What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066329 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 5066329?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066329?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11799147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5066329 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 5066329?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5066329?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5066329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11799147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5066329 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066329 — net $519.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$519.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$519.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5066329 — net $519.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$90.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$519.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$519.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords’ names and identifying details.
Brent O'Bell must pay [The landlord/s] $509.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place over two half-days.
Mr Hobcraft represented the tenant who was also present.
Mr [H] represented the owners (Ms [S] also being present). Mr [P] attended for [B] (Manager 1) and Ms [B] for [H] (Manager 2).
The landlord has applied for, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made an application for damages in relation to landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, failure to comply with building regulations and failure to comply with healthy homes standards.
The tenant applies for compensation in the sum of $45,000-$50,000 to reflect a refund for alleged overpaid rent over the term of the tenancy, and a further $10,000-$20,000.00 in as punitive damages for the consequences of the alleged breaches on the tenant and his family.
The bond was paid in full to the tenant at the end of the tenancy and is not available to be allocated in this order.
Over 1000 pages of evidence was provided to the Tribunal in this case. I have reviewed this evidence and all of my notes prior to issuing this order. It is not necessary or useful to review all the material provided. I have referred to material relevant to this decision. Landlord’s claim
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to support its claim for cleaning costs following the end of the tenancy.
The invoice was in the sum of $802.50 but the landlord reduced this claim to $402.50 to acknowledge that some of the cleaning was not the tenant’s responsibility (outside windows) and to further acknowledge that the cleaning was for the purposes of listing the property for sale and was likely to a higher standard than would be expected of a tenant.
The tenant said the property was left in “a pretty good state” and that tradespeople entered the property very soon after the tenancy ended and may have been responsible for the condition of the property.
Manager 2 confirmed immediately after the hearing (as requested) that the final inspection was conducted the day following the tenancy end date (8 August 2024).
The evidence supports the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs.
The landlord also claimed $180.00 for garden work and provided photographs to support the claim.
The owners completed this work themselves (6 hours at $30.00 per hour).
The garden area is small, and the amount claimed includes the cost of removing lichen or mildew from a small block wall as well as general weeding and tidying.
I do not consider that the tenant should properly be responsible for the removal of mildew from external or garden walls, so I have reduced the amount claimed by half to reflect that.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claim
The applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Brent O'Bell claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must (amongst other obligations) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
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.
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) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
These claims relate to the allegation that the property was damp and mouldy, and leaked during the tenancy. The tenant claims that this was not addressed by the landlord and resulted in severe consequences for the tenant and his family.
To support his claim, the tenant provided: a. A copy of a tenancy agreement dated 18 July 2019 b. photographs of water damage to the interior of the premises, c. emails between the tenant and Manager 1 regarding a leak from the ensuite which was seeping out onto the master bedroom carpet in November 2021, d. emails between the tenant and Manager 2 arranging roof repair report from a builder in March 2024, e. Letter from tenant’s family doctor confirming illnesses during the tenancy period that, “could be due to an unhealthy/mouldy home”, f. Oral submissions (followed by written submissions).
Considerable additional material and submissions were provided by the two property management companies and the owner (together, “the landlord”).
There is no doubt that the property suffered from at least three confirmed leaks throughout the tenancy (September 2017 to August 2024).
The tenant said that he mentioned leaks many times to the various Manager 1 staff members through its management of the tenancy, but the leaks were not adequately addressed until Manager 2 took over the management in late 2023 and were not finally repaired until March 2024 when “a substantial roof repair” was completed.
In an email to the owner in September 2019, Manager 1 noted some damage to wall lining paper in the master bedroom and wanted to have this checked. He noted that, “the tenant advised it doesn’t leak” (emphasis added).
The tenant did notify Manager 1 of a roof leak in July 2020 (almost three years into the tenancy).
Manager 1 provided evidence that further information was requested but no written reply was received. Further conversations likely occurred as the work order provided more information that had come from the tenant.
An urgent work order was put through in September 2020. The work order notes that the tenant had said that “it only happens in heavy rain.”
An invoice for the repair was received on 15 September 2020 (being $95.45). A routine inspection the day prior to the receipt of this invoice had not noted any further leak issues in the meantime.
The tenant provided a copy of an email sent to Manager 1 on 18 November 2021 (one day prior to a scheduled inspection) where he referred to a leak in a bathroom which “seeps out into the master bedroom carpet.” He added that this had been “happening for around a week.”
Manager 1 provided evidence that this leak was noted at the inspection (on 19 November 2021), and it was also noted that there was water damage to the living area ceiling.
In an email regarding this a few days later, the tenant says, “There is a leak from the ceiling in the lounge (I have mentioned this before) I think it may be due to the drains not being cleared (however I am not sure). Photos attached (the leak is just an annoyance as we need to place a bowl underneath it when it rains (however continued leaking could result in major ceiling and electrical damage) which may create an electrical hazard which could result in electrocution/fatality.”
Manager 1 had already issued a work order in relation to both the ensuite leak and the living room ceiling (on the day of the inspection).
Repairs were completed to the bathroom within a week of the routine inspection date and the damage to the living room ceiling was attributed to the bathroom leak.
Manager 1 said no further leaks were ever notified by the tenant.
No supporting documentation was provided to show that any further or ongoing leaks were notified by the tenant during the remainder of tenancy.
A tradesperson installing an updated smoke alarm in July 2022 confirmed that the previously damaged wall area was dry.
In July 2022 the tenant requested a tenancy renewal for three years. He refers to interior renovations needed before a new tenant could move in and says he will overlook the work required if the rent could remain at the current level. There is no mention of ongoing leaks.
In late October 2022 a second roof leak was discovered by the property inspector at a routine inspection. This had not been notified as a new leak by the tenant according to Manager 1 records.
This leak was investigated by tradespeople within a week and some general repairs to the roof were completed within a month ($302.45).
Manager 1 issued a work order at this time for the internal repairs, but this was not completed as the tenant was not home to allow access.
In early 2023, the Manager 1 staff member who had been dealing with the property (and who gave evidence as a witness on the Manager 1’s behalf at the hearing) left the company. A new manager was put in place, but this staff member also left after a short time and was replaced by someone else who also left quite quickly.
The new property managers and inspectors were clearly concerned by the internal damage suggesting active leaks and acted accordingly. No actual leak was verified at this time.
The new staff member involved ordered a roof inspection which was invoiced on 8 June 2023. The work order for the roof inspection records that Manager 1 had advised that, “tenant has reported leaking issues during torrential rain.”
This report notes that the roof is in good repair for its age and the fixings are also in good repair. It suggested that nails have lifted in places and should be replaced with screws and some lifting butynol should be repaired.
Although the time for this inspection had been arranged with the tenant, he was not at the property to allow the roof inspectors internal access.
Another work order was issued for the interior inspection and repairs in July 2023, but an email from that tradesperson to Manager 1 said that the tenant advised that it would be better to wait until after winter to make repairs to make sure there were no further leaks.
Around this time, the property owner, believing that the leaks had not been repaired and that the property was continuing to leak, decided to terminate Manager 1’s management contract and Manager 2 took over management of the property.
There was clearly a breakdown in communication between Manager 1 staff themselves and between Manager 1 and the owner as to the investigation in relation to leaks at the property. The owner was seemingly unaware of the roofing report obtained by Manager 1.
During the hearing, the owner became aware of the work Manager 1 had completed in relation in the leak issue and she made it clear that had she known about this at the time, her views about Manager 1’s management would have been different. There was an acknowledged breakdown in communication, most likely caused, as referred to above, by the changing staff involved at Manager 1.
Manager 2 took over management of the property from October 2023. The new manager was concerned by the internal damage and potential for ongoing issues and arranged a roof inspection which gave much the same suggestions as the earlier inspection ordered by Manager 1 but recommended replacing all nails with screws (as current best practise) rather than just replacing those nails that have already popped up as the earlier report suggested.
The photographs sent to the owner in relation to the internal required works are very similar to the photographs on all regular inspection reports since November 2022. There is no suggestion of water present inside the premises at this time.
The work to complete the suggested improvements was completed in March 2024.
There were no reports of any actual leaks while Manager 2 had management of the property and Manager 2 gave evidence that there were no leaks identified during its management of the premises.
Manager 2 gave evidence that the internal repairs were delayed, at the tenant’s request, until after the tenancy ended.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that shows that the property continued to leak due to roof damage at all after the repairs completed November 2022. Leaks continue to be referred to in various inspection reports based on internal preexisting damage only rather than any evidence of new or ongoing leaks.
The tenant said that he complained of leaks on many occasions including at inspections. Limited documentary evidence was available to support this claim and all of it related to the leaks already addressed above.
The tenant gave further evidence that the leaks caused significant hardship for him and his family, some of which was not apparent until they moved from the property and found that their health improved.
The tenant said that the leaks impacted the family use of the property significantly with rooms unable to be used at times and buckets having to be placed under leaks and constantly monitored in bad weather.
The property inspection reports have no reference to any ongoing leaks or buckets at the property nor is there any reference to areas of the property being unusable.
The tenant gave evidence that he had initially put poor health symptoms (of family members, described as “hay-fever like symptoms”) down to hay fever and/or eczema and had treated the condition accordingly and that this provided some relief.
The letter from the family doctor confirmed that the family members had suffered ill health over the period of the tenancy and that it had seemed to improve following the move from the tenancy address. The doctor said that the symptoms “could be due to an unhealthy/mouldy home.”
The tenant referred to replacement of carpet in front of a glass external door to help support this claim. He said the damage was caused by moisture.
The landlord said that this carpet was worn due to sun damage rather than moisture damage.
This issue is referred to in multiple routine inspection reports and suggested solutions were, replace some carpet with tiles (as was completed eventually) or lay a rug over the area in question to prevent further damage.
The second suggested solution would not be suitable for dampness seeping onto the carpet so, the evidence available to the Tribunal supports the landlord’s view that the damage to this area of carpet was due to sun rather than water or dampness.
There was a consistent record of mould in other areas of the property at various times.
A number of property inspection reports referred to mould visible in the bathrooms and 14-day notices were issued to the tenant to have this remedied (5/4/2017, 11/3/2020, 19/11/21).
Early reports referred to the tenants “fighting mould” and recommended bathroom fans be installed. This was completed in May 2019, but mould was still reported as an issue in inspection reports and 14-day notices to clean were issued after the installation of fans.
The initial 2020 Healthy Homes Assessment failed due to visible mould on windowsills in the bedroom and once this was cleaned by the tenant the property then passed the assessment.
The final cleaning invoice referred to above also referred to cleaning of mould on windowsills.
Where mould can be removed by cleaning, it is generally considered an issue caused by the use of the property (for example, lack of proper ventilation and/or insufficient cleaning) without evidence suggesting some other cause.
No evidence was presented to support the claim that the landlord was in breach of section 45 of the Act in relation to failure to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
In terms of the compliance with HHS, the tenant relied on the evidence as outlined above.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows that the property was assessed as compliant with HHS on 20 July 2020.
An energy efficiency assessment had been completed in February 2017, prior to the commencement of the tenancy. It referred to the property as double glazed with a heat pump meeting heating needs, a vented rangehood in the kitchen and adequate insulation meeting then requirements. It suggested some improvements including fans in bathrooms (installed in May 2019) and more efficient lighting.
The original tenancy began in 2017 but various renewals had been completed which triggered the obligation for compliance with HHS as outlined above.
The evidence provided by the landlord showed that there was one non- complying aspect following the initial assessment and this was surface mould inside the property (bedroom window frames). Once this was cleaned by the tenant, the HHS compliance was signed off.
The most recent compliance statement provided shows that the landlord declared that the property complied with the HHS on 11 August 2023. The landlord is of the view that the property continued to comply and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest otherwise. Summary of findings in relation to tenant claims
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 of the Act in relation to compliance with HHS or any other enactments.
The evidence provided by the tenant is insufficient to prove the claims to the required standard and the landlord party has provided significant evidence to refute the claims.
In relation to claims of landlord failures to maintain, there were limited tenant reports of leaks, and these were addressed in a timely way.
The final roof work was completed some years after the initial leak but there is no evidence before the Tribunal to confirm that the property continued to leak in the meantime. The evidence provided suggests that it did not and that the repair in 2022 remedied the issues.
The interior repairs were not carried out during the tenancy due to the tenant’s actions or requests.
The tenant requested multiple other repairs throughout the tenancy, and these were recorded and attended to as they were raised.
No tradespeople who attended over the tenancy period reported water leaking into the property or dampness, moisture or mould that could be attributable to leaks.
In submissions the landlord’s representative also alleged that the property is an “unlawful residential premises”. There was no information provided to the Tribunal to support this allegation and it was not contained in the initial application.
As no landlord breach of the Act has been proven, all tenant claims for damages or compensation must be dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
The landlord requested name suppression and as the landlord has been substantially successful in its claims, I must order that the landlords’ names and identifying details be suppressed.
As Brent O'Bell has partly succeeded with its claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066329 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5066329 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions