What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096148 about?

The tribunal order states: By agreement, the Tribunal orders suppression of both Tenant and Landlord names

How much money was awarded in case 5096148?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096148?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096148 about?

The tribunal order states: By agreement, the Tribunal orders suppression of both Tenant and Landlord names

How much money was awarded in case 5096148?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096148?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641657-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5096148 — State of repair

Order

By agreement, the Tribunal orders suppression of both Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] owes [the landlord/s] $1,859.43 as shown in table below.
[The landlord/s] owe [The tenant/s] $1,859.43 as shown in table below.
As a consequence of Orders 2 and 3 above, neither party are required to make any payment to the other,

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross application and applied for exemplary damages for the following: -Harassment; -Unlawful entry; -Failure to maintain the premises.
The tenant also seeks reimbursement for overpaid rent.
The onus is on both parties to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. However the landlord has submitted two invoices and I find that only one in the sum of $750.00 has been proven. The invoice dated 18 November 2024 came more than a month after the end of the tenancy and it does not make any reference to the tenancy address.
The amount ordered is 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. 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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: hole in bathroom wall, smashed vanity, and paint on hallway carpet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. Cross application

Did the tenant overpay rent?

The tenant did not provide any evidence that she overpaid rent and accepts that she did not pay the final week.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord (though their workmen) has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except 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 is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says she was not notified when the roof and ceilings were being fixed (although she did know about the bathroom wall), and the work was done while she was staying at work.
I find that the tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the landlord (or anyone through the landlord) entered the premises unlawfully. The landlord sent a text message on 17 August giving notice that the builders would be there on Monday and most of the week. If the roof was also attended to at that time, the tenant already had notification that the builders would be on the premises.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has 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.
The tenant says the landlord harassed her by constantly contacting her and threatening to come and beat her up.
The landlord denies making any threats and stated that the contrary is true because the tenant moved in gang members.
I find no evidence of harassment therefore this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant says the roof leaked causing mould problems in the lounge and bedrooms, and the bathroom leaked causing mould to arise in the adjoining bedroom. The tenant says they notified the landlord, but it took months for the roof to be repaired, and a couple of years before the bathroom and lounge were fixed.
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 requires every home to be free from dampness therefore landlords must provide a house that is not prone to mould and promptly fix any defect creating mould.
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 says they made repairs to the best of their ability and when they could afford it.
I find that the landlord has breached their obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and committed an unlawful act. The landlord was notified of the leaks and mould in November 2022, and it took until June 2023 for the roof repairs to be carried out. The bedrooms, bathroom and lounge were not fixed up until 2 weeks before the end of the tenancy in August 2024. The photographs provided by the tenant show that the mould was extensive, and I am satisfied that the tenant and her family had to endure damp, and mouldy conditions for an extended period.
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.
Weighing all of the above, I find it appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages. I also find that this is a case where the overall respective merits of the parties’ claims are evenly balanced. General compensation and exemplary damages both involve a number of discretionary factors and there are occasions when it is appropriate that neither party has to pay a financial award to the other party.
I find that a fair and equitable outcome is to award $1,859.43 exemplary damages which means that neither party has any further liability to the other. Name suppression
Both parties have agreed to name suppression for each other, so I make an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096148 — State of repair

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096148 — State of repair

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant overpay rent?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant overpay rent?

Did the landlord unlawfully enter the premises?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?