What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5112648 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 5112648?

Property Damage: $121.50 awarded to landlord; Corner Window Sill: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $186.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5112648?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5112648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5112648 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 5112648?

Property Damage: $121.50 awarded to landlord; Corner Window Sill: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $186.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5112648?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5112648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11921178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5112648 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5112648 — net $423.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$186.97	Water rates
Repairs: corner window sill	$115.00	Repairs: corner window sill
Cooktop replacement contribution	$121.50	Cooktop replacement contribution
Net award	$423.47
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$423.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $423.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $423.47 [The tenant/s]: $1,536.53

Reasons

Both tenants and the landlord’s representative (NE) attended the hearing in person. KR (landlord) attended the last part of the hearing by telephone.
This tenancy started on 13 July 2019 and ended on 11 November 2024.
Both the tenants and the landlord have made applications to the Tribunal.
The tenancy was first managed by the landlords themselves (from 13 July 2019 to 3 March 2023) and then (from 6 March 2023 to the end of the tenancy), by agents.
The tenancy was through “the covid lockdown years”, 2020 to 2022, when it was not always easy to secure contractors.
The tenants were allowed to keep a dog which they kept contained in the back garden with makeshift fences. Landlord claims
The tenants accept the final water rates invoice ($186.97) and cost to repair part of an external windowsill ($115.00) damaged by the dog fence.
After viewing photos supplied by the tenants in the hearing, the landlord’s representative accepts the back of the house was left reasonably clean after the tenants returned to wash the windows and house exterior after the tenancy ended. This claim for water blasting/bleaching ($172.50) is withdrawn by the landlord.
The landlord claims that cost was incurred to apply topsoil and resow the back lawn and that the tenants dog is the reason the work was needed. The tenants accept the dog dug a hole in one spot. When clarification was sought from the contractor who provided the quote (by telephone in the hearing), it was discovered that the work had not been done. No cost has been incurred by the landlord, so this claim ($700.06) is dismissed.
The landlord claims a contribution of $121.50 towards the cost (total of $511.99) to replace the ceramic cooktop. When a landlord makes a claim for damage it must show that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than wear and tear; s49B(8) RTA. The damage has been proven and is more than what would happen from normal use (wear and tear).
The tenants accept that one corner of the cooktop cracked during the tenancy. They say it happened early in the tenancy when AO lent on it and that the grout under the cooktop had deteriorated leaving a space and allowing the crack to happen from normal pressure. This is their oral evidence. They object to being asked to contribute to the cost of a new cooktop when, in their view, they were not careless, and it was left cracked for several years during their tenancy despite, they say, raising it with the landlord and the property manager.
I said in the hearing that I accept the tenants’ oral evidence, and I do. I believe them when they say they lent on the cooktop, and it cracked. However, NE pointed out that it is up to the tenants to prove they were not careless and said they have not provided objective evidence to substantiate their theory about the grout. She is correct that the law makes this the task of the tenants; s49B(8)(b)(ii) RTA. 1
On reflection, I agree with NE. It may well be that there was a flaw with the grout or surface under the cooktop but there is no evidence to verify this: no photo, nor any email or text raising this with the landlord.
I award the compensation claimed by the landlord on this point which is $121.50. Tenant claims Back garden
The main point of contention is the back garden. The landlords accepted responsibility for maintaining the garden in the tenancy agreement. The tenants say this wasn’t always done and that they trimmed hedges and did work they weren’t supposed to have to do.
The landlord says the tenants were difficult to get hold of and that the gardening contractors they engaged couldn’t always access the back (due to the dog and the fencing). KR acknowledges that gardeners did not come during 2022 but has provided invoices for contracted gardening work on a regular basis for the other years. These include a large invoice (nearly $4,000) for catch-up work in mid- 2023.
After assessing what was said by both parties and the emails supplied by the landlord, I have decided not to award compensation to the tenants.
Firstly, there was no evidence from them to allow me to assess any detriment they suffered (eg photos of overgrown gardens, texts or emails asking for garden work to be done), and secondly, the evidence from the gardeners that they could 1 Section 49B(8) If any destruction of, or damage to, the premises is proved to have occurred during any tenancy to which this Act applies, (a) it is for the landlord to prove (i) that any damage is not fair wear and tear; ... and (b) it is for the tenant to prove (i) that any destruction or damage was not intentionally done or caused ... ; and (ii) that any destruction or damage was not caused by a careless act or omission described in subsection (2). not contact the tenants and that access to the property was sometimes difficult, is strong. Healthy Homes compliance
The tenants say in their claim that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards in all respects and that they were never provided with compliance information despite promises from the landlord that they would be.
Private landlords must ensure their rental properties comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) within 90 days of any new, or renewed, tenancy that commences on a date between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022. 2
The HHS are specific compliance requirements for heating in the main living area, ceiling and underfloor insulation, ventilation from windows and bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, draught stopping, an efficient drainage system and a moisture prevention barrier under the house.
These premises were required to comply with the HHS by 11 October 2019.
The tenants mention draughts, mould, that drains and gutters were broken and increased electricity costs.
The tenants did not provide evidence in support of their claims. This means they must be dismissed.
The landlord did provide information about the Healthy Homes compliance during the tenancy, so I include this for completeness. The evidence is:- a. An insulation statement in the tenancy agreement that ceiling insulation was 870mm thick and floor insulation 510mm thick. b. A “statement of insulation” from a third party verifying the above information and dated 30 May 2019. c. A healthy homes assessment report from a third party from an inspection on 7 March 2023. This reports that:- i. The ceiling insulation complies with thickness of at least 120mm; ii. The underfloor insulation could not be accessed so could not be verified; iii. The heating in the living room complied with both a heatpump and log burner; iv. The kitchen rangehood was not working; v. The bathroom fan complied; 2 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. vi. There was an unacceptable gap around the kitchen window frame; vii. A moisture barrier is required under the house.
The insulation statement from the beginning of the tenancy must be incorrect as 870mm and 510mm are 87 centimetres and 51 centimetres which are too thick for insulation measurements. However, in the absence of any evidence from the tenants, I accept the landlord’s evidence as sufficient to show that the premises were insulated at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s records show the kitchen rangehood was replaced on 8 June 2023.
Both parties note that the tenants nailed the kitchen window shut and the landlord does not seek compensation for this as it was a draught compliance issue. Other maintenance
The tenants mentioned a general lack of maintenance but did not provide specific evidence to illustrate what they meant. The landlord supplied invoices showing work done during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Clarification of rent summary
Rent records have been supplied by the landlord for both the period managed by the owners (white) and the period managed by the agent (blue). The tenants say they accept the landlord’s records of payments.
There is a note (written in red) at the end of the white rent summary which says: “No arrears outstanding, nor rent in advance at the time GH took over.”
The second (blue) rent summary adds up the total rent due ($47,874.29) and the total paid ($46,894.28).
The landlord has reimbursed the tenants $375.72 for what it calculates is overpaid rent.
The balance showing on the blue summary is $980.01 but the landlord says it does not claim this amount as it has applied a credit for of $980.00 for “initial part payment”.
The result is that there is no rent to pay.
There was discussion during the hearing about rent in advance and how this works.
I confirm that if a tenancy agreement requires a tenant to pay rent in advance, then the tenant must do so. A landlord cannot require that rent be paid more than two weeks in advance or require that a payment is made before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Filing fees and suppression of names
Both parties have paid filing fees, and both have been partly successful, so I make no order about filing fees.
On balance, neither party is proven to be at fault or in breach of the RTA. I suppress both parties’ names and the tenancy address as their privacy outweighs any public interest.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5112648 — net $423.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$186.97	Water rates
Repairs: corner window sill	$115.00	Repairs: corner window sill
Cooktop replacement contribution	$121.50	Cooktop replacement contribution
Net award	$423.47
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$423.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $423.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $423.47 [The tenant/s]: $1,536.53

Reasons

Both tenants and the landlord’s representative (NE) attended the hearing in person. KR (landlord) attended the last part of the hearing by telephone.
This tenancy started on 13 July 2019 and ended on 11 November 2024.
Both the tenants and the landlord have made applications to the Tribunal.
The tenancy was first managed by the landlords themselves (from 13 July 2019 to 3 March 2023) and then (from 6 March 2023 to the end of the tenancy), by agents.
The tenancy was through “the covid lockdown years”, 2020 to 2022, when it was not always easy to secure contractors.
The tenants were allowed to keep a dog which they kept contained in the back garden with makeshift fences. Landlord claims
The tenants accept the final water rates invoice ($186.97) and cost to repair part of an external windowsill ($115.00) damaged by the dog fence.
After viewing photos supplied by the tenants in the hearing, the landlord’s representative accepts the back of the house was left reasonably clean after the tenants returned to wash the windows and house exterior after the tenancy ended. This claim for water blasting/bleaching ($172.50) is withdrawn by the landlord.
The landlord claims that cost was incurred to apply topsoil and resow the back lawn and that the tenants dog is the reason the work was needed. The tenants accept the dog dug a hole in one spot. When clarification was sought from the contractor who provided the quote (by telephone in the hearing), it was discovered that the work had not been done. No cost has been incurred by the landlord, so this claim ($700.06) is dismissed.
The landlord claims a contribution of $121.50 towards the cost (total of $511.99) to replace the ceramic cooktop. When a landlord makes a claim for damage it must show that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than wear and tear; s49B(8) RTA. The damage has been proven and is more than what would happen from normal use (wear and tear).
The tenants accept that one corner of the cooktop cracked during the tenancy. They say it happened early in the tenancy when AO lent on it and that the grout under the cooktop had deteriorated leaving a space and allowing the crack to happen from normal pressure. This is their oral evidence. They object to being asked to contribute to the cost of a new cooktop when, in their view, they were not careless, and it was left cracked for several years during their tenancy despite, they say, raising it with the landlord and the property manager.
I said in the hearing that I accept the tenants’ oral evidence, and I do. I believe them when they say they lent on the cooktop, and it cracked. However, NE pointed out that it is up to the tenants to prove they were not careless and said they have not provided objective evidence to substantiate their theory about the grout. She is correct that the law makes this the task of the tenants; s49B(8)(b)(ii) RTA. 1
On reflection, I agree with NE. It may well be that there was a flaw with the grout or surface under the cooktop but there is no evidence to verify this: no photo, nor any email or text raising this with the landlord.
I award the compensation claimed by the landlord on this point which is $121.50. Tenant claims Back garden
The main point of contention is the back garden. The landlords accepted responsibility for maintaining the garden in the tenancy agreement. The tenants say this wasn’t always done and that they trimmed hedges and did work they weren’t supposed to have to do.
The landlord says the tenants were difficult to get hold of and that the gardening contractors they engaged couldn’t always access the back (due to the dog and the fencing). KR acknowledges that gardeners did not come during 2022 but has provided invoices for contracted gardening work on a regular basis for the other years. These include a large invoice (nearly $4,000) for catch-up work in mid- 2023.
After assessing what was said by both parties and the emails supplied by the landlord, I have decided not to award compensation to the tenants.
Firstly, there was no evidence from them to allow me to assess any detriment they suffered (eg photos of overgrown gardens, texts or emails asking for garden work to be done), and secondly, the evidence from the gardeners that they could 1 Section 49B(8) If any destruction of, or damage to, the premises is proved to have occurred during any tenancy to which this Act applies, (a) it is for the landlord to prove (i) that any damage is not fair wear and tear; ... and (b) it is for the tenant to prove (i) that any destruction or damage was not intentionally done or caused ... ; and (ii) that any destruction or damage was not caused by a careless act or omission described in subsection (2). not contact the tenants and that access to the property was sometimes difficult, is strong. Healthy Homes compliance
The tenants say in their claim that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards in all respects and that they were never provided with compliance information despite promises from the landlord that they would be.
Private landlords must ensure their rental properties comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) within 90 days of any new, or renewed, tenancy that commences on a date between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022. 2
The HHS are specific compliance requirements for heating in the main living area, ceiling and underfloor insulation, ventilation from windows and bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, draught stopping, an efficient drainage system and a moisture prevention barrier under the house.
These premises were required to comply with the HHS by 11 October 2019.
The tenants mention draughts, mould, that drains and gutters were broken and increased electricity costs.
The tenants did not provide evidence in support of their claims. This means they must be dismissed.
The landlord did provide information about the Healthy Homes compliance during the tenancy, so I include this for completeness. The evidence is:- a. An insulation statement in the tenancy agreement that ceiling insulation was 870mm thick and floor insulation 510mm thick. b. A “statement of insulation” from a third party verifying the above information and dated 30 May 2019. c. A healthy homes assessment report from a third party from an inspection on 7 March 2023. This reports that:- i. The ceiling insulation complies with thickness of at least 120mm; ii. The underfloor insulation could not be accessed so could not be verified; iii. The heating in the living room complied with both a heatpump and log burner; iv. The kitchen rangehood was not working; v. The bathroom fan complied; 2 Clause 2 of Schedule 1, Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. vi. There was an unacceptable gap around the kitchen window frame; vii. A moisture barrier is required under the house.
The insulation statement from the beginning of the tenancy must be incorrect as 870mm and 510mm are 87 centimetres and 51 centimetres which are too thick for insulation measurements. However, in the absence of any evidence from the tenants, I accept the landlord’s evidence as sufficient to show that the premises were insulated at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s records show the kitchen rangehood was replaced on 8 June 2023.
Both parties note that the tenants nailed the kitchen window shut and the landlord does not seek compensation for this as it was a draught compliance issue. Other maintenance
The tenants mentioned a general lack of maintenance but did not provide specific evidence to illustrate what they meant. The landlord supplied invoices showing work done during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Clarification of rent summary
Rent records have been supplied by the landlord for both the period managed by the owners (white) and the period managed by the agent (blue). The tenants say they accept the landlord’s records of payments.
There is a note (written in red) at the end of the white rent summary which says: “No arrears outstanding, nor rent in advance at the time GH took over.”
The second (blue) rent summary adds up the total rent due ($47,874.29) and the total paid ($46,894.28).
The landlord has reimbursed the tenants $375.72 for what it calculates is overpaid rent.
The balance showing on the blue summary is $980.01 but the landlord says it does not claim this amount as it has applied a credit for of $980.00 for “initial part payment”.
The result is that there is no rent to pay.
There was discussion during the hearing about rent in advance and how this works.
I confirm that if a tenancy agreement requires a tenant to pay rent in advance, then the tenant must do so. A landlord cannot require that rent be paid more than two weeks in advance or require that a payment is made before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already. See section 23(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Filing fees and suppression of names
Both parties have paid filing fees, and both have been partly successful, so I make no order about filing fees.
On balance, neither party is proven to be at fault or in breach of the RTA. I suppress both parties’ names and the tenancy address as their privacy outweighs any public interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5112648 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5112648 — Property damage

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