What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034557 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 5034557?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Painting: $3,125.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Per 24 December 2023 Agreeme…: $13,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,335.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Security System: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $64.00 awarded to landlord; Work Carried Out By Tenant: $1,347.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034557?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11378803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034557 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 5034557?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Painting: $3,125.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Per 24 December 2023 Agreeme…: $13,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,335.71 awarded to landlord; Replace Security System: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $64.00 awarded to landlord; Work Carried Out By Tenant: $1,347.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034557?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11378803-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034557 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034557 — net $27.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 November 2024	$6,335.71		53. The amount of rent arrears is proven.
Replace security system	$3,500.00		Replace security system
Cleaning	$350.00		70. Factoring in the actual cost of replacement equipment, plus installation, and inconvenience caused to the landlord by this intentional damage, I will award…
Rubbish removal: Dumping cost	$64.00		Rubbish removal: Dumping cost
Land damaged by stock	$1,000.00		Land damaged by stock
Interior painting	$3,125.00		Interior painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		ssful in their applications, and both are entitled to recover the filing fee of $27.00. Both parties sought name suppression.
Payment per 24 December 2023 agreement		$13,000.00	Payment per 24 December 2023 agreement
Work carried out by tenant		$1,347.50	Work carried out by tenant
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	ssful in their applications, and both are entitled to recover the filing fee of $27.00. Both parties sought name suppression.
Total award	$14,401.71	$14,374.50
Net award	$27.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.21

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034557 — net $27.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 November 2024	$6,335.71		53. The amount of rent arrears is proven.
Replace security system	$3,500.00		Replace security system
Cleaning	$350.00		70. Factoring in the actual cost of replacement equipment, plus installation, and inconvenience caused to the landlord by this intentional damage, I will award…
Rubbish removal: Dumping cost	$64.00		Rubbish removal: Dumping cost
Land damaged by stock	$1,000.00		Land damaged by stock
Interior painting	$3,125.00		Interior painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		ssful in their applications, and both are entitled to recover the filing fee of $27.00. Both parties sought name suppression.
Payment per 24 December 2023 agreement		$13,000.00	Payment per 24 December 2023 agreement
Work carried out by tenant		$1,347.50	Work carried out by tenant
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	ssful in their applications, and both are entitled to recover the filing fee of $27.00. Both parties sought name suppression.
Total award	$14,401.71	$14,374.50
Net award	$27.21
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.21

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 16 December 2024 sets out the background to the applications.
Since the last hearing, the landlord amended his application to include end of tenancy costs (cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs).
The second hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 22 January 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Tenant application
The tenant’s application seeks payment pursuant to an agreement that he made with [The landlord/s] on 24 December 2023, and payment of invoices for work that he carried out on the property. The December 2023 agreement
The premises is a barn that has had some residential alterations, such as the addition of a bathroom and basic kitchen.
[The tenant/s] experienced some issues with the property, in particular with the septic system, stormwater drainage, and the stove. [The tenant/s] came to suspect that the property was not permitted for residential occupancy and that it did not comply with the healthy homes standards. [The tenant/s] sought assistance from Tenancy Services.
[The tenant/s] filed a Tenancy Tribunal application.
[The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] had a meeting and reached an agreement in December 2023. I was provided with a copy of the written agreement, signed by both parties and dated 24 December 2023. The essential terms of the agreement were that: a. [The landlord/s] would carry out improvements to the premises with a view to putting the property on the market for sale. b. [The tenant/s] would assist [The landlord/s] with the improvement work. c. [The tenant/s] would withdraw his Tenancy Tribunal application and [The landlord/s] would pay him $10,000. d. [The landlord/s] would pay [The tenant/s] a further $20,000 for his work on the property. The agreement provides for specific “PC Sum” deductions if [The tenant/s] did not carry out particular work (as discussed in more detail below). Is [The tenant/s] entitled to payment of the $20,000?
There are two questions to address under this heading: a. Is the agreement legal and enforceable? b. If so, what payment is [The tenant/s] entitled to under the terms of the agreement?

Is the agreement legal and enforceable?

Persons with capacity can enter into binding agreements. The basic elements of a legal contract were met in this instance. The terms of the agreement are clear. There was an exchange of valuable consideration.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) places a limitation on the type of agreement that a landlord can enter into. A landlord cannot enter into an agreement that purports to limit or exclude the RTA. Any such agreement would be unenforceable. 1
I am satisfied that the agreement between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] is not of that type. The agreement does not state that the RTA does not apply to this tenancy or that the landlord is not obliged to meet their RTA obligations. Rather, the agreement recognises that the landlord did not meet his RTA obligations and it fixes the amount of damages that [The tenant/s] is to receive for the landlord’s breaches ($10,000).
People are free to make private agreements outside of court to resolve legal disputes.
[The tenant/s] questioned whether any issues arise from the fact that he remained in the tenancy after the agreement, up until November 2024, when the premises were still non-compliant for some if not all of that time.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not condone landlords renting out premises knowing that they do not comply with the RTA. However in this instance: a. [The tenant/s] entered into an agreement that envisaged him remaining at the property and carrying out work there. He agreed to accept payment of $10,000 on that basis. b. The landlord was actively working on bringing the premises to compliance.
My finding is that the 23 December agreement was legal and binding. What payment is [The tenant/s] entitled to under the terms of the agreement?
The agreement states: 1 Section 11 RTA During the meeting on 22/12/23 ongoing improvements to remedy alleged defects and work towards resale were discussed and it was mutually agreed that leaseholder [The tenant/s] will work with the property owners to undertake these improvements and the work done will be based on a PC amount. All materials will be provided by the property owner and both parties will work together as labour to achieve the desired outcome. Should the leaseholder not participate in the works to be completed the PC sum will be deducted from the $20,000 sum below. Painting of the interior building = PC Sum $3000.00 Painting of the exterior building = PC Sum $4000.00 Tidy landscaped area that was previously mulched on the right side of the driveway. This will be at [The tenant/s] discretion how this is done = PC Sum $2000.00 Lay down board by ranchslider = PC Sum $500.00 Run the ducting in the roof space for the rangehood installation. The electrical fit off will be done by [The landlord/s] = PC Sum $1000.00 Sum of $20,000 will be payable to [The tenant/s] (leaseholder) on the date that the property has an unconditional sale agreement in place or if he chooses to end the lease.
[The tenant/s] “participated in the works to be completed”, at least to some extent, and he chose to end the lease by surrendering possession and returning the keys on 22 November 2024. Therefore, he is entitled to payment of $20,000 under the terms of the agreement, unless there are any PC Sum deductions that apply.
[The landlord/s] said that all of the PC Sum deductions apply. [The tenant/s] disputed this. Interior painting
[The tenant/s] said that he painted the interior of the building using paint that he purchased. Although the agreement states that [The landlord/s] would provide all the materials, [The tenant/s] said that [The landlord/s] failed to provide the paint even though he asked him several times. [The tenant/s] said that he painted a single coat on the interior walls and two coats on the ceilings, using a standard colour interior paint.
[The landlord/s] said that: a. [The tenant/s] purchased the paint and went ahead with the job without consulting with him. b. [The tenant/s] used a paint colour that he would not have chosen. c. The paint job was of low quality. The finished appearance of the paint was patchy. [The tenant/s] didn’t paint areas that were difficult to access. There were paint overruns from the walls onto the ceilings and onto the floors. The painted surface was contaminated with dirt and dog hair. d. He has had the interior re-painted at a cost of $8,625.00. e. [The tenant/s] did not paint all of the interior as required by the agreement. He painted the walls in the ‘living space’ which comprises about a quarter to a third of the total area, but not the storage / garage space.
[The tenant/s] said that the storage / garage space has bare colorsteel walls, and he did not have an understanding that he was required to paint those.
It is appropriate to imply a term in the agreement that [The tenant/s] would carry out the work to a reasonable standard. This would certainly have been the understanding of both parties when they entered into the agreement. The applicable standard is that of a skilled home-handyman, not a professional painter.
[The landlord/s] has provided sufficient evidence to show that [The tenant/s] did not meet that standard in this instance. [The tenant/s] assumed a risk by selecting the paint himself, contrary to the terms of the agreement. [The tenant/s] work did not benefit [The landlord/s]. He has had to re-do the job, at significant cost.
Therefore, I find that the PC Sum deduction should apply to this part of the work. Exterior painting
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that he did not carry out any exterior painting. [The landlord/s] did all of this work.
[The tenant/s] said that he could not be involved with painting the exterior because his health condition means that he cannot go on ladders.
I accept this explanation, but the terms of the agreement are clear, and [The tenant/s] is bound by it.
The PC Sum deduction must apply to this part of the work. Tidy landscaped area
[The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] disagreed about how to do this work.
[The tenant/s] wanted to lay down weedmat. [The tenant/s] does not like to use herbicides.
[The landlord/s] thought that [The tenant/s] plan was not the best approach, and he took over the job himself.
Although [The tenant/s] ultimately did not carry out the work, my finding is that the PC Sum deduction should not apply. The agreement states that [The tenant/s] had a discretion as to how the work would be done. [The landlord/s] did not allow [The tenant/s] to exercise that discretion. [The tenant/s] was not in breach of the agreement. Lay down board by ranchslider
Similar considerations apply here.
When the agreement was signed, the intention was to replace a wooden board at the base of the ranchslider, where there was damage due to water ingress. [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] subsequently had a discussion and they agreed that a better approach was to tile this area, which [The landlord/s] paid for.
[The landlord/s] could have required [The tenant/s] to do this work per the terms of the agreement. He was free to change his mind, but this is not an instance of [The tenant/s] failing or refusing to carry out the work, and therefore a deduction should not apply. Ducting for rangehood
The agreement envisioned that [The tenant/s] would install the ducting for the rangehood (which [The landlord/s] would supply) and then [The landlord/s] father, who is an electrician, would install the rangehood itself.
[The landlord/s] said that he supplied the ducting to [The tenant/s] but [The tenant/s] did not install it. When he and his father arrived to install the rangehood they had to install the ducting as well.
[The tenant/s] said that [The landlord/s] did not give him the ducting. He said that [The landlord/s] and his father arrived one day with the rangehood and the ducting in a single ‘kit’, and they went ahead and installed everything.
The only evidence available to me about this dispute is the conflicting recollections of [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s].
[The landlord/s] has the burden of proof to establish that a deduction should apply. The evidence available to me does not establish, to the standard of “more likely than not” that [The tenant/s] failed or refused to do the work rather than not being given the opportunity to do it.
Therefore, my finding is that a PC Sum deduction should not apply in this instance. Outcome
[The tenant/s] is entitled to payment of $13,000, being $20,000 less the following deductions: Interior painting:$3,000.00 Exterior painting:$4,000.00 Additional work
In January – March 2024 [The tenant/s] issued multiple invoices to [The landlord/s] for work that he says he carried out on and around the property. The invoices are in the name of a home handyman business that [The tenant/s] used to operate.
[The tenant/s] said that [The landlord/s] asked him to issue the invoices because he intended to seek payment of half of the cost from the co-owner of the property. [The landlord/s] denied this.
Tenants have no legal right to carry out work on the premises and require payment from the landlord. 2 There is a limited exception to this if: 3 a. The premises are “in a state of disrepair”; and b. The state of the premises is likely to cause injury to persons or property, or is otherwise serious and urgent; and c. The tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The work that [The tenant/s] is seeking payment for does not meet these criteria.
With most of the invoices, [The landlord/s] said that he did not ask for the work, and in some instances, he questioned whether the work was in fact done. [The landlord/s] accepted four of the invoices, being: a. Replace rear shed entry door $330.00; b. Drainage work near rear roller / entry door; $330.00 c. Put electrical wiring into conduit. [The landlord/s] agreed that [The tenant/s] did some work, but he questioned the amount of 7 hours work on [The tenant/s] invoice. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that this figure was a guess, and he created the invoice quite some time after he did the work. In light of this I will award $220.00, representing 4 hours at $55 per hour. 2 Section 42(1) RTA 3 Section 45(1)(d) RTA d. Bathroom vent to outside $467.50.
The total of these is $1,347.50. [The landlord/s] pay the invoices that he accepted. There is no legal basis to hold him liable to pay the other disputed invoices. Landlord application
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears and costs incurred after the end of the tenancy (cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs, and other costs). Rent arrears
The landlord’s rent record shows rent arrears of $6,335.71 to 22 November 2024.
[The tenant/s] did not dispute [The landlord/s] record of his rent payments. [The tenant/s] argued that he withheld rent for several weeks because he considered that [The landlord/s] owed him money for work that he had done, but [The tenant/s] is unable to prove that [The landlord/s] requested or agreed to the work and, applying the principles discussed above, [The tenant/s] is therefore not entitled to any payment.
The amount of rent arrears is proven. End of tenancy costs
The claim seeks: Reimbursement of [listing] fee $1,448.00 Alarm and CCTV replacement $5,578.65 Land repair $4,772.50 Fence and gate repair $2,875.00 Interior painting $8,625.00 Cleaning $350.00 Rubbish removal $64.00 Mulch $1,237.00 [Listing] fee
[The landlord/s] paid $1,448.00 for a [listing] package.
The property did not sell during the period of the [listing]. At the date of hearing, the property had still not sold. [The landlord/s] said that the property is now listed with a real estate agent.
[The landlord/s] argued that [The tenant/s] must pay the cost of the [listing] fee because he obstructed the attempts to list and sell the property, including: a. Not responding to requests for viewings. b. Objecting to the listing that he put on the [listing] website.
[The landlord/s] said that [The tenant/s] was so obstructive he made the decision to give notice to terminate the tenancy so that the property could be listed and sold vacant.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. He had no objection to [The landlord/s] selling the property, which was always the intention after the December 2023 agreement. b. He was concerned that [The landlord/s] wanted to list the property before all the improvement / compliance work was completed. c. There were no occasions where he refused a request to view the property. d. His objection to the listing was in respect of one photograph, about which he had genuine security concerns.
Tenants do not have a positive duty to co-operate with the landlord’s attempts to sell the property. They do have a negative duty, to not unreasonably refuse any specific request by the landlord to access the property for the purpose of showing it to a prospective purchaser. 4
In this instance: a. [The landlord/s] has not proven any specific instance of [The tenant/s] refusing a request to access the property to show it to a prospective purchaser. b. [The tenant/s] was entitled to request that [The landlord/s] remove the photograph that potentially identified himself as the person residing at the premises. c. It is practically impossible for [The landlord/s] to prove that the property would have sold during the period of the [listing] if [The tenant/s] had co- operated more.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Alarm and CCTV replacement 4 Section 48(3)(b) and 48(4)(b) RTA
[The tenant/s] did not deny that he intentionally “killed” the alarm and CCTV system in the property.
[The tenant/s] said that he did this because of concerns about the landlord “spying” on him or on subsequent occupants.
The CCTV cameras were on the exterior of the building, directed outwards.
It is not uncommon for residential premises, including tenanted premises to have CCTV cameras for security purposes. The presence of CCTV is not (per se) a breach of the tenant’s right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
[The tenant/s] intentionally damaged the landlord’s property. He is liable for that damage.
[The landlord/s] obtained two quotes for replacement of the system, the lower of which was $5,578.65.
[The landlord/s] works in the security industry. He acknowledged that he obtained replacement equipment through his business and the cost was substantially less than the ‘retail’ cost in the two quotes.
Factoring in the actual cost of replacement equipment, plus installation, and inconvenience caused to the landlord by this intentional damage, I will award $3,500.00. Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 5
[The tenant/s] did not dispute leaving behind tyres and a toilet, which he adapted for garden use, and he did not consider was ‘rubbish’.
[The tenant/s] said that he cleaned the premises thoroughly before leaving and he questioned the legitimacy of [The landlord/s] end-of-tenancy photographs.
My finding is that it is more likely than not that [The landlord/s] photographs show the condition of the premises as he found them at the end of the tenancy, and that he has not ‘re-introduced’ dust and dirt into the property for purposes of framing [The tenant/s].
The claim for cleaning and dumping costs is proven and is fair and reasonable. Stock damage – land, gates & fences
[The tenant/s] kept several cows and goats during the tenancy. 5 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
[The landlord/s] seeks compensation for damage caused by [The tenant/s] stock, including damage to fences and gates and ‘pugging’ damage to parts of the land.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs showing pugging damage to the land, quite significant in some areas (e.g. near gates). I accept that this damage occurred during [The tenant/s] tenancy.
[The landlord/s] also provided photographs of damage to gates.
Unsurprisingly, there is no good evidence of the condition of the gates and fences at the beginning of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] said that the fences were in mixed condition, some were aged and poor, and he replaced sections of the fencing at his own cost during the tenancy.
[The landlord/s] knew that [The tenant/s] was going to have some livestock on the property. The number and type of animals that [The tenant/s] kept was suitable for a block of this size. Large animals will cause deterioration of land and fencing through normal activity. This falls within the parameters of “fair wear and tear”.
On balance, [The landlord/s] has proven some damage that is beyond the parameters of ‘fair wear and tear’, in particular to the land. [The landlord/s] obtained a quote for $4,772.50 to ‘repair’ the land using heavy machinery. At the hearing [The landlord/s] confirmed that he had not had this work done. It seems unlikely that [The landlord/s] will have the work done, given the high cost.
I will award compensation of $1,000.00 for the damage to the land. I will not award compensation for the fencing and gates on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence of the condition of the fences and gates at the beginning of the tenancy, there is an aspect of fair wear and tear, and [The tenant/s] has carried out work on the fencing during his tenancy. Interior painting and mulch
These relate to the completion of work that [The tenant/s] agreed to do in the December 2023 agreement.
My finding above is that [The tenant/s] did not breach the agreement in respect of the tidying the area on the right side of the driveway. The agreement gave [The tenant/s] the freedom to carry out the job as he saw fit. [The landlord/s] denied [The tenant/s] the opportunity to do this, and he took over the job himself. [The landlord/s] was free to do this, but there is no legal basis to hold [The tenant/s] liable for the consequences of his decision.
My finding is that [The tenant/s] did not carry out the interior painting work in accordance with the agreement. [The tenant/s] used paint of his own choosing and not materials supplied by the landlord. He did not carry out the work to an acceptable standard. He did not paint all of the interior as the agreement stipulates. Therefore, the PC Sum deduction applies, and [The tenant/s] is not entitled to payment for his work.
However, this part of [The landlord/s] claim seeks to hold [The tenant/s] liable for all of the cost of painting the interior of the property.
The starting point is that interior painting is a renovation / improvement to the property. It is a cost that the landlord must bear, not the tenant.
[The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] made an agreement that [The tenant/s] would provide labour to paint the interior, using paint supplied by [The landlord/s]. An implied term in the agreement was that [The tenant/s] would do the job with reasonable care and skill. The agreement valued that work at $3,000.00.
[The tenant/s] breached the agreement by choosing his own paint and by not carrying out the work with reasonable care and skill.
[The landlord/s] has a quote for $8,625.00 from [Painting Services] to undo what [The tenant/s] did and paint the interior to an acceptable standard.
[The tenant/s] is not obliged to pay all of that cost. If he paid all of it, [The landlord/s] would essentially receive a free interior paint job, which was not he is entitled to under the agreement. Under the agreement he was entitled to painting of the interior to a reasonable handyman standard at a labour only cost of $3,000.
The [Painting Services] quote includes materials, but it does not specify the cost of the materials. It is also relevant that [Painting Services] have an obligation to do the work to a higher standard, the standard of a professional painter.
[The landlord/s] is entitled to be put in the position that he should have been in if [The tenant/s] had met his obligations under the term of the contract. My finding is that [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,125.00, calculated as follows: Cost of interior painting$8,625.00 Less amount allowed in contract: $3,000.00 Less materials (estimated):$2,000.00 Less allowance for difference between professional painter standard vs handyman standard:$500.00 Filing fee, name suppression, outcome
Both parties have been successful in their applications, and both are entitled to recover the filing fee of $27.00. Both parties sought name suppression. The Tribunal must award name suppression to any party that has been substantially successful in the proceedings. 6 In this instance both parties were successful in parts of their own applications and successfully defended parts of the claims against them. It is not unreasonable to consider that both parties have been substantially successful. I will grant name suppression to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034557 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034557 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the agreement legal and enforceable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the agreement legal and enforceable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions