What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4761059?

The tribunal order states: Crystal Gray must pay Uhome Property Management Limited as agent for Xiaolin

How much money was awarded in case 4761059?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,325.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $70.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761059?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283512-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4761059?

The tribunal order states: Crystal Gray must pay Uhome Property Management Limited as agent for Xiaolin

How much money was awarded in case 4761059?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,325.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $70.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761059?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283512-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

886 Beach Road, Waiake, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4761059 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761059 — net $746.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 October 2023 (consent	$1,325.71		16. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Water rates	$70.92		Water rates
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Compensation for effects of leaking roof		$800.00	Compensation for effects of leaking roof
Total award	$1,546.63	$800.00
Net award	$746.63
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$746.63

Order

Crystal Gray must pay Uhome Property Management Limited as agent for Xiaolin Lin & Xiaoming Zhuang $746.63 immediately from the bond, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6476964-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Uhome Property Management Limited as agent for Xiaolin Lin & Xiaoming Zhuang: $746.63 Crystal Gray: $1,573.37
The landlord’s application for the repair of damage is dismissed.
The tenant’s applications for compensation for damaged chattels and exemplary damages for the premises not being compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 2 May 2024. Mr Dai represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, cleaning and rubbish removal costs and compensation of $26,827.41 for the repair of damage.
The tenant has applied for a full refund of rent, compensation of $20,000.00 for damage to her chattels, and compensation and/or exemplary damages of $8,040.00 for her ill health due to the premises not being HHS compliant, a total of $58,200.00. Background
The tenancy started on 16 December 2022. It was a fixed term tenancy until 14 December 2023. On 6 September 2023 the landlord gave notice that the tenancy would not be renewed and would terminate at the end of the fixed term. The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
While not strictly compliant with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for ending a fixed term tenancy, the parties agreed to end the tenancy earlier (which they were able to do). Ms Gray accepted that the tenancy ended on 28 October 2023, the date the landlord considered it had ended.
The tenant’s property manager could not attend the inspection scheduled for 28 October as she was unwell. She asked the tenant to leave the keys ‘somewhere near the house’. When she inspected the premises on 1 November 2023, she found them considerably damaged: the hot water cylinder had been removed and pipework damaged, the shower cubicle and toilet and bathroom walls were damaged, and the heat pump had been ripped off the wall and damaged. As well, windows were broken. The broken water pipes had damaged the carpets.
The landlord reported the damage to the Police who assigned an incident number but said they would not investigate further due to resource issues. The Police suggested the landlord could make a Tenancy Tribunal or other civil application.
The landlord has insurance for damage. I will address that issue further in this decision.
Once the landlord made its application against the tenant, she then lodged a cross application. Mediation
I discussed mediation with the parties. Initially, they both agreed to attend mediation, However, Mr Dai withdrew his agreement to attend mediation when he realised it would not take place on 2 May when the hearing was scheduled. He said he wanted the applications concluded without any more delay. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and water rates? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and rubbish removal? •Has the landlord proved that the tenant caused damage to the premises for which compensation should be awarded? •Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for damage to her chattels, and damage to her health due to leaking at the premises? Legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant or a landlord for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the parties of their statutory responsibilities.
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 (by the tenant) and the accompanying 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 deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA which are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and water rates?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $1,325.71 to 28 October 2023. I allow that claim by consent.
The landlord only provided one invoice for water rates in evidence despite Tenancy Services advising that the invoices would be needed to prove the claim.
The tenant said she understood that water rates would be included in the rent, or otherwise paid by the landlord.
An agreement of that kind would need to be clearly expressed.
Case law has established that accounts for utilities must be provided promptly. The landlord did not raise the issue of liability for water rates until September 2023 for water rates from January 2023.
I award the landlord payment for water rates based on the one invoice produced in evidence, not for the back-dated amounts for which no invoices were provided and for which a claim was made only in September 2023 on a back-dated basis.

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and rubbish removal?

The landlord’s claims are based on estimates. Neither cleaning nor rubbish removal work has been done because the issue of the cause of the damage to the premises remains unresolved.
The Tribunal would normally dismiss claims where there was no proof of the cost incurred. It seldom makes orders based on estimates.
Here, the tenant accepts that some cleaning was required in the bathroom, but the rest of the premises were left clean. She said she arranged a skip bin to remove her rubbish.
The tenant’s mother has provided a written statement confirming that.
I am prepared to award the landlord compensation for cleaning of $150.00 based on the tenant’s acceptance that some cleaning was required.
I make no award for rubbish removal. The work has not been done. Given the extent of the damage caused to the premises, it seems likely that considerable rubbish removal will be required at a later date. Has the landlord proved that the tenant caused damage to the premises for which compensation should be awarded?
The landlord did not attend the arranged inspection on 28 October 2023. The tenant gave evidence that she was asked to leave the key for the landlord, so she left it in the kitchen drawer and locked the front door. She said she did not lock the back door because there was a locked gate on the deck outside the door.
The tenant said the premises were not damaged when she left on 28 October 2023.
Mr Dai did not inspect the premises that day, nor did the tenant’s property manager. The damage was discovered at an inspection on 1 November 2023.
I have no reason not to accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not damage the premises when she vacated. She was expecting an inspection to be carried out. I found her to be a reliable witness.
The tenant also produced written statements from her mother and her ex-partner confirming that the premises were not damaged when she vacated.
Mr Dai said there was no evidence of a forced entry, yet the photos show broken windows that have been left open.
Mr Dai said the issue of cause was important for the owner. If the damage were found to be caused by the tenant, the insurer would accept the claim in full, provided the tenant paid an excess of $550.00. If the damage were not caused by the tenant, the insurer would assess each aspect of the damage and apply more excesses and deduct other costs.
Those issues are not relevant to the Tribunal’s enquiry, nor is the landlord’s financial ability to pay for the damage if the insurer limits what amount it will pay under the policy.
The landlord has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the significant damage to the premises as shown in the photos produced in evidence.
I find it more likely that some unknown third person ripped out the water cylinder, pulled the heat pump from the wall, caused damage to pipe work and the walls and fittings in the bathroom and toilet sometime between the tenant vacating on 28 October and the inspection on 1 November. In other words, I find that the damage was probably the result of vandalism and theft.
I dismiss the landlord’s application for compensation for damage.

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Mr Dai produced a HHS compliance report. The report is confusing. The premises were first assessed before the tenancy started. He said there was no tenancy in place then. Some non-compliance issues were noted.
The landlord had work done to ensure compliance (invoice dated 30 March 2023). The HHS compliance report is dated 16 December 2022, the start date of the tenancy. Amending a report but keeping the report date the same is not helpful evidentially. However, I accept Mr Dai’s explanation for the sequence of events.
The landlord had 90 days in which to ensure HHS compliance from the start of the tenancy. I find that the landlord probably complied within that time frame or very shortly after it.
The tenant produced no other evidence to establish HHS non-compliance.
I find that the landlord’s evidence establishes that the premises were HHS compliant.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages because the premises were not HHS compliant. Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for damage to her chattels, and damage to her health due to leaking at the premises?
The tenant gave evidence that there was a roof leak which then caused leaking through the lounge ceiling and through the floor to the garage below.
The landlord was aware of the leak but did not consider it serious.
The tenant’s communications about the leaking were limited. She says the reason she moved from the premises was due to them leaking and being cold, draughty, and mouldy.
The tenant produced very little evidence to support her claims.
The tenant produced a video that shows a bucket (later replaced with another container) to catch the dripping from the ceiling that came through the roof leak when it rained.
I accept that the tenant experienced some loss of enjoyment from the leaking that went on during periods or rain, commencing with the January 2023 flooding event in Auckland.
I award the tenant compensation of $800.00 for her loss of enjoyment, taking account of the factors mentioned in Birch (referred to above).
The tenant’s claim for damage to her chattels is dismissed. The tenant said she had not prepared well for the hearing. There is no evidence available for me to assess what damage occurred to the tenant’s chattels, let alone the value of those chattels.
Further, if the damage occurred because of the January extreme flooding event (by which I mean that that event was the start of the leak which then continued) the landlord’s liability would be limited. An unforeseen event, such as extreme flooding that caused damage to chattels, is something the tenant’s contents insurance would cover, were she insured. Result
The tenant will pay the landlord $1,546.63 for rent arrears, water rates (limited to 1 month) and for cleaning she accepted she had not done. From that will be deducted $800.00 which I award to the tenant for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking which continued on occasions after the January 2023 extreme weather event which caused damage to the roof allowing water to ingress. The landlord was aware of the leaking.
The tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the HHS is dismissed as is her claim for compensation for damage to her chattels and for health issues.
The landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the premises that occurred some time between 28 October (after the tenant vacated) and 1 November 2023 is dismissed.
I make no award of the filing fees as each party has only been partly successful.
The bond will be split between the parties - $746.63 to the landlord and $1,573.37 to the tenant. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression orders. As neither party has been wholly or mostly successful, the criteria for name suppression are not met – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761059 — net $746.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 October 2023 (consent	$1,325.71		16. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act.
Water rates	$70.92		Water rates
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Compensation for effects of leaking roof		$800.00	Compensation for effects of leaking roof
Total award	$1,546.63	$800.00
Net award	$746.63
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$746.63

Order

Crystal Gray must pay Uhome Property Management Limited as agent for Xiaolin Lin & Xiaoming Zhuang $746.63 immediately from the bond, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6476964-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Uhome Property Management Limited as agent for Xiaolin Lin & Xiaoming Zhuang: $746.63 Crystal Gray: $1,573.37
The landlord’s application for the repair of damage is dismissed.
The tenant’s applications for compensation for damaged chattels and exemplary damages for the premises not being compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 2 May 2024. Mr Dai represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, cleaning and rubbish removal costs and compensation of $26,827.41 for the repair of damage.
The tenant has applied for a full refund of rent, compensation of $20,000.00 for damage to her chattels, and compensation and/or exemplary damages of $8,040.00 for her ill health due to the premises not being HHS compliant, a total of $58,200.00. Background
The tenancy started on 16 December 2022. It was a fixed term tenancy until 14 December 2023. On 6 September 2023 the landlord gave notice that the tenancy would not be renewed and would terminate at the end of the fixed term. The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
While not strictly compliant with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for ending a fixed term tenancy, the parties agreed to end the tenancy earlier (which they were able to do). Ms Gray accepted that the tenancy ended on 28 October 2023, the date the landlord considered it had ended.
The tenant’s property manager could not attend the inspection scheduled for 28 October as she was unwell. She asked the tenant to leave the keys ‘somewhere near the house’. When she inspected the premises on 1 November 2023, she found them considerably damaged: the hot water cylinder had been removed and pipework damaged, the shower cubicle and toilet and bathroom walls were damaged, and the heat pump had been ripped off the wall and damaged. As well, windows were broken. The broken water pipes had damaged the carpets.
The landlord reported the damage to the Police who assigned an incident number but said they would not investigate further due to resource issues. The Police suggested the landlord could make a Tenancy Tribunal or other civil application.
The landlord has insurance for damage. I will address that issue further in this decision.
Once the landlord made its application against the tenant, she then lodged a cross application. Mediation
I discussed mediation with the parties. Initially, they both agreed to attend mediation, However, Mr Dai withdrew his agreement to attend mediation when he realised it would not take place on 2 May when the hearing was scheduled. He said he wanted the applications concluded without any more delay. Issues
The issues before the Tribunal are these: •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and water rates? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and rubbish removal? •Has the landlord proved that the tenant caused damage to the premises for which compensation should be awarded? •Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for damage to her chattels, and damage to her health due to leaking at the premises? Legal considerations
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant or a landlord for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the parties of their statutory responsibilities.
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 (by the tenant) and the accompanying 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 deciding whether to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA which are: •The intention of the person; •The effect of the unlawful act; •The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and •The public interest.

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and water rates?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $1,325.71 to 28 October 2023. I allow that claim by consent.
The landlord only provided one invoice for water rates in evidence despite Tenancy Services advising that the invoices would be needed to prove the claim.
The tenant said she understood that water rates would be included in the rent, or otherwise paid by the landlord.
An agreement of that kind would need to be clearly expressed.
Case law has established that accounts for utilities must be provided promptly. The landlord did not raise the issue of liability for water rates until September 2023 for water rates from January 2023.
I award the landlord payment for water rates based on the one invoice produced in evidence, not for the back-dated amounts for which no invoices were provided and for which a claim was made only in September 2023 on a back-dated basis.

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and rubbish removal?

The landlord’s claims are based on estimates. Neither cleaning nor rubbish removal work has been done because the issue of the cause of the damage to the premises remains unresolved.
The Tribunal would normally dismiss claims where there was no proof of the cost incurred. It seldom makes orders based on estimates.
Here, the tenant accepts that some cleaning was required in the bathroom, but the rest of the premises were left clean. She said she arranged a skip bin to remove her rubbish.
The tenant’s mother has provided a written statement confirming that.
I am prepared to award the landlord compensation for cleaning of $150.00 based on the tenant’s acceptance that some cleaning was required.
I make no award for rubbish removal. The work has not been done. Given the extent of the damage caused to the premises, it seems likely that considerable rubbish removal will be required at a later date. Has the landlord proved that the tenant caused damage to the premises for which compensation should be awarded?
The landlord did not attend the arranged inspection on 28 October 2023. The tenant gave evidence that she was asked to leave the key for the landlord, so she left it in the kitchen drawer and locked the front door. She said she did not lock the back door because there was a locked gate on the deck outside the door.
The tenant said the premises were not damaged when she left on 28 October 2023.
Mr Dai did not inspect the premises that day, nor did the tenant’s property manager. The damage was discovered at an inspection on 1 November 2023.
I have no reason not to accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not damage the premises when she vacated. She was expecting an inspection to be carried out. I found her to be a reliable witness.
The tenant also produced written statements from her mother and her ex-partner confirming that the premises were not damaged when she vacated.
Mr Dai said there was no evidence of a forced entry, yet the photos show broken windows that have been left open.
Mr Dai said the issue of cause was important for the owner. If the damage were found to be caused by the tenant, the insurer would accept the claim in full, provided the tenant paid an excess of $550.00. If the damage were not caused by the tenant, the insurer would assess each aspect of the damage and apply more excesses and deduct other costs.
Those issues are not relevant to the Tribunal’s enquiry, nor is the landlord’s financial ability to pay for the damage if the insurer limits what amount it will pay under the policy.
The landlord has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused the significant damage to the premises as shown in the photos produced in evidence.
I find it more likely that some unknown third person ripped out the water cylinder, pulled the heat pump from the wall, caused damage to pipe work and the walls and fittings in the bathroom and toilet sometime between the tenant vacating on 28 October and the inspection on 1 November. In other words, I find that the damage was probably the result of vandalism and theft.
I dismiss the landlord’s application for compensation for damage.

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Mr Dai produced a HHS compliance report. The report is confusing. The premises were first assessed before the tenancy started. He said there was no tenancy in place then. Some non-compliance issues were noted.
The landlord had work done to ensure compliance (invoice dated 30 March 2023). The HHS compliance report is dated 16 December 2022, the start date of the tenancy. Amending a report but keeping the report date the same is not helpful evidentially. However, I accept Mr Dai’s explanation for the sequence of events.
The landlord had 90 days in which to ensure HHS compliance from the start of the tenancy. I find that the landlord probably complied within that time frame or very shortly after it.
The tenant produced no other evidence to establish HHS non-compliance.
I find that the landlord’s evidence establishes that the premises were HHS compliant.
I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages because the premises were not HHS compliant. Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for damage to her chattels, and damage to her health due to leaking at the premises?
The tenant gave evidence that there was a roof leak which then caused leaking through the lounge ceiling and through the floor to the garage below.
The landlord was aware of the leak but did not consider it serious.
The tenant’s communications about the leaking were limited. She says the reason she moved from the premises was due to them leaking and being cold, draughty, and mouldy.
The tenant produced very little evidence to support her claims.
The tenant produced a video that shows a bucket (later replaced with another container) to catch the dripping from the ceiling that came through the roof leak when it rained.
I accept that the tenant experienced some loss of enjoyment from the leaking that went on during periods or rain, commencing with the January 2023 flooding event in Auckland.
I award the tenant compensation of $800.00 for her loss of enjoyment, taking account of the factors mentioned in Birch (referred to above).
The tenant’s claim for damage to her chattels is dismissed. The tenant said she had not prepared well for the hearing. There is no evidence available for me to assess what damage occurred to the tenant’s chattels, let alone the value of those chattels.
Further, if the damage occurred because of the January extreme flooding event (by which I mean that that event was the start of the leak which then continued) the landlord’s liability would be limited. An unforeseen event, such as extreme flooding that caused damage to chattels, is something the tenant’s contents insurance would cover, were she insured. Result
The tenant will pay the landlord $1,546.63 for rent arrears, water rates (limited to 1 month) and for cleaning she accepted she had not done. From that will be deducted $800.00 which I award to the tenant for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking which continued on occasions after the January 2023 extreme weather event which caused damage to the roof allowing water to ingress. The landlord was aware of the leaking.
The tenant’s application for compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s alleged failure to comply with the HHS is dismissed as is her claim for compensation for damage to her chattels and for health issues.
The landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the premises that occurred some time between 28 October (after the tenant vacated) and 1 November 2023 is dismissed.
I make no award of the filing fees as each party has only been partly successful.
The bond will be split between the parties - $746.63 to the landlord and $1,573.37 to the tenant. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression orders. As neither party has been wholly or mostly successful, the criteria for name suppression are not met – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761059 — Rent arrears at 886 Beach Road, Waiake, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761059 — Rent arrears at 886 Beach Road, Waiake, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and water rates?

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and rubbish removal?

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears and water rates?

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and rubbish removal?

Has the tenant proved that the premises were not HHS compliant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions