What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4847820 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4847820?

Property Damage: $1,680.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,207.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847820?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10241192-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4847820 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4847820?

Property Damage: $1,680.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,207.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847820?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10241192-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Kereru Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847820 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847820 — net $90.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$160.00		Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$402.50		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,207.50		Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$1,680.00	Section 45
Total award	$1,770.00	$1,680.00
Net award	$90.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$90.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited Acting Agent For Wanny Wu: $90.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,030.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 24 December 2021 and ended on 7 September 2023.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages and refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond. Tenant’s application
The tenant seeks compensation for damage to her property due to the rat infestation. She also referred to the Healthy Homes standards and in particular the mould, heating and draughts. She also sought exemplary damages.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises and did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. I find they have 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.
There were maintenance issues that the landlord should have addressed earlier. I refer to the rat issue raised by the tenant. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that there was a routine inspection on 6 June 2023. The landlord knew at least by this date that there was an issue with rats and that there were two broken windows at the premises.
The landlord addressed the rat issue initially by laying bait himself but when that did not fix the issue, he employed a cleaning company to carry out pest control. The landlord produced the invoice from the company. Nothing about the invoice suggests that this was a company which specialised in pest control.
The rat issue was significant. There were droppings throughout the premises including in the hot water cupboard and even on clean dishes on the bench. The rats chewed holes in walls and flooring. The tenant produced a photograph of one of the rats. The tenant also produced photographs showing that the rats had chewed through the cords of several of her electrical appliances, shoes and her couch. The tenant listed items that were destroyed by the rat infestation.
It is my view that the action taken by the landlord to address this issue was too slow and inadequate.
In relation to the broken windows there was no suggestion that the tenant was at fault in respect of the windows. The tenant used cardboard and gaffer tape to fill the hole left by one of the windows. She said that the other window, which was large, was not covered with any temporary material. Both windows broke during the winter months.
The first window was repaired by the landlord on 15 June 2023. The tenant said that the window was for a bedroom and remained open until fixed. This window had fallen out of the hinges holding it.
The second window was fixed around 12 August 2023. There was some delay in relation to the landlord having access but in the end the work was able to be carried out without gaining entry.
The landlord should have provided temporary cover for the window space to ensure that the premises were secure and not exposed to the elements. This did not happen.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report from Cosy Spaces NZ. I am told that this was obtained in May 2021, before the tenancy began. The report records that the premises failed in respect of the standards for drainage, heating, ventilation and draughts.
The landlord did not produce any evidence to show that these issues were resolved except for in respect of ventilation as photographs showed the rangehood in the kitchen and ventilation in the bathroom. The landlord did say that he himself repaired the fireplace and fixed the drainage and draughts. These were not supported by either photographs or an updated report. The landlord did have a video showing that he lit the fireplace but that is not evidence that it works, is safe or provides the required heating capacity.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the premises were Healthy Homes compliant by the compliance date (24 March 2022) being 90 days after commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant was affected by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and comply with the Healthy Homes standards. There were periods when the premises were not warm, healthy and secure. The tenant has suffered loss to her belongings due to the rat infestation.
The landlord knew of both the rat infestation and the broken windows but took too long to act or did not address the issue adequately.
It is in the public interest that rental premises are safe, warm and secure. This was not the case for these premises.
Rather than grant the tenant compensation I have awarded exemplary damages taking account of the landlord’s failure in respect of section 45. I have awarded the tenant $1,680.00 which is three weeks rent, which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances. Landlord application
The landlord sought $160.00 for rent arrears and provided the rent summary to support this. The tenant acknowledged that this amount was owed.
The landlord sought $402.50 for lawns and $1,207.50 for rubbish removal. The landlord provided photographs in support of these claims.
The tenant had advised the landlord that she was unable to remove all of her belongings and rubbish and tidy the outside of the property. She had agreed for the cost to remove the rubbish and clear the outside area to be taken from her bond. That amount is ordered.
What was not agreed between the parties was the cost of cleaning the interior of the premises. The parties produced conflicting evidence. The tenant produced photographs showing that the inside area (lounge and bedrooms) was clear and reasonably clean. The landlord produced photographs showing rubbish and belongings in the same area. Neither could produce evidence as to the date of the photographs. I do note that the tenant’s photographs have the rat bait stations that were provided by the professional pest control company so must have been taken toward the end of the tenancy. The landlord suggested that the tenant had provided photographs after the premises were professionally cleaned but that raises the issue of how the tenant would have access to the premises after she had handed back the keys to the landlord.
Given the conflicting evidence I turn to the cleaning invoice produced by the landlord. The invoice records that cleaning was carried out on the ceiling, walls, windows and frames, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and rat droppings.
I note that none of the cleaning involved the bedrooms or lounge, yet the three photographs of the interior rooms produced by the landlord were of the bedrooms and lounge. I would have expected that cleaning would be required for these rooms given the landlord’s photographs. Also, there are no photographs of the cleaning required in either the kitchen, bathroom or laundry.
The onus is on the landlord to establish that the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy and required further cleaning. On the evidence produced the landlord has not done so. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to cleaning the interior of the premises.
As both parties have had some success with their application, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
For the same reason I make a suppression order in respect of the tenant’s name as applied for.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847820 — net $90.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$160.00		Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$402.50		Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,207.50		Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$1,680.00	Section 45
Total award	$1,770.00	$1,680.00
Net award	$90.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$90.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited Acting Agent For Wanny Wu: $90.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,030.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 24 December 2021 and ended on 7 September 2023.
The tenant applied for compensation and exemplary damages and refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond. Tenant’s application
The tenant seeks compensation for damage to her property due to the rat infestation. She also referred to the Healthy Homes standards and in particular the mould, heating and draughts. She also sought exemplary damages.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises and did not comply with the Healthy Homes standards. I find they have 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.
There were maintenance issues that the landlord should have addressed earlier. I refer to the rat issue raised by the tenant. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that there was a routine inspection on 6 June 2023. The landlord knew at least by this date that there was an issue with rats and that there were two broken windows at the premises.
The landlord addressed the rat issue initially by laying bait himself but when that did not fix the issue, he employed a cleaning company to carry out pest control. The landlord produced the invoice from the company. Nothing about the invoice suggests that this was a company which specialised in pest control.
The rat issue was significant. There were droppings throughout the premises including in the hot water cupboard and even on clean dishes on the bench. The rats chewed holes in walls and flooring. The tenant produced a photograph of one of the rats. The tenant also produced photographs showing that the rats had chewed through the cords of several of her electrical appliances, shoes and her couch. The tenant listed items that were destroyed by the rat infestation.
It is my view that the action taken by the landlord to address this issue was too slow and inadequate.
In relation to the broken windows there was no suggestion that the tenant was at fault in respect of the windows. The tenant used cardboard and gaffer tape to fill the hole left by one of the windows. She said that the other window, which was large, was not covered with any temporary material. Both windows broke during the winter months.
The first window was repaired by the landlord on 15 June 2023. The tenant said that the window was for a bedroom and remained open until fixed. This window had fallen out of the hinges holding it.
The second window was fixed around 12 August 2023. There was some delay in relation to the landlord having access but in the end the work was able to be carried out without gaining entry.
The landlord should have provided temporary cover for the window space to ensure that the premises were secure and not exposed to the elements. This did not happen.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report from Cosy Spaces NZ. I am told that this was obtained in May 2021, before the tenancy began. The report records that the premises failed in respect of the standards for drainage, heating, ventilation and draughts.
The landlord did not produce any evidence to show that these issues were resolved except for in respect of ventilation as photographs showed the rangehood in the kitchen and ventilation in the bathroom. The landlord did say that he himself repaired the fireplace and fixed the drainage and draughts. These were not supported by either photographs or an updated report. The landlord did have a video showing that he lit the fireplace but that is not evidence that it works, is safe or provides the required heating capacity.
The landlord has not satisfied me that the premises were Healthy Homes compliant by the compliance date (24 March 2022) being 90 days after commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant was affected by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and comply with the Healthy Homes standards. There were periods when the premises were not warm, healthy and secure. The tenant has suffered loss to her belongings due to the rat infestation.
The landlord knew of both the rat infestation and the broken windows but took too long to act or did not address the issue adequately.
It is in the public interest that rental premises are safe, warm and secure. This was not the case for these premises.
Rather than grant the tenant compensation I have awarded exemplary damages taking account of the landlord’s failure in respect of section 45. I have awarded the tenant $1,680.00 which is three weeks rent, which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances. Landlord application
The landlord sought $160.00 for rent arrears and provided the rent summary to support this. The tenant acknowledged that this amount was owed.
The landlord sought $402.50 for lawns and $1,207.50 for rubbish removal. The landlord provided photographs in support of these claims.
The tenant had advised the landlord that she was unable to remove all of her belongings and rubbish and tidy the outside of the property. She had agreed for the cost to remove the rubbish and clear the outside area to be taken from her bond. That amount is ordered.
What was not agreed between the parties was the cost of cleaning the interior of the premises. The parties produced conflicting evidence. The tenant produced photographs showing that the inside area (lounge and bedrooms) was clear and reasonably clean. The landlord produced photographs showing rubbish and belongings in the same area. Neither could produce evidence as to the date of the photographs. I do note that the tenant’s photographs have the rat bait stations that were provided by the professional pest control company so must have been taken toward the end of the tenancy. The landlord suggested that the tenant had provided photographs after the premises were professionally cleaned but that raises the issue of how the tenant would have access to the premises after she had handed back the keys to the landlord.
Given the conflicting evidence I turn to the cleaning invoice produced by the landlord. The invoice records that cleaning was carried out on the ceiling, walls, windows and frames, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and rat droppings.
I note that none of the cleaning involved the bedrooms or lounge, yet the three photographs of the interior rooms produced by the landlord were of the bedrooms and lounge. I would have expected that cleaning would be required for these rooms given the landlord’s photographs. Also, there are no photographs of the cleaning required in either the kitchen, bathroom or laundry.
The onus is on the landlord to establish that the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy and required further cleaning. On the evidence produced the landlord has not done so. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to cleaning the interior of the premises.
As both parties have had some success with their application, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
For the same reason I make a suppression order in respect of the tenant’s name as applied for.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847820 — Rent arrears at 15 Kereru Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847820 — Rent arrears at 15 Kereru Street, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions