What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154771 about?

The tribunal order states: Naomi Warrander must pay Naeyaert Investment Properties Ltd $6,884.64

How much money was awarded in case 5154771?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Listing Fee: $399.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,716.64 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Door Frame: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154771?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12263567-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154771 about?

The tribunal order states: Naomi Warrander must pay Naeyaert Investment Properties Ltd $6,884.64

How much money was awarded in case 5154771?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Listing Fee: $399.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,716.64 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Door Frame: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154771?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12263567-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 22 Stoneyhurst Street, St Albans, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154771 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154771 — net $6,884.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears and loss of rent to end of fixed term	$6,716.64		Rent arrears and loss of rent to end of fixed term
Listing Fee	$399.00		Listing Fee
Repairs: Carpet	$1,200.00		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Painting	$1,500.00		Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Door Frame	$240.00		Repairs: Door Frame
Repairs: Rangehood	$129.00		Repairs: Rangehood
Rubbish removal	$100.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: Loss of Amenity		$2,000.00	Loss of Amenity
Total award	$10,284.64	$2,000.00
Net award	$6,884.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,884.64

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, rent to the end of the fixed term, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for early release from the fixed term tenancy and compensation for alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. The tenant also claims that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background

This tenancy was for a fixed term from 8 September 2024 to 7 September 2025.

Issues arose early in the tenancy. It is apparent that the parties did not communicate effectively with each other. During the course of this application, each party would have me believe that they were the victim of the other’s poor behaviour. The reality is seldom that straightforward. In considering the applications, I have set aside the personality disputes between the parties and have attempted to focus on their respective legal obligations and the evidence that relates to those obligations.

The tenant decided to move out in March 2025. The landlord claimed rent to the end of the tenancy and compensation for damage costs. The tenant then submitted a cross-application for early release from the fixed term and compensation for alleged breaches of Healthy Homes Standards, landlord repair and maintenance obligations and breach of quiet enjoyment. Early Termination & Liability for Rent

The first issue I must consider is whether the tenant was entitled to end the tenancy early and whether she has any liability for rent to the end of the fixed term.

The usual legal position that the term of a fixed-term contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.

There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.

Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.

Ms Warrander did not identify any change of circumstances which could give rise to terminating the tenancy.

During the hearing, it became apparent that her application for early release from the tenancy was on the basis that the premises were “uninhabitable”. See sections 59 and 59A RTA.

While there was some evidence of maintenance issues, there was no evidence to support a finding (or even an allegation) that the premises were uninhabitable. The maintenance issues are discussed below in relation to the tenant application. Suffice to say the issues identified are very modest in the context of maintenance requests which come before the Tribunal.

Further, the District Court has confirmed that here is an obligation on the tenant to give notice to the landlord to undertake necessary repairs, prior to leaving tenancy on basis of repairs required. See - Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332

Ms Warrander has not established that any grounds exist for her to be released from the fixed term tenancy. That aspect of her application is dismissed.

It follows that the landlord is entitled to rent to the end of the fixed term. Mr Naeyeart provided a clear calculation of the landlord’s loss of rent. The landlord took steps to mitigate its loss and has only claimed the difference between the rent Ms Warrander should have paid to the end of the fixed term and the amount a new tenant will pay. That amount is $6,716.64. I have made an order accordingly.

I have also awarded the landlord the advertising cost of $399 for relisting the premises for rent.

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

Ms Warrander vacated the premises on 20 March 2025. While the landlord did not agree that she was entitled to unilaterally end the fixed term tenancy, it acted prudently and took possession of the premises.

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.

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.

The landlord claimed cleaning costs and compensation for a range of alleged damage.

The cleaning standard is “reasonably clean”, it is not pristine or commercially clean. The photographs provided by the landlord were close ups of isolated areas. Further, the landlord sought cleaning costs based on a quote; the costs were not incurred. Ms Warrander disputed the claim for cleaning costs and provided evidence of having the premises cleaned. She also says that the premises were left in the same condition, if not cleaner, than she received them. While I do not think the evidence supports Ms Warrander’s claim, it also does not establish that the landlord is entitled to the cleaning costs claimed of $1,637.31.

Having regard to the photographs, some minor cleaning and rubbish removal would have been required and I award a nominal sum for that work of $100.

The landlord claimed that walls, carpet, door frames and a kitchen rangehood were damaged during the tenancy.

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.

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.

The tenant accepted the claim for damage to door frames ($240). I have made an Order accordingly.

The tenant disputed the claim for the rangehood and said that the damage (broken glass cover) was caused because the rangehood was defective. The range hood was not new and had been operated by previous tenants without incident. I am not persuaded that it was defective. I also consider that the landlord took reasonable steps to minimise the repair/replacement cost. I award the amount claimed of $129.00.

The claims for carpet replacement in a bedroom ($3,777) and painting in the Master Bedroom ($2,157.27) are more problematic. The work the landlord says is required has not been done (and a new tenancy has started) and there is no evidence that an insurance claim has been made.

There was limited evidence of the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. However, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that a large red stain appeared on the carpet during this tenancy. I consider it unlikely that the stain was caused by a tradesperson climbing through the window, as Ms Warrander’s flatmate suggested. However, the landlord has not established that carpet and underlay need to be replaced at a cost of $3,777 because of the stain. As noted, it has not been replaced and a new tenant has been found. I accept that the landlord may repair/patch the carpet or may end up replacing the carpet earlier than anticipated because of the stain. Having regard to all of those factors, I award $1,200 for carpet damage being slightly less than 1/3 of the amount claimed.

The landlord claims $2,157.27 for repairs to paintwork in the Master Bedroom. The work has not been done. The tenant says that the landlord agreed to her painting the Master Bedroom and acknowledges that her first attempt was not as tidy as it could have been. She engaged a handyman to fix the paintwork and says the painting looks better than when she moved in. I accept it has improved from her first attempt, however that does not solve the problem that she has used the wrong colour. The overall effect is not to a good workmanlike standard, but it did not prevent the landlord letting the premises to a new tenant. Ms Warrander also provided evidence that the Master Bedroom “feature wall” was in a worn condition when she moved in. Having regard to all of those factors, I award $1,500 for the paint/wall damage. Tenant Claims – Healthy Homes & Repair & Maintenance Obligations

Ms Warrander claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

She considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard. Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. 1 For this tenancy, the compliance date was 6 January 2025 (being 120 days after 8 September 2024).

One bathroom did not have a compliant extraction fan at the start of the tenancy. It was rectified within 120 days of the tenancy starting. At the hearing, Ms Warrander advised that she had been working off a 90-day timeframe for compliance. This aspect of the tenant claim is dismissed.

Naomi Warrander claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, 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.

Ms Warrander raised several alleged maintenance issues, including lights not working in the kitchen for the entire tenancy, a persistent mould problem, broken door handles, on-going internal repairs arising from a roof repair. She said that the number of visits from trades people interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and prevented her flatmate from working from home.

My impression, having reviewed the photographs and other evidence, is that Ms Warrander has significantly overstated the extent of the repairs and maintenance required. However, the landlord has underestimated the extent of the inconvenience arising from the lounge repairs in particular.

Ms Warrander asserted that there was persistent mould at the premises but provided no corroborative evidence to establish that. A flatmate complained of health issues arising from mould but did not provide medical evidence. The bathroom ceiling was unsightly, with paint flaking, but the evidence does not 1 For private rentals: 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 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. establish a mould infestation. The landlord provided evidence from previous and subsequent tenants, who deny that there were ever issues with mould at the property.

The tenant also complained that lights did not work in the kitchen for the entire tenancy. She did raise concerns with lights early in the tenancy. One issue was resolved with instruction from the landlord as to how to turn them on. The kitchen lights were older halogen style and seemed to flicker from time to time. The landlord arranged to replace them with LED lights, and that was done in January 2025 and an Electrical Certificate of Compliance provided.

On the last day of the tenancy, the tenant filmed water running through one of those lights. She said she hadn’t noticed it during the tenancy, but that given the poor state of tiling in the shower, it could have. I find this unlikely, as I would have expected any moisture issues to have been raised by an electrician when the lights were replaced earlier in the year.

The tiling in the shower was a considerable concern for the tenant. There were two loose tiles at the bottom of the shower. The tenant maintained this was a source of water ingress, leaks and mould but the photographic (and other) evidence does not support that. The landlord believes that the tenant has pulled the tile away from its substrate, but there is no evidence to support that either. Rather, a tile coming loose is not an unusual occurrence, the landlord was communicating with tradespeople to review and repair it.

The tenant raised other maintenance issues around blinds and door handles. I find that these were operational issues, rather than repair being required.

At the start of the tenancy, the parties were both aware that roofing membrane at the premises needed to be repaired. When the job started the work was more extensive than expected and required investigation. This was through no fault of either party. However, the result was that there was no lighting in the lounge for several months and part of the ceiling was boarded up with plywood.

When the repairs were ultimately completed, the tenant says that the downstairs was a construction site for a week, at great inconvenience. The landlord maintained that it had limited control over the timing and extent of the repair work, as it was an insurance issue. I accept that, but the landlord remains liable for the inconvenience to its tenants during this process. The landlord suggested any inconvenience was minimal and the tenant could have plugged in lamps instead of having lighting. Most people would, reasonably, expect to have properly functioning lighting in their living room when they are paying full rent. The tenant’s request for compensation during the week that the repairs were, finally, completed is also reasonable. I find that the tenant is entitled to a rent abatement of $2,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused by the roof/ceiling repairs.

The other repair and maintenance claims were not proved and are dismissed.

Ms Warrander also alleged that there were too many visits from tradespeople. She said this indicated the poor state of the property and interfered with her quiet enjoyment. She added all the visits and then averaged them over the tenancy to try to establish a pattern of inconvenience. The reality was somewhat different. There were concentrated periods when trades were on site. Most of the visits were for the roof/ceiling insurance issue, which Ms Warrander was aware of at the start of the tenancy. Any inconvenience has been compensated for by the rent abatement below. Procedural Issues

The Landlord application was scheduled for hearing on 1 July 2025. The tenant application had been put on hold at that time. Both matters were adjourned, and directions were made.

The Landlord took exception to the approach adopted by the Tribunal at the 1 July hearing. It considered that the tenant application should not be determined and had been “closed” by Tenancy Services. The landlord sought explanation from the Tribunal.

Tenancy Services had not “closed” the file. Tenancy Services is not empowered to determine an application. Ms Warrander’s application was properly filed under s86 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). As set out in the directions Order dated 1 July 2025, once an application has been submitted it can either be determined by the Tribunal or withdrawn by the applicant (following agreement with the other party, or the applicant deciding not to proceed with the claim). The tenant application had not been withdrawn or determined. See also s87 RTA.

The landlord also suggested some impropriety by the Tribunal at the commencement of the 1 July hearing. Ms Warrander attended by telephone and the landlord attended in person. Consistent with the Registrar’s usual practice, Ms Warrander was called, and put on hold while the landlord was brought into the room. The adjudicator did not engage with either party until both were present.

The landlord also maintained that it was unable to access documents provided by Ms Warrander using a standard document transfer method. At the start of the hearing, it was demonstrated that the documents were accessible. Ms Warrander has not caused any prejudice to the landlord by providing the documents in that format.

I have recorded these procedural matters as the landlord sought explanation from the Tribunal. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to engage with the parties, in the manner requested. I indicated at the hearing that I would address these matters in my written decision.

As each party was partially successful, I do not award reimbursement of either application fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154771 — net $6,884.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears and loss of rent to end of fixed term	$6,716.64		Rent arrears and loss of rent to end of fixed term
Listing Fee	$399.00		Listing Fee
Repairs: Carpet	$1,200.00		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Painting	$1,500.00		Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Door Frame	$240.00		Repairs: Door Frame
Repairs: Rangehood	$129.00		Repairs: Rangehood
Rubbish removal	$100.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: Loss of Amenity		$2,000.00	Loss of Amenity
Total award	$10,284.64	$2,000.00
Net award	$6,884.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,884.64