What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4883046 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 4883046?

Cleaning: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,227.86 awarded to landlord; external wall, wardrobe, lounge rail…: $1,530.08 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,749.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883046?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883046?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11115664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4883046 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 4883046?

Cleaning: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,227.86 awarded to landlord; external wall, wardrobe, lounge rail…: $1,530.08 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $1,749.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4883046?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4883046?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11115664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Portobello Place, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4883046 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4883046 — net $2,525.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 October 2024	$3,227.86		Rent arrears to 27 October 2024
Water rates	$1,749.02		Water rates
Carpet cleaning: consent	$488.75		Carpet cleaning: consent
Lawns and garden work	$460.00		Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$230.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: external wall, wardrobe, lounge rail, bathroom	$1,530.08		Repairs: external wall, wardrobe, lounge rail, bathroom
Compensation		$2,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$7,685.71	$2,000.00
Net award	$2,525.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,525.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4883046 — net $2,525.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 October 2024	$3,227.86		Rent arrears to 27 October 2024
Water rates	$1,749.02		Water rates
Carpet cleaning: consent	$488.75		Carpet cleaning: consent
Lawns and garden work	$460.00		Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$230.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: external wall, wardrobe, lounge rail, bathroom	$1,530.08		Repairs: external wall, wardrobe, lounge rail, bathroom
Compensation		$2,000.00	Compensation
Total award	$7,685.71	$2,000.00
Net award	$2,525.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,525.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,546.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application for exemplary damages is withdrawn.
The landlord’s application for cleaning costs and for the replacement cost of a camelia tree is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 20 November 2024, the tenants in person and the landlord represented by its staff members.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew the application for exemplary damages.
The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for an alleged failure by the landlord to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and a failure to maintain and repair the premises; and compensation for the landlord’s failure to remove rubbish at the start of the tenancy and to maintain the lawns. Background
The tenancy started on 28 September 2022 and has now ended. The parties agree that the end date of the tenancy was 27 October 2024.
After the parties made their applications, I held an in-person directions conference on 14 May 2024. With the agreement of the parties, I referred the dispute to mediation.
The parties did not reach any agreements at mediation, which is unusual. Since then, the tenancy has ended.
The parties still appear to have a cordial relationship, but they have been unable to resolve the issues that are raised in their applications.
Both parties have provided documentary evidence including photos and a video. I can confirm that I have considered all the material placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the landlord proved claims for rent arrears, water rates, and compensation for the repair of damage and for cleaning, gardening, the replacement of a camelia tree, and rubbish removal? If so, what is the remedy? •Have the tenants proved that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS, failed to maintain and repair the premises, and failed to remove all rubbish at the start of the tenancy and maintain the lawns. If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages and/or compensation? Relevant legal considerations
Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides in part:
Tenant’s responsibilities (1) The tenant shall— (a) pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement; and (b) ensure that the premises are occupied principally for residential purposes; and (c) keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy; and (ca) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A; and (d) notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; and (e) on the termination of the tenancy,— (i) quit the premises; and (ii) remove all his or her goods from the premises; and (iii) leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish; and (iv) return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant; and (v) leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. (2) The tenant shall not— (a) intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises;
Section 45 RTA provides in part:
Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and (ba) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A; and (bb) comply with the healthy homes standards;
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
The Tribunal may also award a landlord compensation for breaches by a tenant of their statutory responsibilities.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch (referred to above) the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. The landlord’s application Rent arrears and water rates
The landlord produced rent records and water rates invoices that show the amount owed by the tenants.
The tenants could not identify any deficiencies in the rent records. They said they were advised to withhold rent when repairs were not done.
The tenants queried whether the water rates would have been higher due to a water leak under the floor.
I accept the landlord’s representative’s evidence that the water leak involved a fine mist from a hole in a pipe for a limited period and that an analysis of the water rates usage showed no significant variations during the tenancy.
The tenants have not paid any water rates since the start of the tenancy.
I find that the landlord’s rent records, and water rates invoices, prove the amounts owed by the tenants for water rates and for rent arrears. I award the landlord the amounts claimed. Compensation claims Cleaning, gardening/lawns, rubbish removal and carpet cleaning
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) RTA.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs. The photos produced in evidence show that the tenants left the premises reasonably clean. Their statutory responsibility is no greater than that. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
The tenants did not remove all rubbish when they vacated the tenancy. Though they said they were prepared to go back and do so, when a tenancy ends a landlord can properly charge for any rubbish removal required when the tenants leave.
The lawns and gardens were not left reasonably tidy and the landlord’s claim for gardening costs is proved. The tenancy agreement clearly states that the maintenance of the lawns and garden was the tenants’ responsibility.
The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for the cost of carpet cleaning. I have allowed that claim by consent.
The amounts ordered are proved by photos, inspection reports, invoices and by the evidence given by the landlord’s representative at the hearing. The claims for the repair of damage
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy. An external wall was damaged by the tenants’ dog. The tenants repaired the damage but did not paint match it. A wardrobe required paint and wall-paper repairs. A rail/handle in the lounge required a repair and the bathroom vanity unit was also damaged and had to be repaired.
The tenants accepted that damage had occurred to the external wall, the wardrobe, and the lounge rail but they queried the amount charged to the landlord for the work. They disputed the damage to the bathroom vanity which they said was caused when the unit was removed for repairs after a leak.
I find that the landlord’s claim for the repair of this damage is proved. When a tenant does not repair damage before they vacate the tenancy the landlord is entitled to have the work done. The invoice produced is not objectively unreasonable. That the tenants might have had the work done more cheaply does not mean they are not liable for the work completed and charged to the landlord by its contractor.
I find that the damage to the vanity was neither caused by the leak under the floor, nor the removal of the unit when repairs were undertaken. A photo in February 2024 after the repair work was completed shows the vanity was in good condition.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of a camelia tree. The tenant accepted that they had pruned the tree back so they could place a trampoline, but the photos produced in evidence show the camelia tree was still large after pruning and would probably regain its previous size given time. The landlord has not proved that a replacement tree was reasonably required at some cost.
The damage that I find proved is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved by the invoice the landlord produced in evidence and by the photographic evidence. The tenants’ application Exemplary damages – HHS and failure to maintain and repair
The landlord produced a Health Homes Assessment report in evidence. It showed two issues that were non-compliant with the HHS – the externally vented fans in the bathroom and kitchen. Both issues were promptly addressed. The premises were HHS compliant at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants suspect that the premises were not HHS compliant; but they provided no evidence such as their own HHS Assessment report to refute the landlord’s evidence.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the assessment it received. The Tribunal accepts that report as evidence of HHS compliance. That the tenants believe the premises were not HHS compliant is not sufficient proof given the HHS Assessment report produced in evidence.
The application for exemplary damages for non-compliance with the HHS is dismissed.
Associated with that is the tenant’s allegation that the landlord did not repair and maintain the premises.
For exemplary damages to be awarded, the tenant would need to show that the landlord ‘turned its mind to the unlawful act (failure to repair) and deliberately set about to commit that act’.
The evidence shows that the landlord undertook repairs once it became aware of them. There was no intentional act so far as the failure to repair is concerned. So again, the tenants’ application for exemplary damages must be, and is, dismissed. Compensation
Compensation is different. It is not punitive. It is awarded to compensate the tenants for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due, in this case, to the effects of leaking and the dampness and mould that developed as a result.
The landlord alleged that the tenants failed to report damage caused by leaking but once reported the landlord acted promptly.
The tenants cannot be criticised for not noticing what was occurring under the floor. The landlord described a leaking pipe which sprayed a fine mist onto the underside of the wooden flooring.
Damage caused by the leak only became apparent over time; it occurred gradually.
The result of the leak on the floorboards was dramatically illustrated in the photos produced in evidence. Once discovered, the landlord arranged for a prompt temporary repair to make the floor safe (it affected 2 rooms) and then arranged for the floors to be replaced.
This resulted in quite a disruption for the tenants, accepted by the landlord who suggested that they vacate the premises while the repair work was undertaken. That did not happen for various reasons; the tenants remained in residence while the repairs were carried out.
I accept that the tenants experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due firstly to the effects on the leak under the floor which only became apparent gradually. The leak caused dampness and mould. And secondly, the disruption caused by the repair work that was needed. As well there was leaking from the roof into the ceiling by the burner and down the walls, which the landlord had assessed after the mediation. The tenants said that the roofer told them the problem could not be repaired without the chimney being removed.
The landlord did not fail to maintain and repair the premises. The hole in a water pipe under the floor resulting in a fine mist spray was something that just happened. And the landlord acted promptly when it became aware of the issue. The landlord also arranged for the roof to be assessed to try and stop any leaking from the roof into the ceiling and down the walls by the burner.
So, while there was no breach as such, the tenants nevertheless experienced a loss of enjoyment of their tenancy due to the leaking and the damage it caused requiring a significant flooring repair. For that, they should be compensated.
I award the tenants compensation of $2,000.00 for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy caused by the leaking issues under the floor, the leaking from the roof into the ceiling and down the walls by the fireplace (the effects of which can be seen in the photos produced in evidence), and the disruption caused by the necessary repairs.
I make no award of compensation for the items owned by the landlord left at the premises when the tenancy started. The tenants removed the items they did not want to a rubbish bag which was removed at the landlord’s cost. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $7,685.71 for rent arrears, water rates and compensation for carpet cleaning and other costs, and the repair of damage. From that will be deducted $2,000.00 which I award to the tenants as compensation for their loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to leaking and mould and the disruption caused by the repair work to the floors.
The bond will be paid to the landlord in full. After the deduction of the bond, the tenants will pay the landlord $2,525.71.
No order is made for reimbursement of the filing fees. Both parties have succeeded on their applications. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. Each party has succeeded on their applications, the landlord mostly and the tenants in part. I therefore grant both applications for name suppression – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883046 — Rent arrears at 20 Portobello Place, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4883046 — Rent arrears at 20 Portobello Place, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions