What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5163681 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 5163681?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: No TV For A Month: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $305.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $466.73 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $214.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163681?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12478004-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5163681 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 5163681?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: No TV For A Month: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $305.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $466.73 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $214.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163681?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12478004-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat P1D, 88 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5163681 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5163681 — net $1,243.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 7 and 8 January 2025	$214.28		Rent arrears 7 and 8 January 2025
Oven repair	$305.06		Oven repair
Repairs after fibre installation	$466.73		Repairs after fibre installation
Cleaning	$290.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: no TV for a month		$60.00	no TV for a month
Total award	$1,303.07	$60.00
Net award	$1,243.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,243.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5163681 — net $1,243.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears 7 and 8 January 2025	$214.28		Rent arrears 7 and 8 January 2025
Oven repair	$305.06		Oven repair
Repairs after fibre installation	$466.73		Repairs after fibre installation
Cleaning	$290.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: no TV for a month		$60.00	no TV for a month
Total award	$1,303.07	$60.00
Net award	$1,243.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,243.07

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Rose and Saimone Vunileva must pay [The landlord/s] $1,243.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy lasted about six months. The tenancy premises were a fully furnished penthouse apartment. Both parties had issues during the tenancy. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have also filed an application, asking for compensation, and a decision about whether the apartment complied with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). The questions I have to decide include: • How much is owed for rent? • Should the tenants pay for using the carpark? • Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy? • Should the tenants replace missing chattels? • Are the tenants responsible for damage? • Did the apartment comply with the HHS? • Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Should the tenants get compensation? • Who should pay the cost of pest control, and can the landlord claim lost rent?

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records. I find the tenants owe rent for the last two days of the tenancy.
The landlord has also claimed exemplary damages because the tenants did not pay rent on time. The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) does not allow exemplary damages for rent arrears. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for using the carpark?

There is claim for the tenants using the carpark. Use of the car park was not part of the tenancy agreement. Unauthorised parking is not something I have jurisdiction over. This claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii)).
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.
The claim for cleaning is disputed. The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy. I find the tenants did not leave the house in a reasonable condition and they should pay for additional cleaning. I have allowed $290 compensation, which seems reasonable to me.

Should the tenants replace chattels?

The landlord had a list of chattels that were missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy. She has claimed the cost of replacing these and a mattress protector. She states: Several chattel items are missing, in particular 2 serving spoons, 1 serving fork, 2 teaspoons, 2 forks, 1 black fish slice that was part of a set but I just got another non matching to avoid having to replace all the set, 1 woven tea towel, 2 tea towels, 1 terry towel, 1 large clip it container and another one was left with a mismatching lid, 2 water glasses, 1 coke glass, 1 white flan dish, 1 ramekin, 2 coat hangers, 1 flat flannelette sheet part of a set, 1 white flannel, 1 small white towel. I tried to replace single items where I could, even if the result is mismatch (glasses, cutlery) and the set is lost, but in some cases, like the sheets, I replaced the set.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, meaning more probable than not. In allowing compensation the landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off.
The landlord provided me with a chattels list from the start of the tenancy and a list checked by her at the end of the tenancy. She also provided photos which was helpful because these gave me an idea of the condition and age of the items. The tenants said they did not remove any of the chattels. Some broke and were thrown out, and this was to be expected given the age and wear on all the chattels.
I have considered the submissions and the photos and I find the tenants do not have to pay to replace any chattels. The landlord did not provide me with any evidence as to the age of the chattels. From the ingoing photos I can see that most of the chattels are at least 10 years old and mismatched. It seems most likely to me that any order the tenants should pay to replace the items would mean an improvement for the landlord. The claim for replacement chattels and the mattress protector is dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

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 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.
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.
There is a claim for $3.50 for replacing a broken switch in the kitchen. The landlord said the damage must have been careless or intentional. The tenants said they knew nothing about a broken switch and would have told her if the switch had stopped working during the tenancy. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have considered the photos. It seems most likely to me any damage was fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for replacement light bulbs. I am not persuaded the tenants damaged the light bulbs. It seems most likely to me the lightbulbs wore out, which is what they do. I find replacing the light bulbs to be a maintenance issue and therefore a landlord cost. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for a replacement Insinkerator. The landlord proved this was new at the start of the tenancy. She said there was a teaspoon in the appliance at the end of the tenancy so she had a new appliance installed. The tenants said they never used the appliance. The landlord did not have any independent evidence about the cost of the work or that the appliance could not be repaired. I find the landlord has not proved the claim for replacing the appliance and it is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairs to the oven. The landlord submitted photos, emails from the appliance repair business, and an invoice from an independent business. She said the repair arose because a lot of thick pink liquid was spilled on the stove top and seeped under the stovetop, causing damage. The tenants said they never spilled pink liquid and the electrician told them the rubber on the cooktop was old. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. It seems most likely to me the repair was required because of a spill. The claim for the repair is proved and allowed.
There is a claim for the cost of repairing walls in the apartment after the tenants had fibre installed without permission. The landlord has also applied for exemplary damages because the tenants did not get permission before installing fibre, and consequently it was installed where it was likely to be damaged by future tenants. Section 45B RTA provides that a landlord must permit the installation of fibre if the tenants request fibre and the fibre can be installed at no cost to the landlord. There are some exceptions that do not apply here. The tenants said they thought they had asked for a Wi-Fi connection not fibre. They also said the building manager approved the installation because he had to allow access for the fibre technicians.
I am more persuaded by the landlord’s submission. I find the tenants should have made a proper request to the landlord, as is required by section 45B RTA, and they should pay to repair the holes in the walls after the installation was moved to a more logical location. The landlord provided an invoice. The claim for compensation is proved and allowed. The claim for exemplary damages is not allowed because the breach was not significant.

Did the apartment comply with the HHS?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached her obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider the landlord failed to comply with the HHS insulation and ventilation standard. At the hearing they said the apartment was draughty and the heater did not work. They also said an extractor fan was not working, but they did not report this to the landlord.
The HHS sets out minimum requirements, and there are exceptions. For example, the ventilation standard sets out a minimum size of opening window for each room. However, the HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, such as allowing mechanical ventilation into a room with no windows in an apartment.
In reply to the claim the landlord said the apartment was fully insulated, and heating was provided in the living area to the required level. Mechanical ventilation was present in the kitchen, in the bathroom, and in the second bedroom. There was no moisture ingress. The windows were openable for ventilation but fitted with seals to stop draught. Smoke detectors were present and functional. The building has a current BWOF certifying smoke detection and mechanical ventilation are compliant.
This is the tenants claim to prove. The fact they were cold and did not to want to use the bedroom is not sufficient evidence to prove this claim. I am equally persuaded by the landlord’s submission, which means the tenants do not have the best evidence. The claim there was a breach of the HHS is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair?

The tenants said the apartment smelled when they moved in. They said the furniture provided was very old and uncomfortable. They could not get the television to work properly. A number of appliances did not work. Some of the kitchen cabinetry needed to be repaired. They said all this was reported to the landlord and these issues were not addressed.
The law at section 45 RTA states the landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord said the furniture and appliances were old but all in working order. She said the house might have smelled but the tenants only raised this as an issue for a few days. She said the maintenance issues were all repaired within a reasonable time except for the TV, which worked on some channels.
This is the tenants claim to prove. I have considered the messages and emails sent by both parties. With the exception of the television, I find the landlord dealt with all maintenance requests in a timely manner. I can see from the ingoing photos that the furniture is dated, but that must have been obvious to the tenants when they viewed the advertising and the apartment. They could have sat on the sofas before they agreed to rent the apartment. I do allow compensation because the landlord took too long to repair the television. I have allowed an amount for loss of amenity. The claim for exemplary damages is not allowed because the breach was minor.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim that the landlord harassed them. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) 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 tenants said the landlord’s communication style, the volume of communication, and the number of visits to the apartment to carry out repairs was a breach of their quiet enjoyment. I have considered the correspondence provided by the parties. I do not find there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. This claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation?

The tenants have applied for $7,500 in compensation because they were overcharged for the apartment. They did not make an application for a determination of market rent during the tenancy. They submitted that the landlord was charging them rent for a two bedroom furnished apartment even though the second bedroom was small and did not have a window, and the furniture was old and uncomfortable. They consider they should have been charged the rate for a one bedroom apartment instead. The landlord submitted that there were two bedrooms in the penthouse apartment and the rent charged was market rent for the area and for the building.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. I am not persuaded I should reduce the rent paid during the tenancy. The tenants viewed the apartment and chose to sign a tenancy agreement, having seen the state of the furniture and the size of the bedrooms. I am not persuaded there was any breach by the landlord. This claim is dismissed.

Who should pay for the pest control, and can the landlord claim lost rent?

The landlord has claimed the cost of pest control during and after the tenancy. This is because there were native cockroaches in the apartment. She has also claimed lost rent for four weeks because the tenants did not lay traps as requested, and she could not rent again until she was certain the cockroaches were gone. She said she consulted with Tenancy Services and read the website, which states pest control during the tenancy should be a cost shared by landlords and tenants.
The landlord further submitted that the tenants should pay because there was no pest infestation before the tenancy started. The problem was reported to her around four weeks into the tenancy. The apartment was sprayed several times at the landlord’s cost. After the tenants left further treatment was done, traps were set, and the pests were gone four weeks after the applicant left the premises.
The landlord said the building manager confirmed there were no other native cockroaches in the building. She said the apartment is on the 13 th floor and it is not credible the pests climbed up 13 floors and only infested one apartment. The logical explanation is that the cockroaches came in the tenants’ belongings or with the carboard boxes of food being delivered.
In reply the tenants said they did not bring the cockroaches with them. The cockroaches were fully grown when the tenants discovered them, and they reported them right away. They said the landlord was not surprised when they told her because there were native cockroaches at her work. They said controlling the pests was the landlord’s job, and she should not have rented an apartment infested with cockroaches.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find the submissions and the supporting evidence to be equally weighted. It is possible the tenants brought the cockroaches into the apartment, but it is equally possible they were carried in the landlord or, for example, the cleaner after the last tenancy. The landlord has not proved there was a breach by the tenants. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants did not make an application for suppression. See section 95A RTA.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenants pay for using the carpark?

Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Should the tenants replace chattels?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Did the apartment comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Who should pay for the pest control, and can the landlord claim lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Should the tenants pay for using the carpark?

Did the tenants leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Should the tenants replace chattels?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage?

Did the apartment comply with the HHS?

Did the landlord breach the duty to maintain and repair?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should the tenants get compensation?

Who should pay for the pest control, and can the landlord claim lost rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions