What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017946 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,265.56 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5017946?

Cleaning: $123.56 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,440.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $552.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017946?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017946?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11043710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017946 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,265.56 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5017946?

Cleaning: $123.56 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,440.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $552.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017946?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017946?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11043710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017946 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017946 — net $2,265.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,440.00	rent sought by the Landlords was owing. Therefore, I order the Tenant is to pay $1440 rrears Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the ten…
Cleaning	$123.56	Cleaning
Repairs: painting	$552.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: floor damage BR 4	$150.00	Repairs: floor damage BR 4
Net award	$2,265.56
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,265.56

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017946 — net $2,265.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,440.00	rent sought by the Landlords was owing. Therefore, I order the Tenant is to pay $1440 rrears Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the ten…
Cleaning	$123.56	Cleaning
Repairs: painting	$552.00	Repairs: painting
Repairs: floor damage BR 4	$150.00	Repairs: floor damage BR 4
Net award	$2,265.56
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,265.56

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,265.56 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,265.56 [The tenant/s]: $614.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenant alleges that the tenancy did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards and seeks compensation calculated as one third of her total rent paid throughout the tenancy. She argues that the alleged healthy homes defects means that she was overcharged rents by 50%. Insulation
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
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 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tenant’s allegations are based on a healthy homes report prepared by a third-party provider (the Report). The Report says that the insulation installed failed to meet the minimum standards, and that the subfloor lacked a moisture barrier. The Report contains photos which alleged show these defects. The photos of the attic space show areas with no insulation coverage.
The Landlords provided photos which show that the areas where there was no ceiling insulation were immediately adjacent to electrical and plumbing fittings which where insulation would cause safety issues or could be affected by condensation. Other photos show insulation coverage well in excess of the standards. The Landlords also provided photos of the insulation installation certificate showing that the insulation is to R3.6.
The Report identified an area of subfloor which lacked a moisture barrier. However, the Landlord provided evidence that this area was both difficult to access having only 400mm of clearance and was an area where there was a concrete floor slab over which an extension with a suspended floor had been built. Firstly, there are legitimate access issues, secondly, the concrete slab itself would act as a significant barrier to water vapour or rising moisture.
I observe that the Report consistently identifies alleged defects based on photographs which are taken at angles or are framed in such a way that the complete area in question is not visible. I have misgivings about this approach as without further context, it is misleading. The Report is expert evidence, and the role of an expert is to present balanced and objective opinion, not to mislead. This is not a criticism of the tenant who has acted in a reasonable manner.
There was also an allegation that the Landlord’s healthy home statement was a misrepresentation as the dates were not consistent. Examining the document, I note that the dates in apparent conflict are the date the document was prepared and the date of compliance.
The Tenant’s claim is not made out. Draught stopping
[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 draught stopping standard. This is based on the Report, which identifies a number of apparent gaps which are alleged to require stopping strips.
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 MBIE guidance provided by the Landlord is that gaps should be no more than 3 mm.
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).
In this case I have determined that the windows and doors identified in the Report were in fact complaint. The Landlord provided photos showing the windows and doors identified in the Report, with a taper gauge used to measure the external gaps. In each case, except the back door, the external gap was less than 3mm, although the internal gap between the window unit and sill may have been larger. No stopping was required, and these units are compliant. The back door did have larger gaps than allowed, however it had draught strips installed. As above, by focusing on gaps at the inside of the window frames, without showing the exterior, the Report is misleading.
The Tenant’s claim is not made out. Drainage and moisture ingress
[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.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard require 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 Report identifies a downpipe which is said to be non-compliant as it discharges onto a concrete slab and identifies a gutter with grass growing in it.
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).
The landlord provided pictures which show that the down pipe discharges into a channel drain which leads to a sump. This is a compliant means of discharge. The grass growing is a minor issue and no actual leaks into the premises have been identified. The Report uses a photo which omits the sump and is misleading.
The garage did leak; however, this was identified as an issue at the start of the tenancy, and the Tenant accepted the garage in that condition.
The Tenant’s claim is not made out. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The Tenant accepted during the hearing that the two weeks rent sought by the Landlords was owing. Therefore, I order the Tenant is to pay $1440 rrears

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but for 2 minor, overlooked areas in the bathroom, and an area in the garden where cardboard boxes used as weed matting had been piled. I reduce the amount sought by the Landlords, as the 4 hours claimed to clean these areas is excessive, instead I award 1 hour.
The Landlord alleges the Tenant removed the garage lock and replaced it with a rusty old lock with no keys. The cost of a new lock is claimed. The tenant says the lock was stolen early in the tenancy and she replaced it with a lock of her own which was in reasonable condition. She says she left the keys on the bench when she left the tenancy. I accept the tenant’s position. Nothing is awarded for the lock.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord alleges that the tenant caused the following damage to the premises: a. Divots in the walls of bedrooms 1 and 2, and the front hallway. The damage appears to have been caused when Command type glue on hooks have been removed, removing the paint, wallpaper and gib paper. b. Gouges in the polished flooring of bedroom 4. c. A conduit between the house and garage has been impact damaged, breaking the plastic conduit and pulling a loop of the power cable out.
There are also 2 other issues raised by the landlord; a missing power box for the Chorus ONT box, and broken veneer facings on kitchen cabinets. However, the landlord had not claimed any amounts for these issues and accepted that the cabinet veneers appeared to be due to the glue aging.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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, which is $1500 in the present case, or four weeks' 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.
Considering the alleged damage: a. The tenant accepted that they had caused some of the divots in paintwork when hooks were removed, however, the tenant’s daughter said that two of the hooks in bedroom 2 were there when the tenancy began. The tenant also said the divots were small (approximately the size of a $2 coin) apart from a larger scrape, caused by furniture. I accept that this damage was caused by the tenant and is not wear and tear. The walls had been painted immediately before the tenancy began, therefore, the landlords claim which is based on a quote to repaint the affected areas, is reasonable, and I award the $552 sought. b. The gouges in the flooring are disputed. The tenant points to a pre-tenancy inspection, and says that she used rugs on the floors, so could not have caused the gouges. The landlord says that the gouges are more than scuffing and are not wear and tear. I not that the pre-inspection checklist refers to scuffs in every room except bedroom 4, which the landlord says was sanded and polished immediately prior to the tenancy. The photo and video evidence shows gouges which appear to be fresh. I note the chelist does not refer to any damage to the floor of bedroom 4 whereas the other bedrooms, kitchen, loungue and both hallways are referred as having scuffing. I accept that the damage was caused by the tenantand was not wear and tear. The landlord intends to repair the damage himself, and I find the costs sought; $150, are reasonable. c. The conduit damage has an unknown cause. It was discovered mid-way through the tenancy and temporary repairs were carried out. The damage has been caused by an impact, although it is not clear what has impacted with the conduit, as it sits more than approximately 2 metres off the ground. The conduit sits above the area where the landlord had repairs to a sewer line carried out. The tenant believes that that tradesman working on the sewerage issues may have caused the damage and denies that she caused it. The landlord says that he recalled the tenant telling him something had been hung off the conduit and the damage occurred when wind caught the hung object. This seems unlikely as the cause of the damage as photos appear to show impact damage. I am presented with two competing depictions of how the damage occurred. There is no other evidence which can allow me to differentiate between the 2 accounts. Therefore, I must consider who bears the onus of proving the cause of the damage. The landlord has claimed the damage and therefore bears to onus of proving causation. The landlords’ claim for the damage to the conduit is not proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017946 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017946 — Rent arrears

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions