What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4871160 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4871160?

10/04/2024: $1,107.14 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $407.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of s45(1)(b) -D…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4829419 D…: $3,777.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,237.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,257.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871160?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11840056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4871160 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4871160?

10/04/2024: $1,107.14 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $407.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of s45(1)(b) -D…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4829419 D…: $3,777.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,237.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,257.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $360.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871160?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11840056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871160 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871160 — net $4,993.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$1,257.14		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Previous order application 4829419 dated	$3,777.50		Previous order application 4829419 dated
Rubbish removal	$360.50		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00		Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$407.50		137. The amount ordered is proven.
Carpet Cleaning	$185.00		137. The amount ordered is proven.
Compensation for wall damage	$1,237.50		Compensation for wall damage
10/04/2024		$1,107.14	10/04/2024
Compensation: Breach of s45(1)(b) -Dead sheep		$500.00	Breach of s45(1)(b) -Dead sheep
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide the required		$750.00	Failure to provide the required
Total award	$7,350.14	$2,357.14
Net award	$4,993.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,993.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871160 — net $4,993.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$1,257.14		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Previous order application 4829419 dated	$3,777.50		Previous order application 4829419 dated
Rubbish removal	$360.50		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00		Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning	$407.50		137. The amount ordered is proven.
Carpet Cleaning	$185.00		137. The amount ordered is proven.
Compensation for wall damage	$1,237.50		Compensation for wall damage
10/04/2024		$1,107.14	10/04/2024
Compensation: Breach of s45(1)(b) -Dead sheep		$500.00	Breach of s45(1)(b) -Dead sheep
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide the required		$750.00	Failure to provide the required
Total award	$7,350.14	$2,357.14
Net award	$4,993.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,993.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord and tenants names and identifying details.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 10 April 2024 under application 4829419.
[The tenants] must pay [The landlord] $4,993.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 28 February 2025 and 13 May 2025.
On 10 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears of $9157.15, refund of the $4,400.00 bond and the filing fee of $20.44. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. The amount still owing from NZTT Order 4829419 is $3,777.56.
On 24 April 2024, the tenants applied for reimbursement of the filing fee, compensation, general damages and exemplary damages for: a. Breaches of s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947; and b. Failure to provide the statutorily required signed healthy homes compliance statement, healthy homes information for all five standards and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement; c. Unlawful entry; d. Breaches of their quiet enjoyment; and e. Removal truck and storage costs after eviction on 14 April 2024.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation and general damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?

The tenants say the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the RTA obligations to them.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15].
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) of the RTA obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a total maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
The tenants say the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Water
The property is a rural property that relies on a water pump for access to potable water. The tenants say there was no reliable source of water for a period of just over a month from 16 February 2024 to 18 March 2024 because the water pump than ran intermittently.
The tenants submitted they sent the property manager, text messages about this issue and other issues they had discovered with the premise since the tenancy started. They say that they received no rent relief for this loss of amenity, stress or inconvenience. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
The tenants say they first contacted the property manager by phone about the water issue around the end of December 2023, when they were preparing for Christmas, and that the owner came to check the pump at least three times before 15 January 2024. The property manager says this is not true and that first time this was raised with her was on 15 January 2024.
On 15 January 2024, the tenants confirmed they spoke to the Property Manager about the pump running intermittently and not working. They submitted that part way through the shower or a load of laundry the pump would stop and had to be reset. Each time, it had air trapped in the pump and the pump spluttered dirty water out of faucets and the shower or the kitchen tap, making mess that the tenants were left to clean up.
The tenants produced a text message, dated 15 January 2024, that says that the owner will be out to look at the pump today. They confirm the owner went and bled the pump the same day and that bleeding the line relieved the low pressure for a very short time and then the issue arose again.
On 18 January 2024, the property manager assigned this job to KPL. They came and bled the pump again. Again, this temporarily relieved the low-pressure issue.
On 16 February 2024, KPL came to install a temporary pump. The Property Manager says this was done to test whether the water issue was being caused by a pump issue or if it was an issue with the line to the house from the tank. They then installed a temporary line to the tank to test if that was the issue. This identified that the line to the tank was the issue and it sucked in air and dirt. Thereafter a permanent line was installed around 18 March 2024.
The tenants say they were going to the female tenant’s family to shower and do laundry and because her family lived up north, they went for a week at a time. They say that each week they returned to the property, with their very young toddlers, they would find there was no consistent and clean water supply to the house.
I am satisfied that the tenants suffered a loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience from 16 February 2024 to 18 March 2024 because it took some time for the landlord and its contractors to identify the cause of the water issue and that, although it had taken steps to try to address the water issues faced by the tenants.
In addition, section 7(2)(a) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR) states “There shall be in each kitchen or kitchenette, an approved sink with a tap connected to an adequate supply of potable water”.
Section 9(2) of the HIR states “every bathroom shall contain an approved bath or shower with an adequate supply of wholesome water. Adequate means of heating water shall be provided”.
Section 2 of the HIR states that potable water means “water that (a) is safe to drink; and (b) complies with the drinking water standards. Further, section 2 of the HIR defines drinking water standards as the standards made under section 47 of the Water Services Act 2021”.
I am satisfied the tenants have proven they were not provided with sufficient potable water to meet the landlord’s section 7 and 9 of the HIR obligations or the s45(1)(c) of the RTA obligations to the tenants, and that it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for the landlord to leave the tenants without a reliable water supply for over a month.
I do not find the owners intentionally put the tenants to the stress and inconvenience of being without consistent and reliable access to potable water in the bathrooms, kitchen and toilet.
I find the tenants should have received a rent rebate for the period they have had not had access to a reliable source of clean water from 16 February 2024 to 18 March 2024 (4 weeks and 3 days). The tenants reasonably expected to have access to a consistent supply of potable water in exchange for the $1,200.00 rent they paid each week. I find it fair and reasonable for the tenants to receive a rent rebate of $250.00 per week for 4 weeks and 3 days that they suffered the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience related to the lack of a consistent and reliable water supply. $250.00 x 4 =$1,000.00. $250.00 divided by 7 and multiplied by 3 is $107.14. The rent rebate ordered is $1,107.14.
I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support this breach being intentional. Therefore, no exemplary damages will be awarded for this proven breach. Dead sheep
The tenants say the landlord kept sheep on the property and that on or about 15 February 2024 one of these sheep died. The tenants say that despite the sending the property manager text messages about the dead sheep, it was not disposed of by the landlord for over a week.
The tenants confirmed that, in the week the dead sheep remained on the premise, it became fly blown and smelly and posed a health issue for the family. In addition, the flies were coming into the house as well and creating nuisance and potential health risks as well.
The landlord says the tenants rented the house and lawn around the house. The sheep in the paddock immediately around the house and the barn were not part of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord was not required to address issues to do with the sheep as part of the tenancy.
The tenants say that the sheep paddock may not have been part of their rental agreement, but the sheep got loose and came onto the rental property frequently. They say that on 2 February 2024 the sheep were loose and got into the tenant property. They also stated the owner was negligent in attending to his sheep as he lived up north and was not close enough to keep an eye on them and as a result, a couple of sheep died during the tenancy.
The tenants also showed me that the area where the sheep died was within 20 metres of the house, near a water trough adjacent to the property and it was so close that it was an issue for them, so they let the property manager know this.
The property manager stated she was never not told the dead sheep was within 20 metres of the house, that she contacted the owner as soon as the tenants raised the issue with her, and the owner got someone else to attend to it.
I find the tenants should receive a compensatory sum of $500.00 for the loss of amenity stress and inconvenience they suffered because of the dead sheep being left to rot 20 metres from their home for a week.
I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support this breach being intentional. The property manager and owner were not aware of how close the dead sheep was to the premise and therefore did not understand the urgency to remove the rotting carcass. Therefore, no exemplary damages will be awarded for this proven breach. No front door for two weeks
The tenants say they were left without a fully functioning front door for two weeks after the insurer’s contractors installed a new front door. They say that after the new door was installed, it had not been weather proofed, there was no handle and it was screwed shut for that two weeks. The tenants could not recall the dates but say that it was working fully by 5 September 2023.
The landlord says the front door was functional at the start of the tenancy. The property manager stated it looked like it was fine. When the assessors looked at the front door, they confirmed that it was slightly damaged but was functional. It was replaced but the replacement process was delayed due to insurance delays, COVID-19 impacting the building supplies and availability of builders’ post cyclone Gabrielle.
The landlord says the door was replaced within a few weeks but insulation fluff/tape was the last thing to be installed after the tenants stated cold air was coming through the new door.
The landlord says the tenants never raised any issue with the door, other than the draughts, until this hearing process. As soon as the landlord was made aware of the draughts the landlord had the insul-fluff installed.
The tenants had no proof they had raised the issue with the door not being waterproofed, not having a handle and being screwed shut. The landlord has proven that as soon as the draught stopping issues were raised in relation to the front door, the issue was addressed and no further complaints about the door raised by the tenants.
I dismiss this claim for lack of proof to support it on the balance of probabilities. Leaks in bathroom
The tenants say there was a leak that was causing the carpet in the master bedroom next to the ensuite bathroom to be constantly wet/damp. They say they raised this at the same time as the water pump issues were being reported in December 2023/January 2024.
The tenants say they first reported this issue to the property manager, on 2 January 2024 by phone call and they sent the photographs, and nothing was done about the leak or the damp water damaged carpet. They could not produce evidence of them having raised this issue with the landlord.
The landlord denies that the tenants raised this issue with it until mid-April 2024. Further, the property manager claims last inspection she conducted on 22 February 2024 and during that inspection the tenants had raised an issue with general dampness in the house but not with this area specifically. The property manager proved she raised the tenants’ concerns that the carpet was damp to the owner. As a result, the owner arranged for a moisture inspection to be carried out on 18 March 2024. This inspection report shows there were no moisture issues and no visible signs of any leaks or water damage anywhere in the house.
The landlord says the first time the leak in the master bedroom ensuite was raised was on 13 April 2024 when the tenants emailed the property manager and said there was a leaking wall. The property manager told the tenants not to use the ensuite shower until it was investigated.
On 15 April 2024, the tenant has a text message that shows a plumber was being sent to look at this leak. The plumber from KPL reported to the landlord that this issue needed to be looked at by a tiler and a builder as it did not appear to be a plumbing issue.
The landlord said the contractors confirmed the silicone from around the bottom of shower had been removed/was not there and that was what had caused the leak. This resulted in an insurance claim being made by the landlord and accepted by the insurer.
The property manager added that the property was recently sold, and the purchasers got a building report that also proves the house had no moisture issues at the time of sale.
I am not satisfied the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached his s45(1)(b) of the RTA in relation to this specific repair and maintenance issues. The claim is dismissed. Leaky gutter
The tenants say there were several places where the gutters on the corners where the apex’s come down were leaking onto the deck and that they raised this issue with the property manager on at the first property inspection.
The owner came out and cleared the gutters a few times, but the water did not go down the downpipes and they produced photographs that proved the water was coming out of guttering, particularly at the corners of the house near the roof apexes. They say that at one point the owner sent a contractor out to clean the deck that had become mossy due to the excess water running on to it. The property manager confirmed this deck cleaning work was undertaken by a contractor.
The tenants had an email from the property manager, dated 11 September 2023, about the guttering being fixed to get the house healthy homes compliant. They had a further email dated 18 September 2023 that records the latches on the windows were still to be done and the seal around the front door.
The landlord says the first HHS assessment failed in part because there was some grass growing in the spouting and this was rectified promptly.
The landlord says there was one corner of the deck and one on the back steps by the laundry that were dripping. This was identified in one of the property inspections and the landlord got it fixed as there was moss growing that was slippery, so it got cleaned. The landlord says the drips on the gutters got fixed at the same time and some loose decking was nailed down that the property manager and identified. However, the property manager claims these issues were identified by her during a routine inspection and not reported to her by the tenants. She also confirmed the issues were fixed as soon as she found them and would have addressed them sooner if the issues had been raised with her by the tenants.
I am not satisfied the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached his s45(1)(b) of the RTA in relation to this specific repair and maintenance issues. The claim is dismissed. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage 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.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 14 April 2023. As such, the landlord was required to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards from the 120th day after the tenancy commenced, being Saturday, 12 August 2023.
The tenants confirmed they did not receive any of the statutorily required healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement, except an insulation statement.
The tenants say they verbally requested healthy homes compliance information sometime in January 2024, as they stated they had not received it and it was not included in the tenancy agreement they signed. The tenants provided an email, dated 18 January 2024, which shows that the landlord sent them a detailed healthy homes statement on 27 September 2023.
The tenants did not believe the rental premise met the healthy homes standards, as they claim they were having drainage and draught stopping related issues. Because the tenancy agreement did not contain most of the healthy homes information it is statutorily required to contain, the tenants requested this information.
The landlord provided an email it sent to the tenants, dated 27 September 2024. This email has a completed set of detailed healthy homes statements attached to it. These statements are in the form found in the Tenancy Services template tenancy agreement and have not been assessed by an independent third party nor was there any third party completed healthy homes assessment report provided to the Tribunal. The attachment to the 27 September 2024 email records that the owner is satisfied that the premise meets all five of the healthy homes’ standards.
The landlord also produced a healthy homes assessment report from All Clear dated 11 April 2023. It could not recall if it had ever given the tenants a copy of this report or shown it to them and could find no emails that proved the tenants had received it. This report records that the premise failed the moisture ingress and drainage standard and the draught stopping standard because: a. “Multiple drainage systems have failures that have been identified around the property... and the front MID downpipe is not connected to the spouting and the back MID spouting has debris and requires cleaning”. All Clear recommends that a suitably qualified and experienced contractor be engaged to address the drainage noncompliance issues and that All Clear be contacted to undertake a reassessment after the work has been completed; b. “No ground moisture barrier has been installed in the subfloor space. A ground moisture barrier will need to be installed that meets the specifications in NZS 4246:2016 or have a vapor flow resistance of at least 50MNs/g installed by a professional installer”. All Clear recommends that a suitably qualified and experienced contractor be engaged to install a ground moisture barrier and that All Clear be contacted to undertake a reassessment after the work has been completed; c. “Gaps of 3mm or more detected at the property. To prevent unnecessary draughts, these areas require remediation. This could be in the form of new seals or draught stoppers”. All Clear recommends that a suitably qualified and experienced contractor be engaged to modify or remediate the unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, doors and that All Clear be contacted to undertake a reassessment after the work has been completed. Draught stopping standard
The tenants claim that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
The draught stopping standard requires landlords make sure the property does not have unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, skylights, floors and doors which cause noticeable draughts. All unused open fireplaces must be closed off or their chimneys must be blocked to prevent draughts.
In response to the All Clear report, the landlord says it did install draught stopping tape around the windows that failed the All Clear healthy homes assessment and installed some new window latches to help stop draughts by making the windows fit tighter into the frame. The parties confirmed that this remedial work was not completed until the beginning of September 2023.
An email from the landlord to the tenants, dated 18 September 2023, shows there were still some outstanding repair and maintenance issues required to get the premise to the required draught stopping standard. Particularly, the tenants had informed the landlord that there are still some latches that needed a wedge placed on them, so they close firmly, and the door is not sealing properly and allowing draughts through. The property manager confirms the builder had told her all the issues had been resolved and asks for further information on the issues with the ensuite window.
The landlord produced an email it sent to the tenants, dated 24 September 2023, that confirms it accepts the house did not meet the required healthy homes standards by 12 August 2023 and confirms that it will give the tenants a $50.00 per week rent rebate for an 11-week period, being13 July 2023 to 25 September 2023, to compensate for that breach. The tenants accepted this offer and $550.00 rent records show this amount was credited to their rent account on 15 September 2023. This email also confirms the remedial work that is being completed is the left-over work required after the cyclone Gabrielle damage, it had taken longer than anticipated to get the remedial work complete, it had not been intentional that the work had not been completed by 12 August 2023. It also records the landlord’s difficulty in getting prompt responses from the tenants to its communications delaying the works being completed.
The owner confirmed he installed new latches on the windows on 5 September 2023.
The evidence proves the tenants have made out their claim for breach of the draught stopping standard on the balance of probabilities. I however do not consider an award of compensation is appropriate as the tenants have accepted the $550.00 compensation offered by the landlord in recognition of all healthy homes breaches and this compensation adequately covers the loss of amenity, inconvenience and stress suffered by the tenants because of this breach.
I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support this breach being intentional. Therefore, no exemplary damages will be awarded for this proven breach. Moisture ingress and drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The parties confirmed that the owner did a temporary fix on the downpipe in late August 2023 while the builder got the required parts, and then the builder fixed the downpipe on 5 September 2023.
The owner stated that he cleared out the guttering on the same day he installed new latches, being 4 September 2023.
The owner also produced a report that proves the house does not require a ground moisture barrier and is exempt from meeting that component of the moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The evidence proves the tenants have made out their claim for breach of the drainage standard on the balance of probabilities. I however do not consider an award of compensation is appropriate as the tenants have accepted the $550.00 compensation offered by the landlord in recognition of all healthy homes breaches and this compensation adequately covers the loss of amenity, inconvenience and stress suffered by the tenants because of this breach.
I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support this breach being intentional. Therefore, no exemplary damages will be awarded for this proven breach. Did the landlord provide the tenant with healthy homes standard and smoke alarm information in the tenancy agreement?
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) and 13A(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5). The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 require that the landlord provides a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions.
The requirement that the landlord’s statements under 13A(1CA) be signed by the landlord is in addition to the requirement under section 13(1) that the landlord sign the tenancy agreement.
The landlord is also required to provide information on how many smoke alarms have been installed in the premise, where they are located, when they were last tested and the date they are due for replacement.
Breaching these obligations without a lawful excuse is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 14 April 2023, and was legally required to contain healthy homes statements on all five of the healthy homes standards, being insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, draught stopping and heating and it also was required to provide smoke alarm information. The tenants’ tenancy agreement did not contain any of this information, except an insulation statement.
The landlord says it did not provide this information as it was still trying to get the premise to be fully healthy homes compliant and did not think I had to complete the healthy homes information in the tenancy agreement until compliance had been achieved.
The tenants confirm they never received a healthy homes assessment report or compliance certificate before the tenancy started, with the tenancy agreement or during the tenancy and that the first time they have seen the All Clear report was as a result of these proceedings. Further, they say they did not receive any healthy homes information until the landlord emailed them the healthy homes statements on 18 January 2024. The landlord has proven she first emailed them this information on 27 September 2024, being more than 5 months after the tenancy had commenced.
The landlord did not explain why it had not included smoke alarm information in the Agreement nor when it has last tested the smoke alarms or when they were due to expire. It accepts that this information was not recorded in the tenancy agreement, and it should have been.
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 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 am satisfied the landlord intentionally failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed healthy homes statements, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, and the required smoke alarm information and it would be it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in the nature of $750.00 of exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available), because: a. The landlord engaged an experienced property manager that should have reasonably known the landlord had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and Smoke Alarm Regulations and intentionally did not. The evidence the landlord intentionally omitted to ensure the tenants had this information even though it had a healthy homes assessment completed on 11 April 2023, could have added this information to the tenancy agreement, and did not; b. The impact on the tenants of the landlord not providing this information is that they took on the tenancy for a premise not knowing if it complied with the Smoke Alarm Regulations and HHS; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to provide signed proof to the tenants that the rental premises meet all the healthy homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations; d. It is in the public interest to penalise landlord’s that intentionally breach the law and fail to provide signed healthy homes standards statements that meet the requirements set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 and the smoke alarm regulations. 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 produced two statements from friends that say they were at the premise when the owner just turned up to check on his animals and came to the house unannounced. There are no specific dates or times that these alleged events occurred. The tenants say they have no specific dates or times these impromptu visits occurred and that sometimes the owner gave them notice of these visits and sometimes he would just turn up. For example, one time he gave them no notice he was coming to spray the weeds.
Further, the tenants say they were subject to inspections every three months, as well as numerous builders turning up and other contractors and they felt like they had no peace.
The property manager says she always gave notice of inspections, initially to the younger female tenant and with her mother after the relationship soured. She also showed text messages that proved she had given notice of contractors coming.
The tenants accept the property manager always gave notice to them of any contractor coming or of any inspection. They say it was the owner randomly turning up unannounced that breached their quiet enjoyment of the property but had no evidence to support this contention.
The owner says he had access to the barn and paddock and had every right to be there. If the owner was making unannounced visits, the property manager says the tenants never raised this with her. The tenants confirmed that they did not raise these quiet enjoyment issues with the property manager, except in an email on 11 September 2024. In that email the younger female tenant states she is fed up with the amount of visits to the property by contractors and others.
In her response to that email, the property manager that acknowledges there have been a lot of people in and out of the house doing repairs and that this was challenging for the tenants over the last few weeks period as there had also been a property inspection.
The property manager stated that there may have been days when the tenants were liaising directly with the builders, and they may have not always given the statutorily required notice. However, this was outside of the property manager’s control and no proof had been provided by the tenants that the builders had breached their statutory obligations.
It was clear to me that the communication between the parties was strained and that at times there may have been communications from the property manager or contractors that was given to one tenant but not conveyed to the other tenants.
I am not satisfied the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached his s38 of the RTA obligations not to breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premise. The claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
Section 48 of the RTA contains provisions in relation to the landlord’s right of entry.
The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice but were unable to provide any evidence to support their claim.
They say Tenancy Services and Citizens Advice Bureau selected all the claims the tenants made in their application after hearing the tenants’ story. However, because they did not know at the start of their tenancy that they would end up before the Tribunal they do not have evidence to support all of their claims.
I am not satisfied the tenants have proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has breached his s48 of the RTA obligations. The claim is dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Background Property owner says this was a family home and was cared for. They have had to take out a loan to pay for the repair of the damage caused during this tenancy. The house was not considered habitable by Auckland Council after the tenants left after seeing the photographs of the property. Builders report was sent to the Council and the insurance company. The landlord has applied for lost rent from its insurer. Had to get a lower quality carpet to help cover the repair costs. The owners separated for four years, and they both rent and relied on the rent to cover their rent. Kids can’t participate in sports up north due to the financial strain from the damages. Prior to the tenancy the house was for sale and the carpet was worn but free from stains. Rent arrears
On 14 April 2024, the Tribunal awarded the landlord $9,157.15 rent arrears to 10 April 2024 and reimbursed the application fee of $20.44. The toral amount of remedies awarded under application 4829419 was $9,177.59.
The records produced by the landlord prove the tenants have paid the following amounts on that debt: a. $100.00 to the [property management company] directly on 30 May 2024; b. $4,400.00 bond refunded to the [property management company] directly on 1 August 2024; c. $420.00 from the [tenants] to New Zealand Collections, which was paid in $30 weekly instalments over a 7-week period from 6 August 2024 to 17 September 2024; and d. A further $480.00 has been paid by the tenants from 18 March 2025 to 6 May 2025.
The remaining debt owed on Tribunal Order NZTT 4829419 is $3,777.56 This outstanding debt has been incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord has made a further claim for rent arrears from 11 to 18 April 2024, being $1,257.14. I award the further rent arrears to the landlord as it has provided rent records that prove this amount was outstanding at the end of the tenancy, being 18 April 2024.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the key. Rubbish removal
The landlord has produced evidence that the tenants left some belongings and rubbish, at the property after they moved out.
The tenants confirmed they did leave a fridge and some other items at the property due to the speed with which they had to move out. They submitted that they did not have time to remove all their belongings as their trailer was full. They also claim they were not able to go back to the house after 18 April 2024 to get it. They say the property manager refused them entry to pick this up and said she would arrange for it to be removed.
The property manager has text messages asking if the tenants want to come to collect the fridge and other bits and pieces on the 19 April 2024. The tenants came back to get some things, but informed the property manager they did not want the fridge.
The tenants say they left the recycling bin full, but no other rubbish, and that the older female tenant went back to remove the rubbish bags around the bin prior to the skip being filled by the landlord.
The exit inspection photographs show a bicycle, a road cone, wooden cabinet from a bus being repaired, the recycle bin that had non-recyclable rubbish in it and rubbish bags and boxes.
The landlord says he hired a 4m3 large bin from Bins R Us a few weeks after the vacate date, at a cost of $360.50. It has attached the receipt for these costs.
I am satisfied that the bin the landlord hired was used for the removal of the tenants left behind belongings and some rubbish. As such I am awarding the bin cost to the landlord, being $360.50.
The amount ordered is proved. Lawns and gardens
The landlord says the tenancy agreement confirms the tenants is to look after garden and lawn and the gardens were not reasonably tidy and the lawn needed cutting after the tenancy ended, so it arranged for a contractor to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens. The invoice is dated 3 May 2024, 3 weeks after the tenancy ended.
The tenants say they did not receive the tenancy agreement until after the tenancy commenced and when it came through it had conditions that were different from what the tenants had been told prior to signing the agreement. They say they had been told that the landlord would upkeep the gardens. The premise is large and takes a lot of time to maintain.
The tenants say that the gardens took a lot to maintain, and that [the older female tenant] was primarily left to do this task, as the other tenants were busy with young children and work. [The older female tenant] stated it was too much for her to do as she had just had a knee replacement.
The landlord says the tenants were required to keep the gardens tidy and free from grass and weeds. [The older female tenant] says she tried her best to keep up the gardens and that they were reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, but not perfect.
At the time the tenancy ended abruptly, one tenant was heavily pregnant, they had very young twin boys and [the older female tenant] had just had a knee replacement. The tenants say this is why not all the gardens were left in a tidy condition.
The exit inspection photographs show the lawns and gardens are reasonably clean and tidy on 19 April 2024, but photographs of one of the offset gardens away from the house was overgrown with kikuyu grass.
[The male tenant’s] father gave evidence that he mowed the laws fortnightly. The landlord’s denied this. The landlord proved it consistently issued the tenants 14- day notices for garden and lawn breaches of the tenancy agreement, and that the tenants still did not have the lawns mowed within the required timeframes.
[The male tenant’s] father also confirmed the lawns had been mown a month prior to the end of the tenancy that he last mowed the lawn.
The invoice for lawn and garden work shows the garden and lawn maintenance work was undertaken on 3 May 2024, 3 weeks after the tenancy ended. Therefore, the lawns had not been mown for 7 weeks and required more extensive mowing that if it had been done on 19 April 2024.
I accept that the lawns were not left recently mowed and that some of the gardens further away from the house needed more extensive weeding. However, the exit inspection photographs show that on 19 April 2024, the gardens were reasonably clean and tidy and the lawn, while requiring mowing, were not considerably overgrown.
I find it appropriate to award the landlord half of the $250.00 it has claimed, being $125.00 as a contribution towards the costs of the lawn and garden maintenance as the exit inspection photographs show that some of the yard was left in a reasonably tidy state and other areas required work to reach that standard.
The landlord produced invoices for the work undertaken.
The amount ordered is proven. Cleaning the house
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the house reasonably clean and tidy, so it arranged for a contractor to undertake a full exit clean of the premise.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 6 , not commercially clean 7 , spotless 8 or to a hotel or motel standard 9 .
The tenants say the neighbours helped them for two days before they left to clean the premise. The tenants say they left the house reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord produced a detailed cleaner’s invoice that describes the areas cleaned and that all the drains were blocked and required draino treatment and that all surfaces were in need of a deep clean.
The landlord also produced exit inspection photographs and a report that do not show the house being in a poor state of cleanliness. These photographs show the lights switches and skirting boards needing a clean, the grates from the extractor fan in the kitchen being broken and greasy, and the oven in need of a deep clean. In addition, the photographs show the garage in need of a deep clean of the entire inside, the windows and the door.
The tenants say the drains were all working well when they left and [the older female tenant] says she cleaned the bathroom and kitchen traps regularly and she kept the main bathroom very clean and tidy.
I find it appropriate to award the landlord a half of the $815.00 it has claimed, being $407.50 as a contribution towards the costs of the cleaning as the exit inspection photographs show that the lights switches and skirting boards needing a clean, the grates from the extractor fan in the kitchen being greasy, the oven in need of a deep clean and the garage in need of a deep clean of the entire inside, the windows and the door. The remainder of the premise appears, from the exit inspection photographs, to meet the reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord produced invoices for the work undertaken.
The amount ordered is proven. 6 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 7 Mills v kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 at [15]-[17]. 8 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]; Herbert v Garton [2013] NZTT Hastings 237 at [42]; Reardon v Fahey Property Management Ltd [206] NZTT Auckland 3149 at [6]. 9 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. Carpet Assessment and Chem Dry
The landlord says the carpets were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and that prior to replacing the carpets, the carpets were professionally assessed to see of they could be restored by chem drying. The landlord confirms the chem dry process was unable to restore the carpet to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and it had to make an insurance claim for the carpet to be replaced.
The tenants say the carpets were dirty and in need of repair when they moved in, and they were told the carpets were due for replacement. The male tenant’s father submitted that the carpets were worn and had lost pile and looked like it had been wet before at the beginning of the tenancy.
On 14 February 2023 the house had been flooded from the Cyclone Gabrielle extreme weather event. The tenants say when they first moved in, the house was damp underneath, and their socks were wet when they walked on the carpet. The garage had also flooded. The house was very cold and damp.
The landlord says it was only the garage that flooded. One drain was created in front of the garage and there were two drains up the driveway that had already been in existence. As part of the tenancy agreement the tenants were to keep these drains clear.
The tenants say the carpets felt damp in the downstairs area off the lounge, the area the older female tenant lived in.
The male tenant’s father says he noticed that some guttering and downpipes were broken around the same area of the house. The tenants say the sunken lounge always felt a bit damp.
The male tenant says he sent the property manager photographs of water under the house, broken guttering and spouting, rotten decking where the dripping from the gutter, grout in the ensuite off the master bedroom failing and stained carpet. The landlord denies this.
The landlord produced a builder’s report (29 April 2024) and moisture report (18 March 2024) that included ground testing and roofing tests. These tests show the house was free from dampness.
Landlord says that there were food and drink stains in the carpet in the lounge, dining room, loft, in bedrooms from water damage and crayon stains in the living area between the lounge and kitchen. The entry inspection photographs, and report show there were no stains on the carpets at the start of the tenancy but there were a number of satins throughout the house recorded in the exit inspection photograph.
The landlord made an insurance claim to have the carpets replaced in the rooms with stains. The insurance assessor asked the owners to try chem dry first before they would consider the claim for replacement of the carpet. The Chem Dry contractor provided a copy of the pre and post tenancy carpet photographs. The owner at the first hearing stated the carpet was 12 to 13 years old but was in good condition for its age at the start of this tenancy.
The landlord produced invoices for $185.00 for the Chem Dry work undertaken.
The tenants provided proof they had hired a rug doctor and most food stains had been removed at this time.
I am satisfied that the tenants young children caused at least some of the stains complained of by the landlord and that these stains were likely caused by food and drink spilt when the children first started eating solid food. The children are too young to have had crayons, pens or the like that could also have caused the types of stains in the photographs.
I find that it would be fair to ask the tenants to try to remove these food stains with Chem Dery cleaning and award the cost of this treatment to the landlord. The amount ordered is proven.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
There has been some debate over whether the rent cap applies per incident, or per tenancy. Section 49B(3) refers to liability being limited, where the property is insured, to the lesser of the applicable excess and 4 weeks’ rent, suggesting the cap is set against every applicable excess. Also, section 49B(2) states that the tenant is liable on the basis of s49B(3) for damage caused by “a” careless act or omission, also indicating that the cap could be viewed as applicable for each incident. In addition, Hansard records show that Parliament’s intent, when enacting this 2019 amendment to the RTA, was to provide an incentive for tenants to take due care without creating the risk of unaffordable loss that the landlord pays an insurance premium to cover. S49B ensures a tenant can take advantage of a landlord’s insurance by limiting a tenant’s liability for each incident of careless damage by capping that liability at 4 weeks rent. Hansard records also show Parliament did not intend to limit a landlord’s ability to recover its reasonable insurance excess costs by limiting claims for the totality of all careless damage claims for a tenancy with the 4-week rent cap. For these reasons, I find that one rent cap applies per incident.
Where damage is careless and covered by the landlord's insurance, but the landlord does not make an insurance claim, the tenant’s liability is still capped to 4 weeks rent (or market rent) for each incident.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance due to the excess being more than the cost of remediation, the tenant's liability is also limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord says the damage listed in the subheadings below were caused during the tenancy and that this damage was more than fair wear and tear for which he should be compensated. Carpet
The landlord says the tenant is liable for $3,300.00 for the insurance excess to replace the carpet in six rooms of the house that the tenants damaged through their careless acts or omissions during the tenancy.
The landlord’s insurance claim has been approved and the landlord has paid six $550.00 excesses on the claim for stains in the dining room, lounge, upstairs loft, Deborah’s room and rumpus room as well as water damage to the carpet in the main bedroom.
The tenant says that the cause of the water damage to the carpet was leaking bathroom and guttering and that the damage was not attributable to their careless acts or omissions. Further, that the tenants had reported the leaks and resulting carpet damage to the landlords during the tenancy.
The landlord has provided a Chem Dry report that states when they arrived on site and was shown considerable stains throughout the home in all rooms except the study and stairs. The contractor took before and after photos. The contractor says he “focused his attention on the main stains in each of the rooms first applying 2 litres of Green Monster Pre-Spray and then extracting with hot carbinated Natural. Stains remained so applied 300mls of Spotter and also 150mls if Lav with still no total success and stains although improvement shown, still showed remnants of the stains. Bedroom 4 had suffered a minor flood from ensuite and Brown Out would be recommended”. He attached photos and videos.
The landlord has an entry inspection report dated 16 April 2023. This report notes that there are no stains on any of the carpets but that there is sun damage in the lounge and master bedroom.
The landlord is saying the tenants are responsible for the water damage to the master bedroom carpet as they removed the silicone from the shower tiles and did not report the leak in a timely manner. The tenants deny this.
There were stains in the exit inspection photographs and the Chem dry photographs that show stains in the dining room, lounge, upstairs loft, Deborah’s room and rumpus room. The entry inspection report shows no stains in any of these rooms on 16 April 2023.
The tenants say there were a few stains from accidents and that this damage is fair wear and tear. They accept the children may have dropped some food in the dining room when they were learning to eat and they say they had cleaned these stains with a carpet cleaner they borrowed and that they would have had the carpet cleaned better if they had not had to exit in such a hurry, after being evicted.
The tenants also say the carpet is more than 10 years old and was threadbare in places. They say the house was built in 1990 and the owner purchased it in July 2008 and the carpet may have been replaced at that time. Further, the tenants say the landlord informed them that if they were in the premise for more than a year, that the carpet would be replaced. The property manager denied ever saying this to the tenants.
The property manager also confirmed to me that she was not aware of how old the carpet was. After hearing day two, my notes showed the owner at the first hearing had confirmed the carpet was 12 to 13 years old.
The property manager confirmed that the carpet had not been affected by the February 2023 flooding, so did not need to be replaced, but for the stains the tenants made during the tenancy. She reiterated that the stains present at the end of the tenancy were not there at the start of it and that the landlord should be compensated for the excesses for the carpet to be replaced.
The tenants say that the older female tenant’s room had no stains when she left the tenancy. Further they say the owner made this claim so the carpet would be new when he recently sold it and that they should not be liable for the insurance excess.
The landlord confirmed the carpet was somewhere between 12 to 13 years old. The landlord also confirmed the property has recently been sold and it is more likely than not the brand new carpet assisted him in achieving the sale price he sought.
The New Zealand Inland Revenue 265 published depreciation rates confirm that the estimated life of carpet of the type in this premise is 8 years and depreciation is 13% per annum. This combined with the entry inspection photographs proves the carpet was worn in places and had some sun damage, was at the end of its life and due for replacement. I find that for this reason, the tenants are not liable for the six insurance excesses of $550.00 each the landlord was charged by its insurer in exchange for full replacement of its aged carpet with new carpet. This claim is dismissed. Ensuite floor and wall
The landlord says the tenant is liable for $27,255.00 for damage to the ensuite walls and floor that it says the tenants damaged through their careless acts or omissions during the tenancy.
The landlord says the tenants removed the silicone from around the bottom of the shower and part of that missing silicone had been removed where the leak was going through the wall. Further the landlord says the tenants did not report this leak promptly thereby allowing the damage to become more severe than it may otherwise have been.
The landlord’s insurance claim has not been approved and the landlord has proven he paid $27,255.00 to have this damage remedied.
The tenants say they reported the leak on 15 January 2024 and the overall dampness in the room when they first became aware of it, KPL came to look at it on 15 April 2024 and it was not repaired until after they had moved out.
The property manager said on 22 February 2024, when she did her last inspection there was no evidence of any dampness or leak at that time. In addition, on 18 March 2024, moisture report was conducted, and no moisture detected in the wall or floor. Therefore, this leak and the damage must have occurred sometime between the 18 March 2024 and the 14 April 2024 when the tenants reported it.
The landlord says the first time it was aware of the leak was on 14 April 2024 when the tenants reported it via email. The tenants say that it was when they moving the bed, on move out day, that they noticed the leak and the damage. They say the bed was up against this wall so covered the area from sight.
The tenants says that the cause of the water damage to the ensuite floor and wall was the degrading of the silicon in the shower and they deny removing the silicone from around the base of the shower. Further, they say the damage was not attributable to their careless acts or omissions nor was it intentional. Further, that the tenants proved they had reported the leaks and resulting wall and flooring damage to the landlords as soon as they had become aware of it
The landlord claims the tenants removed the silicone intentionally because it looked a bit mouldy and that this intentional damage to the silicone seal caused the leak and subsequent damage to the ensuite wall and floor. There was no evidence provided by the landlord to support this claim.
I find that it is more likely than not, based on the evidence before me, that the silicone degenerated and fell out and that is what led to the damage.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants caused this damage either carelessly or intentionally. The claim is dismissed. Laundry
The landlord says the tenant is liable for $22,080.00 for damage to the laundry floor that it says the tenants damaged through their careless acts or omissions that caused a flood in the laundry during the tenancy.
The photographs provided show there had been a flood in the laundry at some time, the skirting boards had swelled and water had gone down the wall to the garage below. The landlord says this damage was not related to the garage flood. The contractor that carried out the remedial work says the tiles had lifted, doors were damaged and cabinetry damaged. The contractor also records the cost includes plastering and painting and plumbing.
The landlord’s insurance claim has not been approved and the landlord has proven he paid $22,080.00 to remedy the damage.
The tenants says that when they left the premise the laundry floor was fine and that they had never had a flood in the laundry and the damage was not attributable to their careless acts or omissions.
The landlord says there was evidence there had been a flood and damage caused at sometime during the tenancy, but this was not picked up by the property manager during any inspections, nor at the exit inspection. It was not noted on the exit report The owner found this damage after he got possession back of the property.
The property manager stated there was no evidence in the entry inspection photographs of the skirting boards being swollen or any damage to the walls, doors, floors or cabinetry. The property manager states that she has not witnessed any such damage during the tenancy when she undertook the 3 monthly inspection reports.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proven on balance the damage occurred during the tenancy or that the tenants caused the damage. The claim is dismissed. Walls
The landlord says the tenant is liable for $1,650.00 for damage to three walls, that required repair and paint. It says the tenants are responsible for as this damage as the damage occurred during the tenancy because of the tenants’ careless acts or omissions. It produced a property report that showed the damage at the end of the tenancy. This report shows the following damage: a. Entrance door dent; b. Lounge wall dent; c. Hallway hole; and d. Master bedroom dent behind the wall.
The tenants says that the cause of the damage to the hallway wall was that there was no door stopper behind that four cupboard doors and the hallway is a wind tunnel, and the wind blew a door into the hallway wall.
The tenants take responsibility for the lounge wall dent.
The tenants say they were not aware of the master bedroom dent. The landlord says there is a door stop on that door so it must have been opened with force to create the dent. The tenants say this is a handle dent that was caused when the builders were installing the new door, and they did not cause this damage.
The tenants confirmed that they did not inform the landlord’s that the doors required stoppers or that the damage had occurred. The one exception was the entrance doorway dent, which they say they called the property manager to inform her that the builder made this dent. The property manager says she does not recall or have any records of having this conversation with the tenants.
I am satisfied that the damage to lounge and master bedroom walls are careless damage caused by the tenants during the tenancy. The tenants accepted responsibility for the lounge wall dent and have confirmed they did not make the landlord aware of the need for door stoppers after the first accident involving the entrance door. The tenants have also not proven they informed the property manager of the builder causing the dent to the entranceway. I find that they are responsible for the dent in the absence of proof that the builder should be held liable for it. Had the tenants reported the dent they say the builder made, the landlord could have promptly addressed that with the builder.
I find the tenants liable for the cost of repairing three of the 4 dents at 75% of the total amount claimed by the landlord, being $1,237.50.

OTHER ORDERS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants and the landlord have substantially succeeded with their claims, I have reimbursed the filing fees. Bond
The $4,400.00 Bond was released to the landlord by order of the Tribunal on 22 July 2024, to cover part of the $9,157.15 rent arrears and $20.44 bond awarded to the landlord by order of the Tribunal on 10 April 2024, under application 4829419.
The landlord has confirmed that it has received the Bond and that the repayment of the bond to the landlord, and this has now been registered with New Zealand Collections. Name suppression
The landlord and 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 landlord and the tenants have been substantially successful in their claims and I consider publication is not in the public interest and justified because of the parties conduct.
The tenants have found it difficult to get alternative accommodation because their names were published in a prior order ending their tenancy. At this time they had not made a cross application and consequently there was no equitable offset defence recorded in that Order. I am satisfied that the tenants felt they had just cause to withhold rent until the repair and maintenance issues they say they raised were addressed. It appears that there has been a dearth of miscommunication that had led to some of the claims made and that the relationship between the parties became factious. The tenants lost a child after they were evicted and have blamed the landlord for this and were clearly distressed at both hearings. The property manager has also suffered stress from what she claims is defamatory comments made in this small community by the tenants who have still not been able to find rental accommodation in this small community and are still living in a house bus to be near the children’s grandmother.
I have not found that the tenants have engaged in any conduct that would prevent the Tribunal ordering non-publication of their names and I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the tenants’ names could result in when they apply for future tenancies. I therefore used my discretion to grant them suppression of their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871160 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871160 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions