What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983451 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 4983451?

Compensation: Rent rebate 29 weeks a…: $3,696.42 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4983451 D…: $5,195.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983451?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11370276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983451 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 4983451?

Compensation: Rent rebate 29 weeks a…: $3,696.42 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Previous Order Application 4983451 D…: $5,195.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983451?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983451?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11370276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10B Burwood Crescent, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983451 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983451 — net $1,471.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4983451 dated 13/11/2024	$5,195.00		Previous order application 4983451 dated 13/11/2024
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Rent rebate 29 weeks and 4 days 10		$3,696.42	Rent rebate 29 weeks and 4 days 10
Total award	$5,195.00	$3,723.42
Net award	$1,471.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,471.58

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,471.58 immediately for rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and water bills as previously ordered, as calculated and shown in table below:
The landlords claim for the cleaning of garage and disposal of the spa pool are dismissed.
I dismiss the landlords claim for replacement cost of the carpet.
The tenants claim for compensation for depreciation of the spa pool are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is the second hearing of these matters. On 13 November 2024 I Ordered rent arrears, reimbursement of the landlords filing fee and water bills. The tenant did not dispute any of the claims for rent arrears and water bills.
The 13 November 2024 hearing was adjourned part heard to allow the tenant to file a counterclaim. The tenant also was required to remove a spa pool from the property. Landlord claims:
The landlord’s original claim was for rent arrears, water bills, filing fee, cleaning of garage and compensation for replacement of the carpets throughout most of the house, and disposal of the tenant’s spa pool.
At this hearing, the landlord confirmed the spa pool has been removed by the tenant and that he does not want to pursue the claim for cleaning the garage. As the rent arrears, filing fee and water bills were all ordered at the last hearing, the only outstanding landlord claim relates to the carpet.
The landlord’s claim for the disposal of the spa pool and cleaning costs for the garage are dismissed.
For completeness I incorporate my previous order with this one to account for the rent arrears, water bills and filing fee, which remain unpaid. The tenant owes the landlord for rent arrears, water bills and reimbursement of the filing fee as set out above. Tenant claims:
The tenant filed his counter claim on 19 November 2024 claiming failure of the landlord to maintain the property. The tenant seeks a rent reduction, filing fee and compensation for loss of depreciation for his spa pool.
At the start of the hearing the tenant stated that he did not intend to pursue the claim for depreciation of the spa pool. I dismiss the tenants claim for depreciation of the spa pool. Remaining claims:
At this hearing I am only left with a landlord claim for compensation for carpet and the tenant claim for failure to maintain the property, seeking a rent reduction and filing fee. The landlord is claiming for replacing the carpets:
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, (“RTA”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Furthermore, a tenant has obligations under the RTA for damage caused to the property during the tenancy.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the carpet throughout the house by allowing his pets to urinate of the carpet causing a terrible smell. The landlord said the carpet had to be replaced. The landlord has provided an invoice for $6340.00 to replace the carpets.
The landlord must prove that the damage was caused during this tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has a fundamental issue with his claim. There had been no pre let inspection report or photographs showing the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The significance of this evidence is to prove that the carpet has been damaged during this tenancy by comparing the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy with the start of the tenancy.
The tenant denies his pets had urinated on the carpet and said there had been previous pets at the property who could have been responsible for the damage.
It is on the party that is bringing the claim that they must prove their claim to the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities, i.e. it is more likely than not, that the breach has occurred.
I find the landlord is not able to prove liability attributable to the tenant for the damage to the carpet.
For the reasons set out above I must dismiss the landlords claim for carpet replacement. Tenants claim for failure to maintain:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 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 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the property and failed to carry out the repairs in a timely fashion.
There are no disputes that the property was affected by Cyclone Gabrielle. On 13 February 2023, the cyclone damaged roof tiles which allowed heavy rain to pour into the property. The tenant described a leak in the master bedroom that saturated the clothing in the wardrobe and carpet. Subsequently the tenant found the clothing was mouldy.
Unfortunately, due to Cyclone Gabrielle the insurance companies, assessors and ultimately tradespeople were very overworked, and this caused significant delays in fixing properties. On 11 August 2023, the roof tiles were repaired.
On 13 April 2023, a large leak was caused by a burst pipe in the downstairs powder room, leading to flooding and saturation of the carpet in the hallway outside the powder room.
The carpets were dried out with professional equipment on 9 May 2023, and the remaining repairs had been ongoing until the beginning of January 2024.
The tenant claimed that there was a leak caused by poor guttering, which caused water to come through the outdoor lights. The tenant provided a video of heavy rain and obvious water pouring over the side of the guttering onto the ground below.
The landlord acknowledges all those leaks and said he has attempted to remedy these issues as soon as practicable, but disputes there being issues with the guttering.
After the tenancy terminated the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment(“HHA”), on the property within weeks. The HHA found the property was fully compliant. The landlord said he did not do anything to the guttering or water ingress. A copy of the HHA was provided to the Tribunal, which confirmed that the property was fully complaint.
As a result of hearing the evidence from the parties and considering the documents filed, I do not find that the landlord has breached his obligations to maintain the property.
The circumstances of that time with multiple insurance claims as a result of the Cyclone where in my view the primary cause for delays in remedying repairs.
While I have not found that the landlord is at fault, I do consider it is appropriate that the tenant receive some compensation by way of a rent reduction for the period he and his family had to suffer from a loss of utilities and enjoyment of their home.
There was a period of time the powder room could not be used by the tenant after the flooding from the burst pipe. The carpets in the hallway and the master bedroom were soaked twice within a two-month period. The wardrobe was soaked, and clothing lost.
The tenant had to endure the intrusion of insurance assessors, dehumidifiers on for weeks at a time, tradespeople coming to assess, quote and do repairs.
The tenant’s partner was pregnant during the latter part of the tenancy, which caused further stress. The tenant expressed in an email to the landlord that he and his partner had concerns about raising a newborn in a property with mould issues and the potential effect that could have on the baby.
Ultimately the landlord accepted their notice to terminate.
For these reasons I consider a 10% rent reduction for the period 13/2/23 to 11/8/23, (roof tile flooding), and 12/4/23 to 9 /05/23 (powder room leak), which is 29 weeks and 4 days. The total rent paid during that period was $36964.28 and 10% rent reduction is $3696.42. I award the tenant $3696.42 to be offset against the debt he owes to the landlord.
The bond has been refunded to the landlord prior to the Tribunal hearings for rent arrears, unrelated to the rent arrears I have dealt with in this hearing.
Both parties have filed claims and counterclaims and sought suppression of their names and identifying details. As both parties have been partially successful with their applications I
Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Tianjie Tan was awarded his filing fee in my previous order, incorporated into this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983451 — net $1,471.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4983451 dated 13/11/2024	$5,195.00		Previous order application 4983451 dated 13/11/2024
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Rent rebate 29 weeks and 4 days 10		$3,696.42	Rent rebate 29 weeks and 4 days 10
Total award	$5,195.00	$3,723.42
Net award	$1,471.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,471.58

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,471.58 immediately for rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and water bills as previously ordered, as calculated and shown in table below:
The landlords claim for the cleaning of garage and disposal of the spa pool are dismissed.
I dismiss the landlords claim for replacement cost of the carpet.
The tenants claim for compensation for depreciation of the spa pool are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is the second hearing of these matters. On 13 November 2024 I Ordered rent arrears, reimbursement of the landlords filing fee and water bills. The tenant did not dispute any of the claims for rent arrears and water bills.
The 13 November 2024 hearing was adjourned part heard to allow the tenant to file a counterclaim. The tenant also was required to remove a spa pool from the property. Landlord claims:
The landlord’s original claim was for rent arrears, water bills, filing fee, cleaning of garage and compensation for replacement of the carpets throughout most of the house, and disposal of the tenant’s spa pool.
At this hearing, the landlord confirmed the spa pool has been removed by the tenant and that he does not want to pursue the claim for cleaning the garage. As the rent arrears, filing fee and water bills were all ordered at the last hearing, the only outstanding landlord claim relates to the carpet.
The landlord’s claim for the disposal of the spa pool and cleaning costs for the garage are dismissed.
For completeness I incorporate my previous order with this one to account for the rent arrears, water bills and filing fee, which remain unpaid. The tenant owes the landlord for rent arrears, water bills and reimbursement of the filing fee as set out above. Tenant claims:
The tenant filed his counter claim on 19 November 2024 claiming failure of the landlord to maintain the property. The tenant seeks a rent reduction, filing fee and compensation for loss of depreciation for his spa pool.
At the start of the hearing the tenant stated that he did not intend to pursue the claim for depreciation of the spa pool. I dismiss the tenants claim for depreciation of the spa pool. Remaining claims:
At this hearing I am only left with a landlord claim for compensation for carpet and the tenant claim for failure to maintain the property, seeking a rent reduction and filing fee. The landlord is claiming for replacing the carpets:
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, (“RTA”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Furthermore, a tenant has obligations under the RTA for damage caused to the property during the tenancy.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A) (a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B (1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the carpet throughout the house by allowing his pets to urinate of the carpet causing a terrible smell. The landlord said the carpet had to be replaced. The landlord has provided an invoice for $6340.00 to replace the carpets.
The landlord must prove that the damage was caused during this tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has a fundamental issue with his claim. There had been no pre let inspection report or photographs showing the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The significance of this evidence is to prove that the carpet has been damaged during this tenancy by comparing the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy with the start of the tenancy.
The tenant denies his pets had urinated on the carpet and said there had been previous pets at the property who could have been responsible for the damage.
It is on the party that is bringing the claim that they must prove their claim to the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities, i.e. it is more likely than not, that the breach has occurred.
I find the landlord is not able to prove liability attributable to the tenant for the damage to the carpet.
For the reasons set out above I must dismiss the landlords claim for carpet replacement. Tenants claim for failure to maintain:
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 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 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the property and failed to carry out the repairs in a timely fashion.
There are no disputes that the property was affected by Cyclone Gabrielle. On 13 February 2023, the cyclone damaged roof tiles which allowed heavy rain to pour into the property. The tenant described a leak in the master bedroom that saturated the clothing in the wardrobe and carpet. Subsequently the tenant found the clothing was mouldy.
Unfortunately, due to Cyclone Gabrielle the insurance companies, assessors and ultimately tradespeople were very overworked, and this caused significant delays in fixing properties. On 11 August 2023, the roof tiles were repaired.
On 13 April 2023, a large leak was caused by a burst pipe in the downstairs powder room, leading to flooding and saturation of the carpet in the hallway outside the powder room.
The carpets were dried out with professional equipment on 9 May 2023, and the remaining repairs had been ongoing until the beginning of January 2024.
The tenant claimed that there was a leak caused by poor guttering, which caused water to come through the outdoor lights. The tenant provided a video of heavy rain and obvious water pouring over the side of the guttering onto the ground below.
The landlord acknowledges all those leaks and said he has attempted to remedy these issues as soon as practicable, but disputes there being issues with the guttering.
After the tenancy terminated the landlord obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment(“HHA”), on the property within weeks. The HHA found the property was fully compliant. The landlord said he did not do anything to the guttering or water ingress. A copy of the HHA was provided to the Tribunal, which confirmed that the property was fully complaint.
As a result of hearing the evidence from the parties and considering the documents filed, I do not find that the landlord has breached his obligations to maintain the property.
The circumstances of that time with multiple insurance claims as a result of the Cyclone where in my view the primary cause for delays in remedying repairs.
While I have not found that the landlord is at fault, I do consider it is appropriate that the tenant receive some compensation by way of a rent reduction for the period he and his family had to suffer from a loss of utilities and enjoyment of their home.
There was a period of time the powder room could not be used by the tenant after the flooding from the burst pipe. The carpets in the hallway and the master bedroom were soaked twice within a two-month period. The wardrobe was soaked, and clothing lost.
The tenant had to endure the intrusion of insurance assessors, dehumidifiers on for weeks at a time, tradespeople coming to assess, quote and do repairs.
The tenant’s partner was pregnant during the latter part of the tenancy, which caused further stress. The tenant expressed in an email to the landlord that he and his partner had concerns about raising a newborn in a property with mould issues and the potential effect that could have on the baby.
Ultimately the landlord accepted their notice to terminate.
For these reasons I consider a 10% rent reduction for the period 13/2/23 to 11/8/23, (roof tile flooding), and 12/4/23 to 9 /05/23 (powder room leak), which is 29 weeks and 4 days. The total rent paid during that period was $36964.28 and 10% rent reduction is $3696.42. I award the tenant $3696.42 to be offset against the debt he owes to the landlord.
The bond has been refunded to the landlord prior to the Tribunal hearings for rent arrears, unrelated to the rent arrears I have dealt with in this hearing.
Both parties have filed claims and counterclaims and sought suppression of their names and identifying details. As both parties have been partially successful with their applications I
Because [The applicant/s] has partially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Tianjie Tan was awarded his filing fee in my previous order, incorporated into this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983451 — Tenancy dispute at 10B Burwood Crescent, Remuera, Auckland 1050

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983451 — Tenancy dispute at 10B Burwood Crescent, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions