What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927213 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The landlord’s claims for costs relating to lawn mowing, stovetop repairs, and

How much money was awarded in case 4927213?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Water Fixed Costs: $318.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,328.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $125.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927213?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10539584-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927213 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. The landlord’s claims for costs relating to lawn mowing, stovetop repairs, and

How much money was awarded in case 4927213?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Water Fixed Costs: $318.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,328.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $125.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927213?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10539584-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15D Sarona Avenue, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927213 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927213 — net $1,500.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,328.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$125.30		Water rates
Cleaning	$250.00		Cleaning
Cleaning: Kitchen	$115.00		Cleaning: Kitchen
Compensation: Water fixed costs		$318.00	Water fixed costs
Total award	$1,818.30	$318.00
Net award	$1,500.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,500.30

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord telephoned in from overseas where he currently lives. The tenant attended by teleconference. The Landlord’s Claims

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,328.00 for rent arrears. A final water bill for $123.50 for water rates was provided.

The tenant did not dispute the rent arrears, and this amount is proved.

The tenant accepted the final water bill, but stated that for this bill and the others, she had paid not only the water and waste-water consumption but also the fixed charges. The total of the fixed charges amounts to $318.00. The landlord did not dispute this fact or amount. When these two amounts are reconciled, the tenant gets a refund of $194.50.

Did the tenant 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 “RTA”).

The landlord provided an invoice for $250.00 for end of tenancy cleaning. The tenant did not dispute the amount, and so it is proved.

The landlord provided an invoice for $115.00 for end of tenancy oven cleaning. The tenant did not dispute the amount, and so it is proved.

The landlord claims the tenant was not maintaining the lawns towards the end of the tenancy and he engaged a contractor to mow the lawns at a cost of $150.00. No invoice has been provided and no photographs have been provided.

The tenant disputes this cost. She says the lawns were mowed by the landlord’s contractor before the tenancy ended and without her consent. She says she had made arrangements herself to mow the lawns before the end of the tenancy.

As the work was undertaken during the tenancy without notice to the tenant and without the tenant’s consent, the cost, which also has not been proved, is not the tenant’s responsibility. This claim is not proved.

Is the tenant 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.

The landlord provided an invoice for $103.50 for repairing the gas cooktop hobs. The tenant disputes the claim.

The landlord says that at the beginning of the tenancy one of the two gas cooktop hobs would not light from the automatic starter, but would start from a hand-lighter. By the end of the tenancy, he says both gas hobs needed repairing.

The landlord says that inspections of the property were conducted at the beginning of the tenancy in February 2022, in August 2022 and in March 2023. However the fault with the stove wasn’t picked up until the end of the tenancy.

The tenant stated that at the end of the tenancy the working hob was weak and wouldn’t light by itself, but it did still work.

The tenant stated that one of the hobs not working properly at the beginning of the tenancy indicates the stovetop was already well worn when she moved in. She denies damaging the cook top in anyway. The landlord referred to the work that was done on the cooktop as maintenance.

I have not been persuaded that the problem with the cooktop was more than fair wear and tear. On the whole, the cooktop was not new at the beginning of the tenancy and it was already faulty. The claim is not proved.

The landlord claims $546.00 for repair to broken vertical blinds. The tenant disputes the claim. No invoice and no photographs have been provided by the landlord in support of his claim.

The landlord stated that at the beginning of the tenancy some of the blinds were replaced, but the remaining blinds were in good condition. At the end of the tenancy, many blinds were missing.

The landlord has not provided any information that indicates the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged the blinds.

The tenant stated that she was told by the repair and maintenance person who fixed the blinds at the beginning of the tenancy, that other blinds would also fall off soon because they were brittle. The tenant stated that the very next day one of the blinds fell. The tenant provided a photograph showing the blinds in which it is evident from the different colours of the blinds, which blinds have been replaced and which have not.

The blinds were not new at the beginning of the tenancy. In fact they were already needing to be replaced due to age-related deterioration. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the blinds during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved. The Tenant’s Claims

The landlord made the point on several occasions that the tenant’s cross- application was filed only six days ago, on 28 June 2024. This point is well made, and I am grateful for the landlord’s preparedness to face the tenant’s allegations at short notice.

I am satisfied the landlord has not suffered prejudice as a result of the tenant’s application being heard.

The tenant is claiming the landlord breached the RTA by: a. not providing Healthy Homes standards (HHS) information at the beginning of the tenancy, b. not appointing an agent when he was out of the country for more than 21 days, c. not being compliant with the HHS heating standard.

Section 109 of the RTA limits the time an applicant has to seek exemplary damages for an unlawful act (see below). The tenant’s application was made approximately 14 months after the end of the tenancy therefore falls outside the time limit for applying for exemplary damages for an unlawful act. Nonetheless for the sake of completeness I will address the tenant’s claims despite not being able to make awards for damages. 109Unlawful acts (1)Any of the following persons (A) may apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring any other person (B) to pay to A an amount in the nature of exemplary damages on the ground that B has committed an unlawful act: (a)a landlord: (b)a tenant: ... (2)A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act. Supplying documents

Under section 45 of the RTA, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.

No request for Healthy Homes Standards information was formally made by the tenant.

Under section 13A(1A) of the RTA, a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.

Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching these obligations 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.

Included in the landlord’s document is a Healthy Homes Standards Statement from the landlord declaring that he will comply with the Healthy Homes standards.

However, there is no statement regarding insulation.

Given the recent filing of the tenant’s application, and the possibility that given a reasonable opportunity, the landlord may be able to locate the required statement, I do not make a finding regarding whether or not this document was included with the original tenancy agreement. Not appointing an agent

claim the landlord was overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.

A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant explained that during the tenancy the landlord was never present and would not provide contact details for a property manager. The tenant stated that when they made this request to the landlord, he accused them of being demanding, and stated that because he was the landlord, all requests should come through him.

The landlord does not dispute that he lives overseas. He states that he managed the tenancies adequately from where he lived with the aid of digital media. He said that this job managing a property does not require him to “be there physically”.

The landlord stated that he gave his brother’s contact details to the tenants if needed. The tenants denied this was true and said the landlord’s brother was only ever present on one occasion, to hand over the keys at the beginning of the tenancy.

On balance, I prefer the tenant’s evidence on this point. I found the tenant to be honest and reliable. She accepted some claims against her and defended claims she thought disagreed with. It would not be in character for her to be making a false accusation such as this, particularly when she appears unmotivated by gain.

Whereas the landlord also presented as honest and reliable, he did not provide any details of what attendance his brother provided during the tenancy.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did live out of New Zealand for more than 21 consecutive days during the tenancy, and he did not appoint an agent. This is an unlawful act. Heating standard

The tenant claims that the landlord breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: For private rentals 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. Because this tenancy began on 01 February 2022, these compliance dates are correct for this tenancy. 90 days after the commencement date of the tenancy is 8 May 2023.

On 17 May 2022 the tenant served a 14-day notice-to-remedy on the landlord to install heating that complied with the HHS. The landlord then installed compliant heating within the 14 days. These are facts as agreed by both parties.

As a result I am persuaded that for a short time, the landlord was not compliant with the Healthy Homes heating standard.

Because both parties have been partially successful with their applications, I do not order reimbursement of the filing fees.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927213 — net $1,500.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,328.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$125.30		Water rates
Cleaning	$250.00		Cleaning
Cleaning: Kitchen	$115.00		Cleaning: Kitchen
Compensation: Water fixed costs		$318.00	Water fixed costs
Total award	$1,818.30	$318.00
Net award	$1,500.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,500.30