What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4807038 about?

The tribunal order states: Dev Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $3,225.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4807038?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Curtains: $325.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Shower: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807038?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4807038 about?

The tribunal order states: Dev Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $3,225.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4807038?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Curtains: $325.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Shower: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Smoke Alarms: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807038?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

130 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4807038 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4807038 — net $3,225.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$40.00		Oven/stove cleaning
Compensation: Curtains		$325.00	Curtains
Compensation: Shower		$520.00	Shower
Exemplary damages: smoke alarm		$2,400.00	smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$40.00	$3,265.44
Net award		$3,225.44
Bond		$3,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,225.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4807038 — net $3,225.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$40.00		Oven/stove cleaning
Compensation: Curtains		$325.00	Curtains
Compensation: Shower		$520.00	Shower
Exemplary damages: smoke alarm		$2,400.00	smoke alarm
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$40.00	$3,265.44
Net award		$3,225.44
Bond		$3,920.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,225.44

Order

Dev Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $3,225.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The tenant’s claim for invasion of privacy is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for broken window and removal of chattels are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant also called two witnesses.
The tenant signed a fixed term tenancy commencing on 5 November 2023 and due to end on 28 December 2024. The tenant moved into the premises on 14 November along with flatmates. The tenancy ended early on 3 February 2024.
The tenant seeks: a. Refund of the bond of $3,920. b. Compensation for faulty curtains and a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards for draught stopping. c. Compensation for a faulty shower and failure to replace a rotten board. d. Compensation for a breach of quiet enjoyment. e. Exemplary damages for failure to fully comply with smoke alarms requirements.
The landlord has not signed a bond refund, claiming the tenant owes $40 for cleaning the oven and $150 to dispose of chattels left behind at the property.
The landlord also raised a counterclaim at the hearing regarding damage to the glass in the window of the front door. Although no application had been filed, there was correspondence regarding this within the documents lodged and the tenant was able to produce further photos and electronic communication about this issue at the time it had occurred and so I decided to allow it to be heard.
The onus of proof is on the party seeking to establish their claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. That means that in making findings of fact, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an alleged fact is more likely than not to be true. Tenants’ claims Curtains
The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the curtain in one bedroom. The property is an older home on Tinakori Road. The tenant claimed that there was a problem with the curtains in one of the bedrooms which has a large bay window facing the street, which is a busy street with a lot of traffic, including foot-traffic. This was the bedroom of [Ms S], who gave evidence at the hearing.
It was accepted that at the time of signing the tenancy agreement, the curtain rail in that room was broken and the landlord had it fixed before the tenant moved in.
[Ms S] said that on the second night of the tenancy the rail broke. Parts of the rail came out of the brackets, meaning that she could not fully draw the curtains and she felt exposed in her bedroom at night. Photographs were provided. Her assessment was that the curtain was too heavy for the curtain rails.
The landlord had the rail repaired. [Ms S] was not certain of the date, but said it was a few weeks later. However, the night after it was repaired, the rail broke again.
The landlord said that the rail was not broken, that there is a pin that attaches the curtains to the rails and the tenant simply needed to clip the rail back on. He did not agree that the curtains were too heavy. He said that he had not had any trouble with the curtains before or since and that the tenants needed to be more careful when closing the curtains. He said that there is a similar curtain in the next bedroom.
[Ms S] disputed that the curtain in the other room was the same. She said that she had tried to be careful.
The tenant also produced a copy of a text which she said was from the previous tenant. It reads: Hey yeah, sometimes we struggled to close the curtains in the front two rooms but dev said he was going to replace the rails for them after we moved out. Has he not done that yet?
The landlord accepts that before the tenant moved in, the curtain rail was broken. In his text correspondence with one of the flatmates he said that a couple of pins had come off during the previous tenancy; they had been replaced, and now three more were required.
The landlord said that he had been to numerous curtain stores to find a solution. He took a photo with him and was told that the curtain rails were appropriate for the window and the alternative was to have a rail custom-made. He said this in an email dated 20 December, concluding that once the factory opened in the New Year, the window would be measured.
In addition to [Ms S’s] concerns about privacy, the tenant also claimed that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards because of draughtiness without the curtains fully functioning.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenant did not produce any evidence of any unreasonable gaps or holes around the windows and so she has failed to prove that the landlord has not complied with the draught-stopping standard. That aspect of the claim is dismissed.
The landlord is reminded that it is his responsibility to check the property and ensure compliance with this standard, regardless of whether a tenant has complained about any issue with draughts.
Although I have not found a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to the curtain, I accept that not being able to fully close the curtains would have made it harder to keep the room warm and would have left the occupant feeling exposed to the public at night. This was not a satisfactory situation.
Tenants should be able to pull the curtains without the rail breaking or popping out. The landlord has not established that the tenants were unusually rough with the curtains.
The tenants sought compensation of $2,940, being 12 weeks at $245 per week because they could not use that bedroom safely.
I accept that the use of the bedroom was compromised, but nonetheless, the tenants had the use of that room.
I have decided that the tenant should be compensated for this for 13 weeks at the rate of $25 per week, which comes to $325.00. Shower functionality
The tenant gave evidence that the water pressure in the shower was very poor. In addition, the control of the temperature was uneven. She said that the water was lukewarm, but on adjusting the mixer, the water would become extremely hot. There was no comfortable temperature.
Because of the poor pressure and unsatisfactory temperature, she took to showering at the gym.
Her flatmate, [Ms S], also said that the shower pressure was very low and the temperature was difficult to control. In order to wash her hair, she would fill a bucket of with hot water from the shower and let it sit while she showered and then used it to rinse her hair.
Another flatmate, [Ms N] also gave evidence that the pressure of the shower was very low and that the temperature was difficult to adjust. When she tried to increase the temperature, the water burned. She also ended up showering at the gym.
The tenant produced copies of email correspondence showing that this matter was raised with the landlord on 16 January 2024.
Although the landlord suggested the water pressure was satisfactory, he also said that he had renovated the property when he bought it. He had asked a plumber about increasing the water pressure, but the only way to do this is to replace the entire system. He said that other tenants had not complained. In an email of 17 January he said, “I have already told you that in order to change the shower pressure, the whole system would need to be changed – and I am not prepared to do that at present.”
The tenants should have been able to use the shower to wash (including their hair) without resorting to a bucket of water. I accept that two of the tenants resorted to using the showers at the gym.
Although there is no legal requirement that a house has a shower, 1 the tenant was paying rent for the premises which included a shower. It was a reasonable expectation that the shower would be fit for purpose. I accept that the evidence of the three tenants who lived there that it was not.
I have decided the tenant should be compensated $40 per week for the compromised use of the shower. The tenancy lasted 3 months, which is 13 weeks. I order total compensation of $520, being $40 x 13 weeks. Rotten board on shower cabinet
The shower cabinet is one with a shower curtain, a stainless-steel floor and a raised board at the bottom forming part of the shower cabinet. The tenant says that the board at the bottom of the shower unit is rotten and unhygienic.
It was discussed at the start of the tenancy and on 16 January the tenant again notified the landlord.
The landlord had indicated to the tenant that he would get a carpenter to fix it.
At the hearing the landlord said that he does not believe it is rotten; it needs painting, but that has not happened.
I appreciate why the tenants thought that the board may be rotten. There is exposed wood that will be getting wet on a daily basis. That does not mean that the board is actually rotten.
That said, under section 45(1)(b) the landlord must provided and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. Having viewed the photograph, I find that the shower is not in a reasonable state of repair. The wood required painting, if not replacing.
I find although it should have been repaired, the impact on the tenant was minimal over a three-month period and on this occasion order no compensation.
The landlord is reminded of his obligations under section 45(1)(b). 1 Regulation 9 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 stipulates that there must be a bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water and an adequate means of heating water. Smoke alarms
The tenant seeks exemplary damages for failure to provide working smoke alarms.
Under section 45(1)(ba), the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 which stipulate that there must be at least one qualifying smoke alarm in or within 3 metres of the entrance to every sleeping space.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants said that there were two empty brackets where smoke alarms should be. On 18 January 2024 the tenants notified the landlord that they realised that there were two smoke alarms missing.
The landlord replied that day that a carpenter would come the next day to look at that and the wood in the bathroom.
On 19 January the tenant replied that it would be ok for the carpenter to come that day, but unfortunately, the landlord received the message too late.
The tenants remained in the premises until 3 February. The landlord did not provide the smoke alarms.
For the duration of the tenancy, the landlord failed to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. I find he has committed an unlawful act.
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.
Provision of smoke alarms is a fundamental obligation for a landlord. The landlord should have ensured at the start of the tenancy that the required smoke alarms were in place. This is a matter of protection of life and property. Even after it had been drawn to his attention that two were missing, the landlord failed to ensure they were provided. As a minimum he should have dropped off the alarms immediately and arranged for installation promptly. Under section 48(1)(ca) he simply needed to give 24 hours’ notice that he intended to enter the premises for the purposes of complying with the regulations. The tenants did not need to be there.
This is a serious matter. There is a public interest in reminding this landlord and others that they must comply with these regulations. Accordingly, I have decided that $2,400 is an appropriate award of exemplary damages. That is one-third of the maximum that can be ordered. Invasion of privacy
The tenant claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48(4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 28 November 2023 the landlord visited the property unannounced. He sent a message to say he had purchased the parts for the curtain rails and had gone to the flat as he was told people would be home after 4pm. He notified the tenants that no-one opened the door to him and he went to the back door as well, which he noted was wide open.
The tenant said that the landlord should have given her notice and should not have entered the property. Having the landlord wandering around unannounced made the tenants, as young women, feel unsafe.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Section 48(7) stipulates that “premises” does not include land or facilities in this context.
There is no evidence that the landlord entered inside the premises. Accordingly, the tenant has not established that the landlord has breached his obligations. This claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims Broken window
There is no dispute that when the tenants were moving into the property, the window in the front door broke.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of $414 for repair and provided an invoice for that amount.
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 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 tenant says that when they were moving in, the door was caught by the wind and slammed, breaking a pane of glass. She said that the back door was open at the same time, causing a draught.
The landlord says that the tenant must have been careless. He says that the door should have held open on a latch. He says that either they failed to do that, or that the glass was broken by a piece of furniture, such as a leg of a chair or table.
The landlord provided a photo, showing a hook attached to the bottom of the wall by the front door.
The tenant produced a text showing that on 14 November she notified the landlord that the front door had slammed shut in the wind that morning while they were moving things and the glass just smashed. The landlord replied that he was overseas, and he gave the name and contact number for someone to repair it.
The tenant replied that the person was unable to repair it for three weeks and asked for it to be repaired urgently as it was an entrance door. She added that the glass was broken during usual activities due to winds and the latch at the bottom of the door being broken and unusable. She said they considered it to be fair wear and tear.
The landlord said that the last time he was at the flat the latch was fine. He did not consider it was fair wear and tear.
The tenant replied that the latch was attached to the wall, but there was no attachment on the door to latch the door open.
The tenant produced a photo showing there was a hook attached to the skirting board on the wall. There is no corresponding “eye” on the door, but as she noted, on close inspection, one can see where two nail or screws have been in the door, consistent with an eye having been there. The door is painted red. One of the holes has a dot which appears to be white paint exposed, while the other is visible underneath the red paint.
There is no evidence to suggest that the tenant removed the eye and painted the door. I am satisfied that the door could not be hooked back at the time the tenant moved into the property. I accept that the most likely cause of the damage was the wind blowing the door shut. The landlord has not established that the breakage was caused by any carelessness or intention on the part of the tenant. The landlord’s claim is dismissed. End of tenancy
Section 40(1)(e) says that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and remove all goods from the premises.
The landlord says that the tenant did not do so.
The landlord sought $40 for cleaning the oven. He provided photos which showed crumbs in the oven.
The tenant acknowledged that she may have forgotten to clean the oven as it was not used much.
I am satisfied that the tenant failed to clean the oven. The claim of $40 is reasonable and that amount is ordered.
The landlord also claimed that the tenant had left a number of items behind and sought $150 for removal of the following: a. A fridge b. A dryer c. A set of drawers d. A table that was outside, nailed to the deck e. A couch that was outside.
The landlord has not had any of the items removed.
The tenant said that all items were at the premises when she moved in. She produced text communication with the current tenants, asking them if they wanted the fridge, dryer and drawers, which she believed came with the flat. They replied that they would keep them all.
The outside items had not been raised with the tenants before the hearing. Again, the tenant said they were there when they moved in.
The landlord did not dispute that. He has not incurred any loss for removal of them. There is no reason this tenant should have to pay the landlord for any possible future cost of removing something that she did not bring on to the property and which may not cause the landlord any cost in any event. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted her application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4807038 — Smoke alarms at 130 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4807038 — Smoke alarms at 130 Tinakori Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

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