What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920973 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy is terminated and possession granted to [the landlord]

How much money was awarded in case 4920973?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,564.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920973?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10540139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920973 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy is terminated and possession granted to [the landlord]

How much money was awarded in case 4920973?

Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,564.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920973?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10540139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920973 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920973 — net $2,864.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,564.29		Rent arrears
Compensation		$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: non-lodgement of bond		$500.00	non-lodgement of bond
Total award	$3,564.29	$700.00
Net award	$2,864.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,864.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920973 — net $2,864.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,564.29		Rent arrears
Compensation		$200.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: non-lodgement of bond		$500.00	non-lodgement of bond
Total award	$3,564.29	$700.00
Net award	$2,864.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,864.29

Order

The tenancy is terminated and possession granted to [the landlord] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 immediately (as calculated in the table below) as follows: a.$2,864.29 to [the landlord] b.$535.71 to Leeanna Louise Shelly Young

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, 4 July 2024.
The tenant had applied for Mr Jefferies to be appointed as her legal representative. That application had not been brought to the attention of an adjudicator until the afternoon of 3 July, when the landlord applied for representation, noting that the tenant’s lawyer was to represent the tenant. Both applications were approved at 3.12pm on 3 July, and the parties were notified at
50pm that day.
This morning the landlord attended with legal representation, but Mr Jefferies did not. The tenant said that they had been notified too late that he could appear. It is surprising that he did not contact the Tribunal before today to ascertain if he could appear. A witness, Peter Chamberlain was present at Mr Jefferies’ request.
It was agreed that the parties would represent themselves and the hearing proceeded with the tenant, Ms Young and the property manager, [Mr I].
The tenant’s application, filed on 4 June 2024, relates to: a. Failure to lodge the bond b. Failure to notify a change of agent. c. Breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. d. Compensation for a leak and resulting damp and mould.
On 20 June 2024 the landlord applied for rent arrears and termination due to unpaid rent.
The onus of proof is on each party seeking to establish a claim and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, that is “more likely than not”. Overview
The parties entered into a 12-month fixed-term tenancy commencing on 14 November 2023. The landlord was recorded as Remax Capital Legacy Rentals. [Mr I] explained that they have now changed their trading name to “Rent-well”, but the company remains Capital Legacy Rentals Ltd.
On 7 May 2024 the tenant notified the landlord that there was a damp smell and a possible leak with wet carpet. The landlord arranged to visit the property the next day. The tenant was held up and so by agreement they rescheduled for 5pm 9 May.
The next morning, on 10 May, a plumber was organised and he attended on Wednesay 15 May. He identified that the top of the shower trap was missing. He replaced the shower trap and unblocked the shower waste. He noted a lot of water damage to the carpets in the rooms either side of the shower tray as every time the shower was used, water was leaking directly onto the concrete floor.
On 16 May the landlord contacted a carpet cleaning company to clean and dry the carpet on an urgent basis. As noted below, this occurred the next day.
In the meantime, at the tenant’s request, the landlord attended the premises on 16 May to discuss the process, including carpet cleaning, a possible visit from an insurance loss adjustor and possible further remedial work including carpet replacement. The tenant said she would prefer there to be no remedial work while she was in the property and the landlord indicated that it could wait until she vacated.
The invoice from Neat n’ Tidy Cleaning Ltd reports that they attended on Friday 17 May. They lifted the carpet in two bedrooms, removed wet underlay and dumped 20 metres. They performed an antimicrobial clean of 40 square metres of carpet and 20 metres of concrete, cleaning both sides of carpet in the bedrooms and the top of the carpet in the hallway. They left a dehumidifier and 3 airmovers over the weekend.
On Monday 20 May the contractors returned for a service visit. They recorded that one bedroom was now “all dry 11-13% moisture”, the hallway was dry with 11% moisture, but that the other bedroom still had 40% moisture in two areas of the carpet and 45% moisture in the wall in the wardrobe. The equipment was therefore left to dry out the carpet further.
The carpet contractors recorded that they returned two days later on Wednesday 22 May and recorded that the carpet in all rooms was now 11-13% moisture and in the wall in the wardrobe it was 14%.
The invoice also records that to complete the job, new underlay was required, an antimicrobial treatment of the carpet on both sides and a further clean of the top of the carpets.
In the meantime, on Tuesday 21 May, the tenant wrote to the landlord requesting to terminate the tenancy because of a “serious leak”, causing the carpets to rot. She said that toxic mould was growing, the drains were blocked with the sink not working, the doors were warped. She said that she had asked multiple times and the damage was escalating. She also asked for compensation of $5,000. She said she would be handing the keys over on 4 June 2024.
The landlord replied that the fixed-term tenancy could not be reduced unless there was mutual agreement or the Tribunal made an order directing a reduction. He outlined the steps that had been taken, including their discussion on 16 May. The landlord disputed the tenant’s other claims, declined to pay compensation and did not accept that the tenancy was ending on 4 June.
On 23 May the landlord texted the carpet contractor asking if the carpet was dry and was told it was.
The same day, Jefferies Law emailed the landlord alleging danger to the tenant’s health. They sought a termination of tenancy in 7 days, a refund of the bond, compensation of $5,000 and payment of legal fees of $3,500.
On 24 May 2024 a builder, Mr Chamberlain attended to view the property. He gave evidence as outlined below.
On 29 May 2024 the landlord offered to reduce the fixed term to a periodic tenancy, requiring the tenant to give 28 days’ notice. 1 She declined that offer saying that she had arranged an independent expert to inspect the property and that an assessor has determined that the property is not fit for human habitation.
On 4 June 2024 the tenant filed an application in the Tribunal.
On 17 June 2024 Mr Jefferies wrote to Tenancy Services confirming that he had instructions to act for the tenant and noting the bond had not been deposited. Unlike a previous letter dated 6 June, this letter was copied to the landlord.
On 20 June 2024 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for rent arrears, refund of bond and termination. Fixed term tenancies
Although the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term of her tenancy, I have set out the law relating to reduction of fixed terms for her future reference.
As noted by the landlord in his communication with the tenant, a fixed-term may be reduced by agreement or on application to the Tribunal. If the parties do not agree, then an application must be made to the Tribunal. A tenant cannot simply give notice that they want to end a tenancy.
Unless one of those two things happens, the tenant’s responsibilities all continue until the end of the term. That includes payment of rent.
If there is an application, the Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1 On that basis the tenancy would have terminated on 25 June 2024.
The tenant should bear this in mind if she wants to reduce a fixed-term tenancy in future. The tenant’s claims Change of agency
As noted above, the landlord was recorded in the tenancy agreement as Remax Capital Legacy Rentals.
On 7 May, when the tenant notified the landlord about the dampness, she emailed the original agent at a Hotmail address provided. He forwarded the email on and [Mr I] replied from a “rent-well” domain, noting that they had “rebranded Capital Legacy Rentals Ltd as “rent-well” and provided the new contact phone number and email address.
As noted above, it was explained at the hearing that they have now changed their trading name to “Rent-well”, but the company remains Capital Legacy Rentals Ltd.
It is understandable that this may have caused some confusion for the tenant but I am satisfied that there was no change of landlord or agency; it was simply a name change for the trading name of the company, and a change of individual agent. The tenant accepted this. Failure to lodge bond
Leeanna Louise Shelly Young claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[Mr I] acknowledged that the previous property manager had not understood the landlord’s responsibilities with the bond. As soon as this issue was raised (in letter dated 17 June, referred to above), he set about retrieving the funds from their accounting system and he provided evidence that the bond of $3,400.00 was deposited yesterday.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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
Although the previous agent did not intend to breach this obligation, he knowingly did not lodge the bond. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that this landlord and other landlords are aware of this obligation. It is understandable that any tenant would feel anxious to discover that their money has not been lodged with the Bond Centre as required by law. Accordingly, I have decided that the landlord should pay exemplary damages of $500.00. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant alleges that the landlord has not complied with Healthy Homes Standards. There are a number of standards under the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulation 2019, which cover ventilation, moisture ingress, draught stopping and heating. The tenant has not specified which standard has been breached, or provided any evidence of non- compliance.
As noted above, the onus is on the tenant to prove her claim. Evidence of a leak does not equate to a breach of any of those standards.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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 tenant has provided no evidence of a breach of this standard.
The landlord produced an updated Healthy Homes Report dated 2 July 2024 which records that the premises comply with all standards.
The tenant’s claim for damages for breach of Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed. Leak/mould
There is no dispute that there was an issue that caused the carpet in two bedrooms and hallway to be wet as well as dampness in the wall. There is also evidence of mould.
Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires the landlord to 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. Failure to do so may be declared an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200 may be ordered.
The sequence of events is outlined above. As soon as the landlord was made aware of the issue with the leak, [Mr I] attended the property and they organised a plumber and carpet cleaners who reported on moisture findings on 22 May.
Peter Chamberlain was called as a witness. He is a builder of over 30 years. He said that he had been asked by Mr Jefferies to look at the property and provide a report on his findings. He visited on 24 May 2024.
He said that the property smelt and that the smooth edge (the small skirting board at the bottom of the wall) was black and mouldy and that it would have taken a few years to get that way. He said that there was water in the ensuite and the carpet was wet and squelching under his feet. He said the carpet was soaked and had “black mould” on the back. He did not agree with [Mr I] that carpet could be discoloured as a result of antimicrobial treatment. He acknowledged that he is not an expert in different types of mould.
At one point Mr Chamberlain described water “pissing out”, but when asked to elaborate, he said he meant that the floor was very wet.
In contrast to this, the tenant said that following the treatment by Neat n’ clean, the carpet was not as wet as it had been before. She said that she had not spent much time there since then.
The tenant produced a letter from an Eco Design Advisor from Hutt City Council. This was following a visit on 10 June 2024. It says: There is serious looking mould in the wardrobe of the master bedroom and the blue bedroom. It is in the carpets and growing on/in the concrete floor and the nail strips along the edge. It is very localised, and being on adjacent walls and looks like it might be due to the water leak in the ceiling of the ensuite. My guess is that the water ran down the wall and soaked into the cold floor where the mould developed. The mould looks like it is black mould, and is well established. It should be tested by specialists to see if it is in the walls too and appropriate remediation planned. Remediation should be covered by insurance.
I find that this report does not advance matters. There is no dispute that mould has been present in the premises. There has been no testing of the mould. There has been no plumber or builder assess whether there is a water leak in the ceiling.
I also find that the tenant has not established that this was an ongoing problem with wetness after 23 May for the following reasons: a. I find Mr Chamberlain’s description was exaggerated and not consistent with the tenant’s. b. The Healthy Homes Report makes no mention of any wetness as described by Mr Chamberlain. c. Similarly, if the floor had been awash as described by Mr Chamberlain, I would have expected the EcoAdvisor to comment on it.
The tenant did not notify the landlord that the leak had not been repaired or that the carpet remained wet. Therefore I do not find that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. There was no reason that they would have been aware of any issue prior to the tenant notifying them of that, some 6 months after the tenancy began.
I am satisfied that the matter was attended to very promptly and could not have been addressed any earlier. The landlord had a plumber address the leak and had a microbial clean undertaken. The subsequent ecoadvisor report confirms the appearance of mould but does not establish the actual extent or nature of the mould. Testing would be required.
The tenant has not established that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises or address the issues she raised.
Accordingly, I do not find that the landlord committed an unlawful act.
That said, I accept that the tenant was put to some inconvenience from the time she became aware of the issue until the carpets in the two bedrooms were dried. She has not established that she needed to move out of the property. I do not find that the landlords are liable for her legal fees, storage costs or travel costs. She has chosen to vacate the property and has not provided sufficient evidence that it was necessary.
I have decided that suitable compensation is $200 for the period while the leak was being addressed and the carpets dried. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
On 6 June 2024 the landlord notified the tenant that she had not paid her rent on time. The letter both gave the tenant 14 days to remedy and also told her to pay the rent arrears owing immediately. The landlord’s attention is drawn to the requirements of section 55(1)(aa) regarding the amount of rent due, the dates the rent covers and also specifying whether it is a first second or third notice. Even if this notice was under section 56, it did not specify exactly how much rent needed to be paid and gave differing times by which she needed to comply.
However, that is academic because the tenant paid no more rent after that date in any event.
When the landlord filed the application on 20 June the rent was in arrears by $1,864.29. The rent was $850 per week, so at that stage the tenant was approximately 15 days in arrears. The landlord provided a rent summary showing that as at today’s date, the arrears owing is $3,564.29.
Where the rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application is filed, the tenancy must be terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 56(2) says that where an application is made by a landlord under section 56 and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if an application had been made under that section. The tenancy is accordingly terminated.
Because both parties have had some success, I make no order for refund of the filing fee.
Both parties have applied for name suppression.
Under section 95A, 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 tenant has had some success, but it is not substantial. The landlord has wholly succeeded in its application, and largely succeeded in defending the tenant’s application. Accordingly the landlord has been substantially successful and their name is suppressed. The tenant’s name is not suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920973 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920973 — Rent arrears

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