What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808717?

The tribunal order states: Anthony Woyd Jones and Abbee Christina Mcfarlane must pay Mervyn Lance

How much money was awarded in case 4808717?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808717?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10534623-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808717?

The tribunal order states: Anthony Woyd Jones and Abbee Christina Mcfarlane must pay Mervyn Lance

How much money was awarded in case 4808717?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808717?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10534623-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Boundary Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808717 — Rent arrears

Order

Anthony Woyd Jones and Abbee Christina Mcfarlane must pay Mervyn Lance Johnston And Xiang Ping Johnston As Trustees For Mercy Trust $557.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (5265036-007) to Mervyn Lance Johnston And Xiang Ping Johnston As Trustees For Mercy Trust immediately.

Reasons

Xiang Ping Johnston and both tenants 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 tenants have applied for refund of the bond and for compensation and exemplary damages (which are like a fine). They say the landlords did not meet their maintenance and Healthy Homes Standards obligations and gave them notice to terminate the tenancy in circumstances that were retaliatory. Introduction
This was a 2½-year tenancy with no real issues between the parties except that the tenants paid rent late on several occasions.
The landlords were patient about this, but the situation worsened and by the beginning of 2024 the rent was more than 5 weeks behind.
At about this time, the tenants also started to ask questions about maintenance and mould.
On 10 January 2024, the landlord gave them notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that a family member intended to move into the house. The last day was to be 6 March 2024.
The situation escalated and the parties agreed that the tenants would move out sooner. The keys were handed over on 21 January 2024. The issues to be decided
The issues to be decided are:- a. How much rent do the tenants owe? b. Were there maintenance issues at the house and, if so, did the landlords fail to respond to these within a reasonable time? c. Was the underfloor insulation in reasonable condition? d. Did the landlords give a retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy? e. Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish when they moved out?

How much rent do the tenants owe and do they owe rent in lieu of notice?

The tenancy started on 17 July 2021 and a final inspection and handing over of keys happened on 21 January 2024.
The landlord provided rent records and the tenants agree that the amount owing for rent up to the date they returned the keys is $2,857.14.
The landlord claims rent past this date, saying that the tenants moved out without giving the required notice. The tenants say the landlord agreed they could move out as soon as possible and she wanted the house back so they shouldn’t have to pay for a notice period.
Usually, tenants are required to give a landlord at least 28 days’ written notice if they want to end the tenancy; see section 51(2B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This still applies even if a landlord has first given notice to terminate the tenancy.
In this case, my decision is that the texts sent between the parties on 14 January 2024 mean that the tenants are not liable to pay rent in lieu of a full notice period. The landlord wanted possession of the house back as soon as possible.
The relevant parts of the texts are: Landlord: “I am very happy and relieved to let you go as soon as your rent is up to date.” Tenant: “We will be happy to go sooner also ... Unfortunately winz could not cover the rent and we have no way to catch up on it at this current time” Landlord: “I am happy to let you guys go now. I am going to start renovate this house for my sister on next Monday. Please move out asap.”
The tenants are required to pay rent to 21 January 2024 which is $2,857.14. Were there maintenance issues at the house and, if so, did the landlords fail to respond to these within a reasonable time?
The tenants say there were maintenance issues at the house. They say they were concerned about draughts and mould. They provided photographs which show:- a. mould along the bottom edge of the shower lining or silicone edge; b. missing putty and surface cracks on some window sills; c. a hole and unattached section of gib-board inside a bedroom wardrobe; d. two or three visible splits (approximately 4-8cm long) and missing paint on the edge of three outside weatherboards.
Landlords have several legal obligations. These include to provide and maintain tenancy premises in a reasonable state of repair; see section 45 RTA.
Breaching any of the section 45 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 RTA.
It is normal and expected that a landlord will need to do repairs and maintenance on tenancy premises. A tenant has a legal duty to advise a landlord when they notice damage or a need for repairs; s40(1)(d) RTA.
A landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy any maintenance problem before being held to be in breach of its duty.
My decision is that the tenants have not proved that they raised maintenance issues and that the landlords did not take reasonable steps to address them.
My decisions on each of the specific issues raised are:- a. The tenants made one written request to address mould in the shower and the landlord came to investigate this the next day (9 January 2024). A gap behind the shower mixer was previously sealed by the landlord. Mould along the bottom edge of the shower is unsightly and probably caused the tenants inconvenience and frustration because it was difficult to clean. However, this does not prove a failure by a landlord. Some surface mould along the silicon or joins in a shower is common over time. The landlord showed video evidence taken after the tenants had moved out which shows that one part of the shower lining had come unglued from the wall on one lower section but that there was no mould or water damage behind the shower. No maintenance breach has been proven. b. Photographs show that putty and paint on some of the wooden windows and sills is in average condition and there is surface mould and mildew. Again, this is common over time. These areas are probably due for repainting soon but as there is no evidence of leaking windows or draughts, I find there to be no breach. c. When moving out, the tenants discovered a hole (about half the size of a hand) and unattached section of gib-board inside a bedroom wardrobe. The landlord says they were not aware of this until notified. The landlord did not have the opportunity to fix this so there is no breach. d. There are some cracks starting at one end of three exterior weatherboards. The tenants say the landlord investigated these and removed the paint but has never fixed it. Once again, this is an example of the sort of regular maintenance needed on a timber house. It is for the landlord to attend to before the cracks worsen so that moisture cannot enter the framing but, as there is no evidence of detriment to the tenants, there is no breach.

Was the underfloor insulation in reasonable condition?

Landlords must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS); s45(1)(bb) RTA.
This tenancy started after 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022 which means the premises are required to comply with all HHS, including the insulation standards, by the date 90 days after the tenancy commencement date. 1
The HHS compliance date for this tenancy is 15 October 2021.
The insulation and other HHS are contained in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS Regulations”).
The tenants supplied photographs to show that part of the underfloor insulation had fallen down under the house. The landlord accepts this and suspects that it happened just before this tenancy started when a new shower was installed. The missing insulation appears to be only in one area under the bathroom.
One of the requirements for insulation is that it is in reasonable condition which includes whether it is displaced (fallen or moved); see clause 18 of the HHS Regulations. This is important because if insulation has moved so that areas of floor or ceiling are not covered, then it will not perform as well to keep the house warm.
The evidence shows that the underfloor insulation was not in reasonable condition. This is a breach of s45(1)(bb) RTA and an unlawful act.
I have decided to award compensation of $450.00 to recognise that the gap in the insulation would have meant the house was colder than it should have been. The tenants’ application refers to a lack of inspections and to noticing heat loss.
I do not award exemplary damages in this case. I am satisfied the landlords intended to comply with their obligations and were not aware part of the insulation had become dislodged until told by the tenants near the end of the tenancy.
It is important that a landlord regularly checks insulation and other compliance and maintenance matters.

Did the landlords give a retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy?

On 10 January 2024, the landlords gave the tenants a notice ending the tenancy on 6 March 2024. The tenants consider that the notice is retaliatory as they had raised maintenance concerns about mould in the shower only the day before. 1 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that it was the last straw when the tenants began to raise maintenance issues in an accusatory way. She felt that the landlords had been reasonable and patient about the rent being behind several times over the tenancy and were now being accused of breaching their responsibilities when the issues had not been raised at any earlier time.
She said that it was originally intended that her sister would move into the house but that this has not happened as the house is now on the market for sale. The tenants have seen the sale signs. The premises have not been rented out again.
My decision is that the landlords had a genuine reason for giving the notice of termination at the time that they did. They had mentioned the possibility of their sister moving closer in a text to the tenants on 31 December 2023. This was before the tenants raised most of their maintenance concerns.
The tenants have not proved that the notice of termination was retaliatory.
Also, the tenants had told the landlords previously that they were themselves intending to give notice to end the tenancy. They readily agreed to move out soon after receiving the landlords’ termination notice and agreed on the date with the landlord. The indications are that they also wanted the tenancy to end.
This claim is dismissed. Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish when they moved out? If not, is the landlord entitled to compensation?
At the end of a 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) RTA.
The landlords’ photographs prove that the tenants did not leave the shower and oven reasonably clean and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants agree that they accidentally broke one glass light shade.
The landlords did the cleaning and rubbish removal work themselves. I award $150.00 to cover dump costs, labour, and the light shade.

Is the landlord required to pay the tenants for hedge cutting and water blasting?

The tenants claim compensation for their time in trimming hedges and water blasting the driveway.
This claim is dismissed. The oral evidence and the written statement from Mr Johnston persuade me that the tenants offered to do this work while the relationship between the parties was friendly. There is no evidence that the landlord asked them to do so or agreed to compensate them. Compliance statements
I mentioned in the hearing that the tenancy agreement does not contain the legally required compliance information.
A statement giving full details of ceiling and underfloor insulation has been required since 1 July 2016 (s13A(1A) RTA) and statements showing the extent of compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards have been required since 1 December 2020 (s13A(1CA) RTA).
This information is important because it tells a tenant whether the house complies with the insulation and other HHS (heating, ventilation, drainage, draught proofing).
The landlord has now had the premises checked for compliance with the HHS. She provided an insulation report and a document giving the outcome of a HHS check at the house done on 8 February 2024 (after this tenancy had ended).
The HHS document states that the premises comply with the HHS although notes certain exemptions. That is, the ceiling is certified as exempt from having to comply to the HHS for insulation due to limited height for access, and the rangehood was installed prior to 1 July 2019 so is not required to comply with the ducting diameter standard until it is replaced.
I make no findings on these issues as they were not raised by the tenants. The landlord is now aware of the importance of compliance and that insulation, and the other features, should be regularly checked to make sure they remain in reasonable and working condition. Conclusion
Neither of the parties have been fully successful in their claims so I make no orders regarding the filing fees or suppression of names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808717 — Rent arrears at 29 Boundary Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808717 — Rent arrears at 29 Boundary Road, Claudelands, Hamilton 3214

Order

Reasons

How much rent do the tenants owe and do they owe rent in lieu of notice?

Was the underfloor insulation in reasonable condition?

Did the landlords give a retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy?

Is the landlord required to pay the tenants for hedge cutting and water blasting?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much rent do the tenants owe and do they owe rent in lieu of notice?

Was the underfloor insulation in reasonable condition?

Did the landlords give a retaliatory notice to terminate the tenancy?

Is the landlord required to pay the tenants for hedge cutting and water blasting?

Property management