What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5109908 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 5109908?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,842.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $390.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5109908?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5109908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11800623-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5109908 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 5109908?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,842.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $390.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5109908?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5109908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11800623-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 614 Beach Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5109908 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5109908 — net $932.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 November 2024	$1,842.86		Rent arrears to 24 November 2024
Rubbish removal	$390.00		claim for rubbish removal is proven. Tenant application
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Landlord entry		$800.00	Landlord entry
Total award	$2,232.86	$1,300.00
Net award	$932.86
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$932.86

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 $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $932.86 [The tenant/s]: $2,507.14
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord applied for water rates but did not produce any water rates invoices or evidence of when the tenant was provided with the invoices. The claim for water rates is dismissed.
The landlord applied for rubbish removal. The landlord took photographs of the rubbish on 25 November 2024, the day after the tenant left. There was some rubbish in the photographs.
The tenant acknowledged that she left some rubbish at the premises but later learnt that her friend had returned to the premises after 25 November 2024 to remove the rubbish. There is no evidence of what rubbish was removed by the tenant’s friend.
The landlord produced photographs taken on 29 November 2024 when the landlord’s contractor was at the premises to remove the rubbish.
I am satisfied on the evidence that there was rubbish to be removed and the tenant has failed to provide evidence that it was removed before the landlord’s contractor attended at the premises to remove rubbish. It may be that some of the rubbish belonged to the landlord but because there was some rubbish left by the tenant, I must accept the evidence produced by the landlord. The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is proven. Tenant application
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice to carry out methamphetamine testing. She further claims that the landlord has not provided her with results of that testing.
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.
Where the premises have been entered for the purpose of testing for contaminants or taking samples for such testing, the landlord must within seven days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant in writing of the results and provide a written copy of the results. See section 48(3B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 48(4)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord instructed a contractor to attend at the premises to carry out testing for methamphetamine on 25 October 2024 without first giving the tenant notice. The landlord failed to provide the tenant with test results. 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.
The tenant’s evidence is that on 25 October 2024 she was at home with her two young children. A contractor knocked on the door and asked to enter to carry out tests. The tenant had thought that the contractor was there to carry out maintenance work. The tenant questioned the contractor, and he mentioned asbestos. The tenant had not received notice from the landlord for the testing to be carried out. The tenant said that the contractor was there for an hour while she and her children waited for him to leave.
The tenant produced photographs of the contractor together with evidence of methamphetamine testing.
As well as not giving the tenant notice of this testing the landlord did not provide the tenant with the test results which the Act requires.
At the hearing the landlord had no records relating to the testing and was not able to produce evidence of notice being given to the tenant.
Not only did this testing inconvenience the tenant, but failure to provide the test results meant that the tenant had no idea whether she and her children were living in a methamphetamine contaminated home, and she is entitled to know this if such information is available.
In the circumstances I consider an award of $800.00 is reasonable.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days after it was paid. 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.
The tenant’s evidence is that the bond was fully paid by 27 August 2024. The landlord should have lodged the money with the Bond Centre by 27 September 2024. The bond was finally lodged with the Bond Centre on 11 October 2024 soon after the owner instructed the current property management company.
At the hearing the landlord did not have any explanation for the late payment. It was suggested that the owner maybe did not know the rules.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $500.00 is reasonable.
The tenant also mentioned issues related to the driveway and the premises not being clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy. I consider that an award was not warranted in relation to these issues. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with the applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5109908 — net $932.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 November 2024	$1,842.86		Rent arrears to 24 November 2024
Rubbish removal	$390.00		claim for rubbish removal is proven. Tenant application
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$500.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Landlord entry		$800.00	Landlord entry
Total award	$2,232.86	$1,300.00
Net award	$932.86
Bond	$3,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$932.86

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 $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $932.86 [The tenant/s]: $2,507.14
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord applied for water rates but did not produce any water rates invoices or evidence of when the tenant was provided with the invoices. The claim for water rates is dismissed.
The landlord applied for rubbish removal. The landlord took photographs of the rubbish on 25 November 2024, the day after the tenant left. There was some rubbish in the photographs.
The tenant acknowledged that she left some rubbish at the premises but later learnt that her friend had returned to the premises after 25 November 2024 to remove the rubbish. There is no evidence of what rubbish was removed by the tenant’s friend.
The landlord produced photographs taken on 29 November 2024 when the landlord’s contractor was at the premises to remove the rubbish.
I am satisfied on the evidence that there was rubbish to be removed and the tenant has failed to provide evidence that it was removed before the landlord’s contractor attended at the premises to remove rubbish. It may be that some of the rubbish belonged to the landlord but because there was some rubbish left by the tenant, I must accept the evidence produced by the landlord. The landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is proven. Tenant application
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice to carry out methamphetamine testing. She further claims that the landlord has not provided her with results of that testing.
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.
Where the premises have been entered for the purpose of testing for contaminants or taking samples for such testing, the landlord must within seven days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant in writing of the results and provide a written copy of the results. See section 48(3B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 48(4)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord instructed a contractor to attend at the premises to carry out testing for methamphetamine on 25 October 2024 without first giving the tenant notice. The landlord failed to provide the tenant with test results. 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.
The tenant’s evidence is that on 25 October 2024 she was at home with her two young children. A contractor knocked on the door and asked to enter to carry out tests. The tenant had thought that the contractor was there to carry out maintenance work. The tenant questioned the contractor, and he mentioned asbestos. The tenant had not received notice from the landlord for the testing to be carried out. The tenant said that the contractor was there for an hour while she and her children waited for him to leave.
The tenant produced photographs of the contractor together with evidence of methamphetamine testing.
As well as not giving the tenant notice of this testing the landlord did not provide the tenant with the test results which the Act requires.
At the hearing the landlord had no records relating to the testing and was not able to produce evidence of notice being given to the tenant.
Not only did this testing inconvenience the tenant, but failure to provide the test results meant that the tenant had no idea whether she and her children were living in a methamphetamine contaminated home, and she is entitled to know this if such information is available.
In the circumstances I consider an award of $800.00 is reasonable.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to lodge the bond within 23 working days after it was paid. 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.
The tenant’s evidence is that the bond was fully paid by 27 August 2024. The landlord should have lodged the money with the Bond Centre by 27 September 2024. The bond was finally lodged with the Bond Centre on 11 October 2024 soon after the owner instructed the current property management company.
At the hearing the landlord did not have any explanation for the late payment. It was suggested that the owner maybe did not know the rules.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of $500.00 is reasonable.
The tenant also mentioned issues related to the driveway and the premises not being clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy. I consider that an award was not warranted in relation to these issues. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with the applications, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5109908 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 614 Beach Road, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5109908 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 614 Beach Road, Browns 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