What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4814157 about?

The tribunal order states: Goodtenant Limited As Agent For Collina Farms Ltd Gall And Bruce Collins must

How much money was awarded in case 4814157?

Compensation: (S30 Of The RTA Breach: $2,952.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (S45 (1)(A) Breach: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (S45 (1)(B) Breaches: $10,590.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reconnection fee for p…: $90.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $16,870.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814157?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10783185-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4814157 about?

The tribunal order states: Goodtenant Limited As Agent For Collina Farms Ltd Gall And Bruce Collins must

How much money was awarded in case 4814157?

Compensation: (S30 Of The RTA Breach: $2,952.86 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (S45 (1)(A) Breach: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (S45 (1)(B) Breaches: $10,590.29 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Reconnection fee for p…: $90.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $7,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $16,870.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814157?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814157?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10783185-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4814157 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4814157 — net $7,183.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 24/06/2024	$16,870.00		Rent arrears (to 24/06/2024
Exemplary damages: (S45 of the RTA breaches		$7,200.00	(S45 of the RTA breaches
Compensation: (s45 (1)(a) breach		$500.00	(s45 (1)(a) breach
Compensation: (s45 (1)(b) breaches		$10,590.29	(s45 (1)(b) breaches
Exemplary damages: (s30 of the RTA breach		$350.00	(s30 of the RTA breach
Compensation: (s30 of the RTA breach		$2,952.86	(s30 of the RTA breach
Compensation: Reconnection fee for power		$90.00	Reconnection fee for power
Exemplary damages: (s13(2) of the RTA breach		$500.00	(s13(2) of the RTA breach
Exemplary damages: (s29(1) of the RTA breach		$350.00	(s29(1) of the RTA breach
Exemplary damages: (s23(1)(b) of the RTA		$1,500.00	(s23(1)(b) of the RTA
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$16,870.00	$24,053.59
Net award	$7,183.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,183.59

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4814157 — net $7,183.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 24/06/2024	$16,870.00		Rent arrears (to 24/06/2024
Exemplary damages: (S45 of the RTA breaches		$7,200.00	(S45 of the RTA breaches
Compensation: (s45 (1)(a) breach		$500.00	(s45 (1)(a) breach
Compensation: (s45 (1)(b) breaches		$10,590.29	(s45 (1)(b) breaches
Exemplary damages: (s30 of the RTA breach		$350.00	(s30 of the RTA breach
Compensation: (s30 of the RTA breach		$2,952.86	(s30 of the RTA breach
Compensation: Reconnection fee for power		$90.00	Reconnection fee for power
Exemplary damages: (s13(2) of the RTA breach		$500.00	(s13(2) of the RTA breach
Exemplary damages: (s29(1) of the RTA breach		$350.00	(s29(1) of the RTA breach
Exemplary damages: (s23(1)(b) of the RTA		$1,500.00	(s23(1)(b) of the RTA
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$16,870.00	$24,053.59
Net award	$7,183.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,183.59

Order

Goodtenant Limited As Agent For Collina Farms Ltd Gall And Bruce Collins must pay [the tenants] $7,183.59 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 24 June 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, possession of the premises, rent arrears, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants made a cross application for exemplary and general damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenants rented a property from the same landlord at [address 1 suppressed] prior to them commencing the tenancy at [address 2 suppressed] on 5 August 2022. The tenants rented that property from 24 July 2020 to 29 January 2022.
The tenants expressed concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s business records during this tenancy, as well as during the current tenancy.
The tenants claimed the landlord had overcharged them rent and that they had overpaid their rent by $4,740.00.
I have no jurisdiction to hear any of the tenants claims in relation to their prior tenancy at [address 1 suppressed], as this application applies to their current tenancy, but I agreed to audit the rental records from that property to assess whether there was any overpayment of rent, as alleged by the tenants.
The rent summary shows several errors: a. The tenancy agreement records the first rent payment, after the initial two weeks rent in advance the landlord made the tenants pay at the beginning of the tenancy, was due on 31 July 2020, when it should not have been due to 7 August 2020. This credit is reflected throughout the tenancy as the rent always being 1 week in advance and is corrected at the end of the first tenancy; b. The rent periods went from Thursday to Wednesday, instead of Friday to Thursday; c. The start date on the rent summary was recorded as being 23 instead of 24 July 2020; d. The end date of the tenancy was recorded on the rent summary sheet as 28 instead of 29 January 2022; and e. The payment recorded as being made on 1 May 2021 was made on 30 April 2021.
Despite these errors, the rent summary shows that the correct amount of rent was paid to the landlord during this tenancy. A Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment Mediator has also reviewed this rent summary and has recorded that she had reached the same conclusions as I have, after reviewing the rent records against the bank records for this tenancy.
Therefore, at the start of the current tenancy, the tenants were up to date with their rent, had no arrears and had not overpaid any rent.
The tenants say they had calculated the alleged overpayments from the “tenant details” reports they had been provided by the landlord. The tenants produced several of these reports and the number of errors in them were staggering. Because these reports were full of errors, they had confused the tenants. They say they were never given the rent summaries, which are much easier to read and understand, and so had to rely on the inaccurate tenant details reports.
The tenants also stated they had an accountant look at the tenant details reports and that the accountant had confirmed the overpayment amount.
I enquired whether the tenants had provided the accountant with their back statements, so as the check that any alleged double payments recorded in the tenant details reports had in fact been made by the tenants. They confirmed they had not provided the accountant with their bank statements. Therefore, the accountant had not been able to do an accurate reconciliation of the rent paid versus the rent owed for the duration of this tenancy.
I am satisfied, having undertaken this reconciliation, that the rent owed and rent paid are equal and no party owes the other party any monies in relation to the Te Hana tenancy.
The remainder of this decision will focus on the 396 Mangawhai Road tenancy.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to keep accurate rent records?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not kept accurate records of the rent and bond paid by the tenants and they say the landlord owes them $5,040.00 in rent overpayments.
A landlord must keep proper business records showing details of all rent payments and any bond paid by the tenant, so the landlord can provide an accurate rent statement to the tenant within a reasonable timeframe. See section 30(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Failure to keep accurate business records, in accordance with s30 of the RTA is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 30(2) and Schedule 1A RTA).
Proper business records mean records that are orderly, to a high standard 1 , and contemporaneous with payments made by the tenants 2 .
It was clear to me from the tenant details reports and rent summaries from the tenants’ previous tenancy, that was managed by the same property management 1 Kumar v Capper NZTT Auckland TT1004/90, 12 March 1991 at [8]. 2 Brown v Steele [2002] DCR 338 at [19]. company, that the landlord’s business records keeping was fraught with numerous errors and could not be considered accurate.
The tenants produced several tenant details documents they had been given by the landlord after pursuing the landlord relentlessly for rent summary documents the landlord should have been able to produce in a reasonable timeframe but did not. These tenant details forms were confusing and inaccurate and led the tenants to believe they had overpaid rent when they had not. In addition, each time the tenants queried the accuracy of the tenant details forms, the landlord made modifications in their Palace system that added to the inaccuracies and the tenants’ confusion.
The landlord could not explain why it had not simply provided the tenants with rent summaries, that would have been clearer, less confusing and would have allowed the tenants to have more easily cross checked their bank records against the payments recorded in the rent summary.
On 27 October 2023, the landlord sent the tenants a text regarding overdue rent, when it wasn’t overdue. The landlord’s poor record keeping had not accounted for the tenants rent payments coming in on a Friday instead of a Thursday.
The tenants say the rent records were so confusing, they issued the landlord with a 14-day notice on 9 November 2023 to provide them with accurate rent records. The tenants proved the landlord had provided them with four different tenant details records in November 2023, that all showed they owed a different amount of rent arrears.
The tenants say they were told by the landlord, after they sent the 14-day notice, that they could cease paying rent until accurate rent records could be provided to them. The landlord denied giving this instruction to the tenants but later said it may have said this but did not expect the tenants to cease paying rent for such a lengthy period. Further, it believed the tenants may have overpaid rent at this time and did not want further rent overpayments to be made.
The rent summary the landlord produced at the Tribunal hearing shows the tenants stopped paying rent on 24 November 2023. As at the date of the hearing, the rent records were still not accurate.
The rent summary shows the landlord had not accounted for the payments made on 20 and 27 October 2023 correctly, nor had it accounted for the payments made on 3, 10 or 17 October 2023 correctly. None of these payments were attributed to the correct rental period and led to an impression the tenants rent was up to date in these periods when they were not. This error seemed to have occurred when the tenants stopped making rent payments on a Thursday and started making the payments on a Friday. They made this change to their rent payments as they had just become aware that the landlord had been charging them from Thursday to Wednesday in their prior tenancy, when the rental period should have always been from Friday to Thursday. As such, they had always been paying rent a day ahead if when it was due.
The landlord claimed systems errors for the missing rent, overpayments, and incorrect rent totals. An email from the landlord to its Palace software support contractor shows that it is unaware of where the problem for all the errors lies and is seeking advice from Palace support to identify and assist it to correct these numerous errors.
Providing the tenants with rent summaries only would have prevented the tenants from being so confused by all the systems errors recorded in the tenant details documents.
On 18 March 2024, the tenants send an email to the Tribunal that proved the landlord had filed an application to evict them because it claimed the tenants owed it $7,120.00 in rent arrears. However, the landlord had sent the tenants an email stating they owed $7,840.00 in rent arears for the same period. They say they were also sent a receipt in March 2024 that stated the rent arrears for the same period was $8,400.00.
I find the landlord has failed to keep accurate business records that are of a high standard, in accordance with s30 of the RTA, and it has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 the landlord intentionally failed to retain accurate business records to a high standard over a lengthy time period and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $350.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by law to keep accurate business records that allows it to provide the tenants with accurate rent summaries in a reasonable timeframe, and it did not. b. The tenants are entitled to rely on accurate business records being kept by their landlord so that they can be assured their rent payments are being accounted for accurately and they can seek confirmation of how much rent they owe or have overpaid at any given time; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations keep accurate business records of a high standard for the protection of both parties’ interests.
Given the serious impact on the tenants of the landlord’s ongoing breach of its obligation to provide the tenant with accurate business records of a high standard, I also consider compensation in the form of a rent rebate would be appropriate to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide the tenants with accurate rent records and that the stress of this breach of its s30 of the RTA obligations ultimately led the tenants to have to seek professional accounting assistance to try to figure out if they had overpaid their rent. The landlord’s poor business record keeping also led the landlord to inform the tenants in late November 2023 to stop paying rent until the landlord could ascertain how much the rent may have been overpaid by, as it could not rely on its own business records at that time.
I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenants $30.00 per week for the 98 weeks and 3 days period from 5 August 2022 to 24 June 2024 for the loss of the stress and inconvenience the tenants suffered because of the landlord’s poor business record keeping. This totals an award of $2,952.86. Breaches of section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenants claim the landlord breached several its s45 of its RTA obligations to them.
Breaching any of the landlords s45 of the RTA 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.
Regardless of the number breaches of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA, they are still considered to be a breach of one section of the RTA. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7,200.00 for any breaches under section 45(1A), but I can consider that there are a number of breaches within that section.
General damages may be awarded for breaches of s45 of the RTA and these general come in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenant.
The award of exemplary and/or general damages for any proven breaches of s45 of the RTA will be quantified with the other s45 breaches later in this decision.

Did the landlord fail to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The tenants say they were initially told that the house had been commercially cleaned before their tenancy commenced. The landlord confirmed it had been the property owners that had cleaned the premise themselves at least 3 days before the tenants moved in.
The entry inspection report, dated 2 August 2022, shows the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The tenants say the house was not in a reasonably clen and tidy condition on entry and that: a. The ceilings in the laundry and bathroom were dirty and mouldy; b. There was a large rat nest in: i. The laundry cupboard; ii. The stove extraction unit; and iii. The hot water cupboard. c. The rats had left excrement in cupboards and in draws that needed to be cleaned.
The 2 August 2024 entry inspection report records: a. The laundry ceiling is “discoloured with mould around the edges”, “patch marks” in ceilings and “ceilings not clean”; b. The “light shade plus the light bulb is “dirty”; c. The wallpaper lifting at the joins and “mould” and “mould stains” in some corners of the wallpaper at the top of the walls, d. Wallpaper discoloured from mould and paper peeling behind laundry toilet; e. Floor behind the laundry toilet is “dirty”;
I note that the entry inspection photographs were taken on 2 August 2022, 3 days prior to the tenant’s moving in. This gave the rats time to poo and wee in the cupboards and draws.
Rats are creatures of opportunity and will build nests wherever they see a spot that can offer warmth and access to food, water, and materials. Some rats build nests in the ductwork, making using heating, ventilation units and air conditioning units hazardous. As part of the entry inspection, the landlord did not inspect the inside of the rangehood filters, which provided the rats with a dark, secure location to nest. The tenants say they found a significant rat’s nest in this dark and secluded location when the tenancy started, after trying to use the rangehood and finding it faulty and giving off burning odours when it was turned on.
The tenants say they raised this with their landlord straight away, but the landlord did nothing to address the rodent issue or to clean out the rodent nest.
The tenants say they were left having to undertake rat extermination, remove the rat nests and to clean the rat excrement out of draws and cupboards in the kitchen and laundry.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves landlord’s did not provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord’s property inspection report shows that on 2 August 2022, the premise had some mould, mould stains and a dirty laundry floor. The tenants’ evidence has proven that there was rodent excrement and nest that also added to the level on uncleanliness of the premise at the start of the tenancy.
I find the landlord intentionally failed to retain accurate business records to a high standard over a lengthy time period and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay the tenants exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have taken reasonable steps to ensure the premise was in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when it was handed over to the tenants and it did not . b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the premise being handed over to them in a reasonably clean and tidy state, free of rodents and rodent excrement; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their s45(1)(a) of the RTA obligations.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be determined at the end of the s45 of the RTA breaches section of this Order.
Given the serious impact on the tenants of the landlord’s breach of s45(1)(a) of the RTA, I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenants $500.00 for the loss of amenity and the stress and inconvenience the tenants suffered because of they had to clean and tidy the premise before they could start putting their belongings into cupboards and draws and they had to clean out rats nests and try to undertake pest control to exterminate the rats. Did the landlord fail to repair and maintain the premise in reasonable state of repair
[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, 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”. 3
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 4 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 5 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 6 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 7 .
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 of the RTA.
The tenants say: Extractor fan in kitchen
The extraction unit in the kitchen vented outside but the grates were failing and needed to be replaced.
Every time the tenants tried to turn on the kitchen extraction fan, it made a burning smell due to a large rat’s nest in it.
The landlord took the grates off in December 2022, a few months after the tenancy commenced, and never replaced them. Without the grates, cold damp air came straight in from outside and started to cease to motor.
The tenants say they had to put covers over their food as everything blew/dropped into their food from this gaping dirty hole that had previously had a large rat’s nest in it.
The tenants say they stopped using the extractor fan.
The entry inspection report states the Rangehood is in “good condition for age” and is “compliant” and has “clean filters”. The photographs in the report support those comments. The report does not say it has been tested and is fully operational.
The tenants have provided evidence there was a rat’s nest in the rangehood, that looks like it was there for a while. It may have been the previous tenants had not 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 4 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]. 6 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]. been using this appliance and did not notice the rat’s nest. I note that the power was not working at the time the landlord undertook the entry inspection and as such could not have tested this appliance.
I find that the rangehood was rendered unusable from the commencement of the tenancy to 24 June 2024, firstly because a rat’s nest was causing the rangehood to omit burning smells, which suggest there may have been some issue with the wiring caused by the rats living in that space, and then more latterly because the landlord took away some of the filters to get replacements for them and never replaced them. This left the tenants with a gaping hole vented to outside that allowed draughts to enter the premise and the rangehood dropping bits of dirt and dust into the tenants’ food unless the food was completely covered up.
The tenants were unable to use the rangehood and their use of the stove top was significantly compromised from 5 August 2022 to 24 June 2024, being a period of 98 weeks and 3 days.
I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenants $20.00 per week for the 98 weeks and 3 days period from 5 August 2022 to 24 June 2024 for the loss of the stress and inconvenience the tenants suffered because of the landlord failing to ensure the rangehood was in a reasonable state of repair and fit for purpose and for the draft that came in through the gaping unfiltered. This totals an award of $1,968.57. Wastewater systems and leaks
The tenants say they were not able to get running water in the house for periods of time which meant they could not flush the toilet while waiting for repairs.
The tenants say that when their tenancy commenced, they did not have any water for the first few hours as the tank had been disconnected.
Further, the tenants say they were unable to use their shower and toilet for a period of three and a half to four weeks as the waste tank was full and no one had emptied it. This led to the tenants having to make an organic toilet inside for this period, which meant essentially having raw sewage inside their home.
Every time the tenants used the water, they say the septic tank banked up and blocked the drains. They say they first raised this with the landlord at the beginning of December 2023, when the septic tank was overflowing outside, and the septic tank was not cleaned out until 20 December 2023.
The landlord says it had tried to remedy the wastewater issues in May/June 2022 and that it was aware is blocked every now and again and smelt periodically.
Further, the landlord acknowledged the male tenant had been very helpful by digging out some of the drains and backwashing the backed-up pipes to clear them out. However, it was aware there were an ongoing issue with the wastewater systems.
The tenants say the landlord never had the premise professionally cleaned after the raw sewage had leaked inside throughout the toilet room and outside around the stairs. This led to the tenants being exposed to hazards from ongoing exposure to raw sewage inside and outside the house.
The tenants say the owners helped with the septic tank leaks by bringing sand bags and they also dropped of cement to the male tenant to allow him to cement off the top of the septic tank as it was supposed to be off the ground.
The Property Manage confirmed the owners dealt with these wastewater issues directly and did not involve it in these.
The tenants say there were other drainage issues. They confirmed a plumber had been sent to investigate these issues but there were ongoing leaks around the premise.
The tenants say there was a pool of water underneath the house for the duration of their tenancy, that the two garages flood and the work shed under the deck is permanently wet and damp. Further, the tenants say the farm barn, that doubles as a garage/shed, leaks as well and they cannot use any of these storage spaces as their belongings get mouldy and damp and they have lost a lot of their personal belongings this way.
They also say the laundry room upstairs always has water underneath it and causes the room to be mouldy and damp.
The landlord says it had a plumber investigate the leaks, that the property has been earthquake damaged and that it is prone to flooding.
The male tenant confirmed a massive trench had been dug behind the house and beside the house where the wastewater tank is, but the property still experiences significant flooding issues the landlord had failed to adequately remedy.
I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenants $30.00 per week for the 98 weeks and 3 days period from 5 August 2022 to 24 June 2024 for the loss of amenity and the stress and inconvenience the tenants suffered because of the landlord failing to ensure the property had adequate drainage, that the water and wastewater systems were fit for purpose and the tenants health was not being put at risk from exposure to raw sewage. This totals an award of $2,952.86. Power
The tenants have proven there was no power connected to the premise when the tenants moved in.
The previous tenants had used genesis power and the tenants had tried to have their power provider, Powershop, transfer their account to the premise.
When the tenants reported the power issue to the landlord it told them they had to get their retail power provider to switch the power on to the premise. They informed the landlord they had arranged for Powershop to switch the power on and that the power Authority would not allow them to do so.
The tenants eventually found out that Vector refused Powershop’s request to have the power put on to the premise, as it was not registered as a separate premise with a separate switchboard. as a new switch board had been installed and it wasn’t listed with the Power Authority (Vector) as a certified separate meter. The tenants say they were told the switchboard needed to be allocated a separate tag number to prove it was certified before the power would be connected. Further, Vector told the tenants that no one should be living at that address as it was listed as a pump shed.
The landlord confirmed the owners had legally had the pump shed converted to a separate premise, but eventually found out the electrician they had used had failed to make Vector aware of this and he had not got the tag the new power meter required.
Consequently, the tenants had to pay a $90.00 reconnection fee, for which they have never been reimbursed, and they had ongoing issues with their retail power provider threatening to cut their power off every month for a year until the tag issue with Vector was resolved.
The tenants had to get the utilities disputes involved on 20 December 2022 in resolving matters, and they had to give the landlord ongoing access to their power account information so it could operate the tenants power account and do what was required to keep the power on until the issue was resolved with Vector in early March 2023.
The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience of, initially not having power to the premise, and then with the threat of having their power cut off every month from 5 August 2022 to 5 March 2023, 30 weeks and 2 days. I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenants $40.00 per week for those 30 weeks and 2 days. This totals an award of $1,211.42.
I also award the tenants reimbursement of the $90.00 reconnection fee they had to pay after the switchboard was certified. HRV and heat pump filter
The tenants say that when they moved in they had no power, so initially were not aware the HRV system and heat pump did not work properly.
The tenants confirmed the HRV and heat pump contractor did not come to investigate the issues for 2 to 3 weeks.
The tenants say the contractor found the heat pump filter had been shredded by rats and rat excrement was causing the HRV system to omit an unpleasant odour.
The tenants confirmed the heat pump filter was replaced in around 3 weeks and the contractor dosed the HRV system with baking soda and pet spray to try to eliminate the rat excrement odour but it still omitted an unpleasant odour if turned on.
The parties confirmed the HRV system was replaced 6 months after the tenancy started.
The tenants suffered the stress and inconvenience of, initially not being able to use the heat pump and HRV system for 3 weeks and then not being able to use the HRV system for 6 months due to rat damage. I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenants $20.00 per week for those 26 weeks. This totals an award of $520.00. Rodents
In addition to the rat issues already outlined above, the tenants confirmed the rats chewed a hole through the kitchen cupboard, within two weeks of their tenancy commencing but they had not informed the landlord of this as there had been so many issues and this was a more minor issue in the scheme of things.
The tenants also confirmed there was a mouse infestation at the premise as well but they did not cause the damage the rats did. They say they raised this issue with the owners and were told they could inform the property manager of the issue.
The premise clearly had a rodent infestation issue and the parties confirmed that the landlord never undertook any pest control measures during the tenancy.
The landlord said it was aware of the rodent issue but was not aware of the extent of the issue and that the tenants had told them they would try to address the issue themselves.
The tenants confirmed they had done three rounds of standard mouse bait and a bucket of rat pellets and had set at least 6 mice and rat traps, but this had not alleviated the rodent issue.
I am satisfied that the landlord was made aware of the rodent infestation early on in the tenancy, from the significant damage to the rangehood, heat pump and HRV system, and should have known that the infestation required commercial pest control steps to be taken to place bait stations inside and outside the premise and to undertake follow up pest control measures until the rats and mice were exterminated.
The landlord did not take appropriate steps to address the rodent issue, nor did it act in a timely manner to investigate the issue.
I find it fair and reasonable to award the tenants $40.00 per week for the 98 weeks and 3 days period from 5 August 2022 to 24 June 2024 for the loss of amenity and the stress and inconvenience the tenants suffered because of the landlord failing to ensure the property was rodent free. This totals an award of $3,937.14. Cracks in walls, deck and ramp
The tenants say the whole front of the house was falling off and there were numerous cracks in the concrete deck, walls and ramp.
The male tenant says the support walls had cracks alongside the railing that was holding it all together. He says these cracks all opened up more after the drainage issues. He stated he had told the owner about the support wall to the ramp and that if it comes off the ramp will come off. Further, he says this support wall is also attached to the lounge and front bedrooms. He also says that as the ground has dried out more the cracks have worsened, but the landlord has done nothing to address these issues.
The landlord says it was unaware of these issues and the tenants must have been liaising with the owners about these cracks.
The tenants did not provide any photographs or other evidence to support these claims. I am not satisfied that the tenants have given me sufficient evidence to prove their claim and dismiss the claim accordingly. Summary of exemplary damage claims for section 45(1)(b) breaches
I find the landlord has committed five unlawful acts under the failure to maintain head of claim and that the landlord committed these five breaches intentionally.
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 the landlord intentionally failed to 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, and that it would be just to require the landlord to pay the tenants exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have taken reasonable steps to ensure the premise was maintain in a reasonable state of repair and it did not . b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the premise being maintained in a reasonable state of repair; c. t is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their s45(1)(b) of the RTA obligations.
The quantum of exemplary damages will be determined at the end of the s45 of the RTA breaches section of this Order.

Did the landlord breach its Healthy Homes Standards obligations?

[The tenants] claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under 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 ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
Breaching the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenancy commenced after 1 July 2021, so the landlord had 90 days from that date to ensure the premise complied with the healthy homes standards.
The tenancy agreement records that the premise is healthy homes compliant and that no exemptions apply, although it does record that the landlord is not aware of whether the premise has wall insulation, as the wall cavity is not accessible.
The tenants say the premise does not meet the moisture ingress and drainage standard, the ventilation standard and the heating standard. Ventilation and draught stopping
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenants say that in September/October 2022, all the curtains were blowing everywhere and the windows in the dining room and at the back of the lounge fell out.
Further, the tenants say they had a few months of water pouring into the house before every window was refilled and resealed.
The owners also got glass contractors to replace all of the window glass at the same time.
I do not find that this is a breach of the ventilation or the draught stopping standard, but a further breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Heating standard
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The parties confirmed the premise contains a heat pump in the main living area, albeit a heat pump that had rat infestation damage issues at the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement records the premise as being compliant with the heating standard. I am satisfied that the issues raised in relation to heating were not a breach of the heating standard, but a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair that has already been traversed earlier on in the s45(1)(b) part of this Order. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The moisture ingress and drainage standard says rental properties must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water and ground water. Rental properties with an enclosed sub-floor space must have a ground moisture barrier.
The landlord, in the tenancy agreement, states the premise meets this standard and confirms it has a subfloor area and that the ground moisture barrier was assessed on 29 June 2022.
The tenants say the gutters were not cleaned out and the owners put the ground moisture barrier in themselves and it did not meet the require standards.
The tenants did not provide any evidence to support their claims and I dismiss this claim for lack of evidence to support the claim.
In the failure to maintain area of this Order I have found that there were drainage issues with the wastewater system. Any issues with blocked gutters, had they been proven, would have also fallen into the failure to maintain heads of claim.
I am satisfied the landlords were not in breach of any of the healthy homes standards and dismiss these claims for lack of evidence to prove them.

Did the landlord interfere with the utility services?

[The tenants] claim the landlord has interfered with the services to the premises by not ensuring the power supply to the premise was guarantee by ensuring the new power meter to the premise was certified and had a tag number.
A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was unaware of the issue with the power supply until the tenancy began and worked with the tenants to try to get the issue rectified.
I am not satisfied the power issues were a breach of the landlord’s s45(2) of the RTA obligations.
I find that this claim falls under the s45(1)(b) of the RTA head of claim and it has been addressed in that section of this Order. Exemplary damages for all four section 45 RTA breaches
The question then becomes the amount of exemplary damages to order for all the section 45 of the RTA breaches. I have stablished there has been one section 45(1)(a) and five section 45(1)(b) breaches of the landlord’s obligations (cleanliness, and repairs and maintenance breaches), but that is still a breach of one section of the RTA, that section 45. I can only make an order to the maximum of $7,200.00 for a breach under section 45(1A), but I can consider that there are six breaches within section 45 of the RTA.
Having done so, I consider an order at the maximum for the breaches of section 45(1)(a) and (b) would be reasonable. There are no factors which argue for a lesser order in my view. I therefore order exemplary damages of $7,200.00.
The tenants also sought compensation for these breaches. Where I consider it is fair to order compensation, I have done so in each section above. The tenants were expected to pay rent for premises which did not meet the required standards. I note that exemplary damages are not compensatory, so it was reasonable to order sums of money to compensate the tenants for the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience they suffered.
I must also take into consideration that the RTA requires parties to mitigate their loss. The tenant could have come to the Tribunal seeking work orders to address any defects but did not. The tenants could have issued more than one 14-day notice to the landlord and did not. The tenants did however follow the landlord up frequently in order to get it to comply with its obligations, but it did not undertake the required investigation and/or remedy of the multiple ongoing issues the tenant raised during the fraught tenancy in a timely manner. Breach of quiet enjoyment
[The tenants] claim the landlord has harassed them and breached their quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants say the landlord engaged in threatening behaviour when speaking to them, especially when they have raised the landlord’s various breaches of its obligations to them. They say the threatening language became worse over time.
They also say their communications with the owners had become nasty as well and they were afraid to keep raising the significant issues they were having with their tenancy.
The tenants confirmed the male tenant had been engaged by the landlord to undertake some work for it and then reneged on the offer when the tenants made a complaint about their tenancy issues. The tenants say this led to a heated phone call from the Managing Director of the landlord’s company and then later the Managing Director came to their home to intimidate them and asking for his gear to be returned. They also say there were heated phone calls over the rent records issues and the 14 day notice that got nasty.
The tenants also say the property manager had a go at them for not contacting her about the repair and maintenance issues and that they should not be going to the owners about these things.
The Property Manager says she has never “had a go” at the tenants and has worked in with them to resolve issues that have been brought to her attention.
The parties confirmed the tenants issued a trespass order on three persons from the property management company on 5 January 2024 and the landlord says that made it difficult for it to manage the property. This trespass order was issued after the landlord had issued a property inspection notice and the tenants were still very unhappy about the lack of responsiveness about the ongoing rent records and the repair and maintenance issues. They also say that the landlord picked at them during property inspections about minor things but did nothing to address the major issues the tenants continually raised.
While I can see the relationship between the property management company and the tenants had irretrievably broken down, I am not satisfied the tenants have proven, on the balance of probabilities that the landlord had breached their quiet enjoyment and harassed them.
I dismiss this claim for the tenants’ failure to provide me with enough evidence to prove the claim. Failure to issue receipts for rent
[The tenants] claim the landlord has not issued a receipt for rent.
A landlord must give a written receipt immediately for any rent paid by cash. See section 29(1) and (2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $350.00. See section 29(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants made their rent payments by electronic banking. Section 29(4)(a) confirms a landlord is not required to issue a receipt for “any rent paid out of a bank account in the name of the tenant by automatic payment through the bank or by way of a non-negotiable personal cheque or other similar non-negotiable instrument drawn on that account”.
This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove the breach claimed. Failure to provide the tenants with a copy of the tenancy agreement prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
[The tenants] claim the landlord did not provide them with a copy of the tenancy agreement prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
Section 13(2) of the RTA confirms a “landlord must, before the tenancy commences (a) sign the tenancy agreement; and (b) provide a copy of the tenancy agreement to the tenant (whether or not the tenant has signed it)”.
Section 13(4) confirms that a landlord’s failure to comply with s13(2) commits an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
In breaching section 13(2) of the RTA, the landlord also commits an infringement offence for which the Tribunal may also award a fine or an infringement fee of up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1B of the RTA.
The parties agree the tenancy commenced on 5 August 2022. The tenants say the landlord asked them to sign a copy of the tenancy agreement that day, not prior to the tenancy commencing, and that they did not receive a copy of the tenancy agreement until sometime later.
The landlord says the tenants were given a copy of the signed tenancy agreement at some time on 5 August 2022, but did not provide any evidence to disprove the tenants claims they had not been given a copy of the tenancy agreement prior to their tenancy commencing.
The tenants say they were unable to consider or get independent advice on the terms and conditions of tenancy being offered to them because of the landlord’s breach.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by not providing a written tenancy agreement to the tenant prior to the start of the tenancy.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $500.00 in exemplary damages (half the maximum quantum available) because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required by law to provide the tenants with a written and signed tenancy agreement and it did not provide this. It intentionally chose not to enter any sort of formal written arrangement with the tenants until they had already committed to moving into the premise on undefined terms. b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to a written and signed tenancy agreement that contains their and the landlord’s rights and obligations and without any sort of formal agreement being offered to them prior to the start of the tenancy, they were denied the opportunity to seek independent advice on it prior to signing it; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations provide a written and signed tenancy agreement prior to the start of the tenancy for the protection of both parties’ interests. Rent required in advance before expiry of rent period.
[The tenants] claims the landlord has required rent to be paid before the rent already paid has been used up.
A landlord must not require the payment of any rent before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already. Section 23(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have proven they were contractually required to pay two weeks rent in advance on 1 August 2022 and that thereafter the first rent payment would be due on 1 August 2022. That would mean the tenants were always paying rent one week in advance.
The landlord required the tenants to pay the first rent payment on the 5 August 2022, instead of 11 August 2022. In doing so the landlord required the tenants to always be 2 weeks rent in advance until 10 February 2023.
The tenants were unaware that the landlord was requiring their rent to be paid before the rent already paid had been used up for this 27-week period until they got some rent relief for issues that resulted from Cyclone Gabrielle in February 2023. At this time the landlord informed them they had always paid two and not one weeks rent in advance. Had the landlord provided the tenants with rent summaries, they would have picked this breach up earlier.
In addition, the landlord was requesting payment on 27 October 2023, when it sent the tenants a text regarding overdue rent, when it wasn’t overdue. The landlord’s poor record keeping had not accounted for the tenants rent payments coming in on a Friday instead of a Thursday.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $1500.00 in exemplary damages because: a. The landlord should have reasonably known that it is required by law not to require the payment of any rent before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on their statutory right to only be required to pay rent for the rent periods in the contractual timeframes agreed; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations not to require the payment of any rent before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already.
I find that 100 percent of the maximum available exemplary damage quantum of $1,500.00 is appropriate given the 6-month timeframe the landlords breach continued. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
The landlord says the tenants rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed and invites me to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 55(1)(a) of the RTA.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount they say was owing as at the date of the hearing.
The tenants argue the tenancy cannot equitably be terminated under s55(1)(a) of the RTA because the tenants have a cross application before the Tribunal and if any of their claims are successful, they may have an equitable set off that offsets any rent arrears and it would be unequitable for the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy before hearing the tenants substantive claims against the landlord.
The High Court at Auckland in O’Shea v Brown [2002] BCL 212 held that the Tenancy Tribunal ought to hear the tenant’s counterclaims before making orders terminating tenancy, as the Tribunal needed to determine whether the tenant had an equitable right of set-off before determining whether an order under s 55(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) could be made.
In O’Shea, O’Regan J affirmed District Court Judge Gittos’ analysis of s 55 that the wording of the section does not over-ride the analysis in Grant v NZMC Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 8 that a determination of a landlord's claim for rent also should in fairness involve a determination of claims which could lead to an equitable set off. If such a right of set off can be established, that may mean the tenant would not be required to pay the rent because of the exercise of the set off right. In that case, there would be no “arrears”.
In Grant, the Court of Appeal found that where the tenant has a cross claim which so affects the landlord's claim for unpaid rent, it would be unjust to allow the landlord to have judgment without bringing the crossclaim to account, then it was not appropriate to give summary judgment for the unpaid rent to the landlord. Rather, it was necessary to allow the landlord's claim and the tenant's crossclaim both to be heard so that the overall merits can be determined. This required that the link between the claim and the crossclaim made them inter-dependent, so that judgment on one could not fairly be given without regard to the other and the tenant's claim calls into question, or impeaches the landlord's demand.
O’Regan J held that in circumstances where the equitable right of set off comes within the parameters of Grant, the Tribunal should determine both the landlord's claim and the tenant's counterclaim before determining whether an order should be made under s 55.
Consequently, I have heard and determined the tenants application first and then the landlord’s claim. The amounts awarded to the tenants has set off all of the rent arrears claimed by the landlord.
As such, there are no rent arrears after the tenants equitable offsets, and the landlord’s claim for termination of the tenancy is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) confirms if an applicant has been wholly or substantially successful in his or her claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application.
Only the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, therefore they are entitled to have their filing fee reimbursed. I reimburse their filing fee accordingly. Name suppression
During the hearing, the tenants 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.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is 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 4814157 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814157 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to keep accurate rent records?

Did the landlord fail to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state?

Did the landlord breach its Healthy Homes Standards obligations?

Did the landlord interfere with the utility services?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the landlord fail to keep accurate rent records?

Did the landlord fail to provide the premise in a reasonably clean and tidy state?

Did the landlord breach its Healthy Homes Standards obligations?

Did the landlord interfere with the utility services?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions