How much money was awarded in case 4935473?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935473?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935473?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4935473?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935473?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935473?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10699979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Finlow Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4935473 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4935473 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

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

The landlord is ordered to destroy all photographs containing images of the tenant’s personal belongings.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately to [The tenant/s].

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a cross application. Both parties attended the hearing. Erika Botica and Sonja Nola appeared on behalf of the Zderich Trust. The tenant’s application was amended by consent of Erika Botica and Sonja Nola to join Erika Botica and Sonja Nola as the respondent parties.

The tenancy in question began on 31 October 2019. On 21 June 2022, the landlord gave the tenant 95 days notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive alterations were needed.

On 25 July 2022 the tenant gave 28 days notice to end the tenancy and requested that the 28 days be reduced to 21 days. The reduced notice period was not confirmed by the landlord and the tenancy ended on 23 August 2022.

The tenant filed an application with Tenancy Services on 22 December 2023. At the hearing the tenant made the following claims: a. Retaliatory notice, b. Breach of quiet enjoyment, c. Not being released early from tenancy (3 weeks not 4 weeks) d. Landlord failing to maintain premises, (carpet on staircase, mouldy tiles in rumpus room, deteriorating particle board) e. Not being given inspection photos.

Other claims that the tenant raised in her application were not pursued.

The tenant is seeking exemplary damages and moving costs as remedies.

The landlord filed an application with Tenancy Services on 12 July 2024. At the hearing the landlord made the following claims: a. Not leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy; b. Compensation for damages.

Other claims that the landlord had raised in their application were not pursued. Tenant’s Claims Retaliatory notice

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must file an application with the Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the notice and must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “RTA”).

The landlord served the tenant with a termination notice on 21 June 2022. The tenant’s application to the Tribunal was made on 22 December 2023. This exceeds the 28 day statutory timeframe and for this reason this claim of the tenant’s fails for being out of time.

Because the tenant’s claim for moving costs connects to her application for Retaliatory Notice and that claim is dismissed, there is no claim to which this remedy could attach. Exemplary damages for breaching quiet and enjoyment and failing to maintain the premises

The tenant claims the landlord breached her quiet enjoyment by: a. Pulling all the vegetation out of a garden in January 2022, b. Being nasty and horrible by text and in person when dealing with maintenance issues during the tenancy ending in August 2022, c. The landlord standing on their rights to issue notices to remove unconsented minor changes that had allegedly not been an issue beforehand, and to conduct methamphetamine tests during the tenancy, and d. Taking photographs of the tenant’s personal belongings and clothing inside cupboards and wardrobes during routine inspections conducted in January 2022 and May 2022.

Section 109 of the RTA concerns exemplary damages and includes the following: 109Unlawful acts ... (2)A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a)12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.

As stated above, the tenant’s application to the Tenancy Tribunal was filed on 22 December 2023, more than twelve months after the commission of each alleged breach. For this reason the claims for exemplary damages are out of time for exemplary damages to be awarded, and are dismissed, see RTA section 109(2)(b).

Having said that, I do not find that the first three of the tenant’s claims for breach of quiet enjoyment would have succeeded. As nothing is at stake I am not incline to enter into discussion on these claims.

The tenant’s fourth claim for breach of quiet enjoyment involves the landlord taking photographs of the inside of wardrobes and cupboards and recording the tenant’s personal belongings and effects. The landlord states the photographs were to record the condition of hinges on the wardrobe and cupboard doors. Many of the photographs do not support this assertion; many of the photographs show the tenant’s personal belongings and do not show hinges or locks at all. The hinges if functioning adequately would not usually be photographed in any case.

I find that this breach of quiet enjoyment is proved. 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 produced a video which shows the premises to have been cleaned to a very high standard at the end of the tenancy, including cleaning the windows to a high standard. From the tenant’s oral evidence it was apparent she took pride in the condition that she returned the property in.

The landlord claims there were exceptions to the high standard; for example the landlord claims the tenant did not return the gardens in a reasonably tidy condition. The landlord produced photographs of four black plastic rubbish bags with weeds in them, and an invoice for one hour of work at $70.00 + GST.

The landlord did not have any photographs from the beginning of the tenancy, or photographs showing the condition of the gardens not being reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy. For these reasons I find the information in support of the claim is insufficient to prove the claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord claims that the tenant caused three holes in the floor tiles and two holes in the ceiling of the rumpus room. The landlord produced photographs of the tiles with the holes having been filled by their maintenance person, and photographs of the ceiling repair that the tenant had undertaken. The landlord claims that the ceiling repairs required a further sand and paint.

The landlord claims that the tenant caused damage to the master bedroom door. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy of the door with the veneer rippling in two places. The landlord opined that this was caused by condensation which came from the fish tank that the tenant had in her bedroom, and because the tenant may have kept her door closed a lot, and because the tenant may not have used the DVR system. The landlord attributed the same causes to the windowsill in the same bedroom that had a crack in it and was partially rotten.

The tenant refuted the landlord’s claims of causation as speculation. She also claimed that the windowsill was cracked from the beginning of the tenancy and claimed the landlord knew that. The tenant also stated that she hadn’t paid much attention to the veneer on the door as it was on the inside and she considered it minor and rarely saw it.

The landlord produced an invoice for repairs to the windowsill and door, but no pre-tenancy photographs. The landlord explained that the tenancy was set up and managed initially by a separate property management company. The landlord stated they had attempted to get the start of tenancy photographs from the property management company but had not succeeded.

Without pre-tenancy photographs the landlord has failed to satisfy me, against the forceful oral submissions from the tenant, that the damage to the floor tiles, the door and the windowsill was caused during the tenancy.

The tenant claims that the photographs of the ceiling show it to have been properly repaired.

I cannot see from the photographs that any further repairs are needed.

The landlord claims that tenant damaged blinds at the premises. Photographs were produced showing a cloth with some mould on it wiped from the blind and a bent blind. A $430.75 bank statement record from 2019 for new blinds was produced and an invoice for $515.00 for new blinds.

The tenant stated that one blind was replaced during the tenancy and none of the blinds were new at the beginning of the tenancy.

There was disagreement between the parties regarding which blinds were replaced and when.

Again, there are no start of tenancy photographs to reliably illustrate the condition of the blinds at the start of the tenancy. The photographs produced of the blinds at the end of the tenancy show the blinds to be in used condition, but nothing has been presented to indicated that the blinds have been carelessly used and damaged. The landlord is disadvantaged in that they weren’t present at the inception of the tenancy. Name suppression and filing fee

The tenant has applied for name suppression.

The tenant in this case has not been substantially successful with her claim. To some extent this is due to statutory limitations. I accept that the tenant has interests that lie in favour of name suppression being ordered, and I am satisfied there are no interests in favour of the tenant’s name being published that outweigh these interests.

I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying particulars pursuant to the RTA, section 95A(4).

No order for reimbursement of the filing fees is made.

Order

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

The landlord is ordered to destroy all photographs containing images of the tenant’s personal belongings.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately to [The tenant/s].

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy in question began on 31 October 2019. On 21 June 2022, the landlord gave the tenant 95 days notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive alterations were needed.

Other claims that the tenant raised in her application were not pursued.

The tenant is seeking exemplary damages and moving costs as remedies.

Other claims that the landlord had raised in their application were not pursued. Tenant’s Claims Retaliatory notice

I find that this breach of quiet enjoyment is proved. Landlord’s claims

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenant claims that the photographs of the ceiling show it to have been properly repaired.

I cannot see from the photographs that any further repairs are needed.

The tenant stated that one blind was replaced during the tenancy and none of the blinds were new at the beginning of the tenancy.

There was disagreement between the parties regarding which blinds were replaced and when.

The tenant has applied for name suppression.

I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying particulars pursuant to the RTA, section 95A(4).

No order for reimbursement of the filing fees is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935473 — Mould & damp at 19 Finlow Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935473 — Mould & damp at 19 Finlow Drive, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions