What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774779 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord’s] claim for cleaning is allowed in the amount of $280.00.

How much money was awarded in case 4774779?

2. [The Tenant’S] Claim For Breach O…: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774779?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717119-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774779 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord’s] claim for cleaning is allowed in the amount of $280.00.

How much money was awarded in case 4774779?

2. [The Tenant’S] Claim For Breach O…: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774779?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717119-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Street address], Waitakere, RD 2, Auckland 0782 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774779 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774779. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. [The tenant’s] claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards is allowed in the amount of	$280.00		2. [The tenant’s] claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards is allowed in the amount of

Order

[The landlord’s] claim for cleaning is allowed in the amount of $280.00.
[The tenant’s] claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards is allowed in the amount of $280.00.
No monetary order is made because the claims cancel each other out.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video link.
Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for remediating the premises and lost rental income following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond and breached the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). He seeks refund of his rent and exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 September 2023.
The tenant deliberately underpaid the rent by one week because the landlord had not lodged the one week’s rent he had paid for bond.
The arrears are cancelled out. No order is necessary.

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. 1
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord spent many days cleaning the premises. He estimates it would have taken a professional cleaner two days to clean the premises.
I consider an order of $280.00 is appropriate. It is a small premises. However, there was mould on the ceiling, which would have taken some time to clean.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant damaged a blind, a mattress, and some of the studio’s internal elements by allowing mould to proliferate by inadequately airing and vaping inside the premises. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s40(1)(e)(ii)-(v).
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. 2
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). 3 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). 4
Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
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. 6
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. 7
The mattress and the blind were damaged by mould. The next question then is, was the damage more than fair wear and tear?
The tenant maintains he aired the premises prudently as well as he could bearing in mind, for instance, the studio did not have a kitchen extractor fan and the windows and doors did not have security stays permitting them to be left partially open unless the tenant was at home.
The landlord says that in all his years of experience with living in the studios himself and having other tenants living in them, the studios have never had a mould problem except in the case of this tenant. Therefore, it must be the tenant’s imprudent lack of airing or other behaviours that is responsible for the mould that caused the damage. 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 4 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 5 RTA, s 49B(3A)(a). 6 RTA, s 49B(1). 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
On consideration of all of the parties’ evidence and submissions including the materials that they have provided prior to the hearing, I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the blind and mattress damage was more than fair wear and tear. It has not been proven the tenant did not adequately air the premises, and the mould may have occurred despite that bearing in mind the ventilation for the premises needed improving.
In respect to damage to the building components such as window frames, I am not satisfied that the mould could not have been cleaned off, at least at the time the tenancy ended, which was over a month before the landlord took his photographs.
The landlord’s damage claim is dismissed. Lost rental income
The landlord claims for lost rental income from the studio due to the need to clean it and to repair damage.
I do not find it proven the landlord lost income due to the tenant not leaving the premises reasonably clean. The landlord could have advertised the premises on BnB and had them cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard before his first BnB guest arrived. The tenant’s claims
After the last hearing involving this tenancy on 26 July 2023, the Tribunal found against the landlord for failing to lodge the bond and non-compliance with the HHS standards for ventilation and heating. 8
At the hearing, the Tribunal indicated it would uphold the landlord’s termination notice meaning the tenant would have to move out a few weeks later on 16 August 2023. However, the landlord kindly said he would not enforce the order so that the tenant could stay as long as 30 November 2023, when the landlord would move back in himself.
The tenant voluntarily moved out on 24 September 2024, about two months after the hearing. 8 A tenant v A landlord [2023] NZTT Waitākere 4545349, 4528749.
The tenant claims for the same breaches that the Tribunal found proven against the landlord at the last hearing. It is not contested that the breaches continued on. The landlord did not fix them.
The landlord did not lodge the $400.00 bond money. It was not worth the landlord lodging the bond in the circumstances. The tenancy was about to end. The landlord retained the bond, and it has now been applied against the tenant’s rent arrears. It would not be fair to order exemplary damages against the landlord again for the failure to lodge the bond. 9
Ideally, the landlord should have remedied the HHS breaches by installing a kitchen extractor fan and a heater. The landlord says he wanted to avoid contact with the tenant. Moreover, the landlord has not rented the premises out since for residential tenancies, only for BnB stays to which the RTA does not apply.
There is a risk of unfairness in revisiting these breaches upon the landlord when the tenancy only continued beyond its intended duration of three weeks because of the landlord’s kindness.
Nonetheless, the landlord did continue to breach these duties.
It would not be just to order exemplary damages. 10
However, the Tribunal orders a rent reduction of $280.00 for the tenant’s loss of amenity relating to the HHS breaches for the remainder of the tenancy. Conclusion
This outcome means that neither party owes the other anything. That result is fair overall. It has the added advantage of the parties not having to deal with each other again. Non-publication
The tenant sought non-publication of his name and identifying details. He has been successful in his claim. Non-publication is appropriate under the terms of RTA, s 95A(1). 9 Under RTA, s 85(2): “The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.” 10 RTA, s 109(3).
The landlord did not seek non-publication. However, non-publication is ordered in order to protect the non-publication order made in respect to the Tribunal’s previous decision. If the landlord’s name and address were published, that non- publication order would be negated.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774779. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. [The tenant’s] claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards is allowed in the amount of	$280.00		2. [The tenant’s] claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards is allowed in the amount of

Order

[The landlord’s] claim for cleaning is allowed in the amount of $280.00.
[The tenant’s] claim for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards is allowed in the amount of $280.00.
No monetary order is made because the claims cancel each other out.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video link.
Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for remediating the premises and lost rental income following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond and breached the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). He seeks refund of his rent and exemplary damages.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 September 2023.
The tenant deliberately underpaid the rent by one week because the landlord had not lodged the one week’s rent he had paid for bond.
The arrears are cancelled out. No order is necessary.

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. 1
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord spent many days cleaning the premises. He estimates it would have taken a professional cleaner two days to clean the premises.
I consider an order of $280.00 is appropriate. It is a small premises. However, there was mould on the ceiling, which would have taken some time to clean.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant damaged a blind, a mattress, and some of the studio’s internal elements by allowing mould to proliferate by inadequately airing and vaping inside the premises. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s40(1)(e)(ii)-(v).
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. 2
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). 3 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). 4
Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 5
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. 6
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. 7
The mattress and the blind were damaged by mould. The next question then is, was the damage more than fair wear and tear?
The tenant maintains he aired the premises prudently as well as he could bearing in mind, for instance, the studio did not have a kitchen extractor fan and the windows and doors did not have security stays permitting them to be left partially open unless the tenant was at home.
The landlord says that in all his years of experience with living in the studios himself and having other tenants living in them, the studios have never had a mould problem except in the case of this tenant. Therefore, it must be the tenant’s imprudent lack of airing or other behaviours that is responsible for the mould that caused the damage. 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 4 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 5 RTA, s 49B(3A)(a). 6 RTA, s 49B(1). 7 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
On consideration of all of the parties’ evidence and submissions including the materials that they have provided prior to the hearing, I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the blind and mattress damage was more than fair wear and tear. It has not been proven the tenant did not adequately air the premises, and the mould may have occurred despite that bearing in mind the ventilation for the premises needed improving.
In respect to damage to the building components such as window frames, I am not satisfied that the mould could not have been cleaned off, at least at the time the tenancy ended, which was over a month before the landlord took his photographs.
The landlord’s damage claim is dismissed. Lost rental income
The landlord claims for lost rental income from the studio due to the need to clean it and to repair damage.
I do not find it proven the landlord lost income due to the tenant not leaving the premises reasonably clean. The landlord could have advertised the premises on BnB and had them cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard before his first BnB guest arrived. The tenant’s claims
After the last hearing involving this tenancy on 26 July 2023, the Tribunal found against the landlord for failing to lodge the bond and non-compliance with the HHS standards for ventilation and heating. 8
At the hearing, the Tribunal indicated it would uphold the landlord’s termination notice meaning the tenant would have to move out a few weeks later on 16 August 2023. However, the landlord kindly said he would not enforce the order so that the tenant could stay as long as 30 November 2023, when the landlord would move back in himself.
The tenant voluntarily moved out on 24 September 2024, about two months after the hearing. 8 A tenant v A landlord [2023] NZTT Waitākere 4545349, 4528749.
The tenant claims for the same breaches that the Tribunal found proven against the landlord at the last hearing. It is not contested that the breaches continued on. The landlord did not fix them.
The landlord did not lodge the $400.00 bond money. It was not worth the landlord lodging the bond in the circumstances. The tenancy was about to end. The landlord retained the bond, and it has now been applied against the tenant’s rent arrears. It would not be fair to order exemplary damages against the landlord again for the failure to lodge the bond. 9
Ideally, the landlord should have remedied the HHS breaches by installing a kitchen extractor fan and a heater. The landlord says he wanted to avoid contact with the tenant. Moreover, the landlord has not rented the premises out since for residential tenancies, only for BnB stays to which the RTA does not apply.
There is a risk of unfairness in revisiting these breaches upon the landlord when the tenancy only continued beyond its intended duration of three weeks because of the landlord’s kindness.
Nonetheless, the landlord did continue to breach these duties.
It would not be just to order exemplary damages. 10
However, the Tribunal orders a rent reduction of $280.00 for the tenant’s loss of amenity relating to the HHS breaches for the remainder of the tenancy. Conclusion
This outcome means that neither party owes the other anything. That result is fair overall. It has the added advantage of the parties not having to deal with each other again. Non-publication
The tenant sought non-publication of his name and identifying details. He has been successful in his claim. Non-publication is appropriate under the terms of RTA, s 95A(1). 9 Under RTA, s 85(2): “The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.” 10 RTA, s 109(3).
The landlord did not seek non-publication. However, non-publication is ordered in order to protect the non-publication order made in respect to the Tribunal’s previous decision. If the landlord’s name and address were published, that non- publication order would be negated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774779 — Healthy homes at [Street address], Waitakere, RD 2, Auckland 0782

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774779 — Healthy homes at [Street address], Waitakere, RD 2, Auckland 0782

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions