What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4817060?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4800.00 (6476410-003) to Elba

How much money was awarded in case 4817060?

Compensation: Hot water and dishwash…: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Remove curtain mould a…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817060?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475346-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4817060?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4800.00 (6476410-003) to Elba

How much money was awarded in case 4817060?

Compensation: Hot water and dishwash…: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Remove curtain mould a…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817060?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10475346-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Onepu Lane, Manly, Whangaparaoa 0930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4817060 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817060. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Hot water and dishwasher	$600.00		Hot water and dishwasher
Compensation: Remove curtain mould and sticker glue		$200.00	Remove curtain mould and sticker glue
Compensation: Wall repairs		$400.00	Wall repairs
Total award	$600.00	$600.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4800.00 (6476410-003) to Elba Escobar immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by teleconference.
The landlord’s request for an adjournment was declined because the tenant is entitled to have her application dealt with expeditiously and the landlord’s cross application was filed very shortly before this, hearing of which adequate notice had been given. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 12 December 2022 to 31 January 2023.
The tenancy ended on expiry of the fixed term.
On 23 February 2024 the tenant brought an application seeking recovery of her bond. The tenant also seeks compensation for issues with the hot water supply and the dishwasher.
The landlord then filed a cross application on 2 June 2024 seeking compensation for damage repair and curtain cleaning. The landlord also seeks an Order for payment of additional rent on the basis that the tenant had her sister and children living at the tenancy for part of the term. Tenant’s claims
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That obligation extends to any infrastructure and to any chattels provided as part of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s evidence is that for several weeks her use and enjoyment of the premises were reduced because the dishwasher was not working and the water supply was inadequate. Hot Water
The premises had a solar hot water system installed. That system failed and was disconnected and electrically heated water was required.
It seems that disconnection of the solar reticulation put additional pressure on the electrical water heating system which regularly “tripped” and had to be reset. The hot water supply was interrupted accordingly.
The tenant gave evidence outlining the unreliability of the hot water supply during that period and the constraints that put on their use of hot water.
An electrician was sent to check situation on 17 July 2024 and a temporary fix was undertaken, which prevented the system from fully heating the water.
A repair was undertaken in mid-August, after a 14 Day notice to remedy was sent to the landlord by the tenant on 31 July 2023, requiring remedy by 15 August 2023. Dishwasher
The tenant says that water supply to the dishwasher was impacted by the temporary fix applied to the hot water supply on 17 July 2024 and it stopped being usable.
The water supply to the dishwasher was reconnected on 31 July 2023 when the issues with the electrical supply to the hot water cylinder were remedied by installing a dedicated circuit.
A 14 day notice to remedy in respect of the dishwasher was also sent by the tenant on 31 July 2023. Findings
I find it proved on balance that the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises were lessened through having an inadequate supply of hot water for around 6 weeks and an inability to use the dishwasher for approximately 4 weeks.
The landlord says that reasonable steps were taken to respond to the issues, which were attended to. I do note though that the necessary repairs were not attended to until the tenant issued 14-day notices to remedy.
In the circumstances I would not have considered it just to award exemplary damages against the landlord for breach of its maintenance and repair obligations.
However, during that time the tenant was paying full rent but receiving less that the full benefit of the premises, due to issues that were the landlord’s responsibility. The tenant should not have had to get to the point of issuing remedy notices to have the problems with the premises rectified, compensation is appropriate.
I assess reasonable compensation at $80.00 per week for the 6 weeks the hot water supply was interrupted from the initial or the inconvenience and a further $30.00 per week for the 4 weeks the dishwasher unable to be used.

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. Window latches
The evidence persuades me that 2 window latches broke during the tenancy. The evidence does not persuade me on balance that the cause was other than usual wear and tear. Stickers on refrigerator
The evidence shows that stickers were put on the fridge during the tenancy. The residues remained there when the tenancy ended.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the cost of having those glue residues removed. Curtains
Photographs provided by the landlord show that some curtains were mould stained at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy includes chattels such as curtains. I am persuaded that those curtains were not left in reasonably clean condition and the landlord should be compensated for the cost of having them cleaned. Wall damage
Photographs provided by the landlord show that there were some holes and indentations in the walls of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged that they occurred during her tenancy and attempts were made to repair some of them.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the reasonable cost of proper repair which will require plastering, sanding and painting of some damage and repainting of the areas repaired by the tenant. Additional rent
The agreement provides, “Maximum tenant number is THREE”
The property manager says that during a routine inspection she discovered that the tenant’s sister and 2 children were staying at the premises from 31 March 2023 to 31 October 2023. She says that on 20 August 2023 the tenant asked or permission to have her sister and children living there. The owners required an additional $300.00 per week which the tenant did not pay. Compensation is claimed.
The tenant’s evidence is that due to a change in her sister’s circumstances, she and her children did come and stay off and on but were not permanently living there for the whole of that period.
The landlord’s claim for compensation fails for the following reasons: First: in terms of the agreement, the tenant’s sister and her children were not tenants but were visitors to the premises; Second: even if the tenant was in breach of an obligation to have only 3 people living at the premises, no loss to the landlord from that breach is proved; Third: the tenant was paying rent of $1200.00 per week for a 5 bedroomed home. In terms of s.78(1)(f), in my view it would be unduly harsh to apply that term of the agreement so as to limit occupation of the premises to the tenant and her children, to the exclusion of her sister and family.
In terms of s.95A, the grounds for suppression are not established as each party is the subject of awards for breach.
Because each party has had claims upheld no award is made in respect of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817060. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Hot water and dishwasher	$600.00		Hot water and dishwasher
Compensation: Remove curtain mould and sticker glue		$200.00	Remove curtain mould and sticker glue
Compensation: Wall repairs		$400.00	Wall repairs
Total award	$600.00	$600.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4800.00 (6476410-003) to Elba Escobar immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by teleconference.
The landlord’s request for an adjournment was declined because the tenant is entitled to have her application dealt with expeditiously and the landlord’s cross application was filed very shortly before this, hearing of which adequate notice had been given. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 12 December 2022 to 31 January 2023.
The tenancy ended on expiry of the fixed term.
On 23 February 2024 the tenant brought an application seeking recovery of her bond. The tenant also seeks compensation for issues with the hot water supply and the dishwasher.
The landlord then filed a cross application on 2 June 2024 seeking compensation for damage repair and curtain cleaning. The landlord also seeks an Order for payment of additional rent on the basis that the tenant had her sister and children living at the tenancy for part of the term. Tenant’s claims
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That obligation extends to any infrastructure and to any chattels provided as part of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s evidence is that for several weeks her use and enjoyment of the premises were reduced because the dishwasher was not working and the water supply was inadequate. Hot Water
The premises had a solar hot water system installed. That system failed and was disconnected and electrically heated water was required.
It seems that disconnection of the solar reticulation put additional pressure on the electrical water heating system which regularly “tripped” and had to be reset. The hot water supply was interrupted accordingly.
The tenant gave evidence outlining the unreliability of the hot water supply during that period and the constraints that put on their use of hot water.
An electrician was sent to check situation on 17 July 2024 and a temporary fix was undertaken, which prevented the system from fully heating the water.
A repair was undertaken in mid-August, after a 14 Day notice to remedy was sent to the landlord by the tenant on 31 July 2023, requiring remedy by 15 August 2023. Dishwasher
The tenant says that water supply to the dishwasher was impacted by the temporary fix applied to the hot water supply on 17 July 2024 and it stopped being usable.
The water supply to the dishwasher was reconnected on 31 July 2023 when the issues with the electrical supply to the hot water cylinder were remedied by installing a dedicated circuit.
A 14 day notice to remedy in respect of the dishwasher was also sent by the tenant on 31 July 2023. Findings
I find it proved on balance that the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises were lessened through having an inadequate supply of hot water for around 6 weeks and an inability to use the dishwasher for approximately 4 weeks.
The landlord says that reasonable steps were taken to respond to the issues, which were attended to. I do note though that the necessary repairs were not attended to until the tenant issued 14-day notices to remedy.
In the circumstances I would not have considered it just to award exemplary damages against the landlord for breach of its maintenance and repair obligations.
However, during that time the tenant was paying full rent but receiving less that the full benefit of the premises, due to issues that were the landlord’s responsibility. The tenant should not have had to get to the point of issuing remedy notices to have the problems with the premises rectified, compensation is appropriate.
I assess reasonable compensation at $80.00 per week for the 6 weeks the hot water supply was interrupted from the initial or the inconvenience and a further $30.00 per week for the 4 weeks the dishwasher unable to be used.

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. Window latches
The evidence persuades me that 2 window latches broke during the tenancy. The evidence does not persuade me on balance that the cause was other than usual wear and tear. Stickers on refrigerator
The evidence shows that stickers were put on the fridge during the tenancy. The residues remained there when the tenancy ended.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the cost of having those glue residues removed. Curtains
Photographs provided by the landlord show that some curtains were mould stained at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy includes chattels such as curtains. I am persuaded that those curtains were not left in reasonably clean condition and the landlord should be compensated for the cost of having them cleaned. Wall damage
Photographs provided by the landlord show that there were some holes and indentations in the walls of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged that they occurred during her tenancy and attempts were made to repair some of them.
The landlord is entitled to be compensated for the reasonable cost of proper repair which will require plastering, sanding and painting of some damage and repainting of the areas repaired by the tenant. Additional rent
The agreement provides, “Maximum tenant number is THREE”
The property manager says that during a routine inspection she discovered that the tenant’s sister and 2 children were staying at the premises from 31 March 2023 to 31 October 2023. She says that on 20 August 2023 the tenant asked or permission to have her sister and children living there. The owners required an additional $300.00 per week which the tenant did not pay. Compensation is claimed.
The tenant’s evidence is that due to a change in her sister’s circumstances, she and her children did come and stay off and on but were not permanently living there for the whole of that period.
The landlord’s claim for compensation fails for the following reasons: First: in terms of the agreement, the tenant’s sister and her children were not tenants but were visitors to the premises; Second: even if the tenant was in breach of an obligation to have only 3 people living at the premises, no loss to the landlord from that breach is proved; Third: the tenant was paying rent of $1200.00 per week for a 5 bedroomed home. In terms of s.78(1)(f), in my view it would be unduly harsh to apply that term of the agreement so as to limit occupation of the premises to the tenant and her children, to the exclusion of her sister and family.
In terms of s.95A, the grounds for suppression are not established as each party is the subject of awards for breach.
Because each party has had claims upheld no award is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817060 — Property damage at 17 Onepu Lane, Manly, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817060 — Property damage at 17 Onepu Lane, Manly, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions