What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4986508?

The tribunal order states: Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket must pay Coromandel

How much money was awarded in case 4986508?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $642.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986508?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11409594-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4986508?

The tribunal order states: Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket must pay Coromandel

How much money was awarded in case 4986508?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $642.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986508?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11409594-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10A Jackman Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4986508 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986508 — net $669.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Flooring	$642.00	Repairs: Flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$669.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$669.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986508 — net $669.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Flooring	$642.00	Repairs: Flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$669.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$669.00

Order

Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket must pay Coromandel Beaches Rentals Ltd T/A Harcourts Whitianga $669.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Pedeson appeared on behalf of the tenants. The property manager Ms Smith appeared with Mr Frew of Coromandel beach rentals.
The tenancy began on 23 December 2022 and ended on 2 July 2024 after the tenants were released from a fixed term tenancy with the consent of the owners.
The tenants were required to give 28 days’ notice, which they did, and vacated a day earlier than agreed.
At the end of tenancy inspection, it was discovered that the floor in the lounge/hallway was sagging. Upon further inspection it was discovered that a leak under the house had damaged the foil insulation and the chipboard flooring in that area.
The flooring and insulation were subsequently replaced.
The tenant was refunded his bond in full at the end of the tenancy and after the owner knew of the damage. The owner preferred to avoid the Tenancy Tribunal and arguments over the cause of the damage.
Once the tenant filed for claims for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards the owner instructed the property manager to counter claim for the repairs to the flooring and for compensation of one weeks rent due to the tenants not allowing access for prospective tenants.
The landlord had insurance for the premises with an excess of $550.00. No claim was made, and no insurance policy or schedule was provided.
The claim for lack of smoke alarms is dismissed as there was no evidence provided by the tenant that there was only one in the house, and it was in the wrong place.
The Tenancy Tribunal requires applicants to provide evidence to prove their claim to the civil standard of proof being on the balance of probabilities’. This means they need to establish that it was more likely than not that their version of events occurred.
The tenants filed their application first and their claims for breaches of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) are discussed. Insulation Floor insulation
Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said that the underfloor insulation was foil and not in a reasonable condition. The tenant had no evidence relying on the photographs that the landlord submitted taken after the tenancy ended when the floor was lifted to be repaired. This showed damaged insulation.
The landlord said that the floor had foil insulation which dated back to before they took over the management of the premises in June 2022. The landlord said that it was still in reasonable condition. No documents of installation or compliance at the time of install were provided.
During the tenancy there were numerous leaks in the pipes under the premises which plumbers attended to. The property manager said that she asked them to check the insulation the same time and there were no reports of damage to it. When the leak was discovered at the end of the tenancy which damaged the lounge floor, damage to the insulation was discovered.
During the floor repairs the underfloor insulation was replaced.
If existing underfloor insulation met certain criteria under enactment at the time it was installed and is in reasonable condition, there is a partial exemption. Although this documentation was not provided, the tenant who bought this claim could not provide any evidence that the insulation was not in a reasonable condition during the tenancy. Ceiling insulation
The tenant said that when he was conducting pest control, he noticed that the ceiling insulation was too thin. No evidence was provided.
The landlord provided photographs of the ceiling insulation which was installed when the premises were built and the height of it was equal to or above the joists. The tenant disputed the date that the photograph was taken but had no further evidence.
This claims for lack of insulation are dismissed due to lack of evidence. Heating
Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket claims 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). Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating 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.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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 the landlord did provide a heater. The tenant claimed that this was not a ‘heat pump’, but that is not always required, only a qualifying heater.
The tenant said it failed to heat the vaulted ceiling lounge but provided no evidence.
The landlord provided an invoice for the install of a heater for the room and said that their electrician calculated the heating requirement for the room was 2.4kW and installed the heater on that basis.
The landlord provided a copy of the report from the electrician dated 27 July 2022, installing a 2.4kW heater and it contained the comments ‘to provide and install wall heater to comply with Healthy Homes Standards.’
An electric heater is allowed in living rooms that need 2.4kW of heating or less.
The tenant did not provide any further evidence and I find that they could not prove that the heater was not a qualifying heater or that it did not heat the main living room to 18 degrees. This claim is dismissed. Extractor fan
The tenant said that the extractor fan in the bathroom did not work, but he had not informed the landlord about this.
The landlord said it was replaced with a new one on 4 February 2022 and they did not know that this was not working.
Due to lack of evidence this claim is dismissed. Drainage
Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket claims 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). Roderick Paul Pedeson and Hamish Jason Stricket considers 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.
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.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
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).
The tenant said that there was no drainage at the premises. There were downpipes but they did not lead anywhere, and the property often flooded.
The tenant told the property manager about one incident but did not tell her about any further issues.
The property manager agreed that she knew about one occasion but said that this was after cyclone Gabrielle, when everyone had problems. She asked to be updated if this continued but did not hear anything further.
The landlord confirmed that the downpipes were connected to a stormwater drain that drains away from the premises. The tenant provided no evidence that contradicted this or evidence of further flooding problems.
There was not enough evidence provided to establish this claim and it is dismissed.
The claims for dampness and black mould are also dismissed due to lack of evidence. Landlord claims.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: A leak occurred under the floorboards which damaged the floor and insulation in the lounge/Hallway area.
The flooring was dropped and sagging in that area as evidence by the landlords’ photographs of a level placed across the floor, and dips in the floor and carpet .
The landlord provided a copy of the pre-tenancy inspection report noting no issues with the flooring and a post-tenancy inspection report noting ‘a large dip/drop in the lounge floor to the entrance of the hallway. ...and a large pool of water that can be seen from the landing on the stairs.
I find that this damage occurred during the tenancy, and it is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said that the property was sinking on one side and had uneven floors throughout, cracks and subsidence so he did not notice the sagging floor. He disputed that there was a pool of water outside.
During the tenancy plumbers were called out more than once to repair pin holes in the pipes under the house. None mentioned seeing evidence of an ongoing leak. The tenant said plumbing issues were attended to promptly.
The landlord did not know what was causing the pin holes in the pipes and agreed there had been similar damages but to different pipes.
The premises had regular three-monthly inspections. The last one before the tenancy ended was on 8 February 2024 and did not note any floor issues. The landlord said if the tenant had told them about the leak sooner it could have been remedied and not caused the damage to the flooring.
There is not enough evidence to find the tenant liable for the damage to the pipes. The level of sagging/drop in the floor was significant and should have been noticed by tenants living there even if the premises had some uneven floors. I am not persuaded that this would not have been detected by the tenants.
A tenant shall notify the landlord as soon as possible after the discovery of any damage to the premises or need for repairs. See section 40(1)(d) RTA.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement for the floor repairs but there is some responsibility on the landlord as the pipe pinholes which is believed to have caused the damage were an ongoing issue. I find it reasonable to award compensation for half the costs to repair the flooring, being $642.00.
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. Compensation for delays.
The landlord sought one weeks rent as compensation for the tenants not giving permission to show prospective tenants through the premises.
A landlord can with a tenant’s prior consent, show prospective tenants through a premises, See section 48(3)(a) RTA, and a tenant cannot prohibit the landlord from doing this without reasonable excuse. See section 48(4)(b) RTA.
The tenant said that he wanted to be there when other people went through and then broke his phone so could not be contacted on that number. He did not tell the landlord his new phone number. The original phone number was used again to confirm that the premises were ready for inspection.
The tenancy ended on 2 July 2024 and the new tenancy began on 13 July 2024.The landlord said that they had someone for the tenancy, but they would not sign the agreement until they ah had a physical walk through.
Between these dates the leak and the floor were repaired. The floor was re- insulated and the invoice date for this was 20 July 2024.The date of the install was not provided.
There is often a gap between tenancies where the landlord can attend to maintenance and repairs. I am not persuaded that this length of time was unreasonable resulting in the need for compensation.
This claim is dismissed.
Coromandel Beaches Rentals Ltd T/A Harcourts Whitianga was substantially successful with their claims and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986508 — Property damage at 10A Jackman Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986508 — Property damage at 10A Jackman Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions