What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933855 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4933855?

Compensation: Failure to keep record…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waste Master: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,005.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933855?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11629398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933855 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4933855?

Compensation: Failure to keep record…: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waste Master: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,005.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933855?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11629398-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Magellan Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933855 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933855 — net $5,346.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,005.71		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: waste master		$75.00	waste master
Compensation: Rubbish removal at beginning of		$50.00	Rubbish removal at beginning of
Exemplary damages: S60AA		$2,000.00	S60AA
Exemplary damages: Failure to Maintain		$4,000.00	Failure to Maintain
Compensation: Failure to keep records		$200.00	Failure to keep records
Total award	$1,005.71	$6,352.00
Net award		$5,346.29
Bond		$2,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,346.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933855 — net $5,346.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,005.71		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: waste master		$75.00	waste master
Compensation: Rubbish removal at beginning of		$50.00	Rubbish removal at beginning of
Exemplary damages: S60AA		$2,000.00	S60AA
Exemplary damages: Failure to Maintain		$4,000.00	Failure to Maintain
Compensation: Failure to keep records		$200.00	Failure to keep records
Total award	$1,005.71	$6,352.00
Net award		$5,346.29
Bond		$2,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$5,346.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details. The tenancy address may be published.
The names of the witnesses are also suppressed. The witnesses may be referred to by initials in any published decision and their employment details may be published.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $5,346.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

This cross application has been in front of the Tribunal for some time. There were four hearings from September 2024 to February 2025. The last full hearing day was on the 11 February 2025. I apologise to the parties in the delay in getting this decision out to them.
After the hearing on the 28 November 2024, I made a full adjournment order making determinations on some claims and setting out the parties’ position and evidence, as of that date, in respect of the other claims. I refer to that order and do not intend to repeat the background and determinations contained in that order except for the purposes of summarising the orders made. The order of 28 November 2024 should be treated as being part of this order.
At the hearing on the 11 February, [The tenant/s] and [The landlord’s representatives] for [The landlord/s] were present. I also heard from the following witnesses: a. SM, Compliance Officer, Auckland Council. b. DK, Senior Compliance Officer, Auckland Council. c. RG, Planning Information Advisor, Auckland Council. d. VM- builder. e. MP, Consultant. f. JD – sales agent LJ Hooker. g. SP – former property manager. The claims to be adjudicated.
The landlord’s claims are: a. Rent arrears $1097.1 (determined in the order 28 November 2024 as $1005.71) 1 b. Cleaning - $301.30 (withdrawn at hearing on the February) c. Repair/ Blind costs $189.75. d. A claim for stress as a result of these proceedings $4500 plus GST. e. Filing fee 1 See paragraph 14 of the decision of the 28 November 2024.
The tenant claims. a. That the premises are unlawful residential premises as there are two dwellings and the landlords were not supposed to be able to lawfully rent out both the upstairs and downstairs as separate dwellings. b. That the landlord failed to comply with the Building Act 2004 and therefore breached s 45(1)(c) RTA. c. That the landlord failed to keep proper rent records and give receipt for rent. (Determined in order dated 28 November of a breach of s30 RTA $200.00 awarded, failure to give receipt for rent dismissed). d. That the landlord failed to maintain the property- s45(1)(b) RTA. e. That the landlord failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and made false statements in the tenancy agreement. (Determined in order dated 28 November 2024, breach of s13 but no award of exemplary damages as outside time). f. That the landlord sought to terminate the tenancy without grounds (s60AA RTA). g. That the landlord misrepresented the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. h. That the landlord did not pay compensation for cleaning and agreed work. i. The filing fee.

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it must not make an order for rent arrears or compensation against the tenant unless, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, it would be unjust not to make the order.
The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
The tenant claims that the premises are unlawful residential premises as per s78A of the RTA, because the landlord was not able to lawfully rent out both the upper part of the house and the bottom part as two separate premises and in particular: a. That no building consent was obtained pursuant to s115 of the Building Act to change the use of the property. b. That no building consent was obtained to remove the stairs and close the space where the stairs had been. c. That the resource consent required fire protection and acoustic cladding to be installed which had not occurred.
The previous owners of the property [Previous owner 1] were granted a resource consent on the 10 August 2015 to have the top half of the house as one dwelling and the bottom half as a minor dwelling.
As part of the resource consent, plans were submitted. These plans showed the removal of the internal stairwell and required further cladding be added for fire protection and for acoustic (sound proofing). 2
The landlord says that all this work was before it purchased the property, and it has been previously rented to two different lots of people (by previous owners). The landlord said that they thought that as they had a final resource consent then they had a major and minor dwelling and were lawfully able to rent out both properties to two separate households. The landlord pays rates for minor and major dwelling.
All of the witnesses who gave evidence on this point agreed that the removal of the stairs should have required a building consent if that work was done after 2004. The application and granting of a resource consent (to convert to two dwellings) does take the place of building consents. If building consents were necessary for the work that was required to be done to fulfil the requirements of the resource consent, then those building consents should have been applied for and obtained before the work was done. The removal of the stairs should have required a building consent. The difficulty is that we do not know precisely when the stairs were removed.
[Previous owner 1] (whose director was [Name redacted]) was the owner of the property when it received resource consent in August 2015. Since the resource consent was granted the ownership of the property has changed at least 3 times. It has been owned by [Previous owner 2], and later by [The landlord’s representative] and another and then again to the current ownership of [The landlord’s representatives]. [The landlord’s representative] was a shareholder and director in [Previous owner 2]. (She is not a current director). [Previous owner 2] is a company and therefore a separate legal entity. 3 [Name redacted] who is 2 See plan A03 dated June 2015. 3 The company is currently note operating and has been removed from the Companies Office Register. not a current owner of the property is a shareholder and director of [Previous owner 2] with [The landlord’s representative].
There is no doubt that a final resource consent was granted on the 10 August 2015 This allowed the building to be separated into a major and minor dwelling. The questions for determination therefore are: a. Did the failure to install the acoustic cladding as per the plans submitted to council render the resource consent granted invalid and therefore makes the premises unlawful? b. Does the lack of building consents for the removal of the stairs and the building consent for the change of use pursuant to s115 render the premises unlawful? Did the failure to install the acoustic cladding as per the plans submitted to Council render the resource consent granted invalid and therefore makes the premises unlawful?
The tenants say that the acoustic and fire protection cladding was not installed as per the resource consent.
The tenants have said that the acoustic and fire protection cladding have not been installed. Whilst it appears that the cladding remains unchanged since the 2015, I cannot say one way or the other as none of the witnesses could tell me definitively if the cladding meets the standards in the resource consent. 4 In any case, I am satisfied that the issuing of a final resource consent should be taken, on the face of it, that the conditions in the resource consent have been fulfilled and that Council’s requirements for the resource consent have been met. 5 It is not the Tribunal’s role to determine whether or not the resource consent should have been granted by the territorial authority or if the conditions were met. Once the resource consent has been granted then it can be lawfully used as a minor and major dwelling.
Therefore, the premises occupied by these tenants are lawfully able to be occupied for residential purposes. This ‘part’ of the house has always been used for residential purposes. A resource consent was obtained to divide the house into two separate lawful dwellings. The landlord pays rates on a major and minor dwelling. 4 To determine that would require invasive testing. 5 It is noted that there is on Council file an email between Council and [Previous owner 1] agent date 7 August 2015 where the agent confirms acceptance of all of Council’s conditions. Does the lack of building consents for the removal of the stairs and the building consent for the change of use pursuant to s115 render the premises unlawful?
The tenants obtained a LIM report for the property, the LIM shows that no building consents have been obtained pursuant to s115 of the Building Act 2004 for the change of use of the property nor for the removal of the stairs.
Compliance with the Building Act 2004 is required by the owner 6 who completes the works 7 . There is no requirement on subsequent owners to obtain consent for unconsented work unless that work is dangerous or insanitary.
All the witnesses who gave evidence on this point were united in their understanding, that if unconsented building work is carried out then Council can only issue an abatement notice or notice to fix to the person who carried out the unconsented works (i.e the owner of the property at the time).
If the unconsented works were carried out by a previous owner, then Council lose their ability to issue a Notice to Fix. All Council can do in respect of unconsented building work that is carried out by previous owners of the property is note that unconsented work on Council files and conduct an inspection. If the property is unsafe (dangerous) or insanity (as those terms are defined in the Building Act) then Council can require the current owners to remedy or fix the problem, but if the works are not unsafe or insanitary then Council has no ability to require the current owners to fix the problem. There is no ability for a new owner to obtain a retrospective building consent for work that was undertaken before they owned the property. However, an owner can obtain a certificate of acceptance pursuant to s96 of the Building Act 2004. Council can issue a certificate of acceptance only if it is satisfied, to the best of its knowledge and belief and on reasonable grounds, that, insofar as it could ascertain, the building work complies with the building code)8
Council have inspected the property, and they did not deem the changes (the stairs being removed) as dangerous or insanitary and therefore no notice to fix can be issued.
The tenants say that the current owners, have at most times since 2016 had some involvement as owners or property managers of the property, therefore they had an obligation under s45(1)(c) to ensure that all building consents had been obtained. Whilst it is true that [The landlord’s representative] has for the most part 6 Owner is defined in s7 of the Building Act 2004, and does not include future or prospective owners in title. 7 See s14B of the Building Act 2004, which makes it clear that it is the owner’s responsibilities to ensure that work that requires consent is consented. 8 Section 96 (2) Building Act 2024. had a share in ownership either of the property or shareholding in a company that owns the property, this ownership has not been by one entity but many entities.
The tenants also say that the work must have been done after 2017 because sales photographs of the property, which can be found by searching the property are dated 2017 and show the stairs in the property. Even if this is the case, then between 2017 and 2020 [Previous owner 2] owned the property not these current owners.
As I am not satisfied that the current owners / landlords were the owners of the property at the time that the works were completed, then they cannot be in breach in s45(1)(c) RTA, (because they can’t comply with the Building Act retrospectively) and therefore the premises are not rendered unlawful by the lack of building consents for the removal of the stairs and change of use.
As Council has not issued a notice to fix, then the current owners are not in breach of the Building Act and correspondingly are not in breach of s45(1)(c) RTA.
As there is no breach of s45(1)(c) RTA then I am satisfied that this property is lawfully able to be used as a residential tenancy, as the landlord would not be in breach of any legislative requirement by renting the top storey and the bottom storey out as two separate premises. Observations
I note that the purposes of the Building Act and the purposes of s78A RTA are in alignment, both pieces of legislation are to ensure houses are safe and that any work completed at the property complies with the Building Code. It goes against the spirit of both Acts, that a change of ownership resolves unconsented work that does not meet the dangerous or unsanitary threshold but may nevertheless be below standards or code. While it is not a requirement of the Building Act, I would urge these owners and all other owners of properties where unconsented building work has been completed to obtain a Certificate of Acceptance to ensure that the building is safe, especially if tenants are living in the property.
I also note that whilst the tenants were concerned about these issues that they were not ‘discovered’ until after the tenancy ended acrimoniously. Even if I had found that the premises were unlawful, I would not have been minded to make any refund of any rent because the tenants suffered no loss, and the landlords had a genuine belief, formed from paying rates on two separate dwellings that they were able to rent out these premises separately.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises during the tenancy?

Section 45(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition having regard to the age and character of the property.
The tenants claim that there were the following problems at the tenancy: • that at the beginning of the tenancy there was ceiling mould in the property. • that there was a blocked guttering causing ceiling mould, leaking guttering especially in the outdoor patio causing wet and slippery flooring, broken downpipe which was still not fixed by the end of the tenancy. • that cracked broken showerhead fitting was not delivered was reported on 23 June but was not delivered until 30 June and that the tenants had to fit the showerhead themselves. This was a problem because there was only one shower at the property. • that there were no bulbs in the rangehood from the oven from start to end the Tenancy, • that there was no working light in the laundry until the end of the tenancy. • There was no waste master for 2 1/2 months of the tenancy, removed without informing the tenant; • there was broken or old window fastenings preventing windows from closing and there were old window hinges causing the windows not to close property; • That the shower doors rollers were worn out and needed replacement. 9
Having considered all the evidence filed by the parties I am satisfied that the landlord failed to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable condition for the following reasons: • The correspondence between the parties shows that the landlord took far too long to even do the most basic of maintenance items that the tenant’s reported. Examples of this included cleaning the gutters about the kitchen window (which the previous tenants had also complained of) and affixing window latches, so the windows could open and shut properly. • The tenant and the landlord agreed before the tenancy began that the guttering and cracks and holes on the roofing of the decks would be repaired and that the shower door would be fixed. The tenant complained throughout the tenancy that these items had not been completed. • The inspection reports (routine one dated July 2023 notes many of the defects that the tenants complained about). • Many of the items complained of were also the same items (guttering, ceiling mould, window latches), as were complained of by the previous tenant in the property and the Tribunal found that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises over her tenancy as well. 10 9 Tenant’s application. 10 See [Order numbers redacted]. This tenancy ended in 2022, almost a year before this tenancy began.
Breaching s45(1)(b) RTA 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. I find the landlord 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.
I am satisfied that the landlords committed the unlawful act intentionally because they were aware from correspondence from both this tenant and the former tenant of all these issues. I have paid particular attention to the breach in respect of the mould on the ceiling, window latches and the guttering issues which were exactly the same as those complained of by the previous tenant. In respect of the guttering this tenant raised this issue on many occasions, repairs that were done by the landlord were inadequate and the tenant advised the landlord when they failed.
I have awarded the tenant $4000.00 in exemplary damages this takes into account. a. The number of issues that were complained of and not repaired. Most of these were minor fixes in of themselves, but they represented an ongoing inconvenience to the tenants over the time that they lived in the property. b. That this is the second award of exemplary damages made by the Tribunal in respect of this property for many of these items. Exemplary damages should be a deterrent and the Tribunal usually takes into account previous awards made against landlords. c. The quantum of the award must reflect the public interest that tenants have safe warm, dry homes and that landlord’s comply with their obligations under the RTA. d. The tenants say that they had to continually ask for items to be done, they then had to engage with the landlord whilst tradespeople were sent, often nothing came of those visits, and they would have to follow up. This took up the tenant’s time. e. The tenants were unable to use the covered deck when it rained because of the overflowing and broken guttering and holes and cracks in the clear-lite roof. The covered deck was a significant feature of the property. It was large and as it was covered it meant that the tenants expected that it could be used to store items and as an area for their children to play. It was also where the tenants washing machine and tub were located. The tenants say that once the deck became wet it was treacherous as it was very slippery. Given the weather over tenancy (2023 was a particularly wet year) they were often unable to use the deck and were very concerned about slipping over when they had to use the deck. It is notable that the tenants say that they had been assured at the beginning of the tenancy that this would be remedied quickly. The tenants provided considerable correspondence which showed that they repeatedly asked the landlord to remedy this problem and the landlord’s own inspection reports note that the guttering and the roofing is defective. Did the landlord breach s60AA by giving the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy?
S 60 AA provides: A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
The landlord gave notice on the 11 September 2023, stating that they required the property at the end of the notice period because they wished to do extensive renovations. The tenant immediately replied and wanted to know what renovations were planned.
The landlord said at the hearing that the extensive renovations was the replacement of the shower.
The landlord did not tell the tenant at the time it gave notice that they wished to replace the shower. The tenant enquired what the nature of renovations but did not receive an answer. The tenant says that the landlord did not intend to replace the shower (only the shower rollers for the doors) when it gave notice.
A notice to terminate a tenancy must be valid in process and in substance. In other words, the landlord must follow the correct procedure and meet the requirements for the reasons set out in s51 RTA.
Section 51 RTA (as it was at the time that the notice was given) 11 required a 90 day notice to be given to the tenant if the landlord is going to carry out extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be and— (i)it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii)the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date; or 11 S51 has recently been amended.
The tenant says that a shower replacement is not extensive, and it would have been reasonably practicable to remain in occupation whilst this work was being carried out.
In TT 4318147 12 The Tribunal said: Under section 51(2)(f) of the Act it is necessary to show that the alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, whichever is applicable, are “extensive”. This question must be considered in the context of whether it is reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken. Works that require the tenant to move out are, by their nature, likely to be extensive. At the same time, an issue that requires the tenant to move out temporarily for a short period, for example for 1 day for plumbing work to be undertaken in a kitchen or bathroom, may not be extensive. Each case will have to be determined on its particular facts and in light of the nature, extent, and effect of the intended work.
In the above case where the landlord gave notice to the tenant to complete work on both the bathroom and the kitchen, the adjudicator found that the works were extensive because they would take up to three weeks to complete. The adjudicator further noted that even though the tenant had relatives he could live with over this time, that did not change the test that was to be applied which was an objective test as to whether it was reasonably practical to the allow the tenants to remain in the property whilst the work was being carried out.
Having considered all the evidence provided by both parties I am satisfied at the time of giving the notice that the landlord did not intend for extensive renovations to take place and therefore there is a breach of s60AA I say this for the following reasons: a. The landlord gave evidence that they wanted to investigate the issues with the shower and leaks in the bathroom, and then decide on a course of action. I do not consider that those investigations could not have been done whilst the tenants were place. I also note that SP emailed the tenants on the 27 September 2023 and told them – “The owners have said that their plan is to do renovations with the possibility of placing the property on the market. This is not certain, but it is something that they decide to do.” That statement is the best evidence of the landlord’s intention at the time. It is clear that the landlord was not sure what it was going to do when it gave notice, and therefore they could have been certain or not whether the works were extensive or would require the tenant to move. b. The replacement shower was completed in less than a week. I do not consider this work extensive, the definition of extensive in the Oxford Dictionary is “covering or affecting a large area” and in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as “having wide or considerable extent”, I do not consider one lot 12 Landlord v Tenant TT 4318147, 8 November 2021. of works to one room in a house, which will only take maybe 3 days to do to be extensive. The replacement of the shower box is neither extensive in time to repair or in nature. c. The landlord did not replace the broken shower head for a week, during that time the tenants could not shower properly. The landlord cannot say on one hand that it was reasonable for the tenants to wait one week for the shower head to be fixed/ replaced and then claim that replacement shower was an extensive renovation. d. Whilst I acknowledge that the tenant’s water may have been turned off. I consider that it was reasonably practical for the tenants to be away for that period, for the work to be done and the tenants to come back to the property once the work was done. The tenants gave evidence that they were going overseas at this time and the work could have been carried out then with very little disruption to them.
Breaching s 60AA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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 award the tenant $2000.00 for this breach. This award takes into account the following: a. That the tenants had to move only a year after having previously moved. This was costly and stressful. The tenants did not have a lot of time to find a suitable property within the area that they wanted. They say the next house was smaller and they had to put items into storage. b. The tenants had already planned to be out of the country when their tenancy ended, on a family holiday. Whilst they were able to negotiate to stay longer, this caused much stress, and tainted their holiday plans. c. The purpose of the legislation was to allow tenants stability in their living arrangements without fear of being asked to leave. The award must reflect a deterrence to landlord who seeks to terminate the tenancy without a proper reason. d. It is in the public interest that an award is made. Did the landlord fail to provide chattels (waste master)?
The waste master was present when the tenants viewed the property. It was also noted in the tenancy agreement.
The tenants provided correspondence between the parties that shows when the tenants moved into the property they enquired where the waste master was. The tenants say that they were without a waste master for 2.5 months. It was finally installed on or about the 1 May 2023. 13
I award the sum of $75.00 compensation for the failure to provide a working waste master.

Did the landlord misrepresent the condition of the property?

The tenant has claimed that the landlord misrepresented the condition of the property by assuring her that the guttering and shower would be fixed and that the waste master would be included. These items have been previously addressed under other headings in this decision. I do not need to address them under this heading.

Did the landlord fail to pay compensation for cleaning and agreed work?

The tenant says that the landlord agreed to pay the tenants for cleaning work and rubbish disposal from the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants did extra cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy and also disposed of rubbish left by the previous tenants.
However, there is no written evidence that the landlords agreed to pay for the cleaning and I am not satisfied that the property was provided in an condition that was unclean or untidy.
There was no agreement between the parties that the landlord would pay for rubbish removal. However, I am satisfied that the landlord were in breach of their obligations to remove the rubbish left behind by the previous tenants and these tenants had to dispose of it. I award $50.00 for this breach. 14 The landlord’s outstanding claims.

Did the tenants damage the blinds?

The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the blinds and the carpet. I am not satisfied that the blinds were damaged during the tenancy because in the ingoing report they are noted as being broken (master bedroom) and in average condition and aged condition in other rooms. I consider it more likely that the blinds were damaged before this tenancy or that the blinds broke as a result of usual use. The landlord’s claim for stress and compensation.
A claim for stress and compensation must be linked to a claimed breach. The landlord says this claim was made because of the stress that they were put under 13 That is the date of the invoice for the work. 14 See photograph 150 of the landlord’s ingoing inspection photos which shows the rubbish. by these tenants and in coming to the Tribunal. Whilst I have no doubt that these proceedings have been very stressful on both parties, there is no basis for any compensation. These landlords have been the subject of two very similar claims at the same premises, they should reflect on the claims being made and the way they are managing these properties. In particular they should ensure that outstanding maintenance at the property is carried out in a timely fashion. Name suppression.
As both parties have requested name suppression and have been somewhat successful in their respective applications, and because of the submissions made about the health of one of the landlords, then I grant them both name suppression. However, I allow the address of the property to be published to ensure that future tenants can be made aware of this order. Filing fee
As the tenants have been substantially successful, I award them the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933855 — State of repair at 5 Magellan Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933855 — State of repair at 5 Magellan Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises during the tenancy?

Did the landlord misrepresent the condition of the property?

Did the landlord fail to pay compensation for cleaning and agreed work?

Did the tenants damage the blinds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises during the tenancy?

Did the landlord misrepresent the condition of the property?

Did the landlord fail to pay compensation for cleaning and agreed work?

Did the tenants damage the blinds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions