What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157371 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the both the landlord and tenant’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5157371?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157371?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11645165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157371 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the both the landlord and tenant’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5157371?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157371?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11645165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5157371 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157371 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (one week	$600.00		Rent arrears (one week
Repairs to wall	$300.00		Repairs to wall
Exemplary damages for failure to provide receipt for bond		$500.00	Exemplary damages for failure to provide receipt for bond
Total award	$900.00	$500.00
Net award	$400.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.00

Both parties attended the hearing. Both parties had a support person present.

The tenant filed a claim on 5 February 2025 seeking: a. Refund of the bond; b. Compensation for the fact that there was no working smoke alarm; c. Compensation for electricity usage as there was moisture in the house due to a blocked drainpipe; and d. Exemplary damages based on the landlord’s failure to: i. Provide a receipt for rent; and ii. Provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement.

The landlord filed a claim on 4 March 2025 seeking: a. Rent arrears of $685.71; b. Compensation for cleaning in the amount of $207.00; and c. Compensation for damage to a wall in the amount of $575.00. Onus and evidence

As with all claims before the Tribunal the party bringing the claim bears the onus to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities)

The parties filed very little evidence in support of their claims and did not bring evidence along to the hearing as advised in the notice of hearing. Instead, much of the evidence was viewed on the parties’ phones and then sent to the Tribunal by email during the hearing.

Both parties produced video evidence during the hearing. As explained at the hearing, both parties must now provide a USB stick to the Tribunal with a copy of the video for the Tribunal’s file. The tenant’s claim Failure to provide receipt for rent

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord did not provide them with a receipt for the bond as required.

Section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that:

Breaching these obligations 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 accepted that she had not provided the tenant with a receipt for the bond. She said that she had previously used a property manager to manage the tenancy and was not aware of her obligations. I find that the landlord has 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 (RTA).

The obligation on landlords to comply with their duties on receipt of the bond are so fundamental that a failure to do so will almost always be regarded as intentional. The bond is the tenant’s money and receipt must be appropriately documented so that the tenant has evidence of payment. It is in the public interest to ensure that landlords comply with their obligations.

I consider that an award of exemplary damages is appropriate in this case. It is usual in the Tribunal to make an award of approximately one-third of the maximum amount for a first breach by a party. I therefore award exemplary damages in the amount of $500.00 for this breach. Failure to provide Healthy Homes compliance statement

The tenant says that the landlord did not include a Healthy Homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement.

They tenant produced a copy of the tenancy agreement in the standard form provided by Tenancy Services. The first pages of the agreement have been completed but the Healthy Homes compliance section has been left blank.

Section 13A of the RTA provides sets out the information that landlords must include in a tenancy agreement, including Healthy Homes compliance information.

Breaching these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord accepted that they did not include a Healthy Homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement but said that the property did comply. The issue however is not whether the property complied with the Healthy Homes standards but whether the landlord has complied with their obligation to provide a statement of compliance to the tenant. The landlord has not done so.

I am unable to make an award of exemplary damages for this breach however. Section 109(2) RTA provides that a party may not apply for an award of exemplary damages later than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act, except where the unlawful act relates to the landlord’s obligations in respect of the bond.

In this case the unlawful act was committed on 4 September 2023 which was the date that the parties signed the tenancy agreement. The tenant’s application was filed well after the 12 month period.

The tenant’s claims for exemplary damages for failing to provide a Healthy Homes compliance statement in the tenancy agreement must be dismissed. Failure to provide a working smoke alarm

The tenant said that there was a smoke alarm at the start of the tenancy but that it started beeping on an intermittent basis. He said that he asked the landlord to fix the smoke alarm but they told him that it was his responsibility. He said that it was very annoying and so he took it down and put it in the garage.

The landlord agreed that there was a smoke alarm provided at the start of the tenancy. She said that she thought it was the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the smoke alarm.

Section 45(1)(ba) RTA provides that landlords must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations under section 138A RTA. These regulations specify the number and location of smoke alarms required.

Section 40(ca) provides that tenants must also comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the tenant by regulations made under section 138A RTA. These regulations provide that tenants are responsible for replacing worn-out smoke alarm batteries.

The tenant has not proved that the landlord has breached their obligations to provide a smoke alarm at the outset or has failed to repair the alarm. It is common for smoke alarms to beep intermittently when the battery is running low to alert the occupant of the need to change the battery. It appears that the tenant has not realised this and has thought that the smoke alarm was malfunctioning.

It is not the landlord’s responsibility to change the smoke alarm battery. This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Leaking downpipe

The tenant said that the landlord is in breach of their maintenance obligations because there was a blocked downpipe on the property. The tenant said that the property was damp and that they had to run the heat pump day and night to keep the property dry. He seeks compensation for the electricity used to run the heat pump and provided a number of electricity invoices.

Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.

The tenant played a video on his phone at the hearing which was taken during heavy rain in October 2023. The video shows the drain beneath the downpipe is unable to take the quantify of water running into it and the water is overflowing into the garden.

The landlord said that she had previously investigated this issue well prior to October 2023. The property is one of three flats located at ground level and constructed in the 1970’s. She said that she was advised that due to the volcanic location it is not possible to improve the drainage as there is a soak pit on the property that takes some time to drain in heavy rain.

Having considered this evidence I do not consider that this claim is proven. The only evidence provided was the video taken by the tenant and that was taken in heavy rain. There was no evidence provided of ongoing moisture inside the property.

This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

Both parties agreed that the tenant moved out on 20 January 2025.

The landlord said that the tenant owed her 8 days rent but did not provide a rent summary proving the amount owing.

The tenant said that they owed 7 days rent.

As I did not have a rent summary from the landlord proving the amount owing I order that that that the tenant pay the landlord rent arrears for a period of 7 days. The amount payable is $600.00

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

The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord did not provide an exit inspection report but instead produced a video of a walk-through inspection done at the end of the tenancy. The landlord explained that the extractor fan, fridge oven should have been cleaned better.

The landlord produced an invoice for 6 hours cleaning at $30 per hour, in the sum of $207.00 including GST.

The tenant said that he did not accept the landlord’s claim and considered that he had left the property reasonably clean and tidy.

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

Having reviewed the evidence I consider that the tenant left the property reasonably clean and tidy. The property does not have to be perfectly clean and tidy in every single area. It only needs to be reasonably clean and tidy overall. It is usual for landlords to have to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies. I consider that the tenant has met the standard.

The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proved and is dismissed.

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.

The landlord said that the property was newly renovated when the tenant moved in but at the end of the tenancy there were two small holes in the lounge wall and some marks on the wall behind the couch. The landlord said that the tenant asked if he could repair the holes and paint the wall and she agreed. However she said that when she inspected the wall she discovered that the paint did not match and the paint had a different sheen from the original paint and was quite noticeable.

The landlord produced an invoice for repairs, undercoat and two topcoats in the amount of $575.00.

The tenant accepted that the holes and marks were not there at the start of the tenancy but said that the marks were to some degree wear and tear as they were marks caused by a couch being against the wall which is fairly common. The tenant said that he is not a plasterer or painter but has the usual DIY skills and that the repair and painting he did were satisfactory.

This has been a difficult aspect of the claim to assess as I have had to rely on photos produced by the parties, most of which were sent through during the hearing. It is often difficult to see differences in paint colour and sheen in photos.

Having reviewed all of the photos I consider that the landlord has proved that the paint had a different sheen after the tenant had painted it. However the repair to the wall that the tenant made appears to be sound and I do not consider that the landlord has proved that further repairs were required.

Another factor I must consider is the issue of betterment and depreciation. The painter has obviously taken the time to fill every single hole or imperfection in the wall before painting (as shown in the photos) and the tenant should not be responsible for that.

I consider that the tenant should compensate the landlord for a portion of the cost incurred by the landlord. I estimate the sum of $300 to be appropriate compensation (slightly more than half the amount claimed). Name suppression and filing fees

As both parties have had some success I have not refunded the filing fees.

I have made an order suppressing both parties’ and identifying details as both parties have been successful to some degree (see section 95A RTA).

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157371 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (one week	$600.00		Rent arrears (one week
Repairs to wall	$300.00		Repairs to wall
Exemplary damages for failure to provide receipt for bond		$500.00	Exemplary damages for failure to provide receipt for bond
Total award	$900.00	$500.00
Net award	$400.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.00