How much money was awarded in case 4945567?

Rubbish Removal: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains (After Depreciation: $93.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,540.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet (After Depreciation: $1,966.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Heater: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $94.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945567?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4945567?

Rubbish Removal: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains (After Depreciation: $93.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $35.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,540.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet (After Depreciation: $1,966.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Heater: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $94.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945567?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945567?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4945567 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945567 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 4945567 — net $2,909.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/07/2024	$3,540.00		Rent arrears to 31/07/2024
Water rates	$94.54		Water rates
Cleaning: Including rubbish removal	$750.00		Cleaning: Including rubbish removal
Replace carpet (after depreciation	$1,966.25		Replace carpet (after depreciation
Curtains (after depreciation	$93.75		Curtains (after depreciation
Pest control	$250.00		Pest control
Light bulbs	$35.00		Light bulbs
Replace furnishings: Heater	$80.00		Replace furnishings: Heater
Exemplary damages: No working smoke alrms		$2,400.00	No working smoke alrms
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain		$1,500.00	Failing to maintain
Total award	$6,809.54	$3,900.00
Net award	$2,909.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,909.54

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,909.54 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,909.54 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $270.46 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 th October 2024.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant made a cross-application for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations, unlawful entry, retaliatory notice and unlawful discrimination.

I consider the landlord’s application first.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 31 st July 2024.

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Rent of $3,540.00 and water rates of $94.54 were owing at the end.

The tenant did not dispute these amounts.

I order the tenant to pay the amounts owing accordingly. Compensation claims

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

For damage claims, the 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 Tribunal must consider 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. 4945567, 50333123

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There were 4 light bulbs missing also.

The tenant had dogs in the premises and as a result the carpet and curtains had to be replaced and pest control had to be called. Although there were some stains on the carpet from the beginning of the tenancy, the carpet was stained significantly more at the end of the tenancy. I find that the damage was caused carelessly.

I order the tenant to pay the landlord the amounts ordered above.

The landlord sought $250.00 to fix the shower glass. The tenant said that it came off from the hinge through normal use. I find that this was fair wear and tear. I dismiss this claim.

The landlord sought $1,980.00 to partially renovate the kitchen cabinet and to fix the stair handrail. From the photos, I find that the kitchen cabinet damage was no more than fair wear and tear and the handrail was simply re-attached. I dismiss this claim.

The parties agreed that there was a heater that had been provided by the landlord to the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord said that it was not there at the final inspection. The tenant said that it was left behind for the landlord.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proven this claim. Landlord sought $200.00 as replacement cost. As the heater had been dropped off to the tenants on 5 th November 2022, I calculate the value remaining after depreciation would be $80.00. I order the tenant to pay the landlord this amount as compensation. Landlord’s dismissed claims

The landlord sought compensation for mental distressed caused by the tenant’s flatmate.

There is no provision under the RTA to provide this. I dismiss this claim.

The landlord also sought compensation of $2,520.00 for the loss of use of the premises due to the delays caused by the tenant not allowing the landlord’s handyman to inspect the premises.

The landlord had emailed the tenant asking for access for the handyman to go and measure the premises for repair work. The tenant said that this was done on the week of a tangi and that there was no urgent repairs and maintenance required.

I am not satisfied that the purpose of the entry was for any of the reasons specified under section 48 RTA. I accept that it was only to prepare the premises for the subsequent occupancy of the landlord’s family. 4945567, 50333124

Therefore, I decline to award any amount for the tenant’s refusal to allow the landlord’s handyman to enter.

The landlord said that the tenant had smoked weed at the premises. However, the landlord was unable to prove this claim with evidence.

These claims are dismissed. Tenant’s cross-application

Now I turn to the tenant’s cross-application.

The tenant claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, and comply with HHS.

Breaching any of these 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 RTA.

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) RTA. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair

The tenant claimed that the sink, toilet and the shower got blocked when it rained. In November 2022, the extractor fan leaked water and water dropped onto the lower floor bathroom.

The property management company did not know whether the landlord had ever sent any plumbers to have this issue addressed.

The tenant said that the landlord only told them to use Drano to address the plumbing issue. The plumbing issue continued until the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided photos and videos as evidence.

I am satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord had failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

I am satisfied that this failure was intentional, and this has resulted in the tenant living with substantial plumbing issues. I find that there is public interest in awarding exemplary damages.

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $1,500.00 as exemplary damages. 4945567, 50333125 Failure to comply with HHS

The tenant claimed that the premises was not complaint with HHS. The tenant claimed that there was no insulation and no extractor fan in the bathroom or the kitchen. However, the landlord provided HHs report noting that the premises was compliant.

The tenant said that the heater was not working but there was no evidence of the tenant ever notifying the landlord that the heater was not working.

I do not find that the tenant has proven this claim. This claim is dismissed. Failure to comply with smoke alarm regulations

The tenant claimed that the none of the 5 smoke alarms at the premises was compliant with the smoke alarm regulations.

The tenant provided photos to prove that all 5 smoke alarms were not working. Only 1 of the 5 alarms had a working battery but the alarm was past its expiry date.

3 of the smoke alarms were made in 2010 and expired in 2020. One was produced in 2017 but had no battery in it.

The landlord did not do any checks on the smoke alarms despite being a “property management company”. The landlord said that they will “touch it” next time which proved that they did not do any testing at all for this tenancy.

This is a serious breach of the landlord’s smoke alarm obligations. The consequences could have been fatal.

There is public interest in denouncing this conduct.

I order the landlord to pay the tenant $2,400.00 in exemplary damages. Unlawful entry

The tenant claimed the landlord had entered the premises without consent or notice.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA. 4945567, 50333126

The tenant claimed that the tenant did not receive proper notice of entry. However, it seems that at least one of the tenants did receive the notice and gave permission for the landlord.

Although not ideal, not all tenants have to give the landlord permission for entry. It is sufficient for at least one of the tenants to be notified.

Therefore, I find that the landlord has not committed any unlawful entry. This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice

On 29 th May 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy in 63 days. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.

For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant 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) RTA.

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The termination notice came 3 days after the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord. In the 14-day notice, the tenant stated that the landlord had breached HHS and sought $10,000.00 as compensation, $2,000.00 for moving costs, $8,400.00 refund of the rent, $2,394.00 as compensation for general non- maintenance, and $5,000.00 for discriminatory/racial profiling/racism.

The termination notice was based on the landlord’s niece coming to New Zealand from China to stay. It is not disputed that the niece actually moved in afterwards.

I do not find that the termination notice was given in retaliation. I find that the reason for the termination was genuine. I also find that most of the amounts sought by the tenant in the “14-day notice” were unreasonable.

I dismiss the retaliatory notice claim. Unlawful discrimination

The tenant claims that the landlord discriminated against them.

A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) RTA. 4945567, 50333127

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant said that the landlord was treating one particular tenant as the “head tenant” and basically only spoke in Chinese to that tenant via WeChat.

Therefore, the other two tenants did not always get the correspondence the “head tenant” got. The tenants felt that this was discriminatory.

Although unprofessional, I do not find that it was unlawful discrimination. All 3 tenants were tenants with the same rights, and it was simply a case where the landlord preferred to speak in Chinese due to language barrier.

The tenant said that the property manager said in WeChat “I don’t want to meet the Māori woman”. The property manager explained that the Māori woman was not one of the three tenants and that they did not want to communicate with her as a result. The property manager explained that it was not due to her being Māori.

I do not find that the landlord had unlawfully discriminated against the tenants.

This claim is dismissed.

As it cannot be said that any party has wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims, I do not order any party to reimburse the other party’s filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945567 — net $2,909.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31/07/2024	$3,540.00		Rent arrears to 31/07/2024
Water rates	$94.54		Water rates
Cleaning: Including rubbish removal	$750.00		Cleaning: Including rubbish removal
Replace carpet (after depreciation	$1,966.25		Replace carpet (after depreciation
Curtains (after depreciation	$93.75		Curtains (after depreciation
Pest control	$250.00		Pest control
Light bulbs	$35.00		Light bulbs
Replace furnishings: Heater	$80.00		Replace furnishings: Heater
Exemplary damages: No working smoke alrms		$2,400.00	No working smoke alrms
Exemplary damages: Failing to maintain		$1,500.00	Failing to maintain
Total award	$6,809.54	$3,900.00
Net award	$2,909.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,909.54