What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5014508?

Cleaning: $1,216.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $12,955.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet, Excess: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain Tracks: $193.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Doors, Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtain: $132.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11467083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5014508?

Cleaning: $1,216.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $12,955.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet, Excess: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain Tracks: $193.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Doors, Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtain: $132.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11467083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

102 Marychurch Road, Pukemoremore, RD 1, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014508 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014508 — net $13,316.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,955.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal: engine block	$120.00		Rubbish removal: engine block
Repairs: wooden doors, excess	$500.00		Repairs: wooden doors, excess
Cleaning: Curtains	$1,216.00		Cleaning: Curtains
Replace curtain	$132.50		Replace curtain
Repairs: Curtain tracks	$193.00		Repairs: Curtain tracks
Repairs: Carpet, excess	$3,000.00		Repairs: Carpet, excess
Exemplary damages: Breach of s.45, HHS		$2,400.00	Breach of s.45, HHS
Total award	$18,116.50	$2,400.00
Net award	$13,316.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,316.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5014508 — net $13,316.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$12,955.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal: engine block	$120.00		Rubbish removal: engine block
Repairs: wooden doors, excess	$500.00		Repairs: wooden doors, excess
Cleaning: Curtains	$1,216.00		Cleaning: Curtains
Replace curtain	$132.50		Replace curtain
Repairs: Curtain tracks	$193.00		Repairs: Curtain tracks
Repairs: Carpet, excess	$3,000.00		Repairs: Carpet, excess
Exemplary damages: Breach of s.45, HHS		$2,400.00	Breach of s.45, HHS
Total award	$18,116.50	$2,400.00
Net award	$13,316.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,316.50

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] must pay [The landlord/s] $13,316.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord appeared with a support person.
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 claimed for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The claim for repairs to the cat door are dismissed as there was no pre-tenancy evidence that this was working when the tenancy began.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy began on 28 January 2022 and ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears were also calculated by the Tribunal based on the information provided by the landlord.
The tenant agreed that rent was owed and did not dispute the amount claimed. Later in the hearing the tenant said that he did not know the extent of the rent arrears until the application was made and could have made some attempts to repay.
A tenant is to pay rent when as and when due under the tenancy agreement. See section 40(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.

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, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. A car engine was found under some weeds and the cost to remove it was claimed. The tenant said that he could not find it and would have removed it if given the opportunity. He was remined that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This amount is awarded as claimed.
Evidence was provided that 8 curtains at the premises were dirty and marked, and some had mould. The tenant agreed that the children had marked some of the curtains but that the mould was due to the curtains being too long and were sitting on the ground, not allowing for airflow and in some cases because the floor itself was wet.
The area with the a wet floor that is discussed in the tenants’ claims did not have curtains.
The inland revenue depreciation guidelines, IR265 July 2021, estimate the useful life of curtains at 8 years. The landlord estimates that the age of the curtains were about 4 years old.
The curtains were not damaged, and it is more economical than replacing them, $1216.00 is awarded for curtain cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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: [list items]. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. a) The carpets throughout the house were stained. b) Wooden doors in the lounge were broken. c) The carpet in the kitchen/ living room was damaged. d) One pair of curtains was cut, and e) Curtain tracks were broken throughout the house. f)The wooden flooring in the ensuite and back entrance office area was damaged.
The premises had near new carpet in the main bedroom and family room. The garage room had new carpet and the rest of the carpet was laid in the 1990s. Photographs of extensive stains throughout the property were provided, and the tenant agreed that the children and some accidents and spillages caused the damage. The tenant said that at the end of the tenancy the floors were vacuumed but no attempt was made at removal of stains as the tenant believed that it was all going to be replaced.
An area of concern was the hole and worn away area by the kitchen. Pre- tenancy photographs show unmarked carpets but by the end the carpet was worn through. Even allowing for age and continual use by 6 people this was significant damage. The staining and marks were so significant I find them to be intentional as behaviour has continued over some time to cause this type of damage.
The landlord has made an insurance claim which has been accepted. The excess for the damages to the carpet is claimed and awarded for 4 bedrooms and lounge, being a total of $3000.00.
Cupboard doors were broken during the tenancy. Photographic evidence from pre, and post tenancy was provided. The tenant said they removed the doors to stop them being damaged, however the photographs show damaged and broken slats and joins. I find that this damage occurred during the tenancy and award the $500.00 insurance excess for this claim.
The tenant agreed that the curtain was cut by a child at the premises. Half the amount claimed is awarded considering the useful life of curtains being 8 years.
Curtain tracks throughout the house were broken and some had parts missing. The tenant said a child stood on a curtain and because it was too long which damaged one rail. There were at least 4 rooms with damage which suggests ongoing and unregulated actions which caused this. I find the damage intentional and award the replacement cost of $193.00 after depreciation.
Flooring panels in the ensuite were damaged and a piece removed from the floor. The hard flooring in the back entrance office area was cracked. The landlord provided pre and post tenancy photographs and I find that the damaged occurred during the tenancy.
The Tenant said that it was faulty flooring that should not have been used in those areas but had no reports or evidence supporting this claim. He believed it was installed by the landlord. The landlord said that this was not true and there was no evidence provided otherwise.
The tenant said that he had told the landlord verbally about the problems with the wooden flooring. The landlord denied being told that there were issues.
The landlord had regular inspections and the tenant provided copies of messages dated 16 December 2022 telling the landlord about the deteriorating floor in the ensuite and providing photographs.
The landlord then organised two quotes to replace the damaged floor but did not pursue this because they believed that the repairs would require the tenant to move out.
An insurance claim was made for the damage but was turned down as the insurer found the ensuite to be gradual damage due to possible leak, even though the moisture test was dry, and the back entrance floor was wear and tear.
I find that the tenant did notify the landlord about the had flooring damage and if the landlord had repaired it sooner the claim may have been less. I do not find that the tenants carelessly or intentionally damaged the flooring, and this claim is dismissed.
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.
The tenants claim.
[The tenant/s] claims that the premises are unlawful, that the landlord entered without notice, retaliatory behaviour, misrepresentation of the property condition, leaks, and that landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Unlawful premises
The tenant claimed the premises were unlawful due to its condition, highlighting flooring, dampness and a subfloor leak.
The RTA defines unlawful premises as a residential premises that cannot be lawfully occupied and the landlord failure to comply with their obligations has caused the occupation to be unlawful. See section 78A RTA.
The tenant was unable to provide evidence that the premise was unlawful. There were no council notices or lack of required consents.
The issues highlighted by the tenant are determined under the breach of the landlords’ duties(s45).I do not find that they are grounds to declare the premises as unlawful.
This claim is dismissed. Lack of notice
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant said that the landlord was at the premises when he returned to get some items with the trailer, in the afternoon on the final day of the tenancy. The tenants had otherwise moved out, but he was surprised to see the landlord there.
The landlord said there were no cars or anyone at the premise and believed that the tenant and his family had vacated, so she went through to complete a final inspection.
An award of exemplary damages can be made if a landlord breaches this section intentionally.
From the evidence given, the inside of the premises was empty, it was the last day of the tenancy and no sign of the tenants. I find that the landlord believed that the tenants had left, and the tenancy had ended, there was no intentional act, and I am not satisfied that it would be just to award damages in this instance.
This claim is dismissed. Retaliatory actions
The tenant said that the landlord acted less friendly, and the relationship changed after they asked for a Healthy Homes report in 2022.The RTA has remedies for retaliatory notice ending a tenancy, but a perceived change in relationship is not a breach of the RTA.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 RTA?

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms, and comply with all healthy home’s standards, HHS.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which one award of exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.This award covers all proven breaches of section 45 of the RTA.
Multiple breaches of this section were claimed. Each claim under section 45(1)(b),(ba),and (bb) is discussed and determined. Regardless of the number of breaches under section 45 they are classed as one breach of this section of the RTA. If it is established that there have been any unlawful acts, a single award will be made. The maximum total award for all established breaches under this section is $7,200.00. Subfloor leak.
There was a leak in the sub floor of the premises where kitchen waste was leaking into. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered this when a plumber went to fix a hot a water cylinder.
The tenant said during the tenancy there was a smell in the bedroom next to the bathroom.
A plumber had been called in February 2024 to fix a shower head, but the issue was not raised then, and plumber was called in again in September 2024, but no concerns were raised by the tenants. The landlord said they never heard anything else about it.
The tenant commissioned a moisture report from Enell inspections limited in October 2024, but they did not access the subfloor.
There was no evidence that the landlord knew there was a leak in the subfloor.
This claim is dismissed. Leaks
The tenant said that there were leaks in the main lounge sunroom window which appeared to be a longstanding issue. They claimed that large window, which was also part skylight, had leaks down both sides and this also affected the carpet and flooring near the wall.
The landlord agreed that they were told about the issues in November 2022 and a plumber was organised, and the seals were also checked and fixed.
They believe that it was fine until July 2024 when it started to leak again, and a cover was put over it to help waterproof it. The landlord said that a full repair was not possible during the tenancy.
Both parties submitted copies of moisture reports which looked at this area. The reports were both non-invasive visual inspections and moisture tests on areas that were accessible at the time of the inspection.
The tenants used Enell Inspections Limited which used a Trotec moisture metre. They took measurements throughout the premises but only provided photographs and readings of where dampness was found, being the floor by the skylight window and the corner of the family room by the ranch slider.
The wall around the window was looked at and signs of leaking seen. The linings were dry but the floor either side of the window was wet. The report writer noted mold and suspected that the window had leaked in the recent past.
The tenant also provided a video which showed the soft flooring in the area close to the wall.
The landlord used Know Your Building for a moisture test, and they used Orion 950 moisture metre. This inspection was conducted on 18 December 2024 after the tenancy had ended and reported that ’the levels were consistent and indicated dryness at the time of the inspection’. Moisture content over 30 indicated elevated wetness and dampness. Twelve tables of results were provided for testing each area of the house and no results were over 30.
It also noted evidence of a ‘historical leak in the living room where work was being carried out to rectify the issue... wall linings were removed .... exposed timber framing was dry’. Timber flooring had visible damage, but carpet and flooring were found to be dry.
I find that there was floor damage from a leak but no evidence to establish an ongoing leak that was not attended to. The leak appeared to come and go and there is no evidence that the landlord ignored it. The video from the tenant supported the tenants claims that this area the floor was bowing by the wall, and I find that the landlords should have repaired this area of flooring. Hard flooring
The hard flooring in the ensuite started lifting and by the end of the tenancy parts had come away. The flooring in the back entrance also was damaged. The insurance company found that this was gradual damage and wear and tear. This damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord knew about the ensuite flooring and got two quotes to fix but did not progress with it. I find that they should have remedied the flooring during the tenancy.
The tenant also claimed that the tiles in the bathroom were slippery. There was not enough evidence provided supporting this claim and establishing that the landlord was told about these issues. This claim is dismissed. Leak in bedroom.
The tenant said that there was a leak in a bedroom that was next to the bathroom.
The landlord said they first they knew of this was the Oncore HHS report conducted in October 2024.They could not understand why it would leak as a plumber replaced shower head and checked out the shower with no sign of leaking.
The tenant’s moisture report showed no leaking in this area, and it was conducted also in October 2024 and the landlord’s moisture report showed no moisture in any bedrooms or the main bathroom.
This claim is dismissed as there was not enough evidence provided to establish the claim. Healthy Homes Standards
The Tribunal indicated in the hearing that some standards may not apply due to the commencement date of the tenancy. This date was incorrectly recorded the standards do apply and each claim under this heading is addressed.
The tenant based this claim on the Healthy Homes Report conducted on 23 October 2024 conducted by Oncore.
[The tenant/s] 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). [The tenant/s] 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. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
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 report flagged drainage that was not correctly attached to the house and guttering that was blocked. A photograph showed some weeds in the gutters and downpipes not fixed to the walls.
The report form Oncore stated that the ground moisture barrier was non-compliant, and work was needed when it was clear that this was not inspected by them. It is of concern and raises questions about the reliability and value of the report.
If the subfloor had been inspected the subfloor leak would have been discovered earlier. The tenant agreed that they did not have access to this area. Ventilation
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The Oncore report said that the bathroom fan was not working properly but did not say how. The landlord said they did not know about this until the report came out and believed that it was compliant.
Windows in the lounge and 2 bedrooms were not able to be fixed in an open and this is a breach of the HHS and an unlawful act. Draught stopping
[The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
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 Oncore report found that there were gaps around the internal garage that caused draughts. Photographs of older window frames were provided.
I do not find that this unlawful act was committed intentionally and am not satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages. [The tenant/s]
Compliant smoke alarms have been required in rental premises since July 2016. The Oncore report found the smoke alarm had expired and there was not an alarm within 3 metres of every bedroom as is required.
The landlord conducted inspections, and this should have been noted. This is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages in relation to claims for breaches of section 45(1) RTA.
I have found that the landlord has intentionally breached section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, four times. This includes a breach of the regulations in respect of smoke alarms which is of concern.
When 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
As earlier stated, breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which one award of exemplary damages may be made up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The breach of the smoke alarm regulations compromises the health and safety of the tenants, and the flooring issues were known to the landlord, but they failed to maintain these areas. I find that these are intentional breaches.
The gutters and downpipes are the landlords to maintain, and the ventilation standard is to be complied with. It is in the interest of tenants the health safety and wellbeing that landlords know and comply with the requirements of the RTA.
If find of most concern the breaches in relation to the smoke alarms and I find it just and reasonable to award one third of the maximum penalty for all the breaches of this section, being $2400.00.
I find there was no evidence that the landlord misrepresented the property to the tenant and this claim is dismissed.
Both parties were substantially successful, and no filing fees are reimbursed.
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. Name suppression is granted for both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014508 — Rent arrears at 102 Marychurch Road, Pukemoremore, RD 1, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014508 — Rent arrears at 102 Marychurch Road, Pukemoremore, RD 1, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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?

Did the landlord breach their obligations under section 45 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions