to 16 December 2023 (21 days
Water rates from 30 October 2023 to 25 November 2023	$43.63		Water rates from 30 October 2023 to 25 November 2023
Rubbish removal	$77.00		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages for failing to provide healthy homes		$250.00	Exemplary damages for failing to provide healthy homes
Total award	$2,091.07	$250.00
Net award	$1,841.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,841.07

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5852887-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Aaron James McCurdy: $1,841.07 Aaron Alexander and Aimin He: $758.93
The order above in respect of the bond is made on the basis of the following orders for compensation/exemplary damages as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared with two support people. A Mandarin interpreter attended to assist Ms He.
These claims concern the rental of a home in Te Atatu South, Auckland. The tenancy began on 7 October 2023. The tenants moved out on 25 November 2023.
The landlord filed a claim on 28 November 2023 seeking rent arrears (in lieu of notice), water rates and rubbish removal from the tenants’ bond.
On 17 June 2024 the tenants filed their own claim seeking refund of the bond together with compensation for: a. Transportation costs for moving to and from the tenancy ($345.00 for hire truck, mileage and petrol; b. Garden expenses ($200 for wood, soil, plants and labour for the vegetable garden and tidy all gardens at the property); c. Curtains ($100 as house had no curtains); d. Décor film ($21.70 for white décor window film to obscure window by front door). e. Breaches of Healthy Homes Standards as follows: i. Draughts – windows and cat door; ii. Drainage – signs of surface water or ground water present outside; iii. Ventilation – extractor fan not efficient; and iv. No Healthy Homes standards assessment of compliance report.
The tenants also sought exemplary damages as follows: Onus and evidence
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing).
In this case, both the tenants and the landlord submitted documentation. For the sake of brevity I may not have referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that all of the evidence has been carefully considered. The landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent and water?

Shortly after the tenancy began, on 18 November 2023, the landlord served the tenants with a 63 days’ notice on the basis that a family member needed to move into the property. The tenants gave notice the following day, 19 November 2023, and moved out on 25 November 2023. The landlord explained that the family member could not, and did not, move into the property until January 2024.
The landlord seeks rent in lieu of the 28 days’ notice required under Section 51(2B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenants gave notice on 19 November 2023 and so the 28 days’ notice period ended on 17 December 2023. The produced a rent summary that outstanding rent owing to 16 December 2023 was $1,950 (21 days). This claim is proved.
The landlord produced a water invoice for the period 30 October to 31 November 2023. The landlord explained that when there is a change of tenants he doesn’t invoice for the tenant for the first part month, as it can be difficult to calculate. He accepted that the invoice went 5 days past the end of the tenancy and that even though the property was empty for those 5 days had no issue with five days’ average usage being deducted.
The tenants said that when the landlord told them that they would not be charged for water for the first month they understood that to mean a full calendar month.
There is nothing in writing regarding water other than the tenancy agreement which provides that the tenants are responsible for water (other than the fixed charges). If find the landlord’s explanation regarding water charges to be more likely. I order payment in the amount of $43.63 (which is the amount claimed by the landlord less five days of average usage). Rubbish removal
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) RTA.
The landlord said that the tenants left some rubbish inside and a pile of rubbish in the garden and provided photos. The landlord said that he had to remove the rubbish using a trailer. He seeks the cost of two rubbish bags ($20.00 – Auckland Council receipt provided) and tip fees ($57.00 – Econowaste invoice provided).
The tenants accepted that they left some rubbish inside but say that they left a bin bag. They deny that the rubbish outside belonged to them and say that the neighbours must have dumped rubbish in the garden.
I consider that it is more likely than not that the outside rubbish also belongs to the tenants. The area where the rubbish was dumped was not immediately adjacent to the neighbour’s property. The compensation sought by the landlord is very reasonable given the amount of rubbish left behind.
This claim is proved. The tenants’ claims Compensation for moving costs and improvements
The tenants claimed their moving costs together with reimbursement for garden expenses, curtains and white décor window film as set out above.
These claims appeared to be based on the landlord having given notice to end the tenancy shortly after the tenancy began.
The landlord said that there was no need for the tenants to purchase curtains as there were roller blinds installed. He said that the tenants could have taken the curtains with them but chose not to. He said that it was the tenant’s choice to install white décor film on one window and planter boxes and that he was happy for them to take them with then when they left.
I have considered the tenants claims in relation to the notice given by the landlord in some detail below under the tenants’ claims for exemplary damages. The tenants have not proved that the landlord gave notice without cause or that the notice was retaliatory.
The tenants have not proved any breach the landlord and accordingly the tenants’ claim for compensation is dismissed. Compensation for breach of Healthy Homes standards
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The tenants claim that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes standards because there were draughts around windows and the cat door, drainage problems due to surface water outside, the extractor fan was not efficient and they were not provided with a Healthy Homes standards assessment report.
I have dealt with the landlord’s failure to include a Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement in the section below.
With respect to the other issues, the tenants said that there were draughts around windows and drainage issues in the garden. They produced one photo showing some surface water on the lawn. The tenants also said the extractor fan was not efficient.
The landlord said that the property complied with the Healthy Homes standards and that they have obtained a report.
The tenants provided very little evidence in support of their claim. I do not consider that the evidence produced by the tenants proves on the balance of probabilities that the property does not comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenants’ claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages claims Refund of key money (17(3))
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement. See section 17(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants filed a claim for refund of “key money” but it appears this was based on the tenants cutting new, additional, keys for the property. The landlord was not required the tenant to pay any money in additional to rent or bond for the grant of the tenancy.
For completeness I note that the landlord already provided keys as required. The tenants simply decided to cut additional keys.
This claim is dismissed. Interference with privacy (38(3))
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 17(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants claim that the previous tenants were friends with the next door neighbours and that those neighbours had become aware that the previous tenants were able to access the property through a sliding door if they had forgotten their key. They said that they were vulnerable because the next door neighbours knew this and may have been responsible for a break in that occurred.
The landlord said that he was notified when a break in occurred, that the tenants queried whether the previous tenants might still have a key. He said that the tenants asked him whether the previous tenants had a key and he confirmed that he had never given them one, as it is a sliding door that locks from the inside.
From the evidence produced it appears to me that there has been a break in at the property. There is no evidence that the landlord has breached the tenants privacy.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord failing to consent to request (42B(3))
It is unreasonable for a landlord to withhold consent to a minor change to premises. See 42B(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants raised a large number of issues with the landlord (for example that the cat door needed sealing, window latches needed replacement, new clips were required to the shower door, that they would like the wood burner to be operational).
The landlord agreed to a number of issues raised by the tenants, which I consider to be over and above general maintenance. The landlord did not agree to all issues, including making the wood burner operational. The landlord said that they had provided a heat pump and that it was clear at the start of the tenancy that the wood burner was not working.
In my view the landlord has acted reasonably and has not unreasonably withheld consent for any changes.
The tenants’ claim is dismissed. Landlord failing to itemise expenses incurred (44A(3)(A))
A landlord must not take steps to recover expenses relating to the subletting or termination of a tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) without providing an itemised account. See 44A(3)(A) RTA.
The tenants could not explain how the landlords had breached their obligations to itemise expenses. The requirements under 44A(3)(A) do not appear to apply to this tenancy in any event.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord failing to meet obligations in respect of Healthy Homes (45(1A)
Exemplary damages may be ordered where a landlord has breached their Healthy Homes obligations.
However as I have no found a breach by the landlord there is no basis for exemplary damages and this claim is dismissed. Landlord providing premises despite knowledge of contamination (45(1AB))
Where premises have been tested and found to be contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other prescribed contaminant, the landlord cannot provide the premises to a tenant until they have been decontaminated. Where the premises have already been provided, the landlord may only continue to provide them if the premises are being decontaminated. See sections 45(1AA) and (1AAB) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 45(1AB) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants claimed that the landlord provided the property to them knowing that it had been contaminated with methamphetamine. In support of this claim the tenants said that there was a smell of cat urine at the property. They provided an email from a friend which stated that methamphetamine contamination can leave a smell similar to cat urine. They also said that the neighbours, who had been friends with the previous tenants, were users of methamphetamine.
The landlord said that they had no concerns that the property had been contaminated with methamphetamine. He said that the property had faint smell of cat urine because the previous tenant had locked three cats inside and he had taken steps to remedy the problem by replacing floorboards and carpet but the smell had remained.
The landlord said that despite having no concerns about contamination he agreed to conduct, and arranged for methamphetamine testing, but the tenants then cancelled the test. The landlord provided copies of this correspondence to the Tribunal.
The tenants have not proved that the landlord knowingly provided premises despite knowing of contamination.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord failing to provide Healthy Homes information (45(1AD)(a))
The tenants say that there was no Healthy Homes compliance statement attached to the tenancy agreement and that accordingly the landlord is in breach of his obligations.
Although tenants can request certain Healthy Homes information from the landlord under section 45(1AD)(a) RTA, and the landlord has to then provide the tenant with a copy, the tenants’ claim as explained at the hearing related to the fact that they were not provided with any Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement itself, as required under Section 13A(1A).
The landlord accepted that he did not provide a Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement, but said that he had actually completed the statement prior to the start of the tenancy and provided a copy to the Tribunal. He said that he was simply not aware of the requirement to include the statement in the tenancy agreement but accepts that not doing was a breach. He is now aware of his obligations. He confirmed that the house was (and remains) Healthy Homes compliant.
A landlord who fails to ensure that a tenancy agreement includes all specified information commits an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1AAA) RTA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has failed to do so and so has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (see s 109(3) RTA).
The District Court has held that the failure by landlord to include a Healthy Homes statement in the tenancy agreement is so fundamental that a failure to provide such a statement, even where a landlord is not aware of the obligation, is an intentional Act. See TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeny and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at paragraph 37. The Court stated that: “Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law”.
I consider that it is just to make an order for exemplary damages because the landlord has breached a fundamental obligation. However I consider that an award at the lower end is required as the landlord was genuinely unaware of his obligations, the property was in fact compliant, and the effect on the tenants was minimal. I therefore make an award of exemplary damages in the amount of $250.00. Landlord failing to provide locks or altering locks without consent (46(3))
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants said that the lock to the sliding door was not secure. No evidence was provided.
The landlord said that he had never been told that there was any issue with the sliding door. He said that he would have taken immediate steps if there was an issue.
The tenants have not proved that the landlord failed to maintain locks.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord giving retaliatory notice of termination
On 18 November 2023, the landlord gave the tenants a 63-day notice ending the tenancy in January 2024 (on the basis that the property was needed for a member of the landlord’s family). The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. Applications for a declaration that the notice is retaliatory must be filed within 28 working days of the notice being served. See section 54(1) RTA.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord’s notice was served on 18 November 2023 but the tenants’ application was not filed until 17 June 2024, nearly seven months later. The Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to consider this claim.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds (60AA)
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenants said that the landlord gave notice on the basis that a family member needed to move into the property but that never happened.
The landlord explained that he did needed the property for a family member and that family member did in fact move in after January 2024. However due to unforeseen relationship difficulties the family member had moved out by the date of the hearing of this matter in August 2024.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence I do not consider that the tenants have proved that the landlord gave notice knowing that he was not entitled to do so.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord failing to give Healthy Homes information (66I(7))
The tenants sought exemplary damages under 66I(7) but this section relates to the obligations of landlords of boarding houses. This section does not apply to this tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord contracting to contravene of evade provisions of the Act (137(2))
Section 137(2) refers to attempts by landlords to contract to evade the provision of the RTA.
The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord was the standard form tenancy agreement provided on the Tenancy Services website.
The tenants have not proved that the landlord has attempted to contract to evade the provisions of the RTA.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because Aaron James McCurdy has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression. The tenants have not been successful overall and are not entitled to an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750869 — Rent arrears at 53 Central Park Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750869 — Rent arrears at 53 Central Park Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions