What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5006110 about?

The tribunal order states: Tania Mere Clarke and Mariah Jade Brown must pay McGrath & Associates

How much money was awarded in case 5006110?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,780.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006110?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11533795-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5006110 about?

The tribunal order states: Tania Mere Clarke and Mariah Jade Brown must pay McGrath & Associates

How much money was awarded in case 5006110?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,780.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006110?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11533795-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70 Buckleys Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5006110 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5006110 — net $340.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 30 October 2024	$3,780.00		Rent arrears (to 30 October 2024
Compensation: Repairs & Maintenance		$2,000.00	Repairs & Maintenance
Total award	$3,780.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$340.00

Order

Tania Mere Clarke and Mariah Jade Brown must pay McGrath & Associates Holdings Ltd as agent for Yan Zhang $340.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (5144464-002) to McGrath & Associates Holdings Ltd as agent for Yan Zhang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the end of the tenancy on 30 October 2024.
The tenant has claimed compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord repair and maintenance obligations and for refund of the bond.
The tenant had applied for a work order in relation to a slug infestation. By the date of the hearing, the tenancy had ended, and the claim was for compensation in respect of the slugs. The tenants sought a ¼ rent rebate for the 4 years of the tenancy but did not provide a proper calculation to establish an amount of their claim. Based on the weekly rent, it would have been in the vicinity of $20,000.
The tenants seemed to claim (section 15 of their application) that a notice to terminate the tenancy was issued in response to them issuing a 14-day notice. This may have amounted to an application that the termination notice was retaliatory. However, it was made more than 28 workings days after the notice was given, so any such application would be dismissed. See s54(1) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
They also raised other issues regarding the conduct of the previous property manager engaged by the landlord. I did not perceive those complaints to amount to claims against the landlord or requests for compensation. I did not identify the complaints as relating to a possible breach of landlord obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The tenants claim that there was an infestation of slugs at the property throughout the tenancy. They say that the landlord (through its property managers) did not address the issue. The tenants provided photos of slugs inside the dwelling. They described standing the slugs as they walked to the bathroom at night. They are concerned of the effects of the slugs on their and children’s health but provided no evidence of any effects.
There is no specific provision dealing with insects or pests in RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to its age and character.
Where a tenant claims that a landlord is responsible for a pest infestation, the Tribunal will usually consider whether that infestation has been caused by, or contributed to by, a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, whether the infestation was caused by some breach of the tenant’s obligations, or is an environmental issue; not caused by either party.
It was common ground that there had been an issue with slugs inside the premises from 2021, at the latest. The landlord says that it arranged for pest control to lay baits and try to resolve the problem every time it was raised by the tenants, but those attempts were not effective.
The tenants say the slugs were entering the dwelling through gaps in the floor from the damp underfloor area. The landlord claimed that it could not lay a damp proof membrane under the floor because the gap was too narrow for someone to enter safely. However, the tenants claim that one of the pest controllers engaged by the landlord did go right under the floor to lay bait.
The parties provided photographs which show the premises to be of a poor standard. There was no or minimal draught stopping. There were gaps in the bathroom floor. Condensation was an issue throughout the tenancy. The photographs show that this was more likely caused by the condition of the property than by lack of ventilation and heating by the tenants.
The landlord provided an invoice from a plumber dated 15 March 2023 which recorded: “We recommend removing the shower box and addressing the leaks. Although slug baits were applied under the subfloor, they should not be relied upon as the primary solution.”
The evidence supplied by the landlord acknowledged that there were still slugs entering the premises 6 months later. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence that it acted on the advice from the plumber in March 2023, or that it carried out any investigation as to the cause of the infestation.
I find that the there was an issue with slugs entering the dwelling throughout the tenancy and that was caused, or contributed to, by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
As noted above, the tenant’s assessment of their compensation claim was vague. Having regard to the evidence as to the extent of the issue and similar claims, I award $2,000 for loss of amenity at the premises.
There was also a general complaint about the landlord’s delay in having the premises assessed for Healthy Homes Compliance.
The tenancy started in 2020. The due date for Healthy Homes compliance would have been 1 July 2025. However, the tenancy was varied in March 2024, when the property manager was changed to McGrath & Associates. The time for compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards under the varied agreement would have been Friday, 19 July 2024.
The tenancy was terminated on 14 July 2024, but the landlord allowed the tenant to remain until had found alternative accommodation. The tenant stopped paying rent and did not move until October 2024.
There was insufficient evidence of whether the premises complied with the Healthy homes Standards in the period July to October 2024. From the evidence of the condition of the premises before July 2024, it is unlikely that it met the Healthy Homes Standards unless work had been done. It is for the tenants to prove any such claim and they have not discharged that onus. Even if there was no compliance in those three months, I would not have awarded additional compensation above that awarded for the slug infestation.
I do not consider that either party was substantially successful so have not granted suppression of either parties’ details and have not award reimbursement of either filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5006110 — net $340.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 30 October 2024	$3,780.00		Rent arrears (to 30 October 2024
Compensation: Repairs & Maintenance		$2,000.00	Repairs & Maintenance
Total award	$3,780.00	$2,000.00
Net award	$340.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$340.00

Order

Tania Mere Clarke and Mariah Jade Brown must pay McGrath & Associates Holdings Ltd as agent for Yan Zhang $340.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (5144464-002) to McGrath & Associates Holdings Ltd as agent for Yan Zhang immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the end of the tenancy on 30 October 2024.
The tenant has claimed compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord repair and maintenance obligations and for refund of the bond.
The tenant had applied for a work order in relation to a slug infestation. By the date of the hearing, the tenancy had ended, and the claim was for compensation in respect of the slugs. The tenants sought a ¼ rent rebate for the 4 years of the tenancy but did not provide a proper calculation to establish an amount of their claim. Based on the weekly rent, it would have been in the vicinity of $20,000.
The tenants seemed to claim (section 15 of their application) that a notice to terminate the tenancy was issued in response to them issuing a 14-day notice. This may have amounted to an application that the termination notice was retaliatory. However, it was made more than 28 workings days after the notice was given, so any such application would be dismissed. See s54(1) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
They also raised other issues regarding the conduct of the previous property manager engaged by the landlord. I did not perceive those complaints to amount to claims against the landlord or requests for compensation. I did not identify the complaints as relating to a possible breach of landlord obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The tenants claim that there was an infestation of slugs at the property throughout the tenancy. They say that the landlord (through its property managers) did not address the issue. The tenants provided photos of slugs inside the dwelling. They described standing the slugs as they walked to the bathroom at night. They are concerned of the effects of the slugs on their and children’s health but provided no evidence of any effects.
There is no specific provision dealing with insects or pests in RTA. Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to its age and character.
Where a tenant claims that a landlord is responsible for a pest infestation, the Tribunal will usually consider whether that infestation has been caused by, or contributed to by, a breach of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, whether the infestation was caused by some breach of the tenant’s obligations, or is an environmental issue; not caused by either party.
It was common ground that there had been an issue with slugs inside the premises from 2021, at the latest. The landlord says that it arranged for pest control to lay baits and try to resolve the problem every time it was raised by the tenants, but those attempts were not effective.
The tenants say the slugs were entering the dwelling through gaps in the floor from the damp underfloor area. The landlord claimed that it could not lay a damp proof membrane under the floor because the gap was too narrow for someone to enter safely. However, the tenants claim that one of the pest controllers engaged by the landlord did go right under the floor to lay bait.
The parties provided photographs which show the premises to be of a poor standard. There was no or minimal draught stopping. There were gaps in the bathroom floor. Condensation was an issue throughout the tenancy. The photographs show that this was more likely caused by the condition of the property than by lack of ventilation and heating by the tenants.
The landlord provided an invoice from a plumber dated 15 March 2023 which recorded: “We recommend removing the shower box and addressing the leaks. Although slug baits were applied under the subfloor, they should not be relied upon as the primary solution.”
The evidence supplied by the landlord acknowledged that there were still slugs entering the premises 6 months later. However, the landlord did not provide any evidence that it acted on the advice from the plumber in March 2023, or that it carried out any investigation as to the cause of the infestation.
I find that the there was an issue with slugs entering the dwelling throughout the tenancy and that was caused, or contributed to, by the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
As noted above, the tenant’s assessment of their compensation claim was vague. Having regard to the evidence as to the extent of the issue and similar claims, I award $2,000 for loss of amenity at the premises.
There was also a general complaint about the landlord’s delay in having the premises assessed for Healthy Homes Compliance.
The tenancy started in 2020. The due date for Healthy Homes compliance would have been 1 July 2025. However, the tenancy was varied in March 2024, when the property manager was changed to McGrath & Associates. The time for compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards under the varied agreement would have been Friday, 19 July 2024.
The tenancy was terminated on 14 July 2024, but the landlord allowed the tenant to remain until had found alternative accommodation. The tenant stopped paying rent and did not move until October 2024.
There was insufficient evidence of whether the premises complied with the Healthy homes Standards in the period July to October 2024. From the evidence of the condition of the premises before July 2024, it is unlikely that it met the Healthy Homes Standards unless work had been done. It is for the tenants to prove any such claim and they have not discharged that onus. Even if there was no compliance in those three months, I would not have awarded additional compensation above that awarded for the slug infestation.
I do not consider that either party was substantially successful so have not granted suppression of either parties’ details and have not award reimbursement of either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006110 — Rent arrears at 70 Buckleys Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006110 — Rent arrears at 70 Buckleys Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions