What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062468?

The tribunal order states: Ben Danny Raymon Beattie-Tindall and Spyridoula Acrivie Vlahos must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5062468?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unable to use dishwash…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains (after…: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11296937-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062468?

The tribunal order states: Ben Danny Raymon Beattie-Tindall and Spyridoula Acrivie Vlahos must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5062468?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Unable to use dishwash…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: curtains (after…: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062468?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062468?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11296937-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Bassett Street, Burwood, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5062468 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062468 — net $55.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (as agreed	$540.00		Rent arrears (as agreed
Repairs: damage to sliding door (estimate	$200.00		Repairs: damage to sliding door (estimate
Replace furnishings: curtains (after depreciation	$100.00		Replace furnishings: curtains (after depreciation
Cleaning: Contribution to costs	$200.00		Cleaning: Contribution to costs
Lawns and Garden work: Contribution to costs – play	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work: Contribution to costs – play
equipment damage	$250.00		equipment damage
Bond held by landlord		$1,185.00	Bond held by landlord
Compensation: Unable to use dishwasher and no kitchen		$150.00	Unable to use dishwasher and no kitchen
Total award	$1,390.00	$1,335.00
Net award	$55.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$55.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062468 — net $55.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (as agreed	$540.00		Rent arrears (as agreed
Repairs: damage to sliding door (estimate	$200.00		Repairs: damage to sliding door (estimate
Replace furnishings: curtains (after depreciation	$100.00		Replace furnishings: curtains (after depreciation
Cleaning: Contribution to costs	$200.00		Cleaning: Contribution to costs
Lawns and Garden work: Contribution to costs – play	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work: Contribution to costs – play
equipment damage	$250.00		equipment damage
Bond held by landlord		$1,185.00	Bond held by landlord
Compensation: Unable to use dishwasher and no kitchen		$150.00	Unable to use dishwasher and no kitchen
Total award	$1,390.00	$1,335.00
Net award	$55.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$55.00

Order

Ben Danny Raymon Beattie-Tindall and Spyridoula Acrivie Vlahos must pay Paul Rivers and Maree Rivers $55.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for not having full use of the kitchen for six weeks, annual replacement of net curtains and damage from the debris left in the garden area, and exemplary damages for landlord’s failure to maintain, lack of Healthy Homes compliance and failure to lodge bond with the Bond Centre.
The landlord claimed that they had not had notice that all matters were to be dealt with on the hearing date. The landlord acknowledged having received emailed information from the Tribunal but had not realised that the hearing was scheduled for all day and said they had not prepared for all matters to be dealt with. The landlord said they were unable to open all documents sent to them.
Tribunal records show that all documentation had been sent to the correct email address in the usual way and there was no reason as to why the landlord would not have been able to access the information. The Notice of Hearing for the landlord’s own cross application shows that the hearing was scheduled to run for the full day. The landlord acknowledged having received the hearing notices.
The landlord had filed information with their cross application which addressed both their own claims and the tenants’ claims. The only information that the landlords did not supply at the hearing were invoices for work done after the tenancy ended.
The Tribunal granted the landlord until 4pm on the day following the hearing to provide the relevant invoices to the Tribunal.
The tenant was well prepared for the hearing but, in fairness, was also allowed to present further photographs to show the state of the property at the end of the tenancy (within the same timeframe).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 November 2024. The tenant accepted that they had not paid the last week’s rent due to a misunderstanding as to when rent was paid to.
The amount ordered for rent arrears is accepted by the parties as correct.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord said that the tenant did not leave the premises “anywhere near the condition of the new house at the start of the tenancy.”
The parties acknowledged that the property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant provided a number of photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy, and these show the property to be in a reasonably clean and tidy state, as the Act requires.
The landlord said that the photos did not accurately reflect the state of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a cleaning invoice (which included carpets and windows), a separate carpet cleaning invoice and minimal photographic evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
Although a landlord may wish a property to be left as new, that is not the requirement of the Act. The evidence provided suggests that the tenants made a reasonable effort, with assistance, to clean the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants had some difficulty cleaning the ceiling as their efforts seemed to cause some damage to the ceiling surface. They acknowledged that the ceiling may have required some additional cleaning. The also acknowledged that there may have been some stains on the carpet that their spot cleaning was unable to remove.
In the absence of further evidence, I estimate an amount of $200.00 for all cleaning that was missed by the tenants.
The landlord also claimed that the tenants had not properly cared for the new lawn at the beginning of the tenancy and had not maintained it throughout.
The tenants’ response was that the property is built in a very sandy area. They said when it rained the ground flooded and in hot weather, it completely dried out and cracked. They said it was impossible to maintain the lawn to any reasonable standard and this was even more so when water charges were introduced, and they were asked to stop watering.
The tenants provided some evidence from a qualified friend to support the view that it would be very difficult to grow healthy grass in this type of soil, and the landlord agreed that the soil is difficult but said they had added new soil to the area in question to help the issue prior to sowing the new grass.
The tenant further said that a building had been demolished on the site prior to the house being placed there and there was debris from the demolition that made it somewhat dangerous to mow this lawn. The tenants said that injuries from this debris had made them move their children’s play equipment to the front of the property. Letters from friends were provided to support this.
The landlord acknowledged that the lawn was very new at the beginning of the tenancy and had supplied sprinklers and hoses to assist with its care.
To my mind, it is a lot to expect an inexperienced tenant to maintain a new lawn in a seemingly hostile environment, especially when watering is restricted by cost pressures.
Evidence was provided to show that a metal clothesline, which was new at the beginning of the tenancy, had completely rusted through at the bottom. The bottom of the metal storage shed is also rusted. This, to my mind, supports the tenants’ claim that the area flooded during wet weather.
The landlord said the lawn was further damaged by a dog (which the tenants were not allowed) and play equipment being placed on the lawn.
The tenants said their dog lived elsewhere during the tenancy and there is no photographic or other evidence to prove that a dog was at the property.
However, there is evidence in the landlord’s photographs that play equipment was placed on the lawn and contributed to the damage. I have made a small allowance ($100.00) in relation to this damage alone.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The tenants acknowledged that they had not cleaned the curtains at the end of the tenancy as they were mould damaged and needed to be replaced.
The tenants believed it was the landlords’ responsibility to replace the mouldy curtains.
Although the curtains were mould damaged, they also had significant marks and rips caused by the tenants during the tenancy.
I consider this damage is more than fair wear and tear and consider that the tenant should be liable to contribute to replacement curtains.
As the curtains were eight years old and curtains in residential tenancies have a useful expected life span of about eight years (according to the Inland Revenue depreciation schedule) I have ordered a small contribution to the costs of the new curtains (estimated at $745.00), being $100.00.
The landlord also claimed for damaged net curtains throughout the property.
The tenants said they had replaced the net curtains many times during the tenancy as the original ones supplied with the property had deteriorated.
I do not consider that there would be any residual value to eight-year-old net curtains and this claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for a replacement sink and benchtops in the kitchen in relation to a small hole at the top edge of the metal kitchen sink.
The tenant acknowledged the hole but said it was caused by accident when one of the tenants tripped over a cord and fell against the sink while holding scissors.
The damage was caused during the tenancy but is minor, does not stop the sink from working as intended and was caused by accident. The hole could likely be patched or repaired at minimal cost. The tenants are not liable for the cost of replacing the bench and sink. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for repairs to the oven door claiming that it had fallen off when opened for inspection.
The tenant acknowledged that the landlord had replaced or repaired the hinges on one other occasion during the tenancy but said that she used the oven multiple times each day and considered this damage normal wear and tear for a busy family oven.
Although it seems unusual that the oven hinges would require repair twice in an eight-year tenancy, there is limited evidence as to the reason for the damage and I do not consider that the tenant should be liable in these circumstances. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for repainting most of the interior of the property. They said that the entire interior was damaged including ceilings. The also said the painting was necessary due to the smell in the house (see discussion of mould below).
An invoice was provided but there was no indication of any damage repair and no photographs of wall damage were provided to support this claim.
The claim for painting throughout is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed for multiple replacement door stops, door and wardrobe handles and window hinges.
Some photographic evidence was provided to support the claim that door and wardrobe handles were damaged but there was no explanation given as to why they all had to be replaced rather than tightened.
The tenant said that the doorstops had been removed only at the end of the tenancy to help with the shifting of large items of furniture. They said they had stored them in a safe place and had neglected to screw them back in after the moving was completed. They explained that the doorstops could easily be screwed back on.
The landlord provided a photograph which showed a number of doorstops stored in the rangehood cupboard which supports the tenants’ explanation.
The landlord said all doorstops had to be replaced as they were all missing parts.
The tenant acknowledged that some rubber ends may have been missing but a number of those ends are also visible in the photo and were clearly not missing.
The landlord also claimed for replacement of a number of window latches. There is no evidence to support this claim and no explanation was provided as to why the latches had to be replaced rather than just tightened.
Some of this damage can be attributed to fair wear and tear over an eight-year tenancy but some is clearly beyond that level (such as dummy metal wardrobe handles being badly bent).
Given that there is minimal evidence to support the landlords’ claims in relation to door and wardrobe handles, door stops and window latches, I have ordered a contribution ($250.00) to the total amount claimed to acknowledge that some doorstops and door handles needed to be replaced or repaired and some tightening would have been required for other handles and latches.
The landlord is claiming for damage to a ranch slider. A photograph shows that the part of the slider which is designed to stop the door when opened has been damaged so badly that the aluminium has been severed and peeled back over a reasonable length.
The landlord has claimed that the whole slider has to be replaced. No evidence has been provided to support this and no indication of the cost has been provided. It seems more likely that the small unit of aluminium involved could be replaced.
With the lack of evidence provided as to cost of repair, I consider that an amount of $200.00 should be ordered to reflect this damage as it is difficult to imagine that this damage could ever happen through normal use of the door and the tenants have provided no reasonable explanation for the damage.
At the hearing the landlord also claimed for repair/replacement of the kitchen rangehood. An invoice was provided to support this (suggesting that a “power supply failure” was the cause of the fault) but there is nothing before the Tribunal to explain why this should be the tenants’ responsibility and the claim is dismissed.
A number of other matters were raised during the hearing but these either did not relate to any specified breaches on the tenants’ part or no evidence was provided to support these claims, so all other landlord claims are dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Tenants’ claims
The tenants claim compensation for the lack of kitchen flooring and inability to use the dishwasher for six weeks (at $50 per week being $300.00 in total).
The landlord accepted that the tenants lived without these amenities (due to a slow leak in the dishwasher damaging the kitchen flooring) but considered that they contributed to the delay as they had not been able to dry out the kitchen floor in a timely way despite having been provided with a dehumidifier to assist with that process.
The tenant said that they had the dehumidifier, a fan and a heater going as much as possible during the period but that the flooring had still not dried.
It is clear from the outgoing photographs that the floor had not been able to be replaced before the tenancy ended.
Although there was no flooring in the kitchen and this would have been unpleasant, the kitchen was still usable during this time. However, the dishwasher was not.
I consider that $25.00 per week is suitable compensation for the lack of these amenities and I do not consider that laying blame on the tenants themselves is fair or reasonable. No tenant would leave these appliances running when they are not at home and the landlord provided no evidence that the tenants had been responsible for any delay in the floor drying.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenants claimed compensation for damage caused by the waste left under the house, injuries to children due to debris from previous demolition, and for net curtain replacement.
No evidence was provided to support these claims and they are dismissed.
The tenants also claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, amongst other requirements, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The tenant complained that the property was mouldy from the very early stages of the tenancy.
The landlord installed an HRV system, at considerable expense, to try to assist with the problem.
The tenants said that the system provided little assistance and that they battled mould all through the tenancy.
They claimed that they and their children were frequently sick and thought that their environment was the cause.
No evidence was provided to support the claim of ill health but there was agreement between the parties that the property was mouldy throughout the tenancy. Evidence was provided from both parties to confirm the presence of mould in various rooms.
The landlord firmly believed that the property was mouldy due to the tenants’ use of it rather than due to any defect in the property itself. The landlord said that the tenants refused to open windows to air the property out, had too many people living in the property and used an unvented drier.
The tenant said they did not have a drier until later in the tenancy, well after the mould became an issue, and they vented the property constantly. They firmly believed it was a defect in the home that was causing the mould.
With no evidence presented by either party to properly determine the cause or causes of the mould build up, I can make no determination in this regard.
The tenants further claimed that broken sewer pipes deposited raw sewage under their house on two separate occasions, and this contributed to the damp, mouldy and generally unhealthy environment in the home.
The tenant acknowledged that the landlord had fixed the immediate problem in a timely way and when the repair had not worked (on two separate occasions) they had sent someone to remedy that straight away.
The permanent repair was very costly, and the landlord had made additional inquiries to determine if the damage may have been earthquake related before committing to the expensive repair. To my mind, this is not unreasonable given the amount involved (over $8,000) and the fact that the immediate problem was able to be resolved straight away.
The tenant accepted this but thought the landlord should have cleared up the waste left after the pipes were repaired.
The landlord explained that they had made enquiries of the repairer as to the remaining waste and were told that as it was organic matter, there was no need to remove it and it would dissipate of its own accord. The landlord said that this is exactly what had happened.
In the absence of any other evidence, I do not find that there was any breach of the landlords’ obligation to maintain the property. The landlord did all they could in a reasonable timeframe to address the issue and acted on reasonable advice in relation to the remaining waste.
The claim is dismissed.
The tenants also claim the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time (or at all).
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received under section 19(1) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 19(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
I find they the landlords have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) of the Act.
The landlord accepted that they had failed to lodge the bond. They claimed not to have turned their mind to it at the time.
There was no effect on the tenant as they were unaware of the breach until the tenancy ended and the bond has now been credited to them in this order.
Although there is a public interest in ensuring landlords follow the law in relation to the lodgement of bonds, I do not feel that exemplary damages are warranted here, and none are ordered.
The landlord now has a new tenant for the property and has lodged that bond within the appropriate timeframe so there is evidence before the Tribunal that they have learned from this error and amended their process to now comply with the Act.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), in particular that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
As this tenancy began on 20 December 2016, the property does not have to comply until 120 days from the date of the current (new) tenancy.
Therefore, there can be no breach of the HHS and this claim is dismissed.
As neither party has been entirely successful, I make no order for costs.
The tenant applied for name suppression in their application but as they have not been substantially successful no suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062468 — Rent arrears at 23 Bassett Street, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062468 — Rent arrears at 23 Bassett Street, Burwood, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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