What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4759722?

The tribunal order states: Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin to pay Chris Jackson and Louise

How much money was awarded in case 4759722?

Agreed Amount-Gas: $298.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to meet HHS -…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail Attachment: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759722?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9992926-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4759722?

The tribunal order states: Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin to pay Chris Jackson and Louise

How much money was awarded in case 4759722?

Agreed Amount-Gas: $298.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to meet HHS -…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail Attachment: $20.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759722?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9992926-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Campbell Street, Waihou, RD 3, Te Aroha 3393 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4759722 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4759722 — net $17.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Agreed amount-gas	$298.00		Agreed amount-gas
Agreed amount -repair of laundry wall	$70.00		Agreed amount -repair of laundry wall
Repairs: Towel rail attachment	$20.00		Repairs: Towel rail attachment
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to meet HHS - Heating		$50.00	Failure to meet HHS - Heating
Total award	$388.00	$370.44
Net award	$17.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17.56

Order

Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin to pay Chris Jackson and Louise Jackson $17.56 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Chris and Louise Jackson are to pay Tanya and Stewart Austin $785.44 from the balance of bond ($ 803) that they are holding: Chris Jackson and Louise Jackson: $17.56 Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin: $785.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for return of their bond and also claimed that the landlord’s had not lodged the bond. After mediation the tenant also amended their claim to include a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord says that he has tried to lodge a counterclaim but was told by Court staff not to filed the counterclaim and rather to bring it to today’s hearing. I am satisfied that the landlord did make enquiries about filing a counterclaim and may have been under the impression he could simply come to court today with the application.
The parties agreed that in the interests of time I could deal with the landlord’s claim for vacated damages these are: a) Lawns and weed eating $240.00. b) Dump lawn clippings $90.00 c) Replace three handrails $60.00 d) Repair Laundry wall $70.00 e) Supply two gas refills $298.00 f) Replacement Air conditioning remote $45.00.
The tenants accept the landlord’s claims for the repair to the laundry wall and the supply of two gas refills.
The property is a large 4-bedroom home on a large flat section. Before the tenants moved in the landlord lived in the property as their home. The tenancy ended after the tenant’s gave 28 days’ notice because the landlord was selling the property and they wanted to ensure that they had a place to move to when it sold.
Whilst the landlord and the tenant are in dispute since the end of the tenancy, it was clear that they enjoyed a reasonably good relationship with each other during the tenancy. I have seen photographs taken by the selling agent whilst the tenants were at the property, they show a property that has been kept in an excellent condition. The landlord charged a reduced rent, throughout the tenancy on the basis that the property would be put on the market. The bond .
At the start of the tenancy the tenants paid a bond of $2000.00. At the end of the tenancy the landlord refunded the undisputed part of the bond of $1197.00 to the tenant but retained the balance of $803.00 for the items claimed in paragraph 4.
The tenants disputed the landlord’s claims and only then learned that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond at the bond centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted that he did not lodge the bond with the bond centre. Mr Jackson says that he was a first-time landlord and asked his lawyer and accountant who told him that the did not have to lodge the bond, because the tenancy was likely to be short term, given that the property was for sale. This was plainly wrong, and Mr Jackson accepted at today’s hearing that he got it wrong.
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 section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the case of TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not pay the bond into the Bond Centre within 23 working days and that the landlord committed an unlawful act. I am satisfied that they did so intentionally. I consider it appropriate that an exemplary damages award of $300.00 is made against the landlord this takes into account: a) That the landlord was a first-time landlord. b) That the landlord paid the tenant out the undisputed amount. c) That the tenants have been placed in an uncertain position because the landlord has not lodged their bond. d) That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge bond. e) That the bond is the tenant’s money, and the tenant should be protected from landlord’s raising claims against them and then claiming the bond. The lodgement of the bond with the bond centre, a third party, safeguards the tenant from being at the mercy of any claim the landlord wishes to make at the end of the tenancy. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards – Heating
Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin claims 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). Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard. They are seeking compensation for power bills that they say were excessive.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. 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 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say that in May June and July 2023 their power bills were significantly higher than the previous years ($70- $100 per month). In other months the power bills were approximately $25.00 higher which can be attributed to the differences between the two houses (the tenants’ previous rental and this tenancy) and the increased cost of power. The tenants say that the house did not meet the standard and therefore it was much more costly to heat over this period.
The landlord confirmed that he had a healthy homes assessment completed and that the property failed the heating standard because a wall heater in the hallway was not compliant. He said that the house had two heat pumps.
I am satisfied that the house did not met the heating standard as that was accepted by the landlord, but I am not satisfied that the tenants should be compensated for the total difference in the power bills, because the tenants removed drapes and curtains at the property, and the styles between the previous tenancy and this tenancy (this house had high ceilings and a large open area) would mean that the house would naturally be more expensive to heat. I have awarded the tenants $50.00 compensation for this breach. The landlord’s claims. The Lawns
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 left the house clean and tidy.
The landlord claims that the lawns needed mowing and the grass clippings needed to be disposed of. The landlord showed me photographs taken 5 days after the tenants left, they show the lawns in a reasonable condition, although starting to get a bit longer. The tenants had paid for the large lawn to be mowed a week before moving. I consider that on the termination date that the lawns were in a reasonable condition.
The property is semi-rural, and was for sale. I appreciate that the landlord may have wanted the property to be mowed in a certain way with the catcher on to make it more presentable for sale, but that it is not the standard that the tenant is required to leave it in. The landlord’s claims for lawns and lawn clippings are not proven.
The landlord says that the air conditioning remote was not returned the tenant says that it was there, and they would have put it up high away from their young children. The house has been sold and the landlord has not replaced the remote. I am not satisfied that the tenants removed the air conditioner remote and therefore the landlord’s claim fails. The Towel rails
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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.
The landlord claims that he had to put up three handrails/ towel rails. The tenants say the one in the laundry was never put up and was always in the cupboard, the other two were only held on by 3m type strips. They say that they came off and they didn’t not put them back.
I consider that it is more than wear and tear for the two handrails to come down in a 7 month tenancy, and that they tenants should be liable for some of the cost of putting the towel rails up. I award the landlord $20.00 towards this cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
The tenants have been mostly successful in their claim and therefore I award them the filing fee.

What should the landlord pay?

As the landlord is holding onto the bond, they must pay the tenants $785.44 from the balance that they are holding.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4759722 — net $17.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Agreed amount-gas	$298.00		Agreed amount-gas
Agreed amount -repair of laundry wall	$70.00		Agreed amount -repair of laundry wall
Repairs: Towel rail attachment	$20.00		Repairs: Towel rail attachment
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$300.00	Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Failure to meet HHS - Heating		$50.00	Failure to meet HHS - Heating
Total award	$388.00	$370.44
Net award	$17.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17.56

Order

Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin to pay Chris Jackson and Louise Jackson $17.56 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Chris and Louise Jackson are to pay Tanya and Stewart Austin $785.44 from the balance of bond ($ 803) that they are holding: Chris Jackson and Louise Jackson: $17.56 Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin: $785.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for return of their bond and also claimed that the landlord’s had not lodged the bond. After mediation the tenant also amended their claim to include a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards.
The landlord says that he has tried to lodge a counterclaim but was told by Court staff not to filed the counterclaim and rather to bring it to today’s hearing. I am satisfied that the landlord did make enquiries about filing a counterclaim and may have been under the impression he could simply come to court today with the application.
The parties agreed that in the interests of time I could deal with the landlord’s claim for vacated damages these are: a) Lawns and weed eating $240.00. b) Dump lawn clippings $90.00 c) Replace three handrails $60.00 d) Repair Laundry wall $70.00 e) Supply two gas refills $298.00 f) Replacement Air conditioning remote $45.00.
The tenants accept the landlord’s claims for the repair to the laundry wall and the supply of two gas refills.
The property is a large 4-bedroom home on a large flat section. Before the tenants moved in the landlord lived in the property as their home. The tenancy ended after the tenant’s gave 28 days’ notice because the landlord was selling the property and they wanted to ensure that they had a place to move to when it sold.
Whilst the landlord and the tenant are in dispute since the end of the tenancy, it was clear that they enjoyed a reasonably good relationship with each other during the tenancy. I have seen photographs taken by the selling agent whilst the tenants were at the property, they show a property that has been kept in an excellent condition. The landlord charged a reduced rent, throughout the tenancy on the basis that the property would be put on the market. The bond .
At the start of the tenancy the tenants paid a bond of $2000.00. At the end of the tenancy the landlord refunded the undisputed part of the bond of $1197.00 to the tenant but retained the balance of $803.00 for the items claimed in paragraph 4.
The tenants disputed the landlord’s claims and only then learned that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond at the bond centre.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepted that he did not lodge the bond with the bond centre. Mr Jackson says that he was a first-time landlord and asked his lawyer and accountant who told him that the did not have to lodge the bond, because the tenancy was likely to be short term, given that the property was for sale. This was plainly wrong, and Mr Jackson accepted at today’s hearing that he got it wrong.
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 section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the case of TMT Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 the Judge said “Parliament's intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law." Para 37.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not pay the bond into the Bond Centre within 23 working days and that the landlord committed an unlawful act. I am satisfied that they did so intentionally. I consider it appropriate that an exemplary damages award of $300.00 is made against the landlord this takes into account: a) That the landlord was a first-time landlord. b) That the landlord paid the tenant out the undisputed amount. c) That the tenants have been placed in an uncertain position because the landlord has not lodged their bond. d) That it is in the public interest to deter landlord’s from failing to lodge bond. e) That the bond is the tenant’s money, and the tenant should be protected from landlord’s raising claims against them and then claiming the bond. The lodgement of the bond with the bond centre, a third party, safeguards the tenant from being at the mercy of any claim the landlord wishes to make at the end of the tenancy. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards – Heating
Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin claims 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). Tanya Austin and Stewart Deane Austin considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard. They are seeking compensation for power bills that they say were excessive.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. 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 2024. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2023.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say that in May June and July 2023 their power bills were significantly higher than the previous years ($70- $100 per month). In other months the power bills were approximately $25.00 higher which can be attributed to the differences between the two houses (the tenants’ previous rental and this tenancy) and the increased cost of power. The tenants say that the house did not meet the standard and therefore it was much more costly to heat over this period.
The landlord confirmed that he had a healthy homes assessment completed and that the property failed the heating standard because a wall heater in the hallway was not compliant. He said that the house had two heat pumps.
I am satisfied that the house did not met the heating standard as that was accepted by the landlord, but I am not satisfied that the tenants should be compensated for the total difference in the power bills, because the tenants removed drapes and curtains at the property, and the styles between the previous tenancy and this tenancy (this house had high ceilings and a large open area) would mean that the house would naturally be more expensive to heat. I have awarded the tenants $50.00 compensation for this breach. The landlord’s claims. The Lawns
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 left the house clean and tidy.
The landlord claims that the lawns needed mowing and the grass clippings needed to be disposed of. The landlord showed me photographs taken 5 days after the tenants left, they show the lawns in a reasonable condition, although starting to get a bit longer. The tenants had paid for the large lawn to be mowed a week before moving. I consider that on the termination date that the lawns were in a reasonable condition.
The property is semi-rural, and was for sale. I appreciate that the landlord may have wanted the property to be mowed in a certain way with the catcher on to make it more presentable for sale, but that it is not the standard that the tenant is required to leave it in. The landlord’s claims for lawns and lawn clippings are not proven.
The landlord says that the air conditioning remote was not returned the tenant says that it was there, and they would have put it up high away from their young children. The house has been sold and the landlord has not replaced the remote. I am not satisfied that the tenants removed the air conditioner remote and therefore the landlord’s claim fails. The Towel rails
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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.
The landlord claims that he had to put up three handrails/ towel rails. The tenants say the one in the laundry was never put up and was always in the cupboard, the other two were only held on by 3m type strips. They say that they came off and they didn’t not put them back.
I consider that it is more than wear and tear for the two handrails to come down in a 7 month tenancy, and that they tenants should be liable for some of the cost of putting the towel rails up. I award the landlord $20.00 towards this cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Filing fee
The tenants have been mostly successful in their claim and therefore I award them the filing fee.

What should the landlord pay?

As the landlord is holding onto the bond, they must pay the tenants $785.44 from the balance that they are holding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759722 — Property damage at 41 Campbell Street, Waihou, RD 3, Te Aroha 3393

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759722 — Property damage at 41 Campbell Street, Waihou, RD 3, Te Aroha 3393

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What should the landlord pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What should the landlord pay?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions