What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911714 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,800.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4911714?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Wall Holes: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911714?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10510613-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911714 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,800.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4911714?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Wall Holes: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911714?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10510613-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

42 Ellerton Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911714 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911714 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$600.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Wall holes	$600.00		Repairs: Wall holes
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$3,000.00	Section 45
Total award	$1,200.00	$3,000.00
Net award		$1,800.00
Bond		$6,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,800.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911714 — net $1,800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$600.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Wall holes	$600.00		Repairs: Wall holes
Exemplary damages: Section 45		$3,000.00	Section 45
Total award	$1,200.00	$3,000.00
Net award		$1,800.00
Bond		$6,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,800.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,800.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 4 September 2021 and ended on 9 June 2024.
The tenant applied in respect of a claim relating to the Healthy Homes standards, for compensation and exemplary damages relating to the swimming pool, spa, garden and floods.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation relating to damage, cleaning and maintenance of the pool, spa and gardens. Tenant application
The tenant claimed in relation to the Healthy Homes standards. The landlord produced a Healthy Homes report dated 23 July 2021, which is before the tenancy commenced. The report states that the premises are compliant in relation to the Healthy Homes standards. That claim is dismissed.
The tenancy agreement signed by the parties provides that the tenant is responsible for the lawns and the landlord is responsible for the gardens 1 . There is also a general clause 2 relating to the swimming pool and spa confirming that the landlord agrees to arrange and pay for regular servicing.
From September 2021 until October 2022 the landlord was responsible for the maintenance of the pool and spa as per the tenancy agreement, although the tenant says that it was often not clean, and the water was turning green.
On 9 December 2021 the tenants issued a 14-day notice to remedy in relation to the landlord failing to take care of the gardens, take proper care of the swimming pool and spa, replace the garage door to ensure security and weatherproofing and fix the master bedroom wardrobe that had fallen off the tracks.
While the landlord communicated in relation to the notice to remedy some of the response was not accepted by the tenant. The landlord said that the pool and spa were treated to a standard level and if the tenant required a better condition for summer everyday use, they would need to carry out some tasks such as adding chlorine. This is not correct. The landlord should have provided both the pool and the spa in a condition that they could be always used.
In addition, the landlord said in the response that they would be responsible for the garden twice a year and that is all they offered. Again, it is the responsibility of the landlord to always maintain the garden and that includes removal of garden waste. The only responsibility that the tenant had was in relation to the lawns and removal of lawn clippings.
The tenant had at times during the tenancy carried out garden work that was the responsibility of the landlord. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that they only planned to carry out garden maintenance twice a year due to slow growing 1 Page 2 2 Clause 28, page 3 trees and plants. I don’t accept that the plants are necessarily slow growing as there are several hedges which would require regular maintenance.
In October 2022 the parties agreed that the tenant would take over the cleaning of the pool. The landlord advised that a rent rise of $100.00 had been considered but if the tenant took on the pool cleaning this would not apply. It is noted that for any rent increase the landlord would need to comply with section 24 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Unfortunately, while the parties agreed that the tenant would only be responsible for cleaning the water this caused some confusion between the parties in relation to the landlord’s responsibility for maintaining the pool and spa. For example, the tenant’s pool cleaning company advised that the filter needed to be replaced because the vacuum was not working and as a result the tenant was spending money on the chemicals and the pool was not in a clean state.
This transfer of responsibility created uncertainty as to the division of overall responsibility. While the parties both produced photographs of the pool in both a clean and unclean state it is very difficult to determine which party was at fault. The unclean state could have been due to faulty machinery, ineffective or infrequent cleaning, or incompetent work by the professionals or a combination of all of these.
The evidence from the respective pool cleaners does not assist because the advice given is sometimes contradictory. I have therefore reached the view that the evidence does not support either the tenant or landlord application in relation to the pool and spa. Those claims are dismissed.
The tenant claimed in respect of the floods that occurred at the premises during the tenancy. The garage first flooded on 30 October 2022. The tenant said that the storm water pipe was blocked, and the flood resulted in damage to all their belongings that were stored in the garage.
Because the landlord took no action in February 2023 the tenant arranged for a plumber to look at the situation and the landlord was advised the pump in the cesspit was broken and needed to be replaced. The tenant arranged for a quote for replacement of the pump which was provided to the landlord.
The garage flooded again in May 2023. In June 2023 the landlord advised that a plumber would install a new pump the following week, but this did not happen.
The tenant said that the garage also flooded during the Auckland floods in early 2023 and twice in 2024. In addition, the wooden grate over the cesspit rotted and the tenant made a new one as the rotted one was unsafe.
The landlord produced two invoices in relation to the blocked storm water pipe. The first one is 4 November 2022. That invoice records that “suspect issue with pump”. The second invoice is dated 15 June 2023. That invoice records that “Pump is tripping RCD. Client wants a new pump. We will need an electrician to connect the cable up for the pump when we install the new one. Two of the electrical ports in the garage are not working anymore from what I can tell is because of the pump and I have recommended they get this fixed in the meantime”.
The landlord did not replace the pump. At the hearing the landlord said that the problem was the public drain system. No evidence was produced to support this view. Apparently, the pump was not working when the landlord purchased the property but that is no reason to not fix it.
It is quite possible that none of the flooding would have occurred if the landlord had maintained the pump and at least investigated further or fixed it after the plumber had attended in November 2022. Exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises in relation to the garden and the storm water pump. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant spent time that they should not have needed to maintaining the garden. The landlord wrongly assumed that it was the responsibility of the tenant to dispose of garden waste beyond the lawn clippings. The tenant suffered in relation to the repeated flooding in the garage. The tenant arranged for a plumber to look at the situation when it should have been the landlord who did so. The landlord failed to remedy the situation when a professional advised that it was suspected that the pump was the issue. The landlord did not arrange for the pump to be replaced.
It is in the public interest for landlords to provide and maintain premises throughout the tenancy. Failure to do so means that the tenant is not able to fully enjoy the premises that they are paying for.
I consider that an award of $3,000.00 is reasonable in the circumstances. This takes account of the impact the landlord’s failure has had on the tenants. This award is made by taking account of the compensation sought by the tenant. Landlord application
The landlord claimed rent arrears but failed to file a rent summary setting out the necessary information relating to when rent was due and what payments were made. It is not possible to award rent arrears without a rent summary. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for water rates owed. The invoice produced is dated 5 June 2024 and the due date is 26 June 2024, after the date of hearing. At the hearing the tenant advised that the invoice had been paid and I accept her evidence. The landlord’s claim for water rates is dismissed.
In relation to the landlord’s claim for damage to the premises the landlord produced an invoice for wall repairs and painting. No other invoices were produced, and the landlord advised that much of the repairs have not been carried out. In addition, the landlord was unable to produce adequate before tenancy photographs to establish that the damage claimed was caused by this tenant. For these reasons no other claims for damage are accepted and that part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that the tenant made holes in the walls and did not repair these at the end of the tenancy. Section 42(6) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that if on removing any fixture, the tenant caused any damage to the premises, the tenant must inform the landlord immediately and, at the landlord’s option, either repair the damage or compensate the landlord for any reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in repairing the damage.
The tenant said that he had repaired wall holes where he had attached a vacuum cleaner to the wall, a TV bracket and a child gate. The tenant acknowledged that there were picture holes that were not repaired although it is not clear what holes this tenant was responsible for. While the tenant said that he repaired the larger holes there was no mention of painting the damaged areas. For that reason, I am awarding $600.00 to the landlord to cover the cost of painting and for some of the picture holes.
The landlord claimed for cleaning. The tenant produced a video which appeared to show that the premises were reasonably clean. However, the landlord produced photographs showing that some areas required further cleaning to reach a reasonably clean standard. The tenant also advised that she was not available to clean at the end of the tenancy and instead her husband carried out most of the cleaning.
On the evidence produced it appears that further cleaning was required in relation to the oven, rangehood, dishwasher, bath, blinds, shutters and rubbish bins. The landlord produced a quote for cleaning which I consider includes cleaning that the tenant should not be responsible for given that the standard is that the premises should be left reasonably clean. Instead, I award $600.00 to the landlord for the cleaning that the tenant should have carried out.
The landlord claimed for compensation in relation to the pool, spa and garden. As stated above I am not able to apportion blame for the condition of the pool and spa. There was no evidence that the tenant had not maintained the lawns. As stated above the tenant had maintained the gardens during the tenancy when it was the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord’s claim in relation to the pool, spa and garden are dismissed.
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no award for the reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I supress the names of the parties as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911714 — Exemplary damages at 42 Ellerton Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911714 — Exemplary damages at 42 Ellerton Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions