What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5012849 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 5012849?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Overpaid Rent: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,505.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5012849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5012849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11093684-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5012849 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 5012849?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Overpaid Rent: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,505.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5012849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5012849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11093684-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Lavinias Way, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5012849 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5012849 — net $2,785.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,505.00		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Overpaid rent	$300.00		Overpaid rent
Repairs: painting	$80.00		Repairs: painting
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide		$250.00	Failure to provide
Total award	$3,035.00	$250.00
Net award	$2,785.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,785.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5012849 — net $2,785.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,505.00		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Overpaid rent	$300.00		Overpaid rent
Repairs: painting	$80.00		Repairs: painting
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide		$250.00	Failure to provide
Total award	$3,035.00	$250.00
Net award	$2,785.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,785.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,785.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,785.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $615.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages and compensation.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 12 October 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that he owed the rent arrears claimed,

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed for cleaning costs and provided an invoice and some photographs. The tenant disputed that the oven needed cleaning however his end of tenancy video did not show the inside of the oven.
An invoice from the cleaner with comments about the oven and photograph provided by the landlord established that the oven required cleaning. Apart from this, the base of the showers and the removal of some rubbish, the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. A reduced amount is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord did not include his claim for repainting the premises in the application. The tenant agreed to hear the claim in the hearing.
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 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 claimed that there were nail holes and paint removed where a picture had been. A substantial amount was claimed for repainting the whole premises but there was no evidence provided to support this.
Ultimately it was established that 3 small nails were left in the wall above the kitchen bench and there were 4 marks where a picture had been in the hallway and paint had been removed.
The picture belonged to the landlord and was hanging at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said that during the tenancy it fell down and they left it in the garage for the landlord.
I find that this was accidental damage and do not award compensation for this.
The landlord has not repaired the nail holes and provided a quote to paint the whole house. A nominal amount is awarded to recognise the small amount of damage to the wall.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Should the overpaid rent be refunded?

The parties agreed that the landlord rented the premises from the tenant for one week, paying $300.00, and then mistakenly overpaid by another $300.00, which the tenant has kept.
The tenant said that he had cleaned and sold the landlords car and the landlord failed to pay him for this work, so he kept the rent money.
As explained in the hearing the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims relating to residential tenancies and disputes between landlord and tenant. There was no evidence that there was an agreement to exchange work for rent and therefore the issue about the payment for the car work does not come within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
An claim for overpayment of rent is able to be determined and both partes agreed this is what happened. The $300.00 overpayment is refunded to the landlord.
The landlord pursued a claim that because he was a tenant for a week, the tenant then became the landlord and was required to provide him with the information relating to the Healthy Homes standards that he has the landlord had and not provided.
This is a frivolous claim and is dismissed. Jurisdiction
The landlord suggested that the Residential Tenancies Act, RTA, did not apply to this tenancy because the tenant was found through Facebook. The landlord said that if he wanted a tenancy, he would have gone through Harcourts.
As explained in the hearing this was a valid tenancy with a signed tenancy agreement, containing agreed terms and rent paid by the tenant.
The RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. See section 4, RTA.
Landlords cannot contract out of the provisions of the RTA or decide that it does not apply.
This claim is dismissed. The tenants claims.
The tenant withdrew his claim for discrimination.

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state?

[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 and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 provided photographs of overgrown lawns, gardens and some items left behind by the landlord on the section.
Premise is defined in the RTA as including ...any land and appurtenances, other than facilities...
The landlord stated that the premises had been empty for 3 weeks before the tenant moved in as he was overseas, and the grounds had not been maintained over that period. The landlord said that the tenant moved in quickly, and the premises had not been made ready.
The landlord provided a witness, his daughter Amanda who said that the outside was going to be attended to and she had received 2 quotes but that they were too expensive. She said that a few things were left outside, such as a ball outdoor couch and cushions.
The tenant provided two witnesses Mr Reede and Mr Lyall who both said that grass and gardens were overgrow and that they had worked to mow, trim and weed the outside area. Mr Lyall said he worked for approximately 40 hours, and this included water blasting and windows and removal of a lot of green waste.
The tenant provided an end of tenancy videos of the outside of the premises which was in better condition than at the start with tidy lawns and gardens.
I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlord knew the outside of the premises would have required maintaining but went ahead with the tenancy. It was his decision to the rent the premises when he did.
The landlord got quotes via his daughter which he did not pursue. The result was the tenant had to organise this work. There was no evidence that he was compensated for it. It is in the public interest that the landlords comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to make an award of $400.00 for this breach.

Did the landlord fail to provide insulation information?

[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, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
There was no evidence provided that the tenant made a request for these documents. This claim is dismissed. [The tenant/s] harassed the tenant?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord lived in the premises for one week and it is during this time and the use of a bathroom formed the basis of the claim.
Due to lack of evidence this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has explained why they believed the landlord has been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days and the landlord agreed that he had been away for 25 days.
The landlord said that he appointed his daughter as the agent and there was evidence of her name and phone number being given to the tenant and the parties meeting about the tenancy. No address for service was given.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I do not find that there was a breach of this section and even if I did, I find that there was no intention by the landlord, and it is not just to award compensation in this instance. This claim is dismissed.

Were Insulation details provided?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not included insulation details in the tenancy agreement.
A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement in clause 7 read, The landlord confirms that the property complies with the healthy homes, standards including insulation requirements.
For the Tribunal hearing, an installation guarantee from ‘pink fit pink batts’ was provided confirming installation 5 February 2020.
Details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed was not included in the tenancy agreement.
Paul Kintu Bamusibule failed to fully comply with what was required. The house was built in approximately 2020 and the tenant did not raise any concerns about the warmth at the premises. I do not find that this is an intentional breach that results in an award of exemplary damages. This claim is dismissed.
Because both parties were somewhat successful the filing fee is not reimbursed. Name suppression.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Both parties requested suppression. Both parties substantially succeeded with their applications and name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5012849 — Rent arrears at 13 Lavinias Way, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5012849 — Rent arrears at 13 Lavinias Way, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the overpaid rent be refunded?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state?

Did the landlord fail to provide insulation information?

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent?

Were Insulation details provided?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the overpaid rent be refunded?

Did the landlord provide the premises in a reasonable state?

Did the landlord fail to provide insulation information?

Did the landlord fail to appoint an agent?

Were Insulation details provided?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions