What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934773 about?

The tribunal order states: Jolinda Regina Van Kralingen and Neil Van Kralingen to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4934773?

Compensation: Tree Trimming: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Cost To Install And Test Dishwasher: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934773?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10799684-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934773 about?

The tribunal order states: Jolinda Regina Van Kralingen and Neil Van Kralingen to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4934773?

Compensation: Tree Trimming: $75.00 awarded to tenant; Cost To Install And Test Dishwasher: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934773?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10799684-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4934773 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934773 — net $374.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cost to install and test dishwasher	$172.50		Cost to install and test dishwasher
Rubbish removal	$150.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: Tree trimming		$75.00	Tree trimming
Total award	$322.50	$75.00
Net award		$374.90
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$374.90

Order

Jolinda Regina Van Kralingen and Neil Van Kralingen to pay [The landlord/s] $247.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $247.50 Jolinda Regina Van Kralingen and Neil Van Kralingen: $2,472.50
The tenants’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Ms C] represented the landlords.
The landlords applied for costs to remove rubbish at the end of the tenancy, the cost to replace the dishwasher door, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 15 June 2024.
The tenants, Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen, cross applied for compensation for breach of the healthy homes standards, failure to repair and maintain the premises, failure to provide the carpets at the premises in a reasonably clean condition, and breach of their right to quiet enjoyment and defamation. The landlords’ claims
The landlords claim the sum of $374.90 to remove rubbish/belongings left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, in particular: tree and hedge clippings, grass clippings, a drum, a hose, two plants (pungas) in pots, 3 wooden pallets, a drum BBQ, and items in the garage. The rubbish removal work was completed by the landlords.
I am not satisfied that the tenants should be liable for the removal of the tree and hedge cuttings given that the trimming of the trees and hedges was work that should have been completed by the landlord (I deal with this issue further below when addressing the tenants’ claims). I also accept Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen’s evidence that the only items left at the premises after they had returned to complete additional work on or before 21 June were the items in the garage, the drum, the hose, and some grass clippings.
In the circumstances I consider the sum of $150.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the removal of these items.
The parties agreed to settle the claim for the damaged dishwasher door as set out in order 2 and by the payment of the sum of $172.50 to the landlords for the installation and testing of the dishwasher supplied by Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen. The tenants’ claims
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen claim that the heating installed in the living room at the premises (a log burner and heat transfer system) does not comply with the healthy homes standards because it is not adequate to heat the entire house, but in particular it does not heat the master bedroom.
However, the landlords’ obligations with respect to heating is to provide a source of heating that is sufficient to heat the living room. The landlord is not obligated to provide heating sufficient to heat the entire house. It is clear from the Healthy Homes Standards report dated 13 May 2022 that the heating provided in the living room is adequate to comply with the standards.
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen also claim that the landlords are in breach of their obligation to repair and maintain the premises with respect to the following: • Cleaning of the gutters • Drainage in the back yard • Holes in the exterior brickwork outside the master bedroom • Trimming of hedges and trees
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. What is a reasonable state of repair is to be assessed according to the age and character of the premises.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once the tenants notified the landlord or the landlord otherwise became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner.
[Ms C] said that the gutters were cleaned out before the tenancy started (on 1 July 2022) and she was unaware that they required further cleaning. She said, and I accept her evidence, that the tenants did not tell her that the gutters required further cleaning and she did not notice any issues with them at regular property inspections. I therefore find that the landlord is not in breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act with respect to the gutters.
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen have not provided sufficient evidence to establish that they told [Ms C] of any issues with drainage of water from an area of concrete at the rear of the property. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the concrete pad as constructed does not comply with the Building Act or Code or the pooling of water on the pad is causing any issues regarding dampness in the house. The claim for compensation for the water pooling on the concrete pad is therefore dismissed.
Some of the gaps in the brickwork outside the master bedroom are ‘weep’ holes designed to allow air flow. There also appears to be small areas, particularly around the bedroom window, where the pointing between the brickwork has come away. However, there is no evidence to support the tenants’ claims that these gaps are the cause of dampness or mould issues they say they had in the bedroom. I note too that the Certificate of Compliance with the draught proofing standards attached to the Healthy Homes report states that the “premises are free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps between and holes in building elements that allow draughts into or out of the premises.” I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord is in breach of any obligation with respect to the gaps in the brickwork or that it requires repair.
I accept the tenants undisputed evidence that they had asked the landlords to trim the hedges and trees, in particular the trees over the driveway, and the landlord failed to do so. They said that they trimmed the trees over the driveway themselves because they were scratching their vehicles. I consider this a breach of the landlords’ obligations in section 45(1)(b) of the Act and order the landlords to pay the tenants compensation of $75.00 for the breach.
I dismiss the claim for compensation for failure by the landlord to provide the carpets in a reasonably clean condition because the matter was remedied by the landlords after the tenants complained of the carpets smelling.
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen’s final claim is for breach of their right to quiet enjoyment and defamation. The quiet enjoyment claim is based on a person, who was apparently the landlord’s landlord under a commercial lease, who came to the premises asking Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen about their tenancy, in particular whether they intend to remain at the premises.
The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2).
I find that Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen have not established that the landlords are in breach of section 38 of the Act. It is clear that neither the landlords nor [Ms C] were aware that the person was intending to visit Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen. Thus, any interruption to Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen’s quiet enjoyment by the visit was not caused by the landlord or by or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.
The claim for defamation is based on an unfavourable reference the tenants say that [Ms C] gave prospective landlords. This claim is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims in defamation. I any event I accept [Ms C’s] evidence that she simply told prospective landlords who contacted her the truth including that she had issued the tenants with a breach notice with respect to cleanliness of the premises during the tenancy. Tribunal application fee
Both parties have been partially successful in their claims. I therefore make no order for payment of the Tribunal application fees paid by each. In other words. I consider it appropriate that each party bears the loss of their own application fee. Suppression
Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for a suppression order.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have been mostly successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ name and identifying details be suppressed.
However, the tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934773 — net $374.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cost to install and test dishwasher	$172.50		Cost to install and test dishwasher
Rubbish removal	$150.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: Tree trimming		$75.00	Tree trimming
Total award	$322.50	$75.00
Net award		$374.90
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$374.90

Order

Jolinda Regina Van Kralingen and Neil Van Kralingen to pay [The landlord/s] $247.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $247.50 Jolinda Regina Van Kralingen and Neil Van Kralingen: $2,472.50
The tenants’ other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Ms C] represented the landlords.
The landlords applied for costs to remove rubbish at the end of the tenancy, the cost to replace the dishwasher door, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 15 June 2024.
The tenants, Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen, cross applied for compensation for breach of the healthy homes standards, failure to repair and maintain the premises, failure to provide the carpets at the premises in a reasonably clean condition, and breach of their right to quiet enjoyment and defamation. The landlords’ claims
The landlords claim the sum of $374.90 to remove rubbish/belongings left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, in particular: tree and hedge clippings, grass clippings, a drum, a hose, two plants (pungas) in pots, 3 wooden pallets, a drum BBQ, and items in the garage. The rubbish removal work was completed by the landlords.
I am not satisfied that the tenants should be liable for the removal of the tree and hedge cuttings given that the trimming of the trees and hedges was work that should have been completed by the landlord (I deal with this issue further below when addressing the tenants’ claims). I also accept Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen’s evidence that the only items left at the premises after they had returned to complete additional work on or before 21 June were the items in the garage, the drum, the hose, and some grass clippings.
In the circumstances I consider the sum of $150.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the removal of these items.
The parties agreed to settle the claim for the damaged dishwasher door as set out in order 2 and by the payment of the sum of $172.50 to the landlords for the installation and testing of the dishwasher supplied by Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen. The tenants’ claims
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen claim that the heating installed in the living room at the premises (a log burner and heat transfer system) does not comply with the healthy homes standards because it is not adequate to heat the entire house, but in particular it does not heat the master bedroom.
However, the landlords’ obligations with respect to heating is to provide a source of heating that is sufficient to heat the living room. The landlord is not obligated to provide heating sufficient to heat the entire house. It is clear from the Healthy Homes Standards report dated 13 May 2022 that the heating provided in the living room is adequate to comply with the standards.
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen also claim that the landlords are in breach of their obligation to repair and maintain the premises with respect to the following: • Cleaning of the gutters • Drainage in the back yard • Holes in the exterior brickwork outside the master bedroom • Trimming of hedges and trees
Section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. What is a reasonable state of repair is to be assessed according to the age and character of the premises.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is also relevant. It requires the tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs to the premises. Thus, once the tenants notified the landlord or the landlord otherwise became aware of the need for repairs, the obligation in section 45(1)(b) requires those repairs to be attended to in a timely manner.
[Ms C] said that the gutters were cleaned out before the tenancy started (on 1 July 2022) and she was unaware that they required further cleaning. She said, and I accept her evidence, that the tenants did not tell her that the gutters required further cleaning and she did not notice any issues with them at regular property inspections. I therefore find that the landlord is not in breach of section 45(1)(b) of the Act with respect to the gutters.
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen have not provided sufficient evidence to establish that they told [Ms C] of any issues with drainage of water from an area of concrete at the rear of the property. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the concrete pad as constructed does not comply with the Building Act or Code or the pooling of water on the pad is causing any issues regarding dampness in the house. The claim for compensation for the water pooling on the concrete pad is therefore dismissed.
Some of the gaps in the brickwork outside the master bedroom are ‘weep’ holes designed to allow air flow. There also appears to be small areas, particularly around the bedroom window, where the pointing between the brickwork has come away. However, there is no evidence to support the tenants’ claims that these gaps are the cause of dampness or mould issues they say they had in the bedroom. I note too that the Certificate of Compliance with the draught proofing standards attached to the Healthy Homes report states that the “premises are free from unintentional and unreasonable gaps between and holes in building elements that allow draughts into or out of the premises.” I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord is in breach of any obligation with respect to the gaps in the brickwork or that it requires repair.
I accept the tenants undisputed evidence that they had asked the landlords to trim the hedges and trees, in particular the trees over the driveway, and the landlord failed to do so. They said that they trimmed the trees over the driveway themselves because they were scratching their vehicles. I consider this a breach of the landlords’ obligations in section 45(1)(b) of the Act and order the landlords to pay the tenants compensation of $75.00 for the breach.
I dismiss the claim for compensation for failure by the landlord to provide the carpets in a reasonably clean condition because the matter was remedied by the landlords after the tenants complained of the carpets smelling.
Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen’s final claim is for breach of their right to quiet enjoyment and defamation. The quiet enjoyment claim is based on a person, who was apparently the landlord’s landlord under a commercial lease, who came to the premises asking Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen about their tenancy, in particular whether they intend to remain at the premises.
The right to quiet enjoyment is found in section 38 of the Act. Section 38(1) provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord, or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2).
I find that Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen have not established that the landlords are in breach of section 38 of the Act. It is clear that neither the landlords nor [Ms C] were aware that the person was intending to visit Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen. Thus, any interruption to Mr Van Kralingen and Ms Van Kralingen’s quiet enjoyment by the visit was not caused by the landlord or by or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.
The claim for defamation is based on an unfavourable reference the tenants say that [Ms C] gave prospective landlords. This claim is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims in defamation. I any event I accept [Ms C’s] evidence that she simply told prospective landlords who contacted her the truth including that she had issued the tenants with a breach notice with respect to cleanliness of the premises during the tenancy. Tribunal application fee
Both parties have been partially successful in their claims. I therefore make no order for payment of the Tribunal application fees paid by each. In other words. I consider it appropriate that each party bears the loss of their own application fee. Suppression
Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for a suppression order.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have been mostly successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ name and identifying details be suppressed.
However, the tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their claims. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934773 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934773 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions