What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4907194 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Karamu Farms

How much money was awarded in case 4907194?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907194?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11761495-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4907194 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Karamu Farms

How much money was awarded in case 4907194?

Compensation: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907194?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11761495-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

451 Umere Road, Karamea 7893 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4907194 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907194 — net $540.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,640.00		Rent arrears
Compensation – Door	$800.00		Compensation – Door
Compensation -Other damage	$100.00		Compensation -Other damage
Compensation - Insulation		$1,000.00	Compensation - Insulation
Exemplary damages - Carpet		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - Carpet
Total award	$2,540.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$540.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.00

All parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Warren McNabb, Diane Yates and Wayne Yates. They were all involved in the management of the tenancy to some extent.

The tenants have applied for compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches by the landlord of its obligations, mainly relating to the condition of the premises.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. Background

The premises includes a house on the landlord’s farm. The tenants worked on the farm and occupied the premises under a service tenancy.

The tenants started work on the farm in 2012 and initially occupied another house on the farm. They moved to the premises in 2013. They moved out at the end of May 2024.

There was a dispute over whether the landlord gave the tenant permission to move to the premises. I don’t think it matters much, but I prefer the tenant’s evidence that they were given permission. The landlord accepts that it was logical for them to move there when it became vacant and there was no objection to it at the time.

There was no outgoing or ingoing inspection conducted in 2013 and there were no regular inspections during the tenancy.

There was very little written communication between the parties during the tenancy and the parties disagreed as to the extent to which the tenants informed the landlord about work that was needed on the premises.

The landlord made the point that Mr McCleery was an employee, and he was entitled to use the landlord’s tools and materials to carry out work needed on the premises during his work hours. Mr McCleery pointed out that he had other duties, he is not a tradesperson, and he did not want to make a problem worse by doing work that was substandard.

This was a farm in a somewhat isolated location and arranging tradespeople to work on the premises could be problematic. There was therefore a self-help mentality, as there is on most farms.

I note that a one-year time limit from the unlawful act applies to exemplary damages and a six-year time limit from the breach applies to compensation. Time stops running on these limits from the date the application is filed.

I also note that the more recently introduced Healthy Homes Standards do not apply to this tenancy because the tenancy was not renewed after 2013. Rent

The parties agreed that there was rent in the sum of $1,640 owing at the end of the tenancy. I have therefore awarded that. Insulation

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises were required to be insulated to a minimum standard, with insulation installed in both the roof space and underfloor provided it is reasonably practicable to do so.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.

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.

There is no dispute that underfloor insulation was not installed in the premises until February 2021, 18 months late.

There was a discussion in the hearing about the landlord’s knowledge of the requirement. The landlord acknowledged that there was publicity about it at the time. It pointed out that it was running a farm, and the tenancy was not the focus of attention.

The landlord either was or should have been aware of the insulation requirements. There was no reasonable excuse for not complying with them and I find that it committed an unlawful act.

The tenants said that they did not notice any difference in the premises after the underfloor insulation was installed. They continued to run the wood burner, which also heated the water, 24 hours a day. There was a HRV system in addition.

I would have found that an award of exemplary damages was warranted in this case but for the fact that the tenants have applied more than 12 months after the breach ended (see s109 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).

Despite the tenants saying that the underfloor insulation made no difference because they were running the wood burner anyway, it is likely that the insulation would have made the premises warmer and more comfortable. I therefore award the sum of $1,000 compensation for the breach. That equates to approximately $13 per week. Other Claims Concerning the Condition of the Premises

Under s45 of the Act, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 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.

There is no doubt that by the end of the tenancy some carpet was in very poor condition. It was threadbare in places and completely worn through in others.

Under the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, the floor of every dwelling must be kept in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenants covered over the worse areas of the carpet with rugs and mats, but they should not have had to do so. Because the breach continued up to the end of the tenancy, the Tribunal has the power to award exemplary damages for this breach and I find that an award is warranted.

The landlord submits that the premises needed redecorating and it did not make sense to replace the carpet before that work was completed. I don’t accept that a landlord can plead what is potentially another breach of its maintenance obligations in mitigation. The tenants were entitled to have carpet that was in a reasonable state of repair.

An award of $1,000 is appropriate. I have considered the effect of the breach on the tenants in making that award and so no separate award of compensation is needed.

The tenants say that there were holes in the roof and cladding and gaps around windows which resulted in dampness and mould in the premises and ingress of rats.

The landlord denied knowledge of the windows and holes in walls and said that they attended to a hole in the roof when it was brought to its attention. As well, the roof was generally in good condition.

The evidence did not satisfy me that the landlord was aware of these problems and there was little evidence of them. I therefore dismiss these claims.

There was a bolt on the back door so that it could be locked from the inside but not the outside. The tenants said that the window by the door could not be secured so that someone could reach in an unbolt the door.

The bolt on the door was sufficient. Other outside doors could be locked and unlocked from the outside.

The evidence did not satisfy me that the landlord was aware of the faulty window lock. As well, I note that tenants have the ability under the Act to carry out urgent work at the landlord’s expense. If there was a real lack of security due to the window, I think that the tenants would have taken steps to rectify it.

There was an issue as to whether there were compliant smoke alarms in the premises. This was resolved in 2002. It follows that there was no breach in the 12 months before the tenants’ filed their application and therefore no exemplary damages can be awarded in any case. There is no basis for a compensatory award.

There was evidence about a leaking toilet but there was no evidence that it affected the tenants’ use or enjoyment of the premises and so I need not consider it further.

The tenants complained that until the hot water supply was put on a higher- pressure system in 2019, the water pressure was inadequate. They also complained that the pipes leaked for a year before the landlord replaced them. There was not enough evidence to allow me to make findings in relation to these.

Curtains in the premises were either missing or in poor condition. The tenants provided some of their own, but others were left as they were. Because there was no formal agreement for the premises (the written agreement was for the earlier premises), and therefore there was no list of chattels, it was not clear what chattels the landlord was providing. In any case I would regard any breach as minor. I therefore make no order on this claim. Unlawful Entry

After hearing from the parties regarding the claim for unlawful entry I find that the tenants were aware that the landlord intended entering the premises to carry out work and there was no objection to that. There could have been better communication from the landlord as to the timing of the entry, but any breach was minor and does not warrant an award. The Landlord’s Claims

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.

Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

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). Cleaning

The landlord’s photographs show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claims $1,108 for cleaning and outdoor work.

The evidence for the outdoor work was not enough to prove the claim. I note that tenants are not usually responsible for cleaning the outside of the premises.

As to the interior cleaning, the tenants say that the premises were not presented to them in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. There was no outgoing or ingoing inspection at the time and the landlords did not do any cleaning or check that the previous tenant had done any. I accept therefore the tenants’ evidence as the condition of the premises when they moved in.

As well, the landlord redecorated some of the premises after the tenancy ended. Washing down of the walls and ceilings would have been needed for that in any case.

Given the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy I make no award of cleaning costs against the tenants. Garage Door

There was damage to the garage door during the tenancy and I find that it was careless damage by the tenants. The landlord produced a quotation for replacing the door in the sum of $1,086. The landlord had insurance for accidental damage with a $1,150 excess. I therefore award $800 for the damage being four weeks rent. Interior Damage

The landlords claim compensation for damage to the interior of the premises. I note that there is no hard evidence of the condition of the premises at the start of the tenants’ occupation of the premises. I also note that this was a 11-year tenancy and considerable wear and tear would be expected.

There was some minor damage to newly decorated parts of the premises. This would have been tidied up when the remaining parts of the premises were redecorated at minimal cost. I therefore award $100 for this other damage. Filing Fee

The parties have mixed success and so I made no award of filing fees.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4907194 — net $540.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,640.00		Rent arrears
Compensation – Door	$800.00		Compensation – Door
Compensation -Other damage	$100.00		Compensation -Other damage
Compensation - Insulation		$1,000.00	Compensation - Insulation
Exemplary damages - Carpet		$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - Carpet
Total award	$2,540.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$540.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.00