What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956613?

The tribunal order states: Monju Sarkar must pay Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li $650.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4956613?

Compensation: failure to attend to t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Properly For More Than 3 Years: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956613?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10836704-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4956613?

The tribunal order states: Monju Sarkar must pay Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li $650.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4956613?

Compensation: failure to attend to t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Properly For More Than 3 Years: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956613?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10836704-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

69 Buckley Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4956613 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956613 — net $650.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: garden waste	$250.00		Rubbish removal: garden waste
Window repairs	$350.00		Window repairs
Repairs: stove replacement due to cracked stovetop	$250.00		Repairs: stove replacement due to cracked stovetop
Compensation: failure to attend to the stove issues		$500.00	failure to attend to the stove issues
properly for more than 3 years		$1,000.00	properly for more than 3 years
Total award	$850.00	$1,500.00
Net award		$650.00
Bond		$800.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$650.00

Order

Monju Sarkar must pay Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li $650.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.25 (3511988-014) to Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation for failure to maintain, lack of moisture barrier and reimbursement of time spent in tree pruning over the duration of the 3 year tenancy.

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 landlord seeks costs to repair the fence caused by overgrown banana trees and to dispose of banana trees subsequently cut down by the landlord of $1,945.37 and $145.37 respectively. The landlord accepts that the trees have been there since the start of the tenancy but maintains that she wanted to remove them but the tenant wanted to eat the fruit.
I find that since the banana trees were already there from the start of the tenancy, the obligation to remove them remains the landlord’s. The landlord says that she only realised the trees being overgrown in 2022. I consider that the landlord ought to have removed them on her cost then and not wait until the end of the tenancy two years later in 2024.
The issue concerning the landlord’s claim is not whether the tenant has removed the trees on the property or not. The issue is whether the landlord is obliged to maintain and remove the trees; I consider that the obligation on maintenance and removal of the trees is the landlord’s and the landlord’s alone.
In the circumstances, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for costs to repair the fence caused by overgrown banana trees and to dispose of banana trees subsequently cut down by the landlord.
The landlord also seeks costs to clean and dispose off garden rubbish allegedly left behind by the tenant of $837.33 and $227.50 to removal garden waste to expose the water meter.
The photographs and video evidence adduced indicate that the build up in garden waste accumulated over time; some are the landlord’s responsibility and some of which, the tenant’s. The tenant is responsible to keep the garden tidy along with the lawns.
Taking into account some of the pre-existing garden waste at the start of the tenancy and the accumulation of garden waste over time, I consider that the tenant should pay the landlord $250.00 for removal of garden waste.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: window sill and stove. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Only 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I award the landlord $350.00 for window sill repairs, factoring in depreciation.
I also award the landlord $250.00 for oven replacement due to cracked ceramic top, factoring in depreciation. The oven was 5 years old at the start of the tenancy. In November 2022, the landlord mentioned about the crack to the stovetop by the tenant. There is no evidence to indicate that the crack on the stovetop is due to overheating or the control knob being faulty. I do not accept the tenant’s submission that this phenomenon is common knowledge. The evidence indicate that hard objects have been dropped on the stovetop causing it to crack.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for the tenant refusing the landlord’s entry without good reason is dismissed. The sole instance of the claim was to do with the visit to the property on 14 April 2024 which the landlord attended. The tenant allowed the landlord entry into the premises for the purpose of the landlord inspecting the oven/stove top at which time the landlord took photos of the stovetop. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord then left to do garden work outside. While the parties later had a disagreement about the frequency of the visits, there is nothing before me to indicate that the tenant has committed an unlawful act in breach of section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is nothing before me to indicate that the landlord has breached the section 48 (4)(b) obligation without reasonable excuse. The landlord’s claim therefore fails.
I now address the tenants claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair b) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord failed to attend to the complaints of the stove’s indicator light/timer and the heating control issues properly for more than 3 years. The landlord failed to engage an electrician or contractor to check on the tenant’s complaint until the crack on the stovetop appeared towards the end of the tenancy. I consider that compensation of $500.00 is appropriate in favour of the tenant in the circumstances.
The tenant claim 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). Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li consider 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 applicable date for compliance of the HHS in this case is within 90 days from the first renewal of the fixed term tenancy on 26 April 2022.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
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).
In this case I have determined that no moisture barrier has been provided within 90 days from 26 April 2022 until April 2024.
I find Monju Sarkar committed an unlawful act, given the mandatory requirements of section 45(1)(bb) RTA. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The landlord only installed the moisture barrier in April 2024.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages of $1,000 (out of the maximum $7,200) is appropriate.
The remaining claims by the tenant fail.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence that at no time did she insist with the tenant that they should cut the branches and prune the trees. I find that the tenant willingly attended to the tree pruning during the tenancy when the parties’ relationship was on relative good terms.
The tenant’s complaint that they suffered ill-health from the effects of the damp and cold conditions in the premises is unsubstantiated.
The remaining bond should now return to the tenant in light of the above findings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956613 — net $650.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: garden waste	$250.00		Rubbish removal: garden waste
Window repairs	$350.00		Window repairs
Repairs: stove replacement due to cracked stovetop	$250.00		Repairs: stove replacement due to cracked stovetop
Compensation: failure to attend to the stove issues		$500.00	failure to attend to the stove issues
properly for more than 3 years		$1,000.00	properly for more than 3 years
Total award	$850.00	$1,500.00
Net award		$650.00
Bond		$800.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$650.00

Order

Monju Sarkar must pay Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li $650.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.25 (3511988-014) to Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for compensation for failure to maintain, lack of moisture barrier and reimbursement of time spent in tree pruning over the duration of the 3 year tenancy.

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 landlord seeks costs to repair the fence caused by overgrown banana trees and to dispose of banana trees subsequently cut down by the landlord of $1,945.37 and $145.37 respectively. The landlord accepts that the trees have been there since the start of the tenancy but maintains that she wanted to remove them but the tenant wanted to eat the fruit.
I find that since the banana trees were already there from the start of the tenancy, the obligation to remove them remains the landlord’s. The landlord says that she only realised the trees being overgrown in 2022. I consider that the landlord ought to have removed them on her cost then and not wait until the end of the tenancy two years later in 2024.
The issue concerning the landlord’s claim is not whether the tenant has removed the trees on the property or not. The issue is whether the landlord is obliged to maintain and remove the trees; I consider that the obligation on maintenance and removal of the trees is the landlord’s and the landlord’s alone.
In the circumstances, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for costs to repair the fence caused by overgrown banana trees and to dispose of banana trees subsequently cut down by the landlord.
The landlord also seeks costs to clean and dispose off garden rubbish allegedly left behind by the tenant of $837.33 and $227.50 to removal garden waste to expose the water meter.
The photographs and video evidence adduced indicate that the build up in garden waste accumulated over time; some are the landlord’s responsibility and some of which, the tenant’s. The tenant is responsible to keep the garden tidy along with the lawns.
Taking into account some of the pre-existing garden waste at the start of the tenancy and the accumulation of garden waste over time, I consider that the tenant should pay the landlord $250.00 for removal of garden waste.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: window sill and stove. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Only 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I award the landlord $350.00 for window sill repairs, factoring in depreciation.
I also award the landlord $250.00 for oven replacement due to cracked ceramic top, factoring in depreciation. The oven was 5 years old at the start of the tenancy. In November 2022, the landlord mentioned about the crack to the stovetop by the tenant. There is no evidence to indicate that the crack on the stovetop is due to overheating or the control knob being faulty. I do not accept the tenant’s submission that this phenomenon is common knowledge. The evidence indicate that hard objects have been dropped on the stovetop causing it to crack.
The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for the tenant refusing the landlord’s entry without good reason is dismissed. The sole instance of the claim was to do with the visit to the property on 14 April 2024 which the landlord attended. The tenant allowed the landlord entry into the premises for the purpose of the landlord inspecting the oven/stove top at which time the landlord took photos of the stovetop. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord then left to do garden work outside. While the parties later had a disagreement about the frequency of the visits, there is nothing before me to indicate that the tenant has committed an unlawful act in breach of section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is nothing before me to indicate that the landlord has breached the section 48 (4)(b) obligation without reasonable excuse. The landlord’s claim therefore fails.
I now address the tenants claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair b) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord failed to attend to the complaints of the stove’s indicator light/timer and the heating control issues properly for more than 3 years. The landlord failed to engage an electrician or contractor to check on the tenant’s complaint until the crack on the stovetop appeared towards the end of the tenancy. I consider that compensation of $500.00 is appropriate in favour of the tenant in the circumstances.
The tenant claim 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). Yuquan Wu and Xiaoli Li consider 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 applicable date for compliance of the HHS in this case is within 90 days from the first renewal of the fixed term tenancy on 26 April 2022.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires 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.
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).
In this case I have determined that no moisture barrier has been provided within 90 days from 26 April 2022 until April 2024.
I find Monju Sarkar committed an unlawful act, given the mandatory requirements of section 45(1)(bb) RTA. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The landlord only installed the moisture barrier in April 2024.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Considering those factors, I have determined that exemplary damages of $1,000 (out of the maximum $7,200) is appropriate.
The remaining claims by the tenant fail.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence that at no time did she insist with the tenant that they should cut the branches and prune the trees. I find that the tenant willingly attended to the tree pruning during the tenancy when the parties’ relationship was on relative good terms.
The tenant’s complaint that they suffered ill-health from the effects of the damp and cold conditions in the premises is unsubstantiated.
The remaining bond should now return to the tenant in light of the above findings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956613 — Property damage at 69 Buckley Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956613 — Property damage at 69 Buckley Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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