What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993217 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 4993217?

Cleaning: $820.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; To Doors And Walls: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993217?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11427757-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4993217 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 4993217?

Cleaning: $820.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; To Doors And Walls: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993217?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11427757-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14A Warrington Grove, Newlands, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993217 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

14A Warrington Grove, Newlands, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993217 — Healthy homes | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993217 — net $3,007.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: notice without grounds	$2,000.00		notice without grounds
Exemplary damages: house not secure - front door lock	$500.00		house not secure - front door lock
Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal	$820.00		Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation		$1,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: HHS and maintenance		$3,000.00	HHS and maintenance
Repairs: to doors and walls		$2,500.00	Repairs: to doors and walls
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,520.00	$6,527.00
Net award		$3,007.00
Bond		$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,007.00

Claims and awards for application 4993217 — net $3,007.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: notice without grounds

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: notice without grounds

Exemplary damages: house not secure - front door lock

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: house not secure - front door lock

Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal

Amount: $820.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Compensation

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Dismissed claims

Retaliatory Notice

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited As Agent For Long Lin must pay [The tenant/s] $3,007.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in September 2022 and ended on 1 October 2024, after the tenants were given a 90 day notice to leave because extensive renovations were required at the tenancy premises. The tenants filed their application because they believe the notice was retaliatory. They have also claimed compensation and exemplary damages because the house did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards and was poorly maintained. The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of repairs and cleaning following the end of the tenancy. Both parties want the bond.
The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment related to tree trimming was dismissed at the hearing. The remaining questions I have to decide include: • Did the house meet the Healthy Homes Standards? • Was the house repaired and maintained during the tenancy? • Should the tenants get compensation and exemplary damages? • Was the landlord entitled to give the 90 day notice? • Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? • Are the tenants responsible for damage? Did the house meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The tenancy agreement signed in September 2022 has a HHS statement which records the house meets the HHS. The HHS compliance date for this house was 120 days after the start of the tenancy. On 29 August 2024, 10 days after the tenants were given the 90 day notice to end the tenancy, the landlord arranged for an HHS report to be completed. The report writer found: • insufficient ceiling insulation that was not in a reasonable condition • the underfloor insulation was “falling apart” and “Illegal to repair” • there was no ground moisture barrier • a downpipe was broken • three rooms and the hall were draughty because of poorly maintained or broken joinery.
Between 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2024, Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulation 2016 will cease to apply and will be replaced by the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The HHS require that the higher standards of R-2.9 and R-3.3 for ceiling insulation, and R-1.9 for underfloor insulation, apply to all rented premises.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
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 HHS requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
I find the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It is especially concerning that the tenancy agreement recorded compliance. The tenants have not raised this as a claim, but the discrepancy between the tenancy agreement in 2022 and the HHS report done in August 2024 seems misleading.

Was the house repaired and maintained during the tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45 of the RTA which require the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have considered the documents, the witness evidence, the submissions, and the HHS report. The tenants have not proved there was any breach of the requirement to provide smoke alarms. It seems most likely to me the joinery was poorly maintained and in need of repair, and the house was draughty during the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the front door was damaged when the tenants moved in and that it blew open in the wind. It seems most likely to me the front door could not be securely locked. I am persuaded the landlord knew about these issues during the tenancy. Failing to repair these issues was a breach of the RTA.

Should the tenants get compensation and exemplary damages?

The tenants have claimed compensation in the amount of $1000 for the increased power used during the tenancy for heating. This equates to about $10 a week for the 2 years the tenants lived in the house. I have no doubt that the house was cold and required a lot of heating. This claim is proved and allowed.
Breaching the obligation to repair and maintain, and to provide a house that complies with the HHS, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. 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.
I find the landlord’s lack of care around HHS to be intentional. I find the failure to repair the joinery and the front door to be intentional. The effect for the tenants was poor health, frustration at not being taken seriously and a WINZ debt because they needed help to pay their power bills. It is tenants interests that landlords tell the truth about HHS and provide warm and safe homes. There is public interest in the landlord paying exemplary damages to encourage future compliance. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $3000. This is mid range because I am aware of another Tribunal order against Mr Long last year for similar breaches at a different rental property.
Breaching the obligation to provide a front door that locks securely is also a breach of the RTA and exemplary damages can be awarded in the maximum amount of $1,500. See section 46 and Schedule 1A RTA.
It seems most likely to me the landlord knew the front door could not be securely locked. The witness said the front door was damaged when the tenants moved in. There is a note about a front door fix after an inspection done in October 2023, and in April 2024 the inspection note states “Front door has had a hard life and you should consider a new one”.
The same considerations apply. I find the decision not to repair or replace was intentional. The effect for the tenants was stress and a concern they would be blamed for damage. It is in tenants interests they can secure themselves and their belongings and there is public interest in exemplary damages if there is a breach of the RTA. I allow $500 in exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar breaches by the landlord.

Was the landlord entitled to give the 90 day notice?

Mr Long went to the house on 16 August 2024 to carry out repairs to the front door. While he was at the front door he could see damage to walls and doors inside the house. The tenants and Mr Long had a verbal disagreement. That same day Mr Long contacted the property manager to discuss the damage and what the next steps should be. Three days later the landlord served a 90 day notice terminating the tenancy because the tenancy premises required extensive renovations and it would not be possible to complete these works in an occupied property.
The tenants submitted that this notice was retaliatory because it came so soon after the disagreement. For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenants 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.
I have carefully considered the submissions and the emails between the property manager and Mr Long. It seems most likely to me the notice was given because Mr Long was concerned about the damage he could see in the house. Further, I am not persuaded the tenants were exercising a right when the notice was given because Mr Long was attending to the request for maintenance. The claim for retaliatory notice is dismissed.
Having said that, I am not persuaded the landlord was entitled to give the 90 day notice. A landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The relevant law at the time, section 51(2)(f) RTA, provided that 90 days notice to terminate the tenancy could be given if: extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available. When the notice was given the landlord only knew that the tenants had caused damage to walls and doors. He also knew the front door needed to be repaired.
At the hearing Mr Long said he knew about the mould on the bathroom ceiling and the source needed to be investigated. He said he was planning to replace the ranch slider, but he did not know about the ranch slider until September. He said he knew the roof had to be replaced but he could not provide an invoice for the new roof. He had no idea about the HHS work because that report was completed 10 days after the notice was given. He said he replaced power points but had no invoice for that work either. He said the house needed to be repainted inside and out, but I have no evidence to show this was done.
I find the repairs to the internal doors and walls, the front door repair, and the mould investigation could have been done with the tenants living in the house. I find the landlord gave a notice to end the tenancy that it was not entitled to give. This was an unlawful act.
I find the landlord acted intentionally in choosing to give a notice when there were no major renovations and there was no need for the tenants to move out. The effect for the tenants was stress, having to find a new house, and the hassle of moving. I accept this put a huge toll on their relationship. Tenants should not have to move out just because the landlord is unhappy with the tenancy. There is public interest in exemplary damages when landlords misuse the notice provisions. I allow $2,000 in exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar breaches by the landlord.

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

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning. I have seen the photos and I accept there were stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the stains happened during the tenancy. The claim for carpet cleaning and stain removal is allowed.
The claim for odour treatment is not allowed. There is an email from Jae that states the technicians did not notice a smell during the carpet cleaning. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for rubbish removal. I have seen photos and I accept the claim is reasonable, even without the pallets and the chair which the tenants said were there when they moved in. The invoice from the landlord is not reasonable. I allow $200 for the landlord’s labour at $25 an hour, which is standard in the Tribunal, and $20 for the vehicle. The landlord cannot charge GST on the labour and time.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a large claim in the amount of $3,612 for damage to the carpet, walls and doors, and the front door glass. 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.
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 tenants submitted some of the damage was accidental, done moving furniture. There was also a period of significant stress in the months before August and one of the tenants damaged doors, door frames, and put holes in walls. The tenants attempted repairs, but I can see from the photos these were not to an acceptable standard.
I find the landlord has proved there was intentional damage to six doors, one door frame, and some of the walls. It seems most likely to me that more than one lot of damage from moving furniture means the tenants allowed a practice to continue, knowing damage was a certainty. Any inadequate repair work is also intentional damage. The invoice is not itemised. The work includes replacing the front door glass, which I have found was a maintenance issue. Rather than dismiss the claim I have allowed $2,500, which is made up of the cost of the doors, plus materials, plus an estimated $1,000 for labour, plus travel, plus GST.
There is a claim for a carpet repair. The landlord provided photos and an invoice. The tenants said the carpet was damaged when they moved in. The landlord’s evidence of the carpet at the start of the tenancy was not clear. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the tenants. I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest names when landlords breach the RTA.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993217 — net $3,007.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: notice without grounds	$2,000.00		notice without grounds
Exemplary damages: house not secure - front door lock	$500.00		house not secure - front door lock
Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal	$820.00		Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation		$1,000.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages: HHS and maintenance		$3,000.00	HHS and maintenance
Repairs: to doors and walls		$2,500.00	Repairs: to doors and walls
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$3,520.00	$6,527.00
Net award		$3,007.00
Bond		$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$3,007.00

Claims and awards for application 4993217 — net $3,007.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Exemplary damages: notice without grounds

Amount: $2,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: notice without grounds

Exemplary damages: house not secure - front door lock

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: house not secure - front door lock

Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal

Amount: $820.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: including stain removal

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Compensation

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Dismissed claims

Retaliatory Notice

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited As Agent For Long Lin must pay [The tenant/s] $3,007.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in September 2022 and ended on 1 October 2024, after the tenants were given a 90 day notice to leave because extensive renovations were required at the tenancy premises. The tenants filed their application because they believe the notice was retaliatory. They have also claimed compensation and exemplary damages because the house did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards and was poorly maintained. The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of repairs and cleaning following the end of the tenancy. Both parties want the bond.
The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment related to tree trimming was dismissed at the hearing. The remaining questions I have to decide include: • Did the house meet the Healthy Homes Standards? • Was the house repaired and maintained during the tenancy? • Should the tenants get compensation and exemplary damages? • Was the landlord entitled to give the 90 day notice? • Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy? • Are the tenants responsible for damage? Did the house meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS)?
The tenancy agreement signed in September 2022 has a HHS statement which records the house meets the HHS. The HHS compliance date for this house was 120 days after the start of the tenancy. On 29 August 2024, 10 days after the tenants were given the 90 day notice to end the tenancy, the landlord arranged for an HHS report to be completed. The report writer found: • insufficient ceiling insulation that was not in a reasonable condition • the underfloor insulation was “falling apart” and “Illegal to repair” • there was no ground moisture barrier • a downpipe was broken • three rooms and the hall were draughty because of poorly maintained or broken joinery.
Between 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2024, Part 2 Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulation 2016 will cease to apply and will be replaced by the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The HHS require that the higher standards of R-2.9 and R-3.3 for ceiling insulation, and R-1.9 for underfloor insulation, apply to all rented premises.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
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 HHS requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
I find the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It is especially concerning that the tenancy agreement recorded compliance. The tenants have not raised this as a claim, but the discrepancy between the tenancy agreement in 2022 and the HHS report done in August 2024 seems misleading.

Was the house repaired and maintained during the tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45 of the RTA which require the landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I have considered the documents, the witness evidence, the submissions, and the HHS report. The tenants have not proved there was any breach of the requirement to provide smoke alarms. It seems most likely to me the joinery was poorly maintained and in need of repair, and the house was draughty during the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the front door was damaged when the tenants moved in and that it blew open in the wind. It seems most likely to me the front door could not be securely locked. I am persuaded the landlord knew about these issues during the tenancy. Failing to repair these issues was a breach of the RTA.

Should the tenants get compensation and exemplary damages?

The tenants have claimed compensation in the amount of $1000 for the increased power used during the tenancy for heating. This equates to about $10 a week for the 2 years the tenants lived in the house. I have no doubt that the house was cold and required a lot of heating. This claim is proved and allowed.
Breaching the obligation to repair and maintain, and to provide a house that complies with the HHS, is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. 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.
I find the landlord’s lack of care around HHS to be intentional. I find the failure to repair the joinery and the front door to be intentional. The effect for the tenants was poor health, frustration at not being taken seriously and a WINZ debt because they needed help to pay their power bills. It is tenants interests that landlords tell the truth about HHS and provide warm and safe homes. There is public interest in the landlord paying exemplary damages to encourage future compliance. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $3000. This is mid range because I am aware of another Tribunal order against Mr Long last year for similar breaches at a different rental property.
Breaching the obligation to provide a front door that locks securely is also a breach of the RTA and exemplary damages can be awarded in the maximum amount of $1,500. See section 46 and Schedule 1A RTA.
It seems most likely to me the landlord knew the front door could not be securely locked. The witness said the front door was damaged when the tenants moved in. There is a note about a front door fix after an inspection done in October 2023, and in April 2024 the inspection note states “Front door has had a hard life and you should consider a new one”.
The same considerations apply. I find the decision not to repair or replace was intentional. The effect for the tenants was stress and a concern they would be blamed for damage. It is in tenants interests they can secure themselves and their belongings and there is public interest in exemplary damages if there is a breach of the RTA. I allow $500 in exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar breaches by the landlord.

Was the landlord entitled to give the 90 day notice?

Mr Long went to the house on 16 August 2024 to carry out repairs to the front door. While he was at the front door he could see damage to walls and doors inside the house. The tenants and Mr Long had a verbal disagreement. That same day Mr Long contacted the property manager to discuss the damage and what the next steps should be. Three days later the landlord served a 90 day notice terminating the tenancy because the tenancy premises required extensive renovations and it would not be possible to complete these works in an occupied property.
The tenants submitted that this notice was retaliatory because it came so soon after the disagreement. For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenants 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.
I have carefully considered the submissions and the emails between the property manager and Mr Long. It seems most likely to me the notice was given because Mr Long was concerned about the damage he could see in the house. Further, I am not persuaded the tenants were exercising a right when the notice was given because Mr Long was attending to the request for maintenance. The claim for retaliatory notice is dismissed.
Having said that, I am not persuaded the landlord was entitled to give the 90 day notice. A landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The relevant law at the time, section 51(2)(f) RTA, provided that 90 days notice to terminate the tenancy could be given if: extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available. When the notice was given the landlord only knew that the tenants had caused damage to walls and doors. He also knew the front door needed to be repaired.
At the hearing Mr Long said he knew about the mould on the bathroom ceiling and the source needed to be investigated. He said he was planning to replace the ranch slider, but he did not know about the ranch slider until September. He said he knew the roof had to be replaced but he could not provide an invoice for the new roof. He had no idea about the HHS work because that report was completed 10 days after the notice was given. He said he replaced power points but had no invoice for that work either. He said the house needed to be repainted inside and out, but I have no evidence to show this was done.
I find the repairs to the internal doors and walls, the front door repair, and the mould investigation could have been done with the tenants living in the house. I find the landlord gave a notice to end the tenancy that it was not entitled to give. This was an unlawful act.
I find the landlord acted intentionally in choosing to give a notice when there were no major renovations and there was no need for the tenants to move out. The effect for the tenants was stress, having to find a new house, and the hassle of moving. I accept this put a huge toll on their relationship. Tenants should not have to move out just because the landlord is unhappy with the tenancy. There is public interest in exemplary damages when landlords misuse the notice provisions. I allow $2,000 in exemplary damages, which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar breaches by the landlord.

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

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
There is a claim for carpet cleaning. I have seen the photos and I accept there were stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the stains happened during the tenancy. The claim for carpet cleaning and stain removal is allowed.
The claim for odour treatment is not allowed. There is an email from Jae that states the technicians did not notice a smell during the carpet cleaning. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for rubbish removal. I have seen photos and I accept the claim is reasonable, even without the pallets and the chair which the tenants said were there when they moved in. The invoice from the landlord is not reasonable. I allow $200 for the landlord’s labour at $25 an hour, which is standard in the Tribunal, and $20 for the vehicle. The landlord cannot charge GST on the labour and time.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a large claim in the amount of $3,612 for damage to the carpet, walls and doors, and the front door glass. 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.
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 tenants submitted some of the damage was accidental, done moving furniture. There was also a period of significant stress in the months before August and one of the tenants damaged doors, door frames, and put holes in walls. The tenants attempted repairs, but I can see from the photos these were not to an acceptable standard.
I find the landlord has proved there was intentional damage to six doors, one door frame, and some of the walls. It seems most likely to me that more than one lot of damage from moving furniture means the tenants allowed a practice to continue, knowing damage was a certainty. Any inadequate repair work is also intentional damage. The invoice is not itemised. The work includes replacing the front door glass, which I have found was a maintenance issue. Rather than dismiss the claim I have allowed $2,500, which is made up of the cost of the doors, plus materials, plus an estimated $1,000 for labour, plus travel, plus GST.
There is a claim for a carpet repair. The landlord provided photos and an invoice. The tenants said the carpet was damaged when they moved in. The landlord’s evidence of the carpet at the start of the tenancy was not clear. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the tenants. I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest names when landlords breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993217 — Healthy homes at 14A Warrington Grove, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993217 — Healthy homes at 14A Warrington Grove, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the house repaired and maintained during the tenancy?

Should the tenants get compensation and exemplary damages?

Was the landlord entitled to give the 90 day notice?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the house repaired and maintained during the tenancy?

Should the tenants get compensation and exemplary damages?

Was the landlord entitled to give the 90 day notice?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions