What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799302 about?

The tribunal order states: Shuwen Wang must pay [the tenant] $17,249.62 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4799302?

Basement: $708.58 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain (d…: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,820.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $464.90 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- o…: $928.58 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Jan 2023 Auckland Weather Event From…: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $25.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Week Rent Rebate: $4,840.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799302?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10565548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799302 about?

The tribunal order states: Shuwen Wang must pay [the tenant] $17,249.62 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4799302?

Basement: $708.58 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain (d…: $3,300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,820.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $464.90 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- o…: $928.58 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Jan 2023 Auckland Weather Event From…: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $25.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Week Rent Rebate: $4,840.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799302?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10565548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799302 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799302 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799302 — net $17,249.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace 3 light bulbs	$25.88		Replace 3 light bulbs
Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from	$207.00		Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from
basement		$708.58	basement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period		$928.58	Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period
week rent rebate		$4,840.00	week rent rebate
Compensation: Failure to maintain (deck from 29/01/23 to		$3,300.00	Failure to maintain (deck from 29/01/23 to
Compensation: Failure to maintain (leak damage from		$464.90	Failure to maintain (leak damage from
Compensation: Failure to maintain (flood damage from		$1,820.00	Failure to maintain (flood damage from
Jan 2023 Auckland weather event from 23/01/2023 to		$5,400.00	Jan 2023 Auckland weather event from 23/01/2023 to
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$232.88	$17,482.50
Net award		$17,249.62
Bond		$3,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$17,249.62

Claims and awards for application 4799302 — net $17,249.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace 3 light bulbs

Amount: $25.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace 3 light bulbs

Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from

basement

Amount: $708.58
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: basement

Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period

Amount: $928.58
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period

week rent rebate

Amount: $4,840.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: week rent rebate

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — for lack of evidence proving her claim and because the tenant has provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that…
Name Suppression — as it is in the interest of the public to be able to identify a landlord that conducts itself in such an unlawful manner for such lengthy periods so as to be w…
Painting And Plastering — for the landlord’s lack of evidence to prove the claim.
This Cost — for lack of evidence.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Filing Fee Rubbish Removal Cleanliness

Order

Shuwen Wang must pay [the tenant] $17,249.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (5199199-006) to [the tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have made a cross application for compensation/general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond ad reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy commenced on 22 March 2022 and ended on 19 December 2023.
The tenants say they moved out on 12 December 2023, as the landlord lived overseas, kept changing property managers and refused to undertake the necessary repairs and maintenance to ensure the rental premise was in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord confirmed that she lived overseas and had three property management companies managing the property during the tenancy. Barfoot & Thompson managed the property from 22 March 2022 to 3 April 2023. Ashton Property Management managed the property from 4 April 2023 to around 12 December 2023 when the tenants moved out as they say the new property manager did not want to carry out any exit inspections with them between 12 and 19 December 2023, the date the tenancy ended.
The landlord made allegations she had to keep changing property managers because the companies kept refusing to deal with the tenant. She did not provide any evidence to support this allegation. The tenant produced emails from the first and second property manager that prove those companies had issues with the landlord not meeting her s45 of the RTA obligations to the tenant and when they tried to force her to comply with her obligations she changed property management companies. One such example is where the first property management company withheld rent so it could pay to have a new stove/oven installed on 30 March 2023 and the landlord changed property management companies on 4 April 2023.
The tenant says he tried to get the new/third property manager to carry out an exit inspection so he had a week to address any concerns raised before the end of the tenancy. Issues such as removal of a temporary wall and television brackets could have been addressed in this time period, but the tenants were denied this opportunity to check with the landlord or property manager as the landlord was still in Australia and the new property manager made it clear that she did not want to deal with them.
The landlord claimed the tenant left the premise in such a bad state of repair as well as leaving it unclean and untidy that she was unable to re-tenant the property for 12 days from 19 December 2023.
The landlord confirmed she returned to New Zealand on 29 December 2023 and the new tenants moved into the premise on 10 January 2024. In between she says the property was vacant, but some significant repair and maintenance work was carried out under an insurance claim between 29 December 2023 and 10 January 2024 so the new tenants could move into the premise. The landlord was unable to confirm exactly what date this flood and leak related remedial works were undertaken. The landlord confirmed to me that this work was undertaken after the exit photographs were taken on 29 December 2023.
The tenant says the property was not in a reasonable state of repair and that the repairs were carried out after his tenancy ended and that is why there was a delay in the landlord re-tenanting the property. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated:
“‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs of the kitchen rangehood that appeared to have three drops of either fat or water on the edge of it. The filters appeared clean and the rest of the unit appeared clean. The tenant claims they wiped this down as part of their exit clean and cannot explain how the three droplets got there. They are prepared to accept responsibility for the cleaning of these three drops of fat/water. I do not accept that much if any of the $230.00 cost sought can be attributed this trivial cleaning job and dismiss this claim.
The landlord provided photographs of a small patch of powder on the inner edge of the dishwasher door that appeared to be a powdery residue that was probably left after the dishwasher door dried out after the tenant’s exit clean. It was a very small patch that would have taken a few seconds to wipe clean. The tenant says he is prepared to accept responsibility for the cleaning of this small patch of powder residue on the internal dishwasher door. I do not accept that much if any of the $230.00 cost sought can be attributed this trivial cleaning job and dismiss this claim.
The landlord says the tenant left the glass in the two showers covered in mineral deposits. The tenant says he cleaned the showers thoroughly and the glass was not pristine at the start of the tenancy. The landlord could not produce an entry inspection photograph of the glass that showed the glass being in pristine condition at the start of the tenancy. I do not accept the tenant failed to leave the showers in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and do not accept the tenant is responsible for making sure the shower glass is free from mineral deposits that occur as part of a tenant’s fair wear and tear of the rental premise. I dismiss this claim as it is not proven by the landlord and has been disproven by the tenant.
The landlord claimed the upstairs toilet bowl had a brown stain in the bottom. The tenant produced entry inspection photographs that shows the toilet was in the same condition at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence to prove it.
The landlord claimed the tenant did not remove rubbish from the basement. The photograph produced shows some broken shelving. The tenant took responsibility for this, apologised for not having removed it and conveyed that it was an honest oversight. This claim is upheld and the $207.00 claimed is awarded to the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $230.00 cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving her claim and because the tenant has provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.
The landlord also claims she had to replace three light bulbs. The tenant accepted liability for these light bulb replacement. Accordingly, I award the $25.88 claimed by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the following damage was caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenant during the tenancy: a. Ripped lounge curtain that needed to be replaced; b. Mould marked curtain backs on dining and TV room curtains that needed to be replaced; c. Three roller blinds in the downstairs bedroom next to the garage that the landlord says were to dirty to clean and had to be replaced; d. Cat door flap that was broken and needed to be replaced; e. Nail holes in the walls that needed patching and repainting; f. A television wall bracket that had not been removed and needed removing and the holes patched and painted; g. Lounge wall cable duct that needed replacing; and h. A temporary wall at the back of the carport that had writing on it.
The landlord was unable to provide a photograph of a ripped curtain in the lounge. The tenant confirms there was a rip in the back of one of the dining room curtains, he was unaware of how that rip occurred, but says is was neither intentional or careless damage on his or the other flatmates actions. It likely occurred as a result of the curtain being old and disintegrating over time due to sun damage. The landlord was unable to prove there was a ripped lounge curtain that she says needed to be replaced nor was she able to prove the lounge curtain rip was caused by the tenant’s careless or intentional acts or omissions. Therefore, I dismiss this claim.
The tenant proved the mould marked curtain backs on dining and TV room curtains were present on the curtains in the entry inspection photographs. The tenant has successfully disproven this claim for the replacement cost of the dining room and TV room curtains.
The landlord produced a photograph of three roller blinds in the downstairs bedroom next to the garage that the landlord says were to dirty to clean and had to be replaced. The photographs do not show any dirt on the blinds and the landlord was unable to produce entry inspection photographs of the blind for comparison. The landlord’s claim for this cost is dismissed for lack of evidence.
The landlord produced a photograph of the broken cat door flap that needed to be replaced. The tenant produced a photograph from the entry inspection pack that shows the flap was broken and tapped up at the start of the tenancy. Further, the tenant says he did not have a cat and never used the cat door. The tenant has disproven liability for the replacement cost of the cat door flap.
The landlord produced three photographs of the same wall with two nails in it. She could not identify which room these photographs were taken in and claimed that all four bedrooms in the house had holes in every wall that needed to be patched and painted. She did not produce adequate evidence to prove this allegation. The tenant produced four entry inspection photographs that showed numerous holes and a crack in the bedroom, TV room, laundry and lounge walls. On viewing these entry inspection photographs the landlord accepted there were some holes in the walls on commencement of tenancy The claim for painting and plastering is dismissed for the landlord’s lack of evidence to prove the claim.
The tenant confirmed he had installed a television wall bracket in the bedroom that had not been removed and that it has been installed over the holes left form a bracket that had been there and removed before his tenancy commenced. He provided photographic evidence of this and stated he had got verbal permission from the first property manager to install the television bracket using the old holes. Further the tenant confirmed that he tried to talk to the third property manager to ask if the landlord wanted this bracket removed but the property manager refused to discuss this or assist him in any way to ascertain how the landlord wanted this dealt with. By the time the landlord came back to New Zealand on 29 December 2023, the tenancy had ended 10 days prior and the first the tenant knew the landlord wanted this removed was when he received the quote for the paint and plaster costs. I do not accept the tenant made the original holes and accept the tenant used those holes to mount his TV. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that the property manager gave him permission to install the TV bracket as it was not causing any further damage to the wall. The tenant was denied the opportunity to find out whether the landlord required the bracket to be removed and would have remove it if instructed to do so at the end of the tenancy. However, if he had removed it, the wall would have been left in the same state he found it at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed for lack of evidence the tenant is liable for the damage to the wall by the installation of the TV bracket.
The landlord says the lounge wall cable duct needed replacing as it was broken and produced a photograph of it. She could not say which room the photograph was taken in and did not have a photograph to show the state of the duct at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not produced sufficient evidence to support her claim and it is dismissed.
The tenant confirmed he erected a temporary wall at the back of the carport that had writing on it that was in permanent marker but could be removed. He stated he had been given permission to do this by Barfoot’s during one property inspection. He says it was made of whiteboard tongue and grove plastic that locked together, was not intrusive and is easily removable without causing any damage as it was inserted using a locking system. Tenant offered to have it removed. He said he had tried to talk to the third property manager about whether the landlord wanted it removed but the landlord was overseas, and the new Property Manager did not want to deal with the tenant’s exit inspection issues and questions. I do not accept the tenant caused damage to this temporary wall that he erected. I do accept he took all reasonably practicable steps to find out if the landlord wanted it removed in the week after he had vacated the premise but was still paying rent and that he would have removed it if he had been instructed to do so. I dismiss the claim as there is insufficient proof the tenant has caused damage to the premise by erecting the wall nor that there was an agreement at the time he received permission to install it that he would remove it at the end of the tenancy and pay to repair any damage caused by its removal.
I accept the damage claims the landlord made relate to damage that was pre- existing when the tenancy commenced or that it falls into the category of fair wear and tear or the landlord has not proven the damage was caused by the tenant’s deliberate/intentional or careless acts or omissions. On a number of claims the tenant has also disproved liability for the damage.
No awards are made for any of the landlord’s damage claims. Lost income and other miscellaneous claims
The landlord has made the following claims: a. $1,628.57 for lost income for 12 days the landlord says she was unable to rent out the house while she carried out cleaning and repair work as a result of the tenant’s malicious damage to the premise; b. $2,600.00 for lost wages while the landlord took time off work to manage the cleaning and repair work as a result of the tenant’s malicious damage to the premise; c. $1,000.00 for the loss of feng shui of the household due to all the nail holes in the walls throughout the house and the resulting health impacts of the loss of the feng shui on her family’s health.
No award has been made for any lost income for 12 days between tenancy’s as the landlord failed to provide any proof to support this claim and the tenant provided proof that the delay in re-tenanting the premise was firstly due to the landlord’s 10 day delay in getting back to New Zealand after the tenancy ended and then because there was considerable flood and leak damage that was not the fault of the tenant that had to be repaired under an insurance claim before new tenants could move into the premise. This damage is described in more detail in the tenant claim section below.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation for the owner’s lost wages while she carries out business to do with managing a tenanted property nor for any loss of feng shui or the impact of that loss of feng shui on the landlord’s family’s health.
The three claims listed in paragraph [43] above are dismissed for lack of evidence to support them or because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award these types of damages.

TENANT CLAIMS

Failure to maintain

[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness and s7(2)(b) of the HIR’s which requires that the kitchen in a rental premise shall have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants or reimbursement for actual costs incurred by the tenant that should not have been borne by him/her/they.
The tenant gave evidence that: a. They did not have a working oven from 27/01/23 to 30/03/23, a period of 8 weeks and 6 days; b. There were rotting deck planks that required repair and painting/staining and that caused a safety risk to the tenant and his flatmates from 29/01/23 to 19/12/23, a period of 46 weeks and 2 days; c. There was considerable flood damage to the downstairs laundry and bedrooms from 2 burst pipes and 2 floods that meant house had drafts coming from holes in the laundry walls, that were left open after the burst pipes were repaired and the wet walls, damp and mouldy carpet and floor boards and it did not meet the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 standards. The tenant was subjected to these living conditions from 22/08/22 to 19/12/23, a period of 69 weeks and 1 day; d. There was significant flood damage from the 23 January 2023 floods that caused damage to the yard and fence that impacted negatively on the tenant’s living conditions from 23/01/23 to 19/12/23, a period of 47 weeks and 1 day; e. The insinkerator/garbage disposal unit was broken and not repaired from 29/01/23 to 19/12/23, a period of 46 weeks and 2 days; f.The dining room window frame was broken and in need of repair and was a safety risk as the window glass or the whole frame could have fallen out at anytime from 22/03/22 to 19/12/23, a period of 91 weeks. Oven/Stove
The tenant says he provided evidence from the first property manager and himself by way of call logs, text messages and emails from 29 January 2023 to 9 March 2023 that prove the tenant raised the issue of the stove top not igniting without the use of matches, which is dangerous, and the oven not working from 27 January 2023 to 30 March 2023.
The tenant confirmed he sent a follow up email about the stove/oven on 2 February 2023 asking when the stove/oven will be fixed as hasn’t been working for over a week.
The landlord/owners arranged to visit the premise to assess the oven/stove issue and confirmed to me that they carried out that visit.
The first property manager confirmed to the tenant that the oven was beyond repair, as assessed by two different electricians, and needed to be replaced and informed him she had told the landlord/owner this and had given the landlord/owner a quote.
An email from the first property manager dated 9 March 2023 has an email in the chain below from the landlord dated 3 March 2023. The landlord’s email states the landlord has no money for all the maintenance issues and will fix the oven after the rent increase. The landlord raised the rent by $50.00 per week from 9 April 2023. The email from the property manager dated 9 March 2023 confirms the landlord has not approved the repair and they say the property management company undertakes to carry out the replacement of the oven/stove as the property manager recognises the legal requirement for the landlord to provide a means to cook to the tenant.
The landlord/owner told me today that she tried to get a technician to look at the oven to see if it could be repaired but couldn’t get one due to the flood. I find this evidence to not be credible as the tenant has provided evidence from the property manager at the time that Barfoot’s sent two technicians to investigate it and one of the technicians gave a quote for replacing the oven/stove unit but the landlord refused to pay for the repair. Barfoot’s have also provided evidence they were told by both technicians said it was damaged beyond repair and recommended replacement.
Barfoot’s and the tenant have also confirmed Barfoot’s withheld rent and used the funds to replace the whole unit (stove and oven).
The landlord and tenant confirmed the new oven/stove was put in at the end of March 2023. 30 March 2023- invoice issued for new oven. LL said the tenants could just light the stove with a match. Acted like it was no big deal.
The tenant and first property manager confirm that Barfoot’s took steps to investigate the cause of the stove/oven unit not being fit to cook food, both by boiling and by baking because the stove ignition switch was faulty and the oven did not work at all. However, an email chain from Barfoot’s shows that when the property manager informed the landlord of the issue, and provided her with a quote to replace the oven/stove top unit, she refused to give Barfoot’s the authority to get a new oven/stove unit installed until after she had got a rent increase from the tenant of $50.00 per week as she could not afford to undertake the required maintenance. Barfoot’s understood the gravity of not having adequate cooking facilities and withheld rent from the landlord until it had enough to purchase and install a new oven/stove top unit.
The landlord gave evidence that she wanted to see if the oven could be repaired before agreeing to replace it and that she had difficulty in getting an electrician to investigate repair options for the 8 weeks and 6 days due to the January and February 2023 weather events. She also stated that there was no issue with the stove top as the gas elements could be ignited with a match, even though this creates a safety hazard for the tenant that she appeared oblivious to when she gave evidence today. I do not find the landlord’s evidence compelling as the tenant and Barfoot’s have provided evidence that Barfoot’s had two electricians investigate, find it could not be repaired and obtained a quote for installation of a new oven/stove unit. I prefer the email-based evidence of the tenant and Barfoot’s over the contrary oral evidence of the landlord.
By the time the new oven/stove top unit was installed on 30 March 2023, the tenant had been without adequate cooking facilities for 8 weeks and 6 days.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA obligations as well as its s7(2)(b) of the HIR and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 8 weeks and 6 days period they have had the loss of amenity of the stove and oven that they had reasonably expected to be able to use during their tenancy. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $80.00 per week for the period 27 January 2023 to 30 March 2023.80 x 8 weeks and 6 days =$928.58 rent rebate ordered. Flood damage to laundry and downstairs bedroom walls and flooring
The tenant has provided evidence that the there were two separate burst pipe incidents in the laundry that caused flood damage to downstairs laundry and bedrooms.
The tenant confirmed the first flood occurred on 23 August 2022 when a pipe in the laundry wall burst and flooded the laundry area. He says the water also went into one of the downstairs bedrooms and wet the carpet and it was four days later the leak was repaired. Nothing was done to dry out the wet carpet and flooring. He confirmed to me the exposed wet gib in the wall was left open and it let drafts into the downstairs areas of the premise.
Because the house was not dried out properly, the tenant says the floors, carpets and walls became damp and mouldy. He provided photographic evidence of the mould and damp under the carpet, in the underlay and in the floorboards.
The tenant says the second burst pipe, also in the laundry, occurred at the beginning of May 2023, approximately the 1 st or 2 nd of May 2023. The burst pipe was fixed in a few days with further holes being made to the laundry wall. Again, the landlord did nothing to dry out the wet walls, carpet and floor boards.
The second property management company informed the tenant that the landlord had asked it to give the tenant 2 options. The first was that she would install an air conditioner in the lounge upstairs or to put a damp proof cloth down, but didn’t specify where. The tenant confirmed the upstairs lounge was where there was the least dampness concerns. He also confirmed to me that he was also told the landlord suggested he buy a dehumidifier.
The landlord claimed she followed the second property manager’s advice and installed a heat pump upstairs in the lounge. The tenant says this was done a few weeks before the end of his tenancy.
The tenant provided a receipt for the dehumidifier he purchased on 4 May 2023 at $1,238.00 due to extreme dampness of downstairs area to try to dry the carpet out. He incurred this significant expense out of desperation to remove some of the dampness in the downstairs over the cold winter months and to discourage further growth of black toxic mould.
The tenant provided a text message from the second property manager (Mark Ashton) dated 5 May 2023 Text message that says there has been an insurance claim made for laundry flooring gib, carpets in downstairs area, window frame in dining room and garden fence.
PM did nothing to dry out flooring and tenants purchased dehumidifier on 5 May 2023.
The tenant says when he enquired what was happening with the insurance claim he stated that the second property manager told him the insurance claim was nothing to do with them and the insurer was sorting it out with owner. The landlord did tell the tenant that it would take time to resolve the issue but the first burst pipe had been back in August 2022. There had been plenty of time to make an initial insurance claim. Further, after the second leak, one of the three insurance assessors brought a moisture gun with him and told the tenant the moisture readings were so high that it was a serious health risk and should be a recorded by the insurer as a priority to be repaired.
The tenant says none of this flood damage had been fixed when he moved out in late December 2023. The landlord confirmed the repairs were carried out some time between 29 December 2023 and 10 January 2024.
When I asked the landlord about why she had left the repairs so long when there was mould growing up the walls and on the carpet, the landlord responded that “the tenant could have just moved out if he didn’t like it”. The tenant confirmed he did move out on 12 December 2023 because he had been living in such unhealthy conditions as his bedroom was downstairs in the damp mouldy area.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA obligations as well as its s15 of the HIR and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for 69 weeks 1 for the period the from 22 August 2022 to 19 December 2023 that the tenant and his flatmates were forced to live in damp, mouldy and cold conditions, particularly during the winter months and for the additional power consumption to run the dehumidifier and for the expense they had to bear buying a dehumidifier they would not have needed to purchase but for the landlord’s serious breach of the RTA and the HIR. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $70.00 per week for the period 22 August 2022 to 19 December 2023.70 x 69 weeks and 1 day =$4,840.00 rent rebate ordered. Flood damage to yard and fence
The tenant provided evidence of the flood damage to the yard and fence from the wet weather event in Auckland on 23 January 2023. This evidence shows a huge pile of debris from flood that was not removed by the end of the tenancy. This debris consisted of unsightly dirt, plastic, logs laying outside the tenant’s bedroom as well as the whole fence having been damaged leaving the tenant with a loss of privacy as he was exposed to his neighbours.
-The tenant says he asked the property manager for a skip and said the tenant and his flatmates were happy to clean the deris up as they just wanted to get rid of it. He confirmed the skip bin was not provided and the debris and broken fence was still there when the tenancy ended in December 2023.
The tenant provided an email he sent to the second property manager on 29 January 2023 raising these issues. D
The landlord in her defence stated that she had to negotiate with the neighbours about the material that would be used to repair the fence, as it spanned both properties borders. I do not accept that this is a reasonable defence to leaving the yard and fence in poor condition that cannot be deemed to be maintained to a reasonable standard for a period of 47 weeks and 1 day from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 47 weeks and 1 day, from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023, that the tenant and his flatmates were forced to live with a flood damaged yard and fence that was unsightly, in the way of the path and that reduced their privacy. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $70.00 per week for 47 weeks and 1 day =$3,300.00 rent rebate ordered. Dining room window frame
The tenant provided evidence the dining room window frame was broken and close to falling out when the tenant moved in. He says that when he walked around with the first Property Manager she pointed out that it needed repair and said that it would be repaired within 2 weeks of the tenant moving it.
The tenant says after the January 2023 weather event it sweeled up and became dangerous as it was very loose and could fall out.
Further, he says he brought it up with the Property Manager several times and eventually did not find it necessary to keep following this up as the Property Manager was aware of the repair need.
The tenant confirmed the week he moved out someone came and put a few nails in the window frame but did not really repair it effectively.
The landlord confirmed this repair work was done just before the end of the tenancy but could not confirm the date.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 46 weeks and 2 days the tenant put up with the rotten deck that needed repair, from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023 of $20.00 per week =$928.58 rent rebate ordered. Deck
The tenant gave evidence that the downstairs deck needing to be painted or varnished and that some rotten boards needed replacing that one of his flatmates foot went through when she was walking across the deck.
The tenant provided evidence he raised this with Property Manager by phone and the in an email dated 29 January 2023.
The tenant confirmed at the end of the tenancy this had not been investigated or remedied.
The landlord said the debris had been removed after the tenancy ended but the fence still has not been repaired even though new tenants moved into the premise around 10 January 2024. She says that as soon as she returned to New Zealand on 29 December 2023 she urged the property management company to get the repair done.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 46 weeks and 2 days the tenant put up with the rotten deck that needed repair, from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023 of $20.00 per week =$928.58 rent rebate ordered. Garbage disposal/insinkerator
The tenant says the Insinkerator/garbage disposal until was broken down and never repaired from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023, being a period of 46 weeks and 2 days. The tenant says he self-repaired it but it broke down again and then was never fixed.
The landlord says the property manager never raised this issue with her, but it is in the tenant’s email to Barfoot’s dated 29 January 2023.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the dining room window frame of $20.00 per week for the 90 weeks and 3 days from 22/03/2022 to 19/12/2023. This is a rent rebate ordered of $1,820.00. Exemplary damages
The landlord has committed 6 intentional breaches of s45(1) of the RTA and 2 of the HIR. These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenant and his flatmates living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions, with reduced privacy and considerable period of stress, inconvenience and loss of amenities they were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord increase the tenant’s rent by $50.00 per week from 4 April 2023 despite not undertaking the required repairs and maintenance to ensure the tenant was living in a home that a reasonable person would consider to be in a reasonable state of repair.
I find the landlord has committed 8 unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenant a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, loss of amenity, loss of privacy and putting them to the cost of purchasing and running a dehumidifier, but giving him a $50.00 per week rent increase and telling the property manager she would start to address the oven/stovetop issue only after receiving a rent increase.
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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches her s45(1) of the RTA obligations and her ss7 and 15 of the HIR obligations for such lengthy periods and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $5,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being 75% of the maximum penalty available. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [the tenant] has wholly succeeded with his claims I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Shuwen Wang has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims I cannot reimburse the filing fee and dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenant has wholly succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details are ordered.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details are not ordered and the landlord’s claim for name suppression is dismissed as it is in the interest of the public to be able to identify a landlord that conducts itself in such an unlawful manner for such lengthy periods so as to be warned about the potential future risks of renting a property from this landlord.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799302 — net $17,249.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace 3 light bulbs	$25.88		Replace 3 light bulbs
Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from	$207.00		Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from
basement		$708.58	basement
Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period		$928.58	Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period
week rent rebate		$4,840.00	week rent rebate
Compensation: Failure to maintain (deck from 29/01/23 to		$3,300.00	Failure to maintain (deck from 29/01/23 to
Compensation: Failure to maintain (leak damage from		$464.90	Failure to maintain (leak damage from
Compensation: Failure to maintain (flood damage from		$1,820.00	Failure to maintain (flood damage from
Jan 2023 Auckland weather event from 23/01/2023 to		$5,400.00	Jan 2023 Auckland weather event from 23/01/2023 to
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$232.88	$17,482.50
Net award		$17,249.62
Bond		$3,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$17,249.62

Claims and awards for application 4799302 — net $17,249.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace 3 light bulbs

Amount: $25.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace 3 light bulbs

Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from

Amount: $207.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: (remove broken shelving unit from

basement

Amount: $708.58
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: basement

Compensation: Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period

Amount: $928.58
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Failure to maintain- oven/stove for period

week rent rebate

Amount: $4,840.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: week rent rebate

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — for lack of evidence proving her claim and because the tenant has provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that…
Name Suppression — as it is in the interest of the public to be able to identify a landlord that conducts itself in such an unlawful manner for such lengthy periods so as to be w…
Painting And Plastering — for the landlord’s lack of evidence to prove the claim.
This Cost — for lack of evidence.

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Filing Fee Rubbish Removal Cleanliness

Order

Shuwen Wang must pay [the tenant] $17,249.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (5199199-006) to [the tenant] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have made a cross application for compensation/general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond ad reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy commenced on 22 March 2022 and ended on 19 December 2023.
The tenants say they moved out on 12 December 2023, as the landlord lived overseas, kept changing property managers and refused to undertake the necessary repairs and maintenance to ensure the rental premise was in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord confirmed that she lived overseas and had three property management companies managing the property during the tenancy. Barfoot & Thompson managed the property from 22 March 2022 to 3 April 2023. Ashton Property Management managed the property from 4 April 2023 to around 12 December 2023 when the tenants moved out as they say the new property manager did not want to carry out any exit inspections with them between 12 and 19 December 2023, the date the tenancy ended.
The landlord made allegations she had to keep changing property managers because the companies kept refusing to deal with the tenant. She did not provide any evidence to support this allegation. The tenant produced emails from the first and second property manager that prove those companies had issues with the landlord not meeting her s45 of the RTA obligations to the tenant and when they tried to force her to comply with her obligations she changed property management companies. One such example is where the first property management company withheld rent so it could pay to have a new stove/oven installed on 30 March 2023 and the landlord changed property management companies on 4 April 2023.
The tenant says he tried to get the new/third property manager to carry out an exit inspection so he had a week to address any concerns raised before the end of the tenancy. Issues such as removal of a temporary wall and television brackets could have been addressed in this time period, but the tenants were denied this opportunity to check with the landlord or property manager as the landlord was still in Australia and the new property manager made it clear that she did not want to deal with them.
The landlord claimed the tenant left the premise in such a bad state of repair as well as leaving it unclean and untidy that she was unable to re-tenant the property for 12 days from 19 December 2023.
The landlord confirmed she returned to New Zealand on 29 December 2023 and the new tenants moved into the premise on 10 January 2024. In between she says the property was vacant, but some significant repair and maintenance work was carried out under an insurance claim between 29 December 2023 and 10 January 2024 so the new tenants could move into the premise. The landlord was unable to confirm exactly what date this flood and leak related remedial works were undertaken. The landlord confirmed to me that this work was undertaken after the exit photographs were taken on 29 December 2023.
The tenant says the property was not in a reasonable state of repair and that the repairs were carried out after his tenancy ended and that is why there was a delay in the landlord re-tenanting the property. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated:
“‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs of the kitchen rangehood that appeared to have three drops of either fat or water on the edge of it. The filters appeared clean and the rest of the unit appeared clean. The tenant claims they wiped this down as part of their exit clean and cannot explain how the three droplets got there. They are prepared to accept responsibility for the cleaning of these three drops of fat/water. I do not accept that much if any of the $230.00 cost sought can be attributed this trivial cleaning job and dismiss this claim.
The landlord provided photographs of a small patch of powder on the inner edge of the dishwasher door that appeared to be a powdery residue that was probably left after the dishwasher door dried out after the tenant’s exit clean. It was a very small patch that would have taken a few seconds to wipe clean. The tenant says he is prepared to accept responsibility for the cleaning of this small patch of powder residue on the internal dishwasher door. I do not accept that much if any of the $230.00 cost sought can be attributed this trivial cleaning job and dismiss this claim.
The landlord says the tenant left the glass in the two showers covered in mineral deposits. The tenant says he cleaned the showers thoroughly and the glass was not pristine at the start of the tenancy. The landlord could not produce an entry inspection photograph of the glass that showed the glass being in pristine condition at the start of the tenancy. I do not accept the tenant failed to leave the showers in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and do not accept the tenant is responsible for making sure the shower glass is free from mineral deposits that occur as part of a tenant’s fair wear and tear of the rental premise. I dismiss this claim as it is not proven by the landlord and has been disproven by the tenant.
The landlord claimed the upstairs toilet bowl had a brown stain in the bottom. The tenant produced entry inspection photographs that shows the toilet was in the same condition at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence to prove it.
The landlord claimed the tenant did not remove rubbish from the basement. The photograph produced shows some broken shelving. The tenant took responsibility for this, apologised for not having removed it and conveyed that it was an honest oversight. This claim is upheld and the $207.00 claimed is awarded to the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $230.00 cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving her claim and because the tenant has provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.
The landlord also claims she had to replace three light bulbs. The tenant accepted liability for these light bulb replacement. Accordingly, I award the $25.88 claimed by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the following damage was caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenant during the tenancy: a. Ripped lounge curtain that needed to be replaced; b. Mould marked curtain backs on dining and TV room curtains that needed to be replaced; c. Three roller blinds in the downstairs bedroom next to the garage that the landlord says were to dirty to clean and had to be replaced; d. Cat door flap that was broken and needed to be replaced; e. Nail holes in the walls that needed patching and repainting; f. A television wall bracket that had not been removed and needed removing and the holes patched and painted; g. Lounge wall cable duct that needed replacing; and h. A temporary wall at the back of the carport that had writing on it.
The landlord was unable to provide a photograph of a ripped curtain in the lounge. The tenant confirms there was a rip in the back of one of the dining room curtains, he was unaware of how that rip occurred, but says is was neither intentional or careless damage on his or the other flatmates actions. It likely occurred as a result of the curtain being old and disintegrating over time due to sun damage. The landlord was unable to prove there was a ripped lounge curtain that she says needed to be replaced nor was she able to prove the lounge curtain rip was caused by the tenant’s careless or intentional acts or omissions. Therefore, I dismiss this claim.
The tenant proved the mould marked curtain backs on dining and TV room curtains were present on the curtains in the entry inspection photographs. The tenant has successfully disproven this claim for the replacement cost of the dining room and TV room curtains.
The landlord produced a photograph of three roller blinds in the downstairs bedroom next to the garage that the landlord says were to dirty to clean and had to be replaced. The photographs do not show any dirt on the blinds and the landlord was unable to produce entry inspection photographs of the blind for comparison. The landlord’s claim for this cost is dismissed for lack of evidence.
The landlord produced a photograph of the broken cat door flap that needed to be replaced. The tenant produced a photograph from the entry inspection pack that shows the flap was broken and tapped up at the start of the tenancy. Further, the tenant says he did not have a cat and never used the cat door. The tenant has disproven liability for the replacement cost of the cat door flap.
The landlord produced three photographs of the same wall with two nails in it. She could not identify which room these photographs were taken in and claimed that all four bedrooms in the house had holes in every wall that needed to be patched and painted. She did not produce adequate evidence to prove this allegation. The tenant produced four entry inspection photographs that showed numerous holes and a crack in the bedroom, TV room, laundry and lounge walls. On viewing these entry inspection photographs the landlord accepted there were some holes in the walls on commencement of tenancy The claim for painting and plastering is dismissed for the landlord’s lack of evidence to prove the claim.
The tenant confirmed he had installed a television wall bracket in the bedroom that had not been removed and that it has been installed over the holes left form a bracket that had been there and removed before his tenancy commenced. He provided photographic evidence of this and stated he had got verbal permission from the first property manager to install the television bracket using the old holes. Further the tenant confirmed that he tried to talk to the third property manager to ask if the landlord wanted this bracket removed but the property manager refused to discuss this or assist him in any way to ascertain how the landlord wanted this dealt with. By the time the landlord came back to New Zealand on 29 December 2023, the tenancy had ended 10 days prior and the first the tenant knew the landlord wanted this removed was when he received the quote for the paint and plaster costs. I do not accept the tenant made the original holes and accept the tenant used those holes to mount his TV. I also accept the tenant’s evidence that the property manager gave him permission to install the TV bracket as it was not causing any further damage to the wall. The tenant was denied the opportunity to find out whether the landlord required the bracket to be removed and would have remove it if instructed to do so at the end of the tenancy. However, if he had removed it, the wall would have been left in the same state he found it at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, this claim is dismissed for lack of evidence the tenant is liable for the damage to the wall by the installation of the TV bracket.
The landlord says the lounge wall cable duct needed replacing as it was broken and produced a photograph of it. She could not say which room the photograph was taken in and did not have a photograph to show the state of the duct at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not produced sufficient evidence to support her claim and it is dismissed.
The tenant confirmed he erected a temporary wall at the back of the carport that had writing on it that was in permanent marker but could be removed. He stated he had been given permission to do this by Barfoot’s during one property inspection. He says it was made of whiteboard tongue and grove plastic that locked together, was not intrusive and is easily removable without causing any damage as it was inserted using a locking system. Tenant offered to have it removed. He said he had tried to talk to the third property manager about whether the landlord wanted it removed but the landlord was overseas, and the new Property Manager did not want to deal with the tenant’s exit inspection issues and questions. I do not accept the tenant caused damage to this temporary wall that he erected. I do accept he took all reasonably practicable steps to find out if the landlord wanted it removed in the week after he had vacated the premise but was still paying rent and that he would have removed it if he had been instructed to do so. I dismiss the claim as there is insufficient proof the tenant has caused damage to the premise by erecting the wall nor that there was an agreement at the time he received permission to install it that he would remove it at the end of the tenancy and pay to repair any damage caused by its removal.
I accept the damage claims the landlord made relate to damage that was pre- existing when the tenancy commenced or that it falls into the category of fair wear and tear or the landlord has not proven the damage was caused by the tenant’s deliberate/intentional or careless acts or omissions. On a number of claims the tenant has also disproved liability for the damage.
No awards are made for any of the landlord’s damage claims. Lost income and other miscellaneous claims
The landlord has made the following claims: a. $1,628.57 for lost income for 12 days the landlord says she was unable to rent out the house while she carried out cleaning and repair work as a result of the tenant’s malicious damage to the premise; b. $2,600.00 for lost wages while the landlord took time off work to manage the cleaning and repair work as a result of the tenant’s malicious damage to the premise; c. $1,000.00 for the loss of feng shui of the household due to all the nail holes in the walls throughout the house and the resulting health impacts of the loss of the feng shui on her family’s health.
No award has been made for any lost income for 12 days between tenancy’s as the landlord failed to provide any proof to support this claim and the tenant provided proof that the delay in re-tenanting the premise was firstly due to the landlord’s 10 day delay in getting back to New Zealand after the tenancy ended and then because there was considerable flood and leak damage that was not the fault of the tenant that had to be repaired under an insurance claim before new tenants could move into the premise. This damage is described in more detail in the tenant claim section below.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation for the owner’s lost wages while she carries out business to do with managing a tenanted property nor for any loss of feng shui or the impact of that loss of feng shui on the landlord’s family’s health.
The three claims listed in paragraph [43] above are dismissed for lack of evidence to support them or because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award these types of damages.

TENANT CLAIMS

Failure to maintain

[The tenant] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. This includes a requirement for the landlord to comply with s15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) that places an obligation on a landlord to ensure the rental premise is free from dampness and s7(2)(b) of the HIR’s which requires that the kitchen in a rental premise shall have adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants or reimbursement for actual costs incurred by the tenant that should not have been borne by him/her/they.
The tenant gave evidence that: a. They did not have a working oven from 27/01/23 to 30/03/23, a period of 8 weeks and 6 days; b. There were rotting deck planks that required repair and painting/staining and that caused a safety risk to the tenant and his flatmates from 29/01/23 to 19/12/23, a period of 46 weeks and 2 days; c. There was considerable flood damage to the downstairs laundry and bedrooms from 2 burst pipes and 2 floods that meant house had drafts coming from holes in the laundry walls, that were left open after the burst pipes were repaired and the wet walls, damp and mouldy carpet and floor boards and it did not meet the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 standards. The tenant was subjected to these living conditions from 22/08/22 to 19/12/23, a period of 69 weeks and 1 day; d. There was significant flood damage from the 23 January 2023 floods that caused damage to the yard and fence that impacted negatively on the tenant’s living conditions from 23/01/23 to 19/12/23, a period of 47 weeks and 1 day; e. The insinkerator/garbage disposal unit was broken and not repaired from 29/01/23 to 19/12/23, a period of 46 weeks and 2 days; f.The dining room window frame was broken and in need of repair and was a safety risk as the window glass or the whole frame could have fallen out at anytime from 22/03/22 to 19/12/23, a period of 91 weeks. Oven/Stove
The tenant says he provided evidence from the first property manager and himself by way of call logs, text messages and emails from 29 January 2023 to 9 March 2023 that prove the tenant raised the issue of the stove top not igniting without the use of matches, which is dangerous, and the oven not working from 27 January 2023 to 30 March 2023.
The tenant confirmed he sent a follow up email about the stove/oven on 2 February 2023 asking when the stove/oven will be fixed as hasn’t been working for over a week.
The landlord/owners arranged to visit the premise to assess the oven/stove issue and confirmed to me that they carried out that visit.
The first property manager confirmed to the tenant that the oven was beyond repair, as assessed by two different electricians, and needed to be replaced and informed him she had told the landlord/owner this and had given the landlord/owner a quote.
An email from the first property manager dated 9 March 2023 has an email in the chain below from the landlord dated 3 March 2023. The landlord’s email states the landlord has no money for all the maintenance issues and will fix the oven after the rent increase. The landlord raised the rent by $50.00 per week from 9 April 2023. The email from the property manager dated 9 March 2023 confirms the landlord has not approved the repair and they say the property management company undertakes to carry out the replacement of the oven/stove as the property manager recognises the legal requirement for the landlord to provide a means to cook to the tenant.
The landlord/owner told me today that she tried to get a technician to look at the oven to see if it could be repaired but couldn’t get one due to the flood. I find this evidence to not be credible as the tenant has provided evidence from the property manager at the time that Barfoot’s sent two technicians to investigate it and one of the technicians gave a quote for replacing the oven/stove unit but the landlord refused to pay for the repair. Barfoot’s have also provided evidence they were told by both technicians said it was damaged beyond repair and recommended replacement.
Barfoot’s and the tenant have also confirmed Barfoot’s withheld rent and used the funds to replace the whole unit (stove and oven).
The landlord and tenant confirmed the new oven/stove was put in at the end of March 2023. 30 March 2023- invoice issued for new oven. LL said the tenants could just light the stove with a match. Acted like it was no big deal.
The tenant and first property manager confirm that Barfoot’s took steps to investigate the cause of the stove/oven unit not being fit to cook food, both by boiling and by baking because the stove ignition switch was faulty and the oven did not work at all. However, an email chain from Barfoot’s shows that when the property manager informed the landlord of the issue, and provided her with a quote to replace the oven/stove top unit, she refused to give Barfoot’s the authority to get a new oven/stove unit installed until after she had got a rent increase from the tenant of $50.00 per week as she could not afford to undertake the required maintenance. Barfoot’s understood the gravity of not having adequate cooking facilities and withheld rent from the landlord until it had enough to purchase and install a new oven/stove top unit.
The landlord gave evidence that she wanted to see if the oven could be repaired before agreeing to replace it and that she had difficulty in getting an electrician to investigate repair options for the 8 weeks and 6 days due to the January and February 2023 weather events. She also stated that there was no issue with the stove top as the gas elements could be ignited with a match, even though this creates a safety hazard for the tenant that she appeared oblivious to when she gave evidence today. I do not find the landlord’s evidence compelling as the tenant and Barfoot’s have provided evidence that Barfoot’s had two electricians investigate, find it could not be repaired and obtained a quote for installation of a new oven/stove unit. I prefer the email-based evidence of the tenant and Barfoot’s over the contrary oral evidence of the landlord.
By the time the new oven/stove top unit was installed on 30 March 2023, the tenant had been without adequate cooking facilities for 8 weeks and 6 days.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA obligations as well as its s7(2)(b) of the HIR and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 8 weeks and 6 days period they have had the loss of amenity of the stove and oven that they had reasonably expected to be able to use during their tenancy. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $80.00 per week for the period 27 January 2023 to 30 March 2023.80 x 8 weeks and 6 days =$928.58 rent rebate ordered. Flood damage to laundry and downstairs bedroom walls and flooring
The tenant has provided evidence that the there were two separate burst pipe incidents in the laundry that caused flood damage to downstairs laundry and bedrooms.
The tenant confirmed the first flood occurred on 23 August 2022 when a pipe in the laundry wall burst and flooded the laundry area. He says the water also went into one of the downstairs bedrooms and wet the carpet and it was four days later the leak was repaired. Nothing was done to dry out the wet carpet and flooring. He confirmed to me the exposed wet gib in the wall was left open and it let drafts into the downstairs areas of the premise.
Because the house was not dried out properly, the tenant says the floors, carpets and walls became damp and mouldy. He provided photographic evidence of the mould and damp under the carpet, in the underlay and in the floorboards.
The tenant says the second burst pipe, also in the laundry, occurred at the beginning of May 2023, approximately the 1 st or 2 nd of May 2023. The burst pipe was fixed in a few days with further holes being made to the laundry wall. Again, the landlord did nothing to dry out the wet walls, carpet and floor boards.
The second property management company informed the tenant that the landlord had asked it to give the tenant 2 options. The first was that she would install an air conditioner in the lounge upstairs or to put a damp proof cloth down, but didn’t specify where. The tenant confirmed the upstairs lounge was where there was the least dampness concerns. He also confirmed to me that he was also told the landlord suggested he buy a dehumidifier.
The landlord claimed she followed the second property manager’s advice and installed a heat pump upstairs in the lounge. The tenant says this was done a few weeks before the end of his tenancy.
The tenant provided a receipt for the dehumidifier he purchased on 4 May 2023 at $1,238.00 due to extreme dampness of downstairs area to try to dry the carpet out. He incurred this significant expense out of desperation to remove some of the dampness in the downstairs over the cold winter months and to discourage further growth of black toxic mould.
The tenant provided a text message from the second property manager (Mark Ashton) dated 5 May 2023 Text message that says there has been an insurance claim made for laundry flooring gib, carpets in downstairs area, window frame in dining room and garden fence.
PM did nothing to dry out flooring and tenants purchased dehumidifier on 5 May 2023.
The tenant says when he enquired what was happening with the insurance claim he stated that the second property manager told him the insurance claim was nothing to do with them and the insurer was sorting it out with owner. The landlord did tell the tenant that it would take time to resolve the issue but the first burst pipe had been back in August 2022. There had been plenty of time to make an initial insurance claim. Further, after the second leak, one of the three insurance assessors brought a moisture gun with him and told the tenant the moisture readings were so high that it was a serious health risk and should be a recorded by the insurer as a priority to be repaired.
The tenant says none of this flood damage had been fixed when he moved out in late December 2023. The landlord confirmed the repairs were carried out some time between 29 December 2023 and 10 January 2024.
When I asked the landlord about why she had left the repairs so long when there was mould growing up the walls and on the carpet, the landlord responded that “the tenant could have just moved out if he didn’t like it”. The tenant confirmed he did move out on 12 December 2023 because he had been living in such unhealthy conditions as his bedroom was downstairs in the damp mouldy area.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA obligations as well as its s15 of the HIR and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for 69 weeks 1 for the period the from 22 August 2022 to 19 December 2023 that the tenant and his flatmates were forced to live in damp, mouldy and cold conditions, particularly during the winter months and for the additional power consumption to run the dehumidifier and for the expense they had to bear buying a dehumidifier they would not have needed to purchase but for the landlord’s serious breach of the RTA and the HIR. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $70.00 per week for the period 22 August 2022 to 19 December 2023.70 x 69 weeks and 1 day =$4,840.00 rent rebate ordered. Flood damage to yard and fence
The tenant provided evidence of the flood damage to the yard and fence from the wet weather event in Auckland on 23 January 2023. This evidence shows a huge pile of debris from flood that was not removed by the end of the tenancy. This debris consisted of unsightly dirt, plastic, logs laying outside the tenant’s bedroom as well as the whole fence having been damaged leaving the tenant with a loss of privacy as he was exposed to his neighbours.
-The tenant says he asked the property manager for a skip and said the tenant and his flatmates were happy to clean the deris up as they just wanted to get rid of it. He confirmed the skip bin was not provided and the debris and broken fence was still there when the tenancy ended in December 2023.
The tenant provided an email he sent to the second property manager on 29 January 2023 raising these issues. D
The landlord in her defence stated that she had to negotiate with the neighbours about the material that would be used to repair the fence, as it spanned both properties borders. I do not accept that this is a reasonable defence to leaving the yard and fence in poor condition that cannot be deemed to be maintained to a reasonable standard for a period of 47 weeks and 1 day from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 47 weeks and 1 day, from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023, that the tenant and his flatmates were forced to live with a flood damaged yard and fence that was unsightly, in the way of the path and that reduced their privacy. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenant to receive a rent rebate of $70.00 per week for 47 weeks and 1 day =$3,300.00 rent rebate ordered. Dining room window frame
The tenant provided evidence the dining room window frame was broken and close to falling out when the tenant moved in. He says that when he walked around with the first Property Manager she pointed out that it needed repair and said that it would be repaired within 2 weeks of the tenant moving it.
The tenant says after the January 2023 weather event it sweeled up and became dangerous as it was very loose and could fall out.
Further, he says he brought it up with the Property Manager several times and eventually did not find it necessary to keep following this up as the Property Manager was aware of the repair need.
The tenant confirmed the week he moved out someone came and put a few nails in the window frame but did not really repair it effectively.
The landlord confirmed this repair work was done just before the end of the tenancy but could not confirm the date.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 46 weeks and 2 days the tenant put up with the rotten deck that needed repair, from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023 of $20.00 per week =$928.58 rent rebate ordered. Deck
The tenant gave evidence that the downstairs deck needing to be painted or varnished and that some rotten boards needed replacing that one of his flatmates foot went through when she was walking across the deck.
The tenant provided evidence he raised this with Property Manager by phone and the in an email dated 29 January 2023.
The tenant confirmed at the end of the tenancy this had not been investigated or remedied.
The landlord said the debris had been removed after the tenancy ended but the fence still has not been repaired even though new tenants moved into the premise around 10 January 2024. She says that as soon as she returned to New Zealand on 29 December 2023 she urged the property management company to get the repair done.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 46 weeks and 2 days the tenant put up with the rotten deck that needed repair, from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023 of $20.00 per week =$928.58 rent rebate ordered. Garbage disposal/insinkerator
The tenant says the Insinkerator/garbage disposal until was broken down and never repaired from 29 January 2023 to 19 December 2023, being a period of 46 weeks and 2 days. The tenant says he self-repaired it but it broke down again and then was never fixed.
The landlord says the property manager never raised this issue with her, but it is in the tenant’s email to Barfoot’s dated 29 January 2023.
I find the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations and that in doing so the landlord has committed an unlawful intentionally. As I can only award a maximum award of exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 for all s45 of the RTA and HIR breaches, I will address the consolidated exemplary damage award at the end of this failure to maintain section of the Order. (See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA).
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the dining room window frame of $20.00 per week for the 90 weeks and 3 days from 22/03/2022 to 19/12/2023. This is a rent rebate ordered of $1,820.00. Exemplary damages
The landlord has committed 6 intentional breaches of s45(1) of the RTA and 2 of the HIR. These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenant and his flatmates living in cold, damp and mouldy conditions, with reduced privacy and considerable period of stress, inconvenience and loss of amenities they were paying rent to enjoy. The landlord increase the tenant’s rent by $50.00 per week from 4 April 2023 despite not undertaking the required repairs and maintenance to ensure the tenant was living in a home that a reasonable person would consider to be in a reasonable state of repair.
I find the landlord has committed 8 unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenant a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, loss of amenity, loss of privacy and putting them to the cost of purchasing and running a dehumidifier, but giving him a $50.00 per week rent increase and telling the property manager she would start to address the oven/stovetop issue only after receiving a rent increase.
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.
I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches her s45(1) of the RTA obligations and her ss7 and 15 of the HIR obligations for such lengthy periods and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenants many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $5,400.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being 75% of the maximum penalty available. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [the tenant] has wholly succeeded with his claims I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Shuwen Wang has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims I cannot reimburse the filing fee and dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly. Name suppression
The landlord and the tenant have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenant has wholly succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details are ordered.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details are not ordered and the landlord’s claim for name suppression is dismissed as it is in the interest of the public to be able to identify a landlord that conducts itself in such an unlawful manner for such lengthy periods so as to be warned about the potential future risks of renting a property from this landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799302 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799302 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANT CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

TENANT CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions