What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804037 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders that the names of the parties be suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4804037?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $508.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804037?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10137920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804037 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders that the names of the parties be suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4804037?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $508.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804037?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10137920-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4804037 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804037 — net $1,491.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$140.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$508.88		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$360.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation		$2,500.00	Compensation
Total award	$1,008.88	$2,500.00
Net award		$1,491.12
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,491.12

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804037 — net $1,491.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$140.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$508.88		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$360.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation		$2,500.00	Compensation
Total award	$1,008.88	$2,500.00
Net award		$1,491.12
Bond		$1,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,491.12

Order

The Tribunal orders that the names of the parties be suppressed.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,491.12 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties advised that a satisfactory arrangement has been made between the parties in relation to the rent and that the Tribunal was not required to consider the landlord’s claim for rent arrears.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord failing to maintain the property, failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), and refund of the bond. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must each establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. The tenant’s claims
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the landlord must “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes”.
Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, the landlord must “comply with the healthy homes standards”.
As the tenant’s claim is for compensation only and not exemplary damages, I will consider these claims together. As there is an overlap between the claims, I will also consider these matters together when assessing the issue of compensation.
The tenant complained of the following matters: a. The house was very draughty and cold. The tenant provided photographic evidence of gaps under the external doors and a gap in one of the corners of the walls. b. Door handles were missing so that the tenant’s children could not use some rooms. c. Cluster flies infested some of the bedrooms and other areas in the house so that they could not be used. d. The wallpaper in one room and some of the gib was damaged by water ingress. e. The floor coverings were in poor condition. f. There was water damage in front of one of the external doors where water had blown in. g. One of the gutters leaked so that water came into a corner bedroom. h. The septic tank was full and smelt. i. The tenant and her family were constantly sick while they lived in the property. She provided medical notes in evidence. She believes that the house’s poor condition contributed to the illnesses which its occupants suffered.
The tenant’s claims were supported by photographic evidence and a copy of the HHS Statement dated 19 January 2023 supplied by the landlord.
The HHS Statement noted that the property was not compliant with the HHS and highlighted the following specific areas: a. It failed the ventilation standard in the kitchen. b. It failed the draught stopping standard in the living room 1, bedroom 1, bedroom 2 and bedroom 3. c. It failed the ventilation standard by not meeting the 5% openable requirement. d. It failed the draught stopping standard in living room 1, bedroom 1, bedroom 2 and bedroom 3.
The parties agreed at the hearing that there had been draught stopping fixtures to two of the external doors but that these were removed by the landlord when refurbishing the doors during the tenancy. The tenant’s photographic evidence showed significant gaps under the external doors.
The tenancy started on 27 January 2023. The landlord therefore had 90 days from this date (27 April 2023) to comply with the HHS. The landlord did not do so. The landlord was in breach of their obligations for the remaining period of the tenancy which ended on 18 January 2024.
The landlord gave evidence at the hearing that the tenant did not raise these issues on any of the three inspections carried out during the tenancy.
The landlord’s inspection reports record the following: a. 13 April 2024: “No maintenance issues” and notes that there were cluster flies in bedrooms 3 and 5. b. 18 July 2023: “No new maintenance to date” and notes that there were cluster flies in the hall, bathroom, bedrooms 3 and 5. It also notes that a window latch needed repairing in bedroom 3 and that there was a “leak from gutter may need cleaning out. Garage door is broken.” c. 31 October 2023: “There is no new maintenance issues to date” and bedroom 3 had “a lot of cluster flies”.
The tenant is under an obligation to bring maintenance issues to the landlord’s attention. The only clear evidence of the tenant having complained to the landlord is a written notice given by the tenant dated 8 January 2024 that the “Property is not up to Healthy Homes Standards” and requiring the landlord to comply. The tenant did not provide any other evidence of having brought maintenance issues to the landlord’s attention.
As noted, the landlord’s obligation is to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. The landlord advised that the property is a hundred years old and that it had been moved onto the section ten years ago and that the cracks and gaps were caused as it “settled”. It would be fair to say that the property is showing its age and that little significant maintenance has been carried out on the property The landlord advised that it had been re-roofed at the time of its relocation.
It does not matter that some of the defects complained of by the tenant were present when the tenant rented the property. The tenant can expect doorknobs on all doors and there not to be gaps in a wall, regardless of the age of the property. However, the tenant has to accept the poor state of the floor coverings.
A tenant does not have to ask the landlord to comply with the HHS. It is the landlord’s statutory obligation. The landlord had a report outlining the property’s deficiencies and did not act on it. I therefore accept that the property was draughty and cold as claimed by the tenant.
In summary, the tenant has satisfied the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not comply with their obligation to comply with the HHS so that the house was draughty and cold.
The tenant has also satisfied the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not comply with their obligation to provide the property in a reasonable state of repair considering the age and character of the premises. The tenant’s evidence confirms that door handles were missing, a gutter was overflowing, one room had a gap to the outside in one corner and there were the draught issues.
As discussed at the hearing, the cluster fly issue is something both landlord and tenant need to work on together. While the landlord noted the issue, the tenant could not provide evidence that she complained of the issue and asked the landlord to fix it.
There was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal from which it could conclude that the septic tank required attention.
The evidence supplied by the tenant does not go so far as to prove that the illnesses suffered by the residents at the property were caused by the property’s state of repair. Indeed, the medical persons had not seen the property and so could not draw that conclusion.
The tenant chose not to occupy some of the bedrooms and chose to live and sleep mainly in the living area; yet, on the evidence before the Tribunal, the tenant did not complain to the landlord about the state of the property until right at the end of the tenancy. Certainly, the tenant cannot be said to have complained longly and loudly. She appears to have simply put up with it.
The tenant must therefore accept some responsibility for her predicament. She could have given written notice to the landlord as soon as she realised how draughty and cold the property was and that she wanted functioning door handles. If the landlord did not respond, she could have applied to the Tribunal for a remedy. She could also have fixed the issues herself and applied for compensation. However, she did not do anything until the tenancy was nearly over.
As already noted, the tenant has satisfied the Tribunal that the house was cold and draughty and, as indicated at the hearing, is entitled to compensation for the landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS and not providing the property in a reasonable state of repair in some respects. But the major item for which the tenant should be compensated is the landlord’s failure to comply with the HHS.
An appropriate sum in compensation for the landlord’s breaches would be $100.00 per week from a rental of $450.00. This tenancy lasted 51 weeks and so the starting point for compensation is $5,100.00. However, it is appropriate to reduce this amount by just over half to reflect the fact that the tenant did not take these issues up with the landlord until the tenancy was nearly over. It does reflect the fact that the major breach by the landlord was the failure to make the property HHS compliant during the tenancy, despite being informed of its deficiencies. The landlord’s claims
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove a number of outdoor items. The landlord produced a receipt and some photographs showing that the property was professionally cleaned at the start of the tenancy. The amount claimed is modest and is appropriate to reflect the amount of work required to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The property has a very large lawn area. It was the tenant’s responsibility to mow the lawns. Clearly the tenant struggled to keep on top of this, especially given the wet nature of the climate and the section. This does not however relieve the tenant of her responsibility. The landlord has proven with photographic evidence that the large section was significantly overgrown.
The landlord is entitled to compensation and submitted an invoice from its own company for mulching the lawn with a tractor and mowing with a ride-on lawn mower. The landlord has not satisfied the Tribunal that the amount charged is fair and reasonable or that any attempt was made to obtain a quote from any other source that could support the charge made by the landlord. For instance, the hourly rate of $60 for operating the ride-on is not a rate that is commensurate with the skill required, nor the hourly rate of lawn mowing contractors whose accounts come before the Tribunal in this area.
Having considered the landlord’s evidence, I have awarded an amount that is fair and reasonable for the clearing of a section in this condition.
As both parties have had some success in their applications it is appropriate that they both meet their own filing fees and have their names suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804037 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804037 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions