How much money was awarded in case 5035268?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breaches in Relation t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Maintenance and Heatin…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Wasted Call Out Fee: $130.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5035268?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5035268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11685010-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5035268?

Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breaches in Relation t…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Maintenance and Heatin…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Wasted Call Out Fee: $130.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5035268?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5035268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11685010-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5035268 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5035268 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5035268 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,400.00		Rent arrears
Oven/stove cleaning	$70.00		Oven/stove cleaning
Wasted Call Out Fee	$130.00		Wasted Call Out Fee
Compensation: Breaches in Relation to Tenancy		$500.00	Breaches in Relation to Tenancy
Compensation: Maintenance and Heating		$2,000.00	Maintenance and Heating
Total award	$2,600.00	$2,500.00
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$1,350.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

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

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,350.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $100.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,250.00

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place over two days, after a case management conference in October 2024.

Both parties had applied for termination of the tenancy, albeit on different grounds. The tenancy was terminated following the case management conference, and I made the following observations and directions: “General Principles

The case management conference was convened to attempt to refine and understand the claims.

The parties have submitted multiple documents. It would assist the Tribunal if those documents were cross-referenced to the relevant claim or claims. The tenant has claimed $35,000 but I cannot see any breakdown or explanation or that on the file. Given those issues, I have set out some general principals to help the parties prepare for the hearing.

The Tribunal’s role was summarised in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2022] NZTT 4207456 at [8], as follows: “The Tribunal is an adjudicative body. It is not a forum for general complaint. It is not a complaints service. It is not an investigative body. And it does not mediate disputes. It looks to what is set out in an application by a landlord or a tenant; hears evidence and submissions from both parties; and makes a decision that is binding on the parties.”

Subject to the Limitation Act 2010, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant in accordance with the RTA. See s77 RTA.

The Tribunal may make orders for compensation and for exemplary damages. See s78 RTA. Compensation is awarded for actual losses arising from a proven breach of the other party’s obligations. Compensation may also be awarded for less tangible effects of established breaches such as loss of enjoyment or amenity of the tenancy. See Tenants v Singh [2022] NZTT 4315225 for the approach to quantifying compensation for “general damages”.

Exemplary damages may be awarded, at the Tribunal’s discretion, where a party establishes that the other has intentionally committed an “unlawful act” as defined by the RTA. See s109 and schedule 1A RTA.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

If either party wishes to amend their claims, the must do so at least 15 days before the next hearing.

At least 15 days before the next hearing the tenant must provide a bullet point summary of its claims; what it is seeking from the landlord and why. Each alleged breach by the landlord must be clearly stated. If the tenant intends to produce any additional documents, they must send copies to the Tribunal at least 15 days before the next hearing.

At least 5 days before the next hearing the landlord must provide a bullet point response to the tenant claims. If the landlord intends to produce any additional documents, they must send copies to the Tribunal at least 5 days before the next hearing”

Notwithstanding that guidance and directions, the parties’ claims and evidence lacked focus and substance. Often, the evidence was repetitive, unrelated to issues in the applications and was abusive. It has taken some time to review the documentation which the parties referred me to and the oral evidence.

The Tribunal was not assisted by the parties’ presentation of the evidence or their claims. Throughout the hearing, I reminded the parties to specifically refer me to the documents they relied on. Tenant Claims

The tenants claimed compensation and exemplary damages for a range of alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. One of the tenants, [Tenant 1], took the lead in presenting the tenant’s claims. Garage

The tenants claimed a rent rebate because they could not use the garage for the duration of the tenancy. The garage was specifically excluded from the tenancy. [Tenant 1] now says that there was an agreement that a new garage would be built at an unspecified point during the tenancy. She suggests that it should have been done within two years. There is no corroborative evidence to support that claim. The other tenant acknowledged that the garage was not included in the tenancy. [Tenant 1] was not involved in any of the discussions regarding the garage prior to the tenancy starting. It is clear that the garage was excluded from the tenancy. This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenancy Agreement - Documentation

The tenants claim the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.

A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A landlord must also include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. See section 13A(1A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under s 13A(1CA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords must include in the tenancy agreement a signed statement that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required and including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations.

Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

There was some confusion around the Tenancy Agreement, it was incomplete and did not include the insulation statement or Healthy Homes statement required. The landlords say this was not intentional, and that perhaps they were too casual because of the existing relationship between the parties.

Regardless of any existing relationship, a landlord is required to meet its statutory obligations. The lack of detail and clarity in the agreement has contributed to [Tenant 1]’s distress and lack of understanding of the tenancy and the parties’ obligations. I award compensation of $500 for this breach.

I find that the breach was careless or negligent, but not intentional, so decline to award exemplary damages.

The tenants also raised issues with insurance information for the premises. A tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant requested insurance information from the landlord in October 2024 (the tenancy having started in August 2021) and the landlord provided it. Any claim relating to provision of insurance information is dismissed.

Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request. This information was also provided by the landlord when the tenant requested it in October 2024. Condition of the Premises

[Tenant 1] had claimed that the premises were “unlawful”, “uninhabitable” and “illegally rented”. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 and 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA. There was no evidence to support those claims. The claim that the premises were unlawful is dismissed.

While the premises were not “unlawful” or “uninhabitable” there were issues with maintenance and healthy homes compliance. Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That obligation is to repair, within a reasonable timeframe of becoming aware of the need to repair. The tenant also has an obligation to advise the landlord of repairs or maintenance required.

A landlord must also comply with the Healthy Homes standards. See s45(1)(bb) RTA. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, the compliance date was 8 November 2021, being 90 days after the tenancy started.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.

The tenants claim that there were issues with heating, mould and damp and other issues at the premises. However, the landlord notes that the tenant did not complain or raise issues for three years. Issues were only raised when the relationship began to deteriorate.

[Tenant 1] claims she did not have contact information for [The Landlord/s] to record her concerns before October 2024. That submission is not supported by the evidence. Further, when [Tenant 1] sent a list of issues in October 2024, [The Landlord/s] responded promptly and attempted to have maintenance done. [Tenant 1] was abusive and obstructive.

The tenants claim that the log burner in the living room had expired. The landlord’s evidence confirms that the fire had expired. It seems that the parties only became aware of that late in the tenancy. It had been used by the tenants and serviced by the landlord.

I am mindful that the tenants have the onus of proving both the alleged breaches and the consequences they say they have suffered as a result. I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the fire was not a compliant heating source and that there were unreasonable delays to a replacement front door. I award compensation of $1,000.00 having regard to the minimal effect on the tenants during the tenancy. In this regard, I do not accept the tenant’s evidence that there were problems throughout the tenancy.

The breach was not intentional, and the tenant obstructed efforts to carryout maintenance. I decline to exemplary damages.

Any other claims relating to repairs, maintenance or Healthy Homes compliance are dismissed. Quiet Enjoyment

The tenants claim the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment and harassed them.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

Most of the tenants’ complaints relate to alleged actions of third parties, not the landlord. For example, there were allegations of “spying neighbours” and drunk visitors. [Tenant 1] also claimed that the landlord frequently spoke badly about her and complained about her to members of the other tenant’s family. That allegation was not supported by the other evidence from the other tenant’s mother.

The tenants’ evidence has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises. This aspect of the tenants’ application is dismissed. Landlord Claims

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation, including methamphetamine testing.

The landlord also claimed for the cost of items alleged to have been stolen by the tenants from the garage but provided no evidence of the items or their replacement cost. That claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Rent

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $2,400.00 owing at the end of the tenancy. Tenant Refusing Access

The landlord claims the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter. The landlord claims reimbursement of $130 for a callout fee from an electrician and has provided a copy of an invoice which records that the tenant twice denied access.

A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says that the landlord did not provide the correct notice for visits and that she was entitled to refuse access. I do not accept that submission, the evidence shows that, for some reason, from October 2024 [Tenant 1] became increasingly obstructive and abusive towards the landlord. I do not use those phrases lightly, the correspondence (from both parties) is some of the worst I have observed in this role.

I award the landlord the compensation claimed of $130. Cleaning & Damage

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and must remove all rubbish. See s40 RTA.

[Tenant 1] was not present at the end of the tenancy. The landlords helped the other tenant move and clean. They have only claimed the cost of the oven cleaning of $70 and provided an invoice for that. The amount awarded is proved.

The landlord also claimed $5000 for replacement carpet because of some modest staining and replacement net curtains. The landlord did not provide ingoing photographs, or otherwise establish that damage occurred to those items during the tenancy, which was more than fair wear and tear. These claims are dismissed. Methamphetamine Claims

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine at the premises. A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The premises were previously contaminated by methamphetamine residue and, the landlord says they were cleaned before this tenancy started. The landlord claims that a neighbour raised the possibility that the tenants were using or dealing methamphetamine at the premises, early in the tenancy. The landlord dismissed those concerns at the time.

The landlord provided evidence of a composite test from January 2025 which returned a positive result of 13.10mcg from 5 samples.

The testing was done approximately 6 weeks after the tenants had left the premises and after the landlord and their son began work on the property. [The Landlord/s] gave evidence that it was important to do the testing because on the of the tenant’s siblings had warned him that the tenants were using meth. The sibling disputed that at the hearing. The tenants deny using methamphetamine but claim that the police removed drug paraphernalia belonging to the landlord’s son from the garage of the premises.

A reasonable landlord in [The Landlord/s]’s position would have had the testing done promptly. They would not have waited for several weeks after the tenancy ended. The landlord’s evidence has not established that it is more likely than not, that any methamphetamine residue at the premises occurred during this tenancy. This aspect of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not granted reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee. Having regard to the various degrees of success of each party, I have allowed suppression of both their names and identifying details.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5035268 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,400.00		Rent arrears
Oven/stove cleaning	$70.00		Oven/stove cleaning
Wasted Call Out Fee	$130.00		Wasted Call Out Fee
Compensation: Breaches in Relation to Tenancy		$500.00	Breaches in Relation to Tenancy
Compensation: Maintenance and Heating		$2,000.00	Maintenance and Heating
Total award	$2,600.00	$2,500.00
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$1,350.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00