What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808801 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4808801?

Compensation: Failure to maintain -s…: $3,642.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- d…: $4,607.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain-co…: $1,128.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Garage Rental: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful rent increase…: $542.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waste Disposal Charges: $98.81 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808801?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10602048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4808801 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4808801?

Compensation: Failure to maintain -s…: $3,642.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain- d…: $4,607.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain-co…: $1,128.57 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Garage Rental: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful rent increase…: $542.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waste Disposal Charges: $98.81 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808801?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10602048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808801 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808801 — net $12,640.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Garage rental	$200.00	Garage rental
Compensation: Waste disposal charges	$98.81	Waste disposal charges
Compensation: Unlawful rent increase refunded for 1/1/24 to 8/2/24	$542.86	Unlawful rent increase refunded for 1/1/24 to 8/2/24
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,400.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Failure to maintain- dishwasher	$4,607.14	Failure to maintain- dishwasher
Compensation: Failure to maintain -stove top	$3,642.86	Failure to maintain -stove top
Compensation: Failure to maintain-coackroaches	$1,128.57	Failure to maintain-coackroaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,640.68
Bond	$1,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,640.68

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808801 — net $12,640.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Garage rental	$200.00	Garage rental
Compensation: Waste disposal charges	$98.81	Waste disposal charges
Compensation: Unlawful rent increase refunded for 1/1/24 to 8/2/24	$542.86	Unlawful rent increase refunded for 1/1/24 to 8/2/24
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain	$2,400.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Failure to maintain- dishwasher	$4,607.14	Failure to maintain- dishwasher
Compensation: Failure to maintain -stove top	$3,642.86	Failure to maintain -stove top
Compensation: Failure to maintain-coackroaches	$1,128.57	Failure to maintain-coackroaches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,640.68
Bond	$1,300.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$12,640.68

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Pr Property Management Limited As Agent For Bhavika Enterprises Ltd Ram Narayanaraja must pay [The tenants] $12,640.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Pr Property Management Limited As Agent For Bhavika Enterprises Ltd Ram Narayanaraja must pay [The tenants] $12,640.68 immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 July 2024.
The tenants applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the remainder of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. 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 (RTA). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and left the premise contaminated with cockroaches that were not present at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, he claims the tenants did not return the garage remote control.
The landlord was unable to prove his claims as he could not produce any entry inspection report/photographs that proved the state of the premise when the tenancy started. The landlord was also unable to provide any photographic evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy or an exit inspection report. In the landlord was unable to prove the tenants went back to the premise after they had handed the key and garage remote control back to it on final inspection. The tenants and a parent that was a witness stated the boys never took the remote control from the premise as they did not intend to go back into the premise for any reason after the exit inspection.
I am not satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, nor that they have retained the garage remote control. In addition, the tenants have provided evidence that proves the cockroach infestation was present at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims and as such its claims are dismissed.

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 tenants cracked the toilet during the tenancy, that this damage was more than fair wear and tear and that as the result of the tenants careless actions the cracked toilet needed to be replaced at a cost of $718.82.
The tenants have provided proof the toilet was old and that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause any damage to it.
The landlord did not produce any entry inspection photographs or reports to prove the state of the toilet at the commencement of the tenancy, he could not produce any routine property inspection reports/photographs or exit inspection photographs/reports to prove the landlord’s claims for replacement of the toilet.
The tenants produced evidence that the landlord had threatened them with eviction at the end of the fixed term tenancy if they did not pay the cost of replacing the toilet. The tenants refused to pay the demanded costs as they maintained the house was around 20 years old and the toilet looked to be about the same age, the crack was not because of any careless act or omission on their behalf, and they considered it to be fair wear and tear and a cost that should be borne by the landlord. They also proved the property manager had engaged in a pattern of conduct that showed he often tried to get the tenants to take responsibility for costs and/or maintenance related things that are a landlord’s responsibility.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims and that the tenants have disproved the landlords claim. As such the landlord’s damage claim is dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Failure to maintain

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, 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 .
Breaching this s45 obligation 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.
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. Cockroaches 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].
The tenants produced text message evidence that shows they reported a cockroach issue to the landlord after they viewed the house and decided to rent it. Further, the text evidence proves the landlord had given the tenants an assurance it would have pest control treat the cockroach infestation prior to the tenants moving in.
The landlord claims it did undertake pest control prior to the tenancy commencing but could not produce any receipts to support this claim. However, one text message produced by the tenants shows the house was treated for cockroaches not long after their tenancy started and that the treatment did not work, and the cockroach infestation continued.
The tenants produced evidence that they followed the landlord up about the continued infestation and requested something further be done about it. They expected the pest control company to have provided a warranty for the first treatment and that the landlord could get the company back under warranty.
The tenants say the landlord told them it can take up to 2 weeks for the bugs to die but continued to take no action once that time had passed, and the tenants reported the issue was getting worse.
Eventually the tenants purchased pest bombs themselves at their own cost to try to kill the cockroaches. They say this reduced the cockroach numbers for a time but they soon returned in full force.
The tenants were informed by the dishwasher technician that the severe cockroach infestation had led to the breakdown of the initial and the first replacement dishwashers and request comprehensive and lasting measures to address the pest infestation, ensuring compliance with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord did nothing further to address the issue during the tenants’ tenancy. The landlord did produce a receipt for pest control services to carry out a cockroach treatment 2 weeks after the tenants’ tenancy ended.
The tenants endured a severe cockroach infestation for the duration of their tenancy that interrupted their sleep at night from the sounds of them scuttling across the ceilings and caused issues with the dishwasher appliances. This ongoing infestation has also led to them having to have all their belongings decontaminated after their tenancy ended and before they could safely move their belongings into a new premise.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 13-month period she has have had to live in substandard damp mouldy conditions, since she first raised these issues with the landlord in January 2022. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $20.00 per week for the period 9 January 2023 to 8 February 2024 (56 weeks 3 days). 20 x 56 =$1,120.00. $20.00 divided by 7days x 3 days = $8.57. $8.57 plus $1,120.00= $1,128.57 rent rebate ordered. Dishwasher
The tenants says that when they moved in on 9 January 29023 the dishwasher was old and not working. They immediately asked the landlord to have it repaired or replaced. The landlord said he would replace it.
The first dishwasher was installed on 2 February 2023 ( 3 weeks and 3 days after the tenancy commenced). The tenants say that when it was installed the technician found a lot of water damage behind the old dishwasher and had trouble fitting the new one. As such, they say it was always not quite flush, but it worked ok for about 2 to 3 months.
At the end of April 2023, the tenants informed the landlord the new dishwasher had stopped working and asked if it was covered under warranty. They told the landlord they wanted someone to come and look at it as soon as possible to see if it could be repaired.
On 1 May 2023, the landlord confirmed by text to the tenants’ the dishwasher was covered by warranty and he provided the tenants with the invoice number and dishwasher model for them to source a replacement dishwasher themselves from Bunnings.
The tenants did as instructed. They called Bunnings and got the address of a company to come and investigate the issue, contacted that company to make a time to come and inspect the dishwasher and updated the landlord.
The dishwasher technician came on 18 May 2023. The tenants say the technician told them there was a part broken in the dishwasher that had been caused by the cockroach infestation and he needed to go back and order the part and see if it was covered by warranty.
The tenants say the technician came back to them on 27 May 2023 and informed them the part was not covered by warranty as it was broken due to a severe cockroach infestation. The technician said the landlord would have to cover the repair cost.
The tenants asked the landlord to get the issue sorted out and he opted to purchase another new dishwasher.
The new dishwasher was purchased by the landlord in late July 2023, arrived at the house on 2 August 2023 and installed on 14 August 2023. The tenants had been without a dishwasher for a further 15 weeks by this time.
Even though the previous dishwasher had been damaged by cockroaches, no further pest control was undertaken by the landlord.
I find the tenant should have received a rent rebate for the 3 week and 3-day period they were initially without a dishwasher and for the following 15-week period they were without a dishwasher. They suffered the ongoing loss of amenity of an appliance they reasonably believed they would have use of as part of the rent they were paying, and the stress and inconvenience they suffered getting the landlord to replace the dishwasher and for the old damp dishwashers providing a further breeding ground for more cockroaches. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $250.00 per week for the period 9 January 2023 to 2February 2024 (3 weeks and 3 days) and for the period 1 May 20203 to 14 August 2023 (15 weeks). $250.00 x 3 weeks and 3 days =$857.14. $250.00 x 15 weeks= $3,750.00, which gives a total rent rebate of $4,607.14. Stove Top
When the tenants moved into the house, they say there was only one of five gas hobs working. There were 6 tenants, and they stated one gas hob was not sufficient for them to be able to cook their meals with. In addition, the tenants expressed their concerns about the safety risks of having a faulty gas hob stove. The landlord committed to getting this issue fixed.
By 18 February 2023, the tenants proved they texted the landlord and asked for update. The landlord undertook to come back to tenants “next week”.
The tenants provided evidence that on 23 February 2023 the landlord asked them to go to a residential address to pick up a new stove to and instructed them they would have to pay the seller $250.00 in cash. The tenants refused to do this.
On 28 February 2023, the tenants say the landlord dropped off the stove top and the tenants asked when the gas fitter would come to install it.
The tenants gave evidence the stove sat there and so the tenants’ text the landlord again on 1 March 2023.
The tenants confirmed on 3 March 2023, the technician came to install the stove, found the dimensions were incorrect for the bench top, reinstalled old broken stove top and told landlord he needed to purchase one that fitted the bench.
On 15 March 2023, the tenants measured the stove top and sent the dimensions and a drawing of the bench to the landlord to assist him to find a stove top that met the required dimensions.
The tenants say the new stove top arrived on 21 March2023 but was not installed until around 4 April 2023, despite the tenants regular follow up when it would be installed.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the 12 weeks and 1 day period they were without sufficient stove top cooking facilities form 9 January 2023 to 4 April 2023. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $300.00 per week for that period for the loss of amenity and the stress and inconvenience the tenants suffered as well as the additional costs of having to buy food in as they could not cook meals on the one gas hob that they were worried may also be faulty. $300.00 x 12 weeks = $3,600.00. $300.00 divided by 7days x 1 day = $42.86. $42.86 plus $3,600.00= $3,642.86 rent rebate ordered. Exemplary damages
I find the landlord has failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and as such 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.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act and that the three 45(1)(b) breaches outlined above were intentional.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $2,400.00 in exemplary damages (one third of the total penalty available), and make the order accordingly because: a. The tenants lived in a cockroach infested premise that was both undesirable and unhealthy for the duration of their tenancy and the landlord failed to ensure they had adequate stove top cooking and dishwasher facilities for a significant period. The landlord knew of these issues and failed to investigate them fully or to remediate them in a reasonable timeframe; b. The tenants suffered the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity because of the landlord’s breach of its s45(1)(b); c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity they suffered; and d. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their repair and maintenance obligations. Was the tenant’s rent increased unlawfully?
The landlord sent the tenants a letter dated 30 August 2023, via an email that was dated 30 October 2023, that informed the tenants their rent would increase by $100.00 per week from 1 January 2024.
Section 24(1)(d) of the RTA confirms a tenant’s rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenancy was not of 12 months or more in duration at the time the landlord increased the tenants rent.
The tenants have proven they commenced paying the new weekly rental of $1,400.00 per week from 1 January 2024 to 8 February 2024.
The landlord never withdrew the unlawful rent increase notice, nor did he issue a new lawful rent increase notice.
I am satisfied the landlord unlawfully increased the tenants rent from 1 January 2024 and award the tenants a rebate of the additional $542.86 they paid that the landlord should not have charged. Other miscellaneous claims
The parties confirmed the landlord agreed to rent out the garage to the new incoming tenants for the last two weeks of the tenants’ tenancy and offered the tenants a rent rebate of $10000 per week for those two weeks.
The landlord was able to recover the $200.00 rent rebate from the incoming tenants but still had not paid the tenants this money.
I award the tenants the $200.00 they should have got for the loss of amenity of the garage in the last two weeks of their tenancy.
The tenants also produced a receipt for the disposal of some green waste from the neighbours trimming the trees on the fence line and disposal of the two broken dishwasher and the old gas hob. The landlord had failed to dispose of this rubbish during the tenancy, so the tenants took it to the tip at their own cost at the end of the tenancy, having lived with these items blocking up their living space during the tenancy. The landlord had not reimbursed the tenants for this cost either.
Section 45(1)(d) of the RTA confirms the landlord must compensate the tenants for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises. The definition of repair in this provision means “to put right” something in the premise. The tenant’s put right what the landlord had not when they disposed of rubbish that they should not have had to pay to dispose of. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenants’ have wholly succeeded with their claims, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its claims its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenants seek 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 tenants’ have substantially succeeded in claims. I do not consider publication of their names and identifying details are in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808801 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808801 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions