What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5081974 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 5081974?

Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $310.16 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081974?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11636320-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5081974 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 5081974?

Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $310.16 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081974?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11636320-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5081974 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081974 — net $310.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning, carpet patching, curtain cleaning	$1,200.00		Carpet cleaning, carpet patching, curtain cleaning
Compensation for water fixed charges and		$310.16	Compensation for water fixed charges and
Compensation for failing to repair bathroom light		$1,200.00	Compensation for failing to repair bathroom light
Total award	$1,200.00	$1,510.16
Net award		$310.16
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$310.16

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081974 — net $310.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning, carpet patching, curtain cleaning	$1,200.00		Carpet cleaning, carpet patching, curtain cleaning
Compensation for water fixed charges and		$310.16	Compensation for water fixed charges and
Compensation for failing to repair bathroom light		$1,200.00	Compensation for failing to repair bathroom light
Total award	$1,200.00	$1,510.16
Net award		$310.16
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$310.16

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $10.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared with three support people. [name redacted], who was a part owner of the property, and liaised with the tenant during the tenancy, appeared with the landlord.
The tenant has applied for: a. reimbursement of her bond; b. reimbursement of fixed water rates charges and water charges following a leak at the tenancy; c. compensation for failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards and failing to maintain; and d. exemplary damages on the basis that the property was very damp and her children became unwell.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to carpet, curtains and for repainting a front door at the end of the tenancy. Onus and evidence
I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Background
The tenancy of this three bedroom standalone house in Henderson began on 6 November 2023. The property was purchased by the landlord in August 2023 from a developer who had previously obtained resource and building consent to demolish the house and build a number of townhouse on the site. Those consents were transferred to the landlord.
The tenancy was for fixed term of one year. The weekly rent was $700.00 per week.
The tenancy ended on 13 November 2024 after the tenant gave notice. The Tenant’s claims Water rates
The tenant said that for most of the tenancy she was sent water rates invoices directly by Watercare and so paid the entire invoice including fixed charges. She said that she only discovered that she shouldn’t have paid these when the tenancy ended.
The tenant also said that there was a water leak on the property and she advised both the landlord and Watercare, but the landlord did not seek a rebate from Watercare and so she ended up paying an excessive amount of water during the period of the leak.
The landlord said that due to discussions about payment they arranged for the invoices to be sent to the tenant directly from April 2024. They agreed that the tenant should be reimbursed for the fixed charges which they paid for a period of 7 months (April to October) of $177.82. The landlord conceded that they had not yet applied for a rebate from Watercare and said that they would instead reimburse the tenant for the entire month of February, which was the month that reflected increased water charges due to the leak. The amount of usage charges for that month were $132.34. The tenant reviewed the invoices and agreed that the Tribunal could make the order for the combined amounts ($310.16) by consent. Healthy Homes Standards/Maintenance
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) and failing to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant said that there were a number of problems at the tenancy, as follows: a. There was no smoke alarm until July 2024; b. The underfloor insulation was falling out; c. There was mould in every room including the curtains; d. The gutter leaked; e. There was no ground moisture barrier; f. The corner flashings were rusty; g. The rubber window seals needed replacing; h. There were rotten boards on the deck; i. There was excessive ground water; j. The light was not working in the bathroom; k. The back stairs were broken so she could not use the back door; l. There were missing boards on the back deck; and m. She did not receive the heat pump remote until four months after the tenancy started.
Under section 45, a landlord must: a. provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes (s45(1)(b)); b. comply with all requirements of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord (s45(1)(ba); and c. comply with the HHS (s45(1)(bb).
The HHS impose specific obligations on landlords with regard to moisture and drainage, ventilation, insulation and heating. These obligations are separate from the landlord’s maintenance obligations but in some circumstances the obligations can overlap.
The landlord said that they were exempt from complying with the HHS as the property was to be demolished.
A landlord need not comply with the HHS if before the commencement of the tenancy the landlord has consent to demolish or substantially rebuild the premises 1 .
I accept that the property was exempt from compliance with the HHS. The Tenancy Agreement recorded the exemption and the landlord provided evidence confirming that Resource and Building consent had been obtained.
I therefore consider the issues raised by the tenant only in the context of the landlord’s maintenance obligations below. Back deck, window seals and bathroom light (g, l and j)
The tenant contacted the landlord immediately about the missing boards on the back deck, window seals and the bathroom light being very dim. The landlord quickly engaged a builder and electrician to resolve these issues and provided evidence. I am satisfied that these issues (g and l above) were quickly resolved and that the landlord was not in breach of their obligations. The claim in respect of these items is dismissed.
The bathroom light was also resolved at this stage although this later became an issue again. Smoke alarms (a) 1 See section 31 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019
The tenant said that there were no smoke alarms but that FENZ installed two alarms following a check on 19 July 2024. The tenant produced an email from FENZ dated 18 November 2024 confirming that there were no smoke alarms found during the check and advising that they had now installed two.
Landlords must comply with smoke alarm regulations and there is no exemption available.
The landlord said that there was a smoke alarm at the start of the tenancy. They referred me to the Tenancy Agreement that records that there was a smoke alarm. They said that they engaged the services of a professional property manager to assist them to find a tenant and that the property manager would have refused to market the property if it did not have a smoke alarm.
I accept that the tenancy did not have a smoke alarm when FENZ visited on 19 July 2024 but I do not consider that the tenant has proved that there was no smoke alarm at the outset. This claim is dismissed. Moisture and mould (c)
The tenant said that the property was constantly damp but only provided a copy of a photo showing a curtain with mould in evidence. She said that she was lent a hydrometer to take moisture readings but did not provide details or evidence of the readings.
The landlord said that they were not told that the property was damp and would have investigated if they had been told.
On the available evidence I am unable to find this claim proved. I note in addition that the Healthy Homes report obtained by the tenant (referred to below) did not identify moisture as an issue and in fact confirmed that the property complied with the moisture and drainage standard (except to record that there was ground moisture on the paths and driveway). This claim is dismissed. Issues identified in the Healthy Homes report (b, d, e, f, g, i)
The tenant obtained a Healthy Homes report on 2 September 2024, shortly before the end of the tenancy, which identified a number of issues. The report writer does not appear to have been made aware that the property was exempt from compliance with the HHS and had been consented for demolition.
The property did in fact have underfloor insulation but it had come away in one area during the tenancy. The landlord was not made aware of this issue. There has been no breach by the landlord on this issue.
The property did not have a ground moisture barrier but was exempt from having one. There has been no breach by the landlord.
The gutter issue appears to be a place a small area where the gutter was not aligned. There was no evidence of actual leaking. The rusty corner flashings appear to be a minor issue and more a matter of maintenance. I do not consider that either of these issues amount to a breach by the landlord of their maintenance obligations in the context of this tenancy. Bathroom light/Heat pump remote (j and m)
The tenant said that there was no heat pump remote at the start of the tenancy and the landlord said that they would obtain one and send one to her. However she said that this took a long time and the remote was not received until February, some four months into the tenancy.
The landlord said that the property was exempt from the heating standard but that there was a heat pump fitted but no remote. They said that they discussed with the tenant who said that there was no hurry. However as soon as the tenant told them the property was becoming hot, in January 2024, they purchased one and sent it to the tenant directly but it appears not to have arrived. As soon as they were advised this they purchased another one which arrived without difficulty.
I am satisfied that in the context of this property the parties had come to a mutual agreement about the provision of a heat pump remote even though the property was exempt from the heating standard. I consider that reasonable and the landlord’s sent a heat pump remote when the tenant asked for one.
The tenant said that although the bathroom light was initially fixed (it appears that the electrician replaced the switch) it started to dim gradually from February 2024. She produced a copy of a message sent to the landlord advising that the light in the bathroom was very dim. She said that the landlord responded to her message (in which she also asked about the heat pump remote) but took no steps to fix the light. However the light gradually became dimmer and by September 2024 was not working at all. The tenant said that she had to bathe her children in the dark.
The tenant decided to take matters into her own hands and contacted an electrician. She produced a copy of a message that she sent to the landlord on 4 September 2024 explaining that she had contacted an electrician to fix the light in the bathroom. She asked if she could pass on the landlord’s phone number so that the electrician could send an invoice.
However the landlord responded by saying “the light was working when we handed over the house. So if anything goes wrong you will have to pay for it”.
The tenant said that she went ahead and fixed the bathroom light at her expense. She said that she did not seek reimbursement of this amount but instead sought compensation for the period from February to September as she was without a working light in the bathroom.
The landlord said that in hindsight they realised that they misunderstood the tenant and should have followed up and fixed the light.
Electrical issues are a maintenance issue and are therefore the responsibility of the landlord, unless the tenant has carelessly or intentionally caused damage. There had been previous issues with the light and the tenant’s reference to the electrician made it clear that the issue was much more significant than a blown lightbulb. I find that the landlord breached their obligations in respect of the bathroom light.
It was a serious inconvenience for the tenant not to have light in the bathroom for such a long time.
The rent for the property was $700 per week. I consider that compensation of approximately $40 per week for loss of amenity for the period that the light was not working 2 to be reasonable in the overall context of the tenancy. The tenant has paid approximately $36,400 over the entire duration of the tenancy.
The total amount payable by way of compensation is $1,200.00. Rotten board and broken steps (h and k)
The tenant said that there were rotten boards on the front deck. The photos provided appear to show some minor discoloration to some of the boards but there was no evidence showing that the boards had deteriorated or were structurally unsound. This claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The tenant also said that the back steps were broken and so she could not properly access the back door. She provided a photo of the steps showing that one of the steps had become unattached on one side and was hanging down.
The landlord said that the back steps were intact when the tenancy began and provided a photo. They accepted that the steps must have broken during tenancy but said that the tenant did not tell them about it.
A tenant is under and obligation to inform a landlord about maintenance issues. Once informed, the landlord is under and obligation to do repairs within a reasonable time frame.
I was not provided with any evidence showing that the tenant had raised the issue of the back steps with the landlord. This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Exemplary damages
The tenant sought exemplary damages on the basis that the property was damp and her children were frequently unwell due to moisture.
Where landlord’s breach their maintenance obligations/failure to comply with HHS they commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). 2 From February to September 2024, a period of approximately 30 weeks
In this case I have determined that the tenant has not proved that the landlord has breached their obligations in respect of moisture. The tenant did not submit evidence proving any breach.
In addition I note that the tenant did not provide any medical evidence regarding the health of her children.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. The landlord’s claim

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord said that they installed new carpet and painted the property at the start of the tenancy and provided evidence that they had done so.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the carpet had cigarette burns and stains and that mould had to be cleaned off the curtains as they were mouldy and some of the curtains had to be replaced as they were damaged. They also said that the front door had to be repainted as a child had drawn on it. The landlord provided photos of the damage.
The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $2,033.78.
The landlord said that they had intended to sell the house for removal and so it was necessary for them to have the repairs and painting done. At no stage did the landlord indicate to the tenant that there was no need to comply with the usual obligations.
The tenant accepted that there were some stains on the carpet and that she was prepared to pay something towards that. She said that the mould on the curtains was due to damp and that the damage was because the curtains were behind the couch. She acknowledged that there were drawings on the front door but said she didn’t have time to clean these off.
The tenant said that she was confused about the landlord’s invoices as they sent her one invoice from Shine&Glow to clean the carpet, remove stains, and clean and replace curtains for $869.40, another from Albert Accommodation to (patch) replace carpet and paint the front door for $1,319.63, and yet another invoice as claimed by the landlord in the Tribunal for carpet repairs and cleaning, curtain stain removal and curtain replacement, together with painting for $2,033.78.
The landlord said that the first invoice was the cheapest but did not include the carpet patching and painting. However the landlord was under significant time pressure as they had to get the work done in a very short space of time so that they could list the house for removal, and the first provider could not do the work in time.
I consider that the landlord has proved that the damaged occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. However I consider that there should be some discount applied for the fact that the landlord did not accept the cheapest quote due to time pressures that had nothing to do with the tenant. I also consider that in addition a small amount of depreciation should be applied as some wear and tear should have been expected over the year that the tenant lived in the property 3 .
Standing back and looking at the matter as a whole, I consider an award of $1,200.00 to be reasonable compensation. Filing fees and name suppression
As both parties have had some success I have not ordered either party to reimburse the filing fee paid by the other party.
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. As both parties were to some degree successful in their claims I have made an order suppression both parties’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081974 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081974 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions