What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026170 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] to pay Jarg Trustees Limited and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5026170?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026170?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12661413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026170 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] to pay Jarg Trustees Limited and [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5026170?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026170?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12661413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3809 Cambridge Road, Leamington, RD 3, Cambridge 3495 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5026170 — Rent arrears

Order

[The party] to pay Jarg Trustees Limited and [The landlord/s] $1,080.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 August 2025 and a short second telephone hearing on 25 August.
Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal relating to this lengthy tenancy which ended in October 2024.
These proceedings have also been lengthy for a mixture of reasons. 1
The tenant’s claim is for refund of the bond, and compensation and exemplary damages for landlord breaches.
The landlord claims the bond, rent arrears, and compensation for repairs and clean-up after the tenancy ended. The issues to be decided
Some of the landlord’s and tenant’s claims overlap. I note this in the list of issues below.
The issues to be decided are:- a. How much is the bond? (tenant and landlord claim) b. Is there rent owing and if so, how much? (landlord claim) c. Did the landlord breach any of its legal obligations relating to healthy homes standards, maintenance, or compliance with legislative requirements relating to the specific issues raised by the tenant? (tenant claim) d. Did the landlord breach any obligation to carry out inspections? (tenant claim) e. Did the landlord fail to give the correct notice when entering the premises? (tenant claim) f. Were the services or amenities provided at the start of the tenancy downgraded so that the tenant suffered loss of enjoyment? (tenant claim) g. Is the tenant liable to compensate the landlord for repairs and clean-up after the tenancy ended? (landlord claim)
I have not considered new claims from the tenant for compensation related to cleanliness of the property at the start of the tenancy. These were included in the breakdown of costs and labour filed the night before the final hearing, but were not in the original claim. A direction was made on 9 April 2025 that any amendments to claims had to be made no later than 10 days before the hearing. 2
I have considered the full amounts claimed by both parties. 3 1 Landlord adjournments, late filing of evidence and claims by both parties, and the time taken for me to evaluate all evidence and write this final decision 2 Direction of Adjudicator Lang on 9 April 2025, paragraph 21. 3 The tenant’s original claim sought compensation of $10,000.00 and unspecified exemplary damages and her later filed breakdown of costs was for $29,235.00 including exemplary damages. The landlord initially sought rent owing of $1,650.00 and increased this to $4,050.00 on the day of the hearing. Background
A written tenancy agreement was entered into by [The party] and [The landlord/s] recording a tenancy commencing on 30 July 2014.
The exact date the tenancy began is unclear 4 , but the landlord’s rent summary starts from 1 September 2014. A letting agent acted on behalf of the landlord to find the tenant and document the tenancy agreement. The landlord managed the tenancy himself after that.
This was a mostly “hands off” tenancy of an older bungalow on a large, rural section about 2500 square metres in size. The landlord says he preferred to leave the tenant and her family to live as they chose. The tenant did a lot of garden and exterior work and sometimes also dealt with issues in the house herself as they arose.
The landlord says he kept the rent low and offered materials from his landscaping business nearby. He says he attended to maintenance issues that were raised with him but that not many were.
The tenant says she brought this application because she is upset the landlord accused her of leaving the property worse off. She sees this as a slap-in-the- face after all the work she and her family have done and the rent she has paid over a decade.

How much was paid for bond?

The tenant thought she had paid a bond of $1,680.00 as this was the amount recorded as bond on the tenancy agreement.
The evidence shows:- a. The tenant made an initial payment of $1,323.00 to the letting agent at the start of the tenancy. b. The letting agent paid $840.00 to the landlord. This is shown on the agent’s records and in the landlord’s rent summary as rent in advance. c. The balance left from the tenant’s initial payment was $423.00 which was kept by the letting agent as the letting fee (payable by tenants at that time). 5 4 The tenancy agreement says 30 July 2014, a handwritten date of 20th of August 2014 is written above the tenant’s signature, an initial property inspection report done with the tenant and the letting agent is dated “27/8/14”, and the tenant’s first payment was made to that agent on 29 August 2014. 5 The law changed from 12 December 2018 to prohibit tenants from being charged letting fees. d. An amount of $1,080.00 was transferred from a previous tenancy and lodged in the tenant’s name at the Bond Centre.
I allowed time for the tenant to check bank records 6 , but there is no evidence that an additional amount was paid as bond to either the letting agent or the landlord.
My decision is that it is more probable than not that the bond is $1,080.00.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord applied for rent owing of $1,650.00 in the application made in March 2025 but did not supply sufficient information to substantiate this.
The Tribunal directed the landlord to provide a rent summary for the entire duration of the tenancy and in the Tenancy Services format. 7
The landlord did supply a full rent ledger however not until the day of the hearing on 13 August 2025. The landlord also sought to amend its claim for rent owing to $4,050.00 saying that the process of compiling the ledger had revealed other missed payments from previous years. This was a shock to the tenant who said if she had been made aware of the arrears at the time, she would have arranged to pay.
I allowed the landlord to amend its claim to the higher rent amount because the tenant had also filed a late detailed breakdown of compensation claims on the day before the hearing. 8
The tenant was given time to check her bank and payment records against the landlord’s rent ledger 9 . No evidence has been received to contradict the landlord’s rent records.
My decision is that the landlord has proved that the tenant owes rent of $4,050.00. I award this amount. 6 From after the hearing held on 13 August 2025 until 8 September 2025. No new evidence was received from the tenant on this issue. 7 After an initial case conference and in a written order dated 9 April 2025 (paragraph 15). 8 The Tribunal had directed that any amendment to either claim was to be sent to the Tribunal and to the other party at least 10 days before the hearing date; paragraph 21 of the order dated 9 April 2025. is did not include any new claims except for cleaning at the start of the tenancy 9 As noted in the footnote above. Did the landlord breach any of its legal obligations relating to healthy homes standards, maintenance, or compliance with legislative requirements relating to specific issues raised by the tenant?
The tenant has raised specific concerns or issues about the property. In effect, she says the landlord was not proactive with maintenance instead leaving her and her family to maintain the large house and grounds.
The tenant accepts that she did not often ask the landlord to do maintenance. However, she says there were some issues which were ongoing and which she raised with him verbally and in one email she sent on 1 November 2023.
The maintenance and compliance concerns she has raised in her application 10 relate to:- a. mould, including black mould, and dampness; b. downpipes discharging directly onto the ground and/or is not efficient drainage; c. spouting and downpipes that constantly needed clearing; d. the fire not being compliant and no other heating being provided; e. lack of insulation; f. the oven/elements not working several times during the tenancy; g. garden/exterior maintenance – in relation to removal of bamboo, cutting back of big trees, not cleaning up mess left by the landlord after replacement of spouting and work on the gazebo.

What are the relevant legal obligations?

Both landlords and tenants have legal obligations relating to maintenance and repairs. Some of these may be contained in the tenancy agreement as contract terms (terms must usually be consistent with the RTA).
A landlord’s obligations include those in section 45 RTA:- a. to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair taking into account the age and character of the premises; b. to comply with smoke alarms and insulation standards in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016; c. if a tenancy started after 1 July 2021, the landlord must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The HHS do not apply to this tenancy because it began well before the HHS came into law; 10 Specified in the first order made on 9 April 2025 after the case conference. a. to comply with any other relevant enactment relating to buildings, health and safety.
The New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) sets out performance standards for buildings including drainage systems for the disposal of surface water 11 and resistance to external moisture entering a building. 12 A Code of Compliance certificate is issued by the local council to indicate that building work complies with the Building Code. A house built before 1 July 1992 does not require this as the NZBC was not in force then. However, any later work or renovations must comply with the NZBC.
A tenant’s obligations in section 40 RTA include:- a. to keep premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy; b. to replace batteries in smoke alarms and not to tamper with them; c. to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises or the need for any repairs; d. to not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises.
The law does not specify whether it is the landlord or the tenant who is responsible for garden and exterior maintenance. The Tribunal usually considers that part of a tenant keeping premises “reasonably tidy” is mowing lawns and weeding reasonably sized gardens and that part of a landlord’s maintenance is pruning larger trees and shrubs and removing the cuttings.
The Tribunal usually considers the landlord to be responsible for cleaning out gutters and maintaining them as part of the drainage system.
This tenancy agreement between these parties does not specify who should do these tasks. Decisions on the tenant’s maintenance and compliance claims
The question is whether the landlord maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair taking into account its age and character.
A landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy a maintenance issue before being held to be in breach of its duty.
After considering the evidence on each of the issues raised, my findings are:- a. Mould and dampness: the tenant says the three bedrooms in the house were badly affected by mould to the extent that furniture had to be frequently cleaned, and she and her family had to wipe this down 11 NZ Building Code, Clause E1 12 NZ Building Code, Clause E2 fortnightly. She supplied photographs showing distinct patches of dark mould on at least two of the bedroom ceilings. The patches are located along the edges of the ceilings closest to exterior walls. 13 The tenant says this wall is closest to the carport. Other photographs show a light layer of mould on wooden bedroom furniture and short videos reveal what looks to be mould on a mattress. There is no written documentation of the issue being raised or discussed between the parties however I accept the tenant’s oral evidence that she did tell the landlord about the problem. The landlord supplied the tenant with a dehumidifier to use and did work to try to improve the guttering from the carport and divert it away from the house. In his view, the issue was not significant, or the tenant would have persisted in raising it with him. He considers that any mould issues in the house must be due to a lack of properly airing the house. My decision is that it is more probable than not that the mould on the ceilings in the bedrooms is caused by water or dampness in the ceiling. The photos show distinct patches of mould along the exterior wall. If the mould was from general dampness or caused by the tenant failing to air the rooms, I would expect it to appear in various locations in the room (eg perhaps on walls behind furniture, on windowsills, or more evenly spread on the ceilings). The landlord did take some action by providing the dehumidifier and doing work on the guttering and drainage around the carport. However, I find that he should have investigated the cause of the mould further to stop it getting worse. I also find he should have treated the mould or replaced the ceiling panels. I find that the landlord has not maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair relating to the mould on the ceilings of two bedrooms. I accept there was some loss of comfortable living for the tenant and her family because of this mould. It was not minor. The tenant describes having to regularly wipe down furniture. She also says she has disposed of her mattress and bedroom suite because of the mould. I do not award compensation for this because it is difficult to directly link the ceiling mould to the mould shown on the mattress and because wooden furniture should be able to be treated and used again. It is also difficult for me to assess how long the mould was a problem because there is no evidence to show when it was raised. In the absence of this, I award compensation of $500.00. b. House guttering and downpipes: photographs of the outside of the house prove that several of the downpipes from the guttering discharge directly onto the ground immediately next to the house. Videos supplied by the tenant show water discharging from two of the downpipes during rain and causing small pools on the ground. 14 The video also appears to show 13 See tenant video IMG_3620.MOV at 1:20 to 1:35 minutes. rainwater dropping to the ground from guttering along one side of the house (it is not clear which side). There is no written record of communication between the parties about the issue and the tenant said she did not persist in raising concerns but instead put in place a regime of clearing the guttering about every two months for most of the tenancy. As noted above, the landlord says he installed a drainage system to divert water away from the carport and the house and the tenant agrees but included photos showing the connections had failed in places. The NZBC, E1.3.3 requires drainage systems to convey surface water to an “appropriate outfall” which may be a natural water course or soakage system. 15 The tenant said she saw water flowing out of the downpipes and under the house however there is no independent evidence to show this. My conclusion is that on a rural property 16 such as this, there is insufficient evidence to show that downpipes discharging directly to the ground is a breach of a building enactment unless the water clearly does not drain away. A drainlayer or council officer may be able to inspect the drainage system and advise whether it is effective. In the absence of evidence that there is a problem, this part of the claim is not proven. The evidence of water falling from the gutters does suggest that at least some of the guttering on the house was not reasonably well maintained by the landlord. However, there is not enough evidence to show the extent of any failure, and I don’t know if the tenant showed the videos of leaking gutters to the landlord. For this reason, I do not award compensation. c. Cleaning of spouting and downpipes: the tenant seeks compensation for work she says she and her family did cleaning out the spouting (six times per year for ten years) saying this was needed on a frequent basis due to the number of surrounding trees and bamboo. The landlord’s submission is that this is a tenant responsibility. 17 As I said above, this is not generally correct in a residential tenancy. Although not stipulated in law anywhere, a landlord is usually responsible for outside maintenance as the house is their asset. Also, the height required to do guttering work is a health and safety risk. That said, if a tenant takes on a task and does not ask the landlord to do so, it is not reasonable to later claim that the landlord must compensate them for their time to do so. This claim is dismissed. d. The fire not being compliant and no other heating: The oral evidence from both parties satisfies me that the outer layer of glass on the firebox door cracked sometime in about the middle of the tenancy. The tenant said the landlord told her that cracked glass on the outside glass layer was merely 14 IMG_3571.MOV and IMG_3575.MOV. 15 See definitions in NZ Building Code. 16 It is common for downpipes to be attached to a piped stormwater drainage system in urban areas. 17 Statement of Evidence at paragraph 2.3. aesthetic. The tenant says she replaced the inner glass five times at a cost of $350 each time until advised by a retailer that both layers of glass must be intact. By this time the door was warped and the fire no longer usable. The tenant says there was no heating supplied for the last winter in the house. The landlord admitted in the hearing that he thought the cracked glass was not essential to the operation of the fire. My decision is that the landlord failed to reasonably maintain the fireplace. If a firebox has a flaw, the landlord should attend to it. A lack of adequate heating deserves compensation not only because the landlord has an obligation to maintain a chattel that is provided as part of the tenancy but also because heating is a legal requirement under the Housing Improvement Regulations Rent 1947 and is now part of the Healthy Homes Standards (although the latter do not apply to this tenancy). The tenant notified the landlord in her email in November 2023 that the fireplace was not safely operational. The tenancy ended in October 2024 and an alternative source of heating had not been provided. I award compensation of $600.00 as an estimate of the additional cost to the tenant of electrically heating the house over winter 2024 (20 weeks at $30.00 per week). I accept that the tenant incurred cost to replace the glass on the firebox. Without receipts or other evidence to substantiate this cost, I award $350.00. This latter amount is also limited because the tenant should have notified the landlord when the glass repair failed so that he was on notice that something was wrong. e. Lack of insulation: the tenant says the house was cold and she wonders if there was any insulation in the house. Insulation has been required in tenanted premises since 1 July 2019. Insulation that was installed before 1 July 2016 could be of a lesser standard than if installed after that date 18 but all insulation must be maintained in reasonable condition. The landlord said that he installed a heat ducting system into the roof cavity and that he saw insulation up there. He did not have photographs. He also said he looked under the house and there was insulation there too. He did not take photographs. Neither did he provide an insulation statement, inspection report, or any other details. The tenant may be correct that the insulation in the house was below standard or missing altogether. Also, if the guttering has been leaking into part of the roof and causing mould in the bedrooms, it is highly likely that any insulation would not be in reasonable condition. However, when I asked if the tenant had looked into the roof cavity or under the house, she said that she had not. The lack of photographs or any other evidence from the tenant means she has not 18 Pre-July 2016: ceiling insulation of R1.9 and underfloor R0.9. Installed after 1 July 2016: ceiling of R2.9 and underfloor R1.3. proved that the landlord has breached the insulation requirements. 19 This claim is not proven and is dismissed. f. Ovens: the tenant describes three occasions during the tenancy where she was without a fully operating oven. The landlord accepts that various ovens were replaced but does not agree he failed to attend to issues reasonably. There is no written evidence to substantiate the events which means I cannot determine whether the landlord failed in his duty or acted reasonably. This claim is not proven. I refer to the issue with the replacement elements in the last section of this decision (as it is a landlord claim). g. Exterior maintenance: the tenant says the landlord did no garden or exterior maintenance and claims compensation for many hours spent by her and her family removing bamboo, cutting back big trees, buying or hiring tools to do this work (chainsaw and a tool to strip the bamboo), waterblasting the house, supplying driveway gravel, and disposing of building waste such as old metal spouting from the carport and remnants from what the tenant says was an incomplete repair to the gazebo. The tenant says her family attended to other maintenance work including plumbing repairs and roof checks. The landlord acknowledged he did no regular maintenance except when an issue was brought to his attention specifically (eg; the carport spouting and gazebo). He said he owned a landscaping supply business and, as the tenants seemed happy to do the outdoor work, told them they could put any supplies needed on his account. The tenant accepts she did not take him up on this. As I said above, normally a landlord maintains exterior facilities and large trees but there is nothing in law to say they must. It is up to the parties. It is not covered in the tenancy agreement and as the tenant did not raise a concern with the arrangement during the tenancy but rather seemed to do the work willingly as part of her high standard of care for the property, then she cannot claim compensation for the work now that the tenancy has ended. No receipts or invoices were supplied for any of the costs incurred by the tenant so I cannot consider compensation for expenses. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages. These are different from compensation as they are more like a fine or penalty and only apply when a party has intentionally committed the breach and the Tribunal is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the 19 The District Court has said that the only way to prove that insulation is non-compliant is to physically inspect it to determine where it is located and to what specifications (eg measure the depth of it or see a label of its R-value);King & Yushkova v Greene [2021] NZDC 23637. unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. Section 109(3) RTA.
I agree that the landlord’s failure to investigate the mould issue in the bedrooms or repair the firebox was intentional. This 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 RTA.
I now consider the factors in section 109 RTA. The landlord’s intent seems to have been to avoid the cost and effort required to properly investigate and attend to the mould and firebox concerns. The effect on the tenant was that winters were colder and damper than they should have been. She also incurred cost to try to manage the mould and firebox repairs herself. This was not her responsibility. The interests of the tenant are that a landlord takes notice of what a tenant says, inspects the problem and takes action if needed. There is a public interest in landlords understanding that they must not ignore, or disregard maintenance issues brought to their attention. I award exemplary damages of $1,865.00 which is at the lower end of the scale being slightly more than one- quarter of the maximum. I am not aware of any previous breaches of this nature by the landlord, but the issues persisted for two or more years.

Did the landlord breach any obligation to carry out inspections?

There is no dispute that the landlord did not undertake regular inspections of the premises. His view is that it is better to leave good tenants to live as they choose.
The tenant submits that this is a failing and that it meant that he did not proactively manage regular maintenance tasks (such as cleaning the guttering, monitoring dampness, looking after the fireplace and water tank).
My decision is that there is no legal obligation on a landlord to conduct inspections. It may not be good practice, but it is not a breach.
I do note that some insurance policies require a landlord to conduct regular property inspections (or a claim may be declined).
There is an obligation to reasonably maintain premises, but this has been addressed in the section above. This claim is dismissed. Failing to give correct notice when entering the premises
The tenant said that the landlord would come to the property without giving the formal required notice. She said he would knock on the door. I asked if she agreed to him entering the premises on those occasions and she said that she did.
A landlord is permitted to enter tenancy premises if the tenant gives their consent at the time. This is what happened.
There is no breach. This claim is dismissed. Were the services or amenities provided at the start of the tenancy downgraded so that the tenant suffered loss of enjoyment?
The tenant did not provide specific evidence to support this claim. Her written submission refers to lesser cooking facilities (removing an induction hob and fan oven to replace with an electric standalone oven) and the gazebo area not being fully re-roofed after damage from a storm.
I dismiss this claim because there is insufficient evidence for me to assess any loss of enjoyment (for example, no photographs of the facilities before and after or documented communication raising the issues with the landlord). Is the tenant liable to compensate the landlord for repairs and clean-up after the tenancy ended?
The landlord’s application seeks compensation from the tenant for repairs and clean up after the tenancy ended.
A tenant has a legal obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A tenant is liable for loss caused to a landlord by any intentional or careless damage. The landlord must first prove any damage happened during the tenancy and is more than wear and tear. The most a tenant is liable for if damage is careless, is the amount of the insurance excess or four weeks' market rent (whichever is less). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The Tribunal will sometimes accept quotes for any claimed loss instead of invoices and receipts, but it is relevant to ask whether the cost will actually be incurred.
I address each landlord claim below:- a. Repairing holes in walls: the landlord claims compensation of $345.00 to do plaster repairs where TV brackets or other fixtures were removed. The landlord supplied photographs showing three walls with roughly puttied holes. The tenant accepts this is how the walls were left at the end of the tenancy. I award this claim as a tenant is liable to return premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before a minor change was made (such as attaching items to the wall); s42B(4) RTA. An invoice proves the amount of the claim. b. Removing green waste and hard fill, and levelling of the ground: the tenant agrees that a concrete culvert pipe and broken concrete pieces were left behind at the end of the tenancy. The landlord gave the tenant the opportunity to remove these later, but this did not happen. Other items the landlord said were left by the tenant were proven by her to have been at the property at the start of the tenancy (bricks, iron, and a wood pile). I have decided to dismiss this claim in full. There is no evidence the landlord has incurred a cost to remove the items as he supplied only a quote. Considering the nature of the property being large and rural, and that the before and after photos provided by the tenant show it has been left in better and more developed condition, I find there to be no loss to the landlord. c. Compensation to replace two stove-top elements: the landlord says there were two stove elements missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledges this. Her evidence is that three of the four elements had failed by August 2024, so she instructed a contractor she had used before and had these replaced. She said she had previously had repairs done at her own cost because it was less stress than the delays she previously experienced after notifying the landlord that the oven had needed repairs. The landlord refused to pay the contractor’s invoice with the result that the tenant paid this and then took the elements with her at the end of the tenancy. Strictly speaking, the tenant should not have arranged for the stove to be repaired. As I noted earlier in this decision, a tenant has a legal duty to notify a landlord of any damage or the need for any repairs; s40(1)(d) RTA. A tenant does not have the right to incur expenses for repairs unless the problem is likely to cause injury or is otherwise serious and urgent and the landlord has been told of the problem first; s45(1)(d) RTA. That said, the repairs needed to be done by someone. The tenant gave the landlord fair warning she would take the elements with her since she had paid for them, and he has not proved that he has now incurred a cost (he supplied a quote only). I dismiss his claim. d. Replacing curtains and curtain rails. The landlord claims compensation for replacing curtains and some curtain rails. The ingoing “property condition report” checklist (provided by the tenant) records “none” alongside the entry for “blind/curtains/nets/drapes” for each of the lounge, kitchen and three bedrooms. There is an entry at the end of the report under “Miscellaneous” saying “Drapes x 3 x curtain rail” and “Bag of drapes”. The landlord acknowledged in the hearing that he does not know what this refers to as the letting agent completed the ingoing process. The tenant says were three mouldy roman blinds and a bag of mouldy curtains. The tenant’s photos and videos taken at the end of the tenancy (to evidence cleaning and the condition of the property) show wooden curtain rails present at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has not proven there were curtains or curtain rails missing or damaged during the tenancy. I note that even if he had done so, curtains would usually be due for replacement after a ten-year tenancy, so a loss is unlikely. This claim is dismissed. Bond and suppression of names
As I said at the start of this decision, these proceedings have been lengthy, and it is sad that a long tenancy ended like this.
The landlord’s hands-off approach is not to be recommended. The business of residential tenancies requires active management.
Equally, tenants must clearly tell their landlord when repairs or maintenance are needed.
The result of the orders I have made is that the claims are settled by the bond being refunded to the landlord.
Both parties request suppression of their names from the published order. The Tribunal must usually grant this if a party has been wholly or substantially successful but also considers the public interest and interests and conduct of the parties; section 95A RTA.
Neither party has been substantially successful and both parties have been proven to have breached their responsibilities. I have decided that the public interest outweighs their interests. No suppression orders apply.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026170 — Rent arrears at 3809 Cambridge Road, Leamington, RD 3, Cambridge 3495

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026170 — Rent arrears at 3809 Cambridge Road, Leamington, RD 3, Cambridge 3495

Order

Reasons

How much was paid for bond?

How much is owed for rent?

What are the relevant legal obligations?

Did the landlord breach any obligation to carry out inspections?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

How much was paid for bond?

How much is owed for rent?

What are the relevant legal obligations?

Did the landlord breach any obligation to carry out inspections?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.