What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067551 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 5067551?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,808.57 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $162.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067551?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11452147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5067551 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 5067551?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,808.57 awarded to landlord; Plaster And Paint: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $162.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067551?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11452147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5067551 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067551 — net $2,671.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 December 2024	$3,808.57		Rent arrears to 7 December 2024
Water rates	$162.86		Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$450.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Plaster and paint	$1,200.00		Repairs: Plaster and paint
Window repairs	$100.00		Window repairs
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standard		$750.00	Healthy Homes standard
Total award	$5,921.43	$3,250.00
Net award	$2,671.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,671.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067551 — net $2,671.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 December 2024	$3,808.57		Rent arrears to 7 December 2024
Water rates	$162.86		Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$450.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: Plaster and paint	$1,200.00		Repairs: Plaster and paint
Window repairs	$100.00		Window repairs
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$2,500.00	Failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: Healthy Homes standard		$750.00	Healthy Homes standard
Total award	$5,921.43	$3,250.00
Net award	$2,671.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,671.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,421.43 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $18.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant has applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord has applied for termination, rent arrears and compensation.
The tenancy ended on 7 December 2024 after the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. As the tenancy has ended neither the application for termination nor the application to be released from the fixed term early are required to be considered. Those applications are withdrawn by the respective parties. Landlord application
The landlord applied for rent arrears. The advertisement for the premises was for a weekly rent of $850.00. By the time the parties had signed the tenancy agreement this amount had increased to $860.00.
The parties agreed that this increase was to cover the cost of lawns and gardens as the tenant did not want to be responsible for these and was therefore willing to pay an extra $10.00 per week.
The tenancy agreement records that the landlord shall be responsible for the lawns and gardens. Given that the tenant has paid $670.00 for this it is expected that the lawns and gardens will be maintained however there is evidence that it was not. This will be considered further with the tenant’s application.
The rent arrears of $3,808.57 is awarded to the landlord which is rent to 7 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for water rates. On 29 May 2024 the tenant paid all water rates from the beginning of the tenancy to that date.
The water invoices were only ever estimates of the water used by the tenant. In November 2024 a photograph was taken of the water meter showing that at that date the tenant had used 1162kL. The landlord did not arrange for a special meter reading or take a photograph of the water meter at the end of the tenancy. It is therefore not possible to determine how much water the tenant used for the period from the date of the photograph until the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the tenant’s use can only be accurately calculated by using the amount of 1162kL.
The May invoice estimates the tenant’s use to be 1081kL. Therefore, after the May invoice the tenant used a further 81kL. The landlord calculated the amount owed by the tenant which was $382.86. The tenant had paid $220.00 toward water after May 2024. That amount is deducted from the landlord’s calculation meaning that the tenant owes $162.86 for water, which is awarded.
The landlord sought various claims following the end of the tenancy. A pre tenancy inspection report dated 23 August 2023 was produced. There were two routine inspections during the tenancy, one on 1 February 2024 and the other in August 2024.
The landlord produced the routine inspection report dated 1 February 2024. At the Case Conference held on 17 December 2024 it was directed that the parties should file evidence including “any inspection reports”. When asked about the other routine inspection report and the outgoing inspection report the landlord did not want to produce them and said that under law they are not required to provide a report in the same format. For the claims when the tenancy ended the landlord has submitted photographs of the damage rather than a full outgoing report. While the landlord is correct that there is no set format for inspection reports it is odd that two reports are produced but the landlord will not produce the other two. This raises doubt in my mind in relation to the claims sought by the landlord and whether the reports may support the tenant’s claim.
The landlord sought compensation for carpet cleaning which is granted.
The landlord also claimed for rubbish removal. While it is accepted that there is rubbish to be removed, the landlord did not comply with the Act in relation to goods left by a tenant. I refer to the four bikes left behind. The landlord said that these were rubbish. The landlord failed to obtain a market value assessment and did not provide the tenant with 35 days to collect the items. I have reduced the claim accordingly.
I agree that there was other rubbish left behind. I have awarded $450.00 for rubbish removal.
The landlord claimed for cleaning. I accept that the carpet needed cleaning but there was insufficient evidence produced to establish that further cleaning was required on the basis that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for window repairs. The tenant acknowledged that she broke one of the windows but denied breaking the other which she says broke (a hairline crack) during a storm. I have reduced the award for window repairs to $100.00.
The landlord sought compensation to replace window latches that were removed at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that she had installed the window security latches because the windows installed by the landlord (including upstairs) could be opened and the latches ensured that the tenant’s children were safe. These should have been installed by the landlord when the windows were installed. As the tenant paid for the latches, I make no award for the landlord and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for plastering and paint repairs. From the photographs produced by the landlord there were two wall holes in the stairs / hallway area. The tenant acknowledged these which I understand may have been caused when moving furniture. The landlord also claimed for repair of the ceiling in bedroom 3 but that claim is not allowed and will be discussed later in the tenant’s claim.
The award for plastering and painting is reduced to $1,200.00.
The landlord claimed for repair of the waste disposal unit. Photographs were produced showing items removed from the waste disposal including a plastic utensil and food. I am not satisfied that these have caused the damage to the waste disposal and there is no evidence that the waste disposal unit worked at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for repair of the waste disposal unit is dismissed. Tenant’s application
The tenant claims that the landlord breached the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes report from Noho Ahuru Healthy Homes. That report was dated 28 March 2024.
The report records maintenance issues at the premises including hole in the wood floor, piece is missing; sink leak into cupboard, wood is swelling (kitchen); formica damage (bathroom); downstairs ceiling mould patch, leak in the ceiling from the shower above recommend checking ceiling panel leak (ensuite); back door glass is broken, repairs needed (laundry); ceiling damage from the laundry leak, major damage (bedroom 3).
In relation to the Healthy Homes standards the report concludes that the premises did not comply in relation to draught stopping and smoke alarms. It notes that draught stopping is needed on three doors and there is a mild mould issue. In relation to the smoke alarms, it states that four are required and were installed at the time of assessment.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes assessment dated 20 July 2022 from FM Construction Service Limited.
That report records that the premises were compliant at the time in relation to all of the Healthy Homes standards. For smoke alarms there is one photograph of a smoke alarm. There are bedrooms on two levels of the premises so at least two smoke alarms would be required. For the draughts the report mentions that the fireplace is closed off but there are no photographs of any windows or doors to show that there are no gaps.
From the evidence produced I accept that the premises were not compliant in relation to draughts and smoke alarms.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has 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). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping 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.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the landlord failed to comply with the draught stopping standard. While the landlord claimed that it was not aware of the draught issues there was a routine inspection carried out the month before Noho Ahuru Healthy Homes carried out the assessment for the report produced by the tenant. The routine inspection report was produced but failed to mention any of the issues raised by the assessment and did not mention the broken glass door in the laundry even though there is a photograph of it in the report. The landlord stated that all windows had been replaced but made no mention of the doors which is where the draught issue was.
I find [The landlord/s] 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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The draughts would have had an impact on the living environment for the tenant and her family. I also note that one of the tenant’s children had a significant health issue which would have been affected by the home not being warm and draught free. Considering those factors, I have determined that $750.00 is a reasonable award.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises and failed to comply with the regulations in relation to smoke alarms. I find they 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As mentioned above the Healthy Homes assessment produced by the tenant detailed many maintenance issues which the landlord failed to address. At the hearing the landlord’s response was that the tenant did not advise of any of these issues. This argument is not accepted as the onus is on the landlord to maintain the premises and as mentioned above a routine inspection had been carried out only a month before the assessment which highlighted these issues.
In addition, the tenant has raised other maintenance issues not addressed by the landlord. There was a leak from the laundry which caused a large hole in the ceiling of one of the bedrooms. The tenant said she phoned the landlord to advise of the leak the day that it happened. The owner of the premises attended after it occurred and told the tenant to dry out the room with a dehumidifier. At the hearing the property manager said that the leak was the fault of the tenant because the laundry system was described as “a little bit special”. When the owner attended after the leak, he attached a bread tie to the pipe and screwed it to the wall. While the landlord may consider this is special, I have reached the view that the tenant should be able to use the laundry without special instructions of how to install the washing machine. The landlord should have repaired the ceiling in the bedroom but failed to do so.
Other issues raised by the tenant included leaking in bedroom 4 which she described as raining inside. While the landlord had told the tenant someone would fix it this never happened. At the hearing the landlord said that it was not raining when she carried out the inspection so did not see any leak. Instead of employing a professional to investigate the leak the landlord told the tenant to keep an eye on it. The landlord said it did not know if it was leaking or not.
There was a leak in the kitchen which may have been due to the waste disposal unit not working. As mentioned above there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant caused any damage to the waste disposal unit. The leak was there when the Healthy Homes assessment was carried out as shown in the photograph in the report.
There was a leak in the shower box in the upstairs bathroom. This was reported to the landlord by an electrician attending due to power issues. The tenant said that this was not fixed, and the landlord said that she saw hair in the drainage. The landlord confirmed that a plumber was not employed to investigate the leaking.
In addition, soon after moving in the tenant was advised not to use the upstairs bathroom after the leak was identified by a tradesman. The tenant was supposed to only use one bathroom but after no repairs were carried out the tenant began using that bathroom.
As mentioned above the Healthy Homes assessment produced by the tenant records that the tenancy did not comply in relation to smoke alarms.
Regulation 5 of the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 provides: (4)Every smoke alarm that is installed at the premises must be a qualifying smoke alarm. (5)Subclause (6) applies to every sleeping space at the premises. (6)There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed— (a)in the sleeping space; or (b)otherwise at the premises within 3 metres of the entrance (or main entrance) to the sleeping space.
The landlord has failed to comply with the regulations in relation to smoke alarms.
The tenant’s evidence is that she left the tenancy because the landlord failed to maintain the premises. Two bedrooms occupied by her children had leaked and the landlord failed to address these issues. After leaving the tenancy the tenant has been living in emergency housing with her youngest child. Her two older children have moved to live up north with family. The landlord’s failure to maintain has impacted on the tenant’s family and contributed to the separation. The tenant has had to store her belongings and travel to and from the Hokianga to arrange accommodation and schooling for her children. She had applied to be released from the fixed term tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to maintain.
As mentioned earlier, the landlord’s position is that the tenant did not complain about maintenance issues. This is not accepted. There is independent evidence that there were maintenance issues including from the Healthy Homes assessment, the electrician who attended and even the owner who was aware of the leak from the laundry.
The landlord’s failure has had a significant impact on the tenant and her family. I consider that an award of $ 2,500.00 is reasonable.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067551 — Rent arrears at 26 Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067551 — Rent arrears at 26 Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions