How much money was awarded in case 4930543?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,006.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Leak under house and d…: $197.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Windows not draught st…: $231.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge And Children'S Bedroom (28 Fe…: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Rebate: $242.86 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,443.25 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls And Burnt Shelf: $966.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin From November 2023: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930543?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4930543?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,006.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Leak under house and d…: $197.14 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Windows not draught st…: $231.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge And Children'S Bedroom (28 Fe…: $20.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Rebate: $242.86 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $1,443.25 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls And Burnt Shelf: $966.00 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin From November 2023: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930543?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4930543 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4930543 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930543 — net $1,613.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$253.00		Carpet cleaning
Skip bin from November 2023	$350.00		Skip bin from November 2023
Repairs: Clean, sand and repaint walls, doors and	$1,443.25		Repairs: Clean, sand and repaint walls, doors and
clean windows from felt pens graffiti	$1,006.25		clean windows from felt pens graffiti
Repairs: Holes in walls and burnt shelf	$966.00		Repairs: Holes in walls and burnt shelf
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Leak under house and drainage		$197.14	Leak under house and drainage
rent rebate		$242.86	rent rebate
Compensation: Windows not draught stopped in		$231.43	Windows not draught stopped in
lounge and children's bedroom (28 February to 23		$20.00	lounge and children's bedroom (28 February to 23
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$4,072.50	$1,891.43
Net award	$1,613.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,613.07

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Mapuna Mitchell must pay [The landlord] $1,613.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $568.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenant has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background

The tenant rented a 3-bedroom home that was sublet to the landlord by Harcourts who managed the property for the owners. The number of persons involved in reporting, approving and arranging for repairs to be undertaken was more than you would find in most tenancies and did lead to some delays in repairs and maintenance being undertaken in a reasonable timeframe.

The parties had been before the Tribunal on 10 January 2024 (NZTT 4645929) for repair and maintenance claims for which compensation was granted, in an Order dated 30 January 2024, to the tenant and work orders made for the following work to be completed by 29 March 2024: a. Inspect the roof for leaks and repair to a reasonable standard of repair. b. Repair the deck to a reasonable standard of repair. c. Repair the hole behind the washing machine. d. Assess the kitchen ceiling and repair to a reasonable standard of repair as needed. e. Ensure the underfloor insulation is intact and installed in accordance with the Healthy Homes Standards insulation rules.

The tenant says that there are several further repairs and maintenance issues that have been reported by her, post the 10 January 2024 Tribunal heating and 30 January 2024 Order, that she has brought claims for to the Tribunal today.

In her application, the tenant stated she wanted to appeal the exemplary damage decision made in the 30 January 2024 Order. Adjudicator Greene, in his 8 July 2024 Directions Order clarifies: “There has been a previous Tribunal order about this tenancy dated 30 January 2024 – [2024] NZTT 4645929. I reminded the tenant that she cannot re-litigate the matters determined by the Tribunal in that order, including the decision not to award exemplary damages. The tenant said she wanted penalties imposed on the landlord which has more than 6 tenancies. If she is referring to the pecuniary penalty orders provision contained in section 109B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) she cannot make an application under that section. Only the Chief Executive of MBIE can make an application for pecuniary penalty orders for the payment of monies to the Crown”.

I reiterated Adjudicator Greene’s points to the tenant again at the hearing today so she was clear about why I was not going to call for evidence on or make orders about these claims today.

The tenant also failed to comply with the timetable directions in Adjudicator Greene’s 8 July 2024 Directions Order for filing submissions clarifying her claims and providing relevant evidence to those claims. Her submissions were due for filing by 29 July 2024. They were not filed until 7 September 2024 and were not served on the landlord party. These submissions set out the tenant’s claims in a broad manner but did not contain sufficient specifics for the landlord or I to be able to clearly understand her claims. We spent three quarters of the hearing clarifying her claims, finding her supporting evidence and the landlord was put in a position where it was finding evidence to defend her claims as the hearing progressed. The landlord agreed to invest this large portion of the hearing to me clarifying the tenant’s claims and taking adjournments to allow it to find evidence defending its position in preference to me dismissing her claims and her remaking her claims in a new application in the New Year. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord has produced evidence that proves the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered are proved and the tenant accepted liability for these costs during the hearing.

The tenant also accepted liability for payment of a skip bin invoice from November 2023 that she had not paid at the end of her tenancy.

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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Felt pens graffiti from walls and windows and surfaces throughout the house (lounge, kids room, backs of doors and windows); and b. Holes in walls throughout the house and a shelf burnt by the tenant’s candle.

The landlord has produced evidence that proves the damage is because of the tenant’s careless acts or omissions and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage and accepted liability for this damage during the hearing.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. TENANT’S CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b) and (bb) obligations to the tenant?

The tenant says the landlord has breached its s45(1)(b) and (bb) of the RTA obligations to him.

Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1

There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.

A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .

There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .

Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.

Breaching either of these s45(1) 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.

General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. Failure to maintain

The tenant says the landlord has failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Roof and ceiling repairs

The tenant says the landlord’s contractors did not fix the leaky roof and ceiling fully until after the new roof was installed on 7 February 2024.

The landlord was required in the 30 January 2024 Order to “inspect the roof for leaks and repair to a reasonable standard of repair by 29 March 2024”. The landlord complied with this Order. It has proven it undertook a temporary fix to the bedroom ceiling and patched the roof on 2 December 2023 and arranged for the roof to be fully replaced by 29 March 2024. The new roof was installed on 7 February 2024 and all inside roof remedial work was completed by 8 February 2024. The landlord produced a letter from a registered master builder and registered roofer that confirms the roof repairs have been completed as well as some further repair work to ensure the structural integrity of the roof and ceilings.

I am satisfied the landlord has met its obligations pursuant to s45(1)(b) of the RTA and the requirements in the 30 January 2024 Work Order.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove that the landlord failed to comply with the Work Order and/or with its repair and maintenance obligations in relation to the roof leaks. Builders mess

The tenant says the landlord’s contractors left behind considerable mess inside and outside the house when they carried out the various repairs to the premise. She raised this with the landlord on 28 February 2024 when it was carrying out an inspection post the remedial work being completed.

The landlord emailed the Harcourt’s property manager on 28 February 2024 outlining the tenant’s issues and concerns.

The landlord produced evidence from the Harcourt’s property manager and the property owner that the invoices were withheld for payment for 10 days until the contractors had addressed the mess they left behind. ‘

The tenant says she cleaned up some of the mess left through the house herself but did not address the outside hazards left by the contractors nor did she remove the rubbish they left behind on the property.

I am satisfied the landlord has proven on balance the issues were raised with the property manager and owner promptly and those parties ensured the contractors tidied the property and premise and removed the hazards complained of within 10 days of the issues being raised.

I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord did not address the issues raised in relation to the contractor mess in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord provided evidence that disproved the claim. Rangehood

The tenant says the landlord’s contractors failed to install the new rangehood to a reasonable standard and that there was a gap that allowed old insulation and debris, from the replacement of the vent to outside, to come out all over her food when she turned it on.

The tenant proved she reported this issue to the landlord and the landlord proved it had a contractor address the gap and cleaning issue within a week after the complaint was raised by the tenant.

I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the landlord did not address the issues raised in relation to the rangehood in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove her claim on the balance of probabilities and the landlord provided evidence that disproved the claim. Plumbing and drainage issues

The tenant says the landlord failed address the leaky pipes under the house and this was an ongoing issue during the tenancy. She says the shower pipe was connected to wash house pipe and there were foul smells being omitted from these pipes into these rooms. Further, she produced photographs that show the pipes under the house were taped up with building tape and leaking under the house and the drains were blocked up. The tenant says this issue was never addressed.

The landlord confirmed the tenant raised this issue with the landlord on 28 February 2024 and that there was no mention of this issue in the 12 February 2024 routine property inspection report.

The tenant gave me emails following the drainage issues up on 3 and 7 March 2024.

The landlord proved it raised this issue with the owner on 28 February 2024 and it was not rectified until 7 May 2024. It provided an email raising the issue with the owner and an invoice dated 7 May 2024 that shows the issue was investigated on 30 April 2024 and repaired by 7 May 2024. The invoice shows the contractor replaced waste pipe under house, that three pipes were connected into one line and they were replumbed separately and that he installed a trap in hot water cylinder and fixed waste pipe in shower.

I am satisfied that the tenant raised her concerns, these concerns were serious and needed to be addressed promptly as they were wastewater related leaks that were permeating the house, and that 9 weeks 6 days was not a reasonable timeframe for her to wait for the issue to be remedied in all the circumstances.

I award the tenant compensation, in the form of a rent rebate for the period 28 February 2024 to 7 May 2024 at $20 per week. This is a total of $197.14.

I do not consider this breach to be intentional. The landlord has explained how the subletting situation has led to an extension of time for this issue to be fully addressed and it has proven it regularly followed this issue up until it was resolved. Draughts from windows

The tenant says the landlord has failed to remedy the draughts coming from the windows in the lounge and in the kids room.

The tenant proved she raised this issue with the landlord on 28 February 2024 and the landlord confirmed there are still issues with the draught stopping and it had sent an email the same day to ask the owner to arrange a contractor to remedy this issue “asap as winter is coming”.

The tenant proved she raised this issue again by email on 7 March 2024 and the landlord proved it sent this email on to the owner of the property the same day.

The landlord was unable to produce any evidence of having investigated and remediated this issue.

Tenant confirmed that nothing was done. She says she was told repeatedly they were waiting for a response from the owner.

The landlord produced an email from the owner, dated 5 July 2024, that attaches an invoice from 16 and 17 November 2023, where the initial draught stopping work was completed. The tenant has proven the draught stopping work did not fully address the draughts and the landlord’s email dated 28 February 2024 confirms it also believed the draughts needed further investigation and remediation.

I am satisfied that the tenant raised her concerns, these concerns were serious and needed to be addressed promptly as they were making the house cold and damp and that 12 weeks 6 days was not a reasonable timeframe for her to wait for the issue to be remedied in all the circumstances.

I award the tenant compensation, in the form of a rent rebate for the period 28 February 2024 to 23 May 2024 at $20 per week. This is a total of $242.86.

I consider this breach to be intentional. The landlord has explained how the subletting situation has led to an extension of time for this issue to be fully addressed but could not produce evidence it followed the property manager or the owner up regularly until this issue was investigated and resolved. Front door leak and damage to washing machine

The tenant provided photographic evidence and emails that prove there was a leak under front door and that the washing machine hose was damaged by the contractors that came to fix the hole in the laundry wall.

The tenant sent an email to the landlord on 3 March 2024 and was forced fix the washer hose with gladwrap and hair ties as she could not afford the price of a new hose and the washer was draining all over the laundry floor.

The tenant says the landlord did not respond to the email and nothing done up to the time the tenant left the tenancy.

The landlord proved it responded to her email on 7 March 2024 and forwarded the tenant’s 3 and 7 March 2024 emails to the owner the same day.

The landlord could not provide any evidence of these things being remedied.

I am satisfied that the tenant raised her concerns and that 11 weeks 4 days was not a reasonable timeframe for her to wait for the issue to be remedied in all the circumstances.

I award the tenant compensation, in the form of a rent rebate for the period 3 March 2024 to 23 May 2024 at $20 per week. This is a total of $231.43.

I also award the tenant $20.00 to replace the hose the contractors damaged while carrying out the laundry wall repair. Breach of healthy homes standards

Mapuna Mitchell claims that the landlord has 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). Mapuna Mitchell considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. 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; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

The parties produced two healthy homes reports. The landlord’s report dated 8 November 2022 stated the premise was fully compliant and tenant’s one dated 11 November 2023 showed it was not compliant. The tenant also had a building report completed in November 2023 that sates the house is not compliant with the standards.

In this case I have determined that, regardless of the discrepancies between the healthy homes reports, the landlord is a registered social housing provider and the rent of $152.00 per week is well under market rate for that reason. The landlord has a statutory obligation to ensure the premise was healthy homes compliant by 1 July 2024. The tenancy ended on 23 May 2024, prior to the requirement for the landlord to meet all of the standards. For that reason, the tenant has failed to meet the burden of proof for her claim and her claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages for s45(1) of the RTA breaches

I have found that the landlord has committed 2 intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) of the RTA. These breaches resulted in the tenant and her family living in living conditions that were unhealthy and they experienced considerable periods of stress, inconvenience, and loss of the amenities the tenant was paying rent to enjoy. The landlord did not offer any rent relief to the tenant at these times.

I find the landlord has committed 2 unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, not only failing to offer the tenant a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity.

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.

I am satisfied it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $1,200.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being one eighth of the maximum penalty available. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because both parties have substantially succeeded with their claims I have reimbursed the filing fee to both parties. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.

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 landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930543 — net $1,613.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$253.00		Carpet cleaning
Skip bin from November 2023	$350.00		Skip bin from November 2023
Repairs: Clean, sand and repaint walls, doors and	$1,443.25		Repairs: Clean, sand and repaint walls, doors and
clean windows from felt pens graffiti	$1,006.25		clean windows from felt pens graffiti
Repairs: Holes in walls and burnt shelf	$966.00		Repairs: Holes in walls and burnt shelf
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Leak under house and drainage		$197.14	Leak under house and drainage
rent rebate		$242.86	rent rebate
Compensation: Windows not draught stopped in		$231.43	Windows not draught stopped in
lounge and children's bedroom (28 February to 23		$20.00	lounge and children's bedroom (28 February to 23
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,200.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$4,072.50	$1,891.43
Net award	$1,613.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,613.07