What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928533?

The tribunal order states: Benjamin Tan must pay Hogan Properties Limited $2,608.00 immediately in

How much money was awarded in case 4928533?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11487325-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4928533?

The tribunal order states: Benjamin Tan must pay Hogan Properties Limited $2,608.00 immediately in

How much money was awarded in case 4928533?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11487325-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

305 Horokiwi Road, Horokiwi, Wellington 5016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4928533 — Leaks

Order

Benjamin Tan must pay Hogan Properties Limited $2,608.00 immediately in accordance with the following table:
The photo of the property and desk are to be returned by Mr Tan to the landlord within 10 working days of this order. Should Mr Tan fail to comply with this direction, he is to pay the landlord $500 compensation.
Hogan Properties Limited is restrained, for a period of 6 years from the date of this order from breaching section 45(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water if any premises they rent out that does not have a reticulated water supply.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

A hearing was held to determine both parties’ claims on 11 February 2025. On that day directions were issued for the exchange of some items following the end of the tenancy on 16 December 2024. Given the ordered timeframe is now complete, this decision is issued as a final order in these proceedings which commenced in July 2024.
The landlord was represented by Mr Hogan and Ms Meier, both directors of the landlord company. Background
Mr Tan moved into the property in 2015 as a flatmate to the then tenant, Mr Landreth. In 2016 and 2017 the original tenants (having been there since 2012) moved out and Mr Tan and Mr Simpson effectively took over the tenancy. When Mr Simpson vacated in 2022 Mr Tan became the sole tenant.
In May 2024 Mr Hogan gave notice to end the tenancy. Litigation then commenced on 4 July 2024 with Mr Tan filing claims for work orders, compensation and exemplary damages for a myriad of alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). On the same day he served a 14-day notice (the 2024 Notice) on Mr Hogan stating the following required work:
Mr Hogan cross applied for his termination notice be enforced.
On 9 August the Tribunal accepted that Mr Tan was the sole tenant with a valid tenancy over the premise. A further hearing was held on 27 August at which time the parties agreed the tenancy would end on 8 December. A work order was made relating to potability of the water, and the remaining claims of Mr Tan’s were referred to mediation.
Mediation did not complete. As agreed at the 27 August hearing, the Tribunal released its decision on several of Mr Tan’s claims on 30 August and his outstanding claims were referred to a further hearing. The claims determined by the 30 August decision are as follows: i. The notice to terminate the tenancy was declared unlawful and exemplary damages were awarded for this breach of the RTA. ii. The landlord was determined to have breached section 45 of the RTA by failing to ensure the water source was potable and exemplary damages were awarded.
Mr Tan appealed the consent decision to terminate the tenancy to the District Court however was unsuccessful. He also applied for a rehearing which was similarly unsuccessful. 1
Given Mr Tan’s non-compliance with Tribunal directions, a hearing was ordered to determine whether his claims would proceed or be struck out pursuant to section 92A of the RTA. On 22 October Mr Tan’s claims were allowed to proceed provided he complied with further directions. He did so and the claims for compensation and work orders were set for hearing.
The tenancy then ended acrimoniously, and an eviction warrant was obtained. Given this and the way the property was returned to Mr Hogan, he made further claims against Mr Tan. As they were filed with sufficient notice to Mr Tan and in the interests of the expedient running of the Tribunal, pursuant to section 85(1) of the RTA, 2 the claims were accepted to proceed at the scheduled hearing.
Accordingly, the claims to be determined in this decision are: a. For Mr Tan, compensation and/or exemplary damages for the following alleged breaches of section 45 of the RTA: i. Three seized roller sliding doors. ii. Investigation into water ingress. iii. Black mould removal. iv. Repair to garage floor. 1 17 September 2024 2 the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes v. Leaking chimney. vi. Repair to rotten weatherboards. vii. Repair to deck boards. viii. Repair of two electrical switches/sockets. ix. Repair/replacement of laundry taps. x. Replacement of kitchen cupboard hinge. xi. Jammed locks. b. For Mr Hogan: i. Compensation for flights ii. Eviction warrant reimbursement. iii. Rent arears. iv. $3000.00 for missing and/or stolen property. v. $2000.00 for repair for damage to the interior. vi. Tip Fees and costs for removal of rubbish.
I discuss each of the claims separately below but before I do it is appropriate to reiterate the standard of proof. The onus of proof for each claim lies with the person or persons bringing the claim. It is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or what is “more likely than not”.
A considerable amount of evidence has been submitted by both parties.3 It has not all been referred to in this decision for reasons of brevity, however the parties can be assured it has all been thoroughly considered. Tenant’s claims

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Mr Tan has filed claims for compensation and/or exemplary damages for a number of alleged maintenance breaches of the landlord.
Pursuant to section 45 of the RTA a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of the obligations in section 45 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 RTA. 3 Including the 39 videos and 77 photos of Mr Tan’s
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Further, pursuant to section 49 of the RTA no party is entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered, either fully or to the extent they did. Roller sliding doors
Mr Tan’s submission is that there have been issues with the sliding doors in the property for many years. He says the roller wheels have corroded on a number, and some locks have seized. This makes them difficult to use and at times has meant they have not been able to lock the house, with particular reference to the garage door. He says Mr Hogan did some work on one door, but the others have not been attended to despite his many notifications over the years at inspections or when Mr Hogan attended the property.
His evidence in support of his submissions is: a. His email to Mr Landreth in 2016 asking him to raise the issue with the landlord. b. The 2021 4 inspection document which notes that the locks and rollers on all doors were to be checked. c. Photos and videos of the corroded rollers and sticky doors. d. His son’s statement who was present when Mr Tan ostensibly advised the landlord of the issues with the doors in 2023.
Mr Hogan’s evidence is that there are 13 external doors in the property and 10 of them are roller doors. He provided an invoice showing that the lounge roller door was repaired in September 2021 following the inspection notification. He says he has never been advised until these proceedings of any other issues with the doors and he understands that all of the doors are lockable.
He accepts the door issues were noted on the 2024 14-day notice 5 but explains that he did not attend to them because of the proceedings and the nature of the 4 27/6/21 inspection 5 4 July 2024 parties’ relationship at the time. He had expected Mr Tan to be vacating the tenancy on 26 July so did not respond to the notice. He says the only correspondence he has had with Mr Tan over the year prior to the proceedings was as follows: i. 23/9/23 regarding the leaking hot water cylinder which was replaced. ii. 1/5/24 which was notice that the driveway had been repaired and seeking payment of the invoice. iii. 10/5/24 notification of the results of the water test. iv. 4/7/24 14-day notice and proceedings.
He notes there is no record of any issues with the doors in the 2023 6 inspection which Mr Tan signed.
Mr Tan has provided a draft 14-day notice he emailed to the then tenant, Mr Landreth, on 26 June 2016. It detailed as follows:
Mr Hogan says he never received this notice. Given the only evidence is of Mr Tan sending it to Mr Landreth, as opposed to Mr Hogan, I accept this submission. It appears Mr Landreth did not pass it on. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the only 14-day notice served during this tenancy by Mr Tan on Mr Hogan is the 2024 Notice.
Having assessed the evidence on this point I make the following findings: a. The lounge door issues were notified in the 2021 inspection and rectified within a reasonable period. 6 21/5/23 b. Issues with the doors in all other rooms were noted on the 2021 inspection for follow up but were not investigated nor repaired. c. There is no reference to the issue in the 2023 inspection notes. d. There is clearly corrosion to the roller door wheels which makes them difficult to use. e. I accept that focus was elsewhere after the 2024 Notice given the most pressing issues at the time were jurisdiction and termination.
I find that the landlord has breached section 45 RTA with respect to the sliding doors other than in the lounge from the 2021 inspection. They were all noted as damaged but only the lounge door got repaired. I discuss monetary orders below. Water ingress and mould
Mr Tan’s evidence is that throughout his tenure at the property the home has leaked. This is because the guttering overflows into the house, there is a bird’s nest in the roof, the cladding is in disrepair and the house is built over a stream. He noted it in the 2016 draft notice and says he mentioned it whenever he saw Mr Hogan. He recalls in approximately April 2019 a substantial amount of water came into the walls in the lounge and created a large blister behind the wallpaper, evidence of which remains.
He says Mr Hogan was aware the house was leaky throughout his tenure but did not monitor it adequately nor respond to his concerns. The effect is that many of his and others’ belongings got mouldy, and they got sick from the mould which required considerable additional cleaning. He says he did not push the issue over the years as he, and others, were concerned they would get evicted if they did.
His evidence in support of the issue is: a. The photos of the blistering wallpaper and mould. b. Videos of water running into the home through the internal lights. c. Photos of mould on furniture.
His evidence in support of his notifications is: a. The 2016 draft notice. b. The 2023 inspection report which notes: sml leak – dining rm wall – watch
Mr Hogan provided evidence of considerable work undertaken to the roof and cladding in 2020/21. He says this was extensive and to his knowledge repaired any water ingress there was. When notified in 2023 of the leak, he considered it appropriate to monitor it as it was dry at the time of inspection and was minor. He says he has never seen any sign of mould and the area remains dry. Upon taking possession of the home, he has not noted any signs of water ingress.
He says when he was told about the birds nest he directed his contractor to remove it and thought that had happened as nobody notified him subsequently to the contrary.
The invoice from the contractor dated 4 January 2021 states that the work was to Repair weatherboards, remedy leaks in main roof, do best to water proof garage area, fix decking, re-direct downpipes. Some points I note from his invoice: • Ideally the building requires more work. But given budget restrains we have stopped at a point that all tasks have been ticked off... • All roof leaks have been remedied...the roof has become powdery and needs painting asap to prolong its life... • Downpipes that were dumping water under the house have been redirected... • So it (the deck) will need monitor from time to time to make sure it is keeping a sufficient gap to drain water completely ... • I will keep an eye on the building going forward...
After careful consideration of the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that there were water ingress issues prior to and post the 2020/21 work. After that time there were only two inspections (June 2021 and May 2023) and Mr Hogan was rarely at the property.
I do not find it established in evidence that Mr Tan notified of any serious water ingress issues. However, the landlord was on notice by the builder that the property needed to be monitored given the outstanding work.
Operating a tenancy is a business. Operating a business requires regular oversight to ensure compliance with legal obligations. In particular, the Tribunal 7 has taken the position previously that if a landlord is aware of a specific maintenance issue, section 45 RTA imposes a proactive responsibility on a landlord to monitor the situation.
I do not consider that the landlord took such an approach here. Given his builder’s notes it would have been prudent to have played a more active role in monitoring any further water ingress. This Tribunal has ruled in previous cases that as a general proposition a leak is a serious matter and must be repaired promptly. Leaks go to the very essence of a tenant’s right to the use and enjoyment of the premises in consideration of the rent that the tenant pays. A 7 [2022] NZTT [Rotorua] 4273958, 4373982, 4273973, 4310871, 4310889, 431087 leak is not a mere inconvenience; it creates an undesirable and unhealthy living environment.
I do not find it proven in evidence that Mr Tan notified the landlord of any serious concerns regarding mould presence. Mould is not noted in either inspection and there are no written communications advising of such.
For the reasons outlined above I find the landlord has breached section 45(1)(b) RTA in failing to maintain the premise to prevent water ingress. This is also a breach of Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which requires every house be free from dampness. I discuss monetary orders below. Garage flooding
It is accepted that due to the gradient of the driveway and nature of the drainage the drive and garage can flood in heavy rain. Mr Tan says the garage could fill with several inches of water in heavy weather rendering it unusable. He says he lost many belongings to rust and mould and he had to buy shelves to keep things off the floor.
He says it was this way throughout the tenancy but agrees that Mr Hogan did some work on the driveway early in the tenancy. In 2024 he had the driveway regraded himself and the drains dug out. He says he had to do this because Mr Hogan had ignored his requests previously. It is noted on the 2023 inspection that the driveway needs attention.
Mr Hogan agrees that when the driveway drain gets blocked the drive and garage can flood. He says he dug it out several times over the years prior to 2023 but says that the video Mr Tan provided was from an extreme weather event. He says he was not notified of it being an issue until 2024 and was never told the flooding was damaging possessions or that the garage could not be used.
I am satisfied that this was a known issue with this property. The landlord may well have dealt with it in the early days, but I do not find it substantiated in evidence that they did over the last few years. Digging drains and keeping them clear is a landlord maintenance obligation. 8 It is also a positive obligation given the landlord was aware of the flooding potential.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has breached section 45 in this respect. I discuss monetary orders below. 8 Section 45(1)(b)and(c)RTA Leaking chimney
Mr Tan’s evidence is that the wood burner flue has been leaking throughout the tenancy gradually getting worse. He says it was looked at with the 2020 work but remained leaking after that. He says he did tell Mr Hogan who said he thought the builder had repaired the issue. Mr Tan’s evidence is that the wood burner is still usable despite the leak.
Mr Hogan says he was aware of the issue, and it was repaired in 2020, this is evidenced by an invoice. He has now seen that the flu is leaking again, this time by an askew cowling cap. He has fixed it and considers it a minor issue. He says he was not aware of the further leak until these proceedings.
Given the issue was not noted on the draft Notice, the 2024 Notice nor either of the inspections, I accept this evidence. Mr Tan and Mr Hogan may well have had a discussion about it, but it appears to have not been deemed sufficiently serious for a follow-up in writing. This claim is dismissed. Weatherboards
Mr Tan’s evidence is that there are unpainted weatherboards and rotting weatherboards. It is accepted that some of the replaced weatherboards from 2020 have not yet been painted but this was not an issue during the tenancy. It is accepted that there is one rotten weatherboard on the laundry wall which Mr Hogan agrees he was aware of since 2023. He did not consider it a major issue and so has left it due to the difficulty in obtaining trades to do such work.
I do not find this a breach of section 45 of the RTA. Section 45 only requires a property to maintain a premise 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. This was a minor issue and there is no evidence it was affecting the weathertightness of the building. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Deck boards
Mr Tan’s evidence is that over the years many of the deck boards have rotted to the extent that they now provide a hazard. He says he spoke to Mr Hogan about it many times and says as it was a relatively minor issue, given the other greater matters, i.e. the water, which is why it was not noted on the inspection reports. He says it would have been on the lists he gave to the landlord at each inspection. 9 9 The landlord does not have the lists to provide
Mr Hogan’s agrees that some small areas are rotten, but says they are not major. The builder did some work on the deck in 2020 but he has not been told since of any issues and he did not check the deck at inspections.
The photos of the deck show some rotting boards and some holes.
As discussed above, the builder did recommend the deck be monitored, which it has not been. Accordingly, I find this a breach of section 45 RTA. Electrics
Mr Tan’s evidence is that there is a light over the kitchen breakfast bar which continuously blows, and there is a melted plug in the laundry that has come away from the wall. The switch was noted in the 2023 inspection, and he says he told Mr Hogan about the light many times. He agrees these were minor in the scheme of things.
Mr Hogan agrees he did get told about the kitchen light and the socket. He says the issue with the kitchen light is the tenants were using the wrong bulb and there was nothing wrong with the socket, it just needed to be screwed back in. Neither party is aware of who unscrewed it.
He says the wiring of the home is not suitable to LED bulbs which the tenants used so they will flicker. The close proximity of the radio tower will also have an effect on the electricity supply.
Mr Tan does not accept Mr Hogan’s evidence and considers the issue one of wiring through the house. He says the bulbs were blowing before they changed to LEDs.
Having assessed the evidence very carefully, I do not find a breach of section 45 here. There is little evidence of any widespread electrical issue and I accept the difficulties with using LED lights in dated sockets. An occupant of the property appears to have unscrewed the socket and I accept the evidence it can still be used. This claim is dismissed. Laundry taps
It is agreed that at the commencement of the tenancy one laundry tap was missing and Mr Tan says at the end all four were. He says they could only use the taps with vice grips which was inconvenient.
Mr Hogan found the other three taps when he took back possession and says one has lost its teeth but the other two could just be replaced.
I am satisfied that for the duration of the tenancy one tap was missing which the landlord was aware of. The impact was minor, but it was an inconvenience. This is a breach of section 45. Kitchen hinge
In early 2024 the hinge on the kitchen cupboard broke Mr Tan says. He noted it on the 2024 Notice, but it was not dealt with. Mr Hogan’s view is that excessive force was used to break the hinge, and he claims compensation for having to deal with it.
The evidence does not substantiate that this breakage was anything other than fair wear and tear. As such I do not find Mr Tan liable for the repair. He did notify of the issue but as above, I accept Mr Hogan’s reasoning for why it was not attended to. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Summary
Mr Tan’s submission is that he regularly raised maintenance issues over the years but did not issue 14-day notices or make applications to the Tribunal because he was concerned he would lose his tenancy. He says Mr Hogan would always tell him they were “on it” but nothing much ever happened. He points out that Mr Hogan’s reason for a lack of maintenance (that the property would soon be purchased by LTNZ) 10 is unlawful.
Mr Simpson’s statement supports Mr Tan’s evidence of regular notification, along with the claims relating to the flooding, water ingress, water impurities, and rotting deck. He says he was often told that issues were the previous builder’s fault or that minor issues would be left because the house would be demolished in due course.
He says it was frustrating and disheartening. He considers the landlord and tenancy has shortened his lifespan and views the eight-year period as torture. His claims regarding illness from the water are supported by Ms Guild’s statement, Ms Emms’s statement and Mr Tan jnr’s statement.
Mr Hogan’s submission is that the communication was minimal from Mr Tan. He says he asked numerous times for the maintenance list Mr Tan referred to early in 2024 and it was some months before he received it. He is clear they dealt with urgent maintenance promptly but agrees some minor works got overlooked with the passage of time. He says the property ran well until Mr Tan became the sole tenant.
He points out that Mr Tan served them with the only 14-day notice to remedy they received on 4 July, the same day he filed proceedings with the Tribunal saying the notice had been breached. This, he says, is disingenuous. He dispute’s Mr Tan’s credibility and says he has made a number of assumptive 10 Land Transport New Zealand to facilitate roading submissions that are not true. Now that they have possession of the property, he says there is very little maintenance to undertake.
Having carefully considered the evidence I find that the landlord oversight on the property was relatively minimal after the works in 2020. Two inspections were held (June 2021 and May 2023) but otherwise the property was essentially left alone.
Given the nature of the rural property I do not consider this adequate. I have already found that the water supply suffered from a lack of maintenance 11 and I am satisfied the house did also to an extent. I do note however that urgent issues when notified clearly were promptly dealt with by the landlord. I am also satisfied that Mr Tan’s notification of issues was noncomprehensive. The lack of clear constructive communication between the parties was a contributor to the deterioration of their relationship and the tenancy.

Should monetary orders be made?

Mr Tan seeks compensation and exemplary damages for these breaches. Compensation
As I have found the sliding doors have been an issue since at least 2021 and have not been attended to by the landlord, I make an award of compensation for the inconvenience. In coming to an amount, I note that no actual loss has been suffered by the tenants on this point other than frustration and inconvenience. Also of relevant is that there is no documentary evidence that the matter was pursued by Mr Tan after the 2021 inspection, he therefore did not take steps to mitigate the issue. Taking all matters into account, particularly the longevity of the issue, I make an award of $500 for this breach.
Mr Tan claims compensation in the form of a lack of amenity as he has been unable to rent out other rooms because of these issues and has had to store his work belongings in a storage unit as he cannot use the garage to do so. He says the general lack of maintenance meant that he could not use the large property as intended and his costs were increased because he could not find replacement flatmates.
I consider compensation just for the water ingress issues for the reasons discussed above. The landlord failed to actively monitor the potential issue, however the evidence is that the effect on Mr Tan was relatively minimal.
It is a well accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable 11 Decision 30 August 2024 losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement. Appellate Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a commonsense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party
I find that an award of $500 is just in the circumstances.
I decline compensation for the lack of amenity for the garage or damage to belongings from the wet because the evidence does not substantiate that Mr Tan advised the landlord of any damage or lack of amenity. As discussed above, as a matter of law, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered.
I decline compensation for the issues relating to the deck. The evidence does not establish a lack of amenity and the rotting is relatively minor.
I award a nominal figure of $100 for the difficulties endured in using the laundry sink. Exemplary damages
I have found that the landlord has committed the following breaches of section 45 of the RTA which are unlawful acts: a. A failure to maintain the sliding doors. b. A failure to maintain/monitor with respect to the water ingress. c. A failure to maintain the driveway drains. d. A failure to maintain/monitor the deck. e. A failure to maintain the laundry tub.
Exemplary damages can only be awarded for unlawful acts committed within the 12 months preceding the application. 12 All of these issues commenced many years prior; accordingly the claims for exemplary damages must be dismissed.

Should a restraining order be made?

Mr Tan seeks a restraining order against the landlord preventing them from managing rental properties. He says they have been extremely neglectful of his tenancy which has resulted in him and his other flatmates getting sick. He says 12 Section 109(2)(b) RTA justice should be served by preventing them from doing this to other tenants. He feels they had no care for him.
Section 109A RTA provides: The Tribunal may restrain further commissions of unlawful acts: (1) If the Tribunal makes an order against a person under section 109 on the ground that the person has committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, make an order restraining the person from committing a further act of the same kind. (2) The Tribunal may make an order under subsection (1) on its own initiative or on the application of the applicant who applied for the order, under section 109, against the person sought to be restrained. (3) The Tribunal must specify the term of the order, which may not exceed 6 years. (4) Every person commits an offence who, being subject to an order under this section, intentionally contravenes the order. (5) A person who commits an offence against subsection (4) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000
I have found that the landlord has committed an unlawful act in failing to maintain the property. The most serious breach being the failure to ensure the water was potable. 13
The legislation does not allow me to prevent a landlord from managing properties in the future as Mr Tan would have me do. However I can direct that in any future property the landlord rents out, they must always ensure that the water is potable. 14 Given the length of time occupants of this home went without safe drinking water 15 I consider it appropriate to do so. Ensuring access to a safe drinking supply is fundamental and has serious implications for a failure to do so. Accordingly, I consider it in the public interest to make such a restraining order. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

Mr Hogan claims rent arrears for the final two weeks of the tenancy and the ensuing week when Mr Tan was still in residence past the termination date. He also seeks reimbursement of the cost of securing an eviction warrant and the attendance of the bailiff. He submits that this cost was reasonable because Mr Tan told him the night prior to the end of the tenancy that he was not going to 13 Paragraph 46, Decision 30 August 2024 14 In accordance with section 45(1)(ca) RTA 15 As evidence by many occupant statements leave the next day and he had told the District Court Judge during his appeal hearing that “we will see” when told he had to vacate on the 8 th of December. 16
Mr Tan says he could not pay because stress related to the end of the tenancy caused him to get behind on his billing. He accepts the claim; accordingly it is made as sought.
I also find it appropriate to award reimbursement of the bailiff’s cost. This is because I accept Mr Hogan’s submission that Mr Tan had not vacated by the 8 th , nor had he sought an extension, knowing he was required to vacate by then. Not only had the Tribunal reiterated this date to him but so had the District Court.
Given the relationship between the parties it was reasonable for Mr Hogan to suspect that Mr Tan would not leave, and he may have to be forcibly removed. It was not until 9 December that he was told by Mr Tan that he had alternative accommodation “next weekend” (14/15 December). Mr Tan did not communicate with Mr Hogan constructively or clearly.
Accordingly, these claims are upheld.
Mr Hogan also claims reimbursement of the unnecessary cost his partner, Ms Meier, the other owner of the home, was put to in flying to Wellington to reclaim the home when Mr Tan did not in fact leave.
Mr Tan says he should not be liable because it was the landlord’s decision when and how they visited Wellington and costs incurred are part of the business of being a landlord.
Pursuant to section 102 of the RTA the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs except in specific situations, none of which are relevant here. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Mr Hogan seeks compensation for having to clean the property himself and $300 to remove rubbish left at the tenancy. He says the bins were left dirty and unhygienic, the oven needed a clean, the bathrooms needed cleaning and there was rubbish left inside and outside the property. He says it took his family over five days to bring the house to a habitable standard.
At the end of the tenancy pursuant to section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA a 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.
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the 16 In accordance with the Tribunal Order dated 27 August 2024 premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies and such time will be reflective of the length of the tenancy. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Mr Tan says he cleaned as best he could, but it was extremely stressful having to move after eight years, and as it had been so hard to find another property, it was undertaken in a rush. He accepts he did have to leave some rubbish behind. He points out that some of these were items from many occupants and tenants since 2012.
The photos establish that there was some further cleaning to be undertaken to lift the premise to the statutory standard. As Mr Tan never raised issues regarding how the home was provided to him during the tenancy, (in respect to cleanliness or rubbish removal from other tenants), I find it reasonable than an award of compensation is made. I do not consider a large amount is just given that it was only a few areas that required further cleaning.
Accordingly, I award $300 for rubbish removal and $200 compensation for cleaning.
On 11 February I directed that Mr Tan arrange for the fish bin to be removed from the property within a week by someone other than himself. He has not done so. I therefore award $200 compensation for the landlord having to do so themselves. The bin is large and contains what appears to be a toxic liquid, accordingly the amount ordered is considered reasonable.

Did the tenant remove items?

Mr Hogan seeks compensation for Mr Tan allegedly removing a professional STHIL brush cutter, a purpose-built fitted desk and bookshelf, a photo of the property, the sink waste master controller, 12 light bulbs and the flush knobs on the toilet cistern.
Mr Tan’s evidence is that Mr Simpson removed the desk and bookshelf, and it is currently in the garage. He agrees he took the light bulbs as they were LED and he purchased them, he knows nothing about the cistern knobs or the waste master controller.
Also on 11 February I directed that Mr Tan was to return the STHIL double handled petrol brush cutter including any blades and the harness and the framed aerial picture of the property within 10 working days. Mr Hogan advises that the petrol brush cutter has been returned but not the harness and blade set and blade tools that belong with the brush cutter or the photo, and the desk has not been located in the garage.
I do not find it proven in evidence that the harness and blade set and tools were provided with the tenancy or when they are provided, I therefore make no further directions with respect to them. However, I make the following orders regarding the photo and desk: a. The photo of the property and desk are to be returned to the landlord within 10 working days of this order. b. Should Mr Tan fail to comply with this direction, he is to pay the landlord $500 compensation.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Mr Hogan seeks compensation for having to repair holes in the master bedroom walls, damage to the kitchen bench, a broken kitchen cupboard and damage to the wood floors.
To be successful in a claim for damages, 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.
Mr Tan accepts liability for one small hole which his children caused but says the others were there for the duration of the tenancy.
Given the landlord cannot establish in evidence that the other damage claimed for occurred during Mr Tan’s tenure because of the way the tenancy was managed, I must dismiss the other claims. I award a nominal amount of $50 for the repair of the hole Mr Tan accepted liability for. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest. Both parties have applied for suppression orders.
Given the actions of both parties throughout these proceedings, I consider it in the public interest to decline these claims. When considering the proceedings holistically over the four hearings, seven Tribunal orders and one mediation, I do not consider suppression orders just. Both parties have committed unlawful acts and acted disingenuously at times and as such I make no suppression orders.
I do understand Mr Tan’s feelings at the loss of his home for the previous eight years and likewise the landlord’s stress at not being able to provide a home for their family. This has been a fraught period for both parties, but I hope that this decision can at least provide some closure.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928533 — Leaks at 305 Horokiwi Road, Horokiwi, Wellington 5016

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928533 — Leaks at 305 Horokiwi Road, Horokiwi, Wellington 5016

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Should monetary orders be made?

Should a restraining order be made?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant remove items?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to comply with their obligations?

Should monetary orders be made?

Should a restraining order be made?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Did the tenant remove items?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management