What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5016998 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 5016998?

Cleaning: $1,770.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016998?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5016998 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 5016998?

Cleaning: $1,770.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5016998?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5016998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13A Irirangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5016998 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016998 — net $3,797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: property not clean and maintained	$1,770.00	property not clean and maintained
Exemplary damages: failing to appoint an agent when landlord outside New Zealand	$250.00	failing to appoint an agent when landlord outside New Zealand
Exemplary damages: failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement	$250.00	failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement
Exemplary damages: failing to comply with Healthy Homes standards	$1,500.00	failing to comply with Healthy Homes standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,797.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,797.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5016998 — net $3,797.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: property not clean and maintained	$1,770.00	property not clean and maintained
Exemplary damages: failing to appoint an agent when landlord outside New Zealand	$250.00	failing to appoint an agent when landlord outside New Zealand
Exemplary damages: failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement	$250.00	failing to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement
Exemplary damages: failing to comply with Healthy Homes standards	$1,500.00	failing to comply with Healthy Homes standards
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,797.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,797.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
Renthub Limited acting as agent for Julian King-Turner must pay the Tenants the sum of $3,797.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Marina George and Elise Martin. Julian King-Turner made himself available by phone to respond to any queries from Ms George and Ms Martin during the hearing. Both tenants appeared.
These claims relate to the tenancy of a three-bedroom, one bathroom (plus ensuite) bungalow located in Greenlane, Auckland. The tenancy began on 15 July 2024 and was for a fixed term of one year ending on 14 July 2025.
On 26 September 2024 the tenants filed a claim in the Tribunal. They seek the following orders: a. An order reducing the term of the fixed term tenancy; b. Compensation for the property not being clean, property maintained or compliant with the Healthy Homes standards; c. Exemplary damages for the following breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”): i. Failure to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement with the tenancy agreement; ii. Failure to appoint an agent while landlord outside of New Zealand; and iii. Failure to comply with the Healthy Homes standards.
On 22 November 2024 the landlord filed a claim seeking orders in respect of the reasonable expenses payable by the tenant should the fixed term of the tenancy be reduced. Onus and evidence
As with all claims before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing their claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed and produced to the Tribunal but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence when making this decision. The Tenants’ claims
The tenants said that when they viewed the property the previous tenants were still living there, and all their furniture was in place, so it was difficult for them to inspect the property thoroughly.
The tenants said that they dealt with Renthub initially to secure the tenancy but the tenancy agreement recorded Mr King-Turner as the landlord and they paid the rent direct to him and were told to contact him if there were any issues.
When the tenants moved in they were surprised that nobody met them at the property and they were told that the key was left in a location under the deck.
The tenants said that they received an ingoing inspection report on 21 July 2024 which had taken place on 15 July 2024. They said that by this stage they had moved in and had discovered that the property was generally not clean and that the windowsills were dirty, the toilets had very dark staining, the shower door had limescale and the seals around the showers/bath were mouldy/unclean the oven was not cleaned and the extractor fan filter was very dirty.
The tenants also noticed a number of maintenance issues including that a number of lightbulbs had blown, the wall had rotted behind the laundry tub, the ensuite door handle didn’t work so the door could not close, the windows and doors were draughty and the paths and steps needed waterblasting as they were covered in a thick layer of moss and slime. They said that overall the property did not seem to have been property maintained for some time.
The tenants said that they raised the cleaning issues with Mr King-Turner and that a cleaner eventually came but did not clean everything 1 . They said that they cleaned the carpets and did the rest of the cleaning themselves and water- blasted the path and part of the deck. They said that the landlord did very little in the way of maintenance until Renthub were appointed agents in September 2024, and that after that date matters have been attended to gradually but that they have had had the inconvenience of multiple tradespeople attending and have had to stay home from work to let them in.
The tenants said that the landlord lived in Australia and so never came to the property to have a look at any of the issues. They communicated via WhatsApp.
The tenants explained that they did not understand the Healthy Homes standards when they moved in and did not know that the landlord should provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement. They said that a compliance statement was not provided, but the landlord had instead attached a Healthy Homes report dated 2 August 2022, but that this report showed that the property was not compliant.
The tenants explained that they no longer want to stay in the property as they do not have confidence that the property will be properly maintained going forward and they say that they are constantly cleaning mould. Their 9 year old daughter lives at the property and I was told that she has begun suffering from eczema. The landlord’s response 1 The tenants were invoiced for the cost of cleaning but refused to pay the invoice. I was told by the landlord that the invoice had been sent to them in error.
The landlord said that Renthub had been engaged to find tenants but that the property was thereafter to be managed by Mr King-Turner. However in September 2024 they were appointed as agents to manage the property.
Ms George said that Mr King-Turner was initially in Australia but that he returned to live in New Zealand in October 2024. She said that he had appointed his mother to act as his agent while he was away but accepted that he did not communicate this information not the tenants.
Ms Martin referred me to the pre-inspection report in its entirety and said that overall the property was clean although she accepted that certain areas were not as clean as they could have been. She said that the landlord had been proactive and had done the following relevant maintenance: a. Installed a ground moisture barrier on 22 December 2022 and confirmed compliance of underfloor insulation (prior to start of tenancy); b. House wash and gutter clean (invoice dated 24 February 2023 – prior to start of tenancy); c. Had front door and bedroom 2 wardrobe door trimmed, replaced hook on laundry door, replaced various lights, secured vanity door in bathroom and replaced hinges, resecured curtains (invoice dated 12 July 2024 – prior to the start of the tenancy); d. Replaced faulty light fittings (invoice dated 30 September 2024); e. Replaced various lights (invoice dated 29 October 2024); f. Gutter cleaning and waterblasting deck (invoice dated 31 October 2024); and g. Cleaning drains following sink and laundry blockage (invoice dated 31 October 2024). h. Draught stopping, replacing ensuite door, painting back door and repairing lock, cleaning fan, repairing laundry wall and painting ceiling panels (invoice dated 20 November 2024);
The landlord accepted that no compliance statement had been attached to the tenancy agreement.

Was the property provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair?

Under section 45(1) RTA, a landlord must: a. provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and b. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Having reviewed all of the evidence (including photos and correspondence) regarding cleaning I do not consider that the property was in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The landlord conceded that no further cleaning had been done between this tenancy and the previous tenancy, and while additional cleaning might not always be required in between tenancies is usually necessary. There were a number of areas that required additional cleaning, in particular the oven, rangehood, and bathrooms/toilets.
I have reviewed all of the evidence (including photos and correspondence) regarding maintenance and repairs and do not consider that the property was in a reasonable state of repair, even having regard to the age and character of the premises. There were a number of areas where maintenance was required, including the deck and steps, the laundry wall, the ensuite door that affected the tenant’s use of the property 2 and they had to deal with the inconvenience of having tradespeople attending and doing repairs that should have been attended to before they moved in.
I note that the landlord did some minor repairs just prior to the start of the tenancy but (despite the tenants immediately raising a number of issues) no further maintenance was done until Renthub took over the maintenance of the property in September 2024, with that maintenance then taking place in October and November 2024.
I do note that the tenants raised concerns about mould but I note that this issue was not raised by the tenants when they responded to the pre-inspection report (other than in respect of the shower and bath) and I am unable to make a determination in respect of the cause the mould except to note that there is an area in the master bedroom that the landlord also agrees requires attention.
I note that the landlord and tenant have made some attempts to negotiate compensation for the additional cleaning done by the tenants. The landlord paid for some additional cleaning and for two months of water use by the tenants which was intended as compensation for some of the time spent cleaning.
The parties also agreed that as of 30 September rent would be paid at $850.00 per week rather than the agreed rental of $920.00 per week.
Having considered all of the evidence and having heard from the parties I consider that the tenants are entitled to some additional compensation (for both cleaning and maintenance).
The tenants paid for the first 11 weeks of the tenancy at the rate of $920.00 per week but the property was not up to standard for those weeks and I consider that those weeks should be discounted at the same rate. This amounts to $70 per week over a period of 11 weeks, a total of $770.00. 2 The entire door in fact had to be replaced
In addition I consider that the tenant are entitled to compensation for the time spent cleaning and water blasting and for the inconvenience of having tradespeople attending regularly to do repairs and maintenance that should have been done before they moved in. I consider that compensation of $1,000 is appropriate to cover these issues.
Together with the reduced rental for the first 11 weeks, the total compensation for the cleaning and maintenance issues is therefore $1,770.00.

Did the landlord provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement?

Under section 13A(1CA) of the RTA a landlord must include a Heathy Homes compliance statement, made and signed by the landlord, including the information prescribed by regulation.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that no Healthy Homes compliance statement was included with the tenancy agreement.
This obligation is so fundamental and so well known that failure to do so will almost always be regarded as intentional.
The landlord did supply a copy of the Healthy Homes report and so it does not appear that the landlord was attempting to hide information from the tenants. However the reason that a compliance statement is required is so that the tenants can easily see and review compliance and so they are aware of the compliance date.
Taking into account the circumstances and effect of the breach I consider that exemplary damages of $250.00 are appropriate.

Did the property comply with the Healthy Homes standards?

[The tenant/s]45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The landlord queried whether the Healthy Homes compliance date was not reached until 13 October 2024 (120 days from the start of the tenancy).
However landlords cannot keep “re-setting” the compliance date with every new tenancy. Once the property has reached a compliance date has been reached in previous tenancy it continues the property must remain compliant.
During an adjournment Ms Martin phoned Mr King-Turner who said that the previous tenancy had begun on 7 December 2022. The property therefore should have complied with the Healthy Homes standards 120 days after that tenancy began, and so should have been Healthy Homes compliant at the start of this tenancy.
They landlord was aware that the property did not comply in August 2022. I was told that some draught stopping had been done since that date but the landlord conceded that not all draught stopping had been done and so the property did not comply from the start of the tenancy until November 2024.
By failing to comply with the Healthy Home draught stopping standard 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord knew in 2022 that the property did not comply with the draught stopping standard and so the failure to do the draught stopping must be regarded as intentional.
The tenants notice draughts when they moved in and experienced cold over the winter months. However the property complied with the Healthy Homes standards in all other respects, and the landlord did ensure compliance during the tenancy, so the period of non-compliance in this tenancy was approximately three months. There is a public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with all of the Healthy Homes standards from the compliance date.
Taking into account all of those factors I consider that exemplary damage of $1500.00 are appropriate.

Did the landlord appoint an agent while outside of New Zealand?

[The tenant/s] claimed 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 landlord accepted that Mr King-Turner was outside of New Zealand and although he initially engaged Renthub he did not reengage them to handle maintenance matters until September 2024. It appears that he did appoint his mother to be agent while he was away but as he did not communicate this fact to the tenant they were unaware and unable to contact her.
The need to appoint an agent is a fundamental. Properties require maintenance, sometimes urgently, and the tenants need to be able to contact someone in New Zealand. I have reviewed the correspondence and I do note that Mr King-Turner was fairly responsive on WhatsApp and that he did liaise with Renthub to some degree but the tenants should have been able to reliably contact an agent in New Zealand when they needed to do so.
I consider that in all the circumstances an award of exemplary damages is $250.00 appropriate.

Are the tenants entitled to an order reducing the fixed term of the tenancy?

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances; b. the change was unforeseen; c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced; and d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
“Unforeseen” means unexpected or without warning. An unforeseen change in circumstances has in previous cases included 3 : a. An unexpected transfer of the tenant’s employment to another city just before the tenancy commenced; b. One of four tenants developing a sudden and serious illness and leaving the property; c. Suicide of a co-tenant; d. Visits from unknown persons enquiring about drugs and three burglaries at the premises; e. A former partner moving nearby in breach of a protection order; f. A partner leaving the relationship and the tenancy property; g. Detection of a former methamphetamine laboratory; h. Relocation to another city for cancer treatment; i. In earthquake cases, services cut to the tenancy property; and j. Substantial damage to the property.
Changes in the condition of the property are not an unforeseen change in a tenant’s circumstances, such as mould, flooding, sewage problems or the need for ordinary repairs and maintenance, or minor repairs 4 .
It is only in every extreme situations that the condition of a property may amount to a change in the tenant’s circumstances such as those set out above. I do not consider that he landlord’s failures can amount to a change in circumstances, particularly as the issues have been or are being rectified.
I do however accept that the tenants have found the lack of cleaning, maintenance and compliance very frustrating and that they have concerns about the property.
It appears from discussions at the hearing that the landlord is willing to reduce the fixed term of this tenancy. The parties were unable to reach agreement on the terms at the hearing today but I encourage them to continue to discuss so that they are able to move forward. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 3 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [13] 4 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [14] and Davies v Clarke [2017] NZDC 21608 at [15]
The tenants have applied for an order for name suppression, and I consider that they are entitled to an order for suppression as the substantially successful party 5 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016998 — Cleanliness at 13A Irirangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5016998 — Cleanliness at 13A Irirangi Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the property provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair?

Did the landlord provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement?

Did the property comply with the Healthy Homes standards?

Did the landlord appoint an agent while outside of New Zealand?

Are the tenants entitled to an order reducing the fixed term of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the property provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair?

Did the landlord provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement?

Did the property comply with the Healthy Homes standards?

Did the landlord appoint an agent while outside of New Zealand?

Are the tenants entitled to an order reducing the fixed term of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions