How much money was awarded in case 5184611?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,948.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $566.37 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $98.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184611?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5184611?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $5,400.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $9,948.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $566.37 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $98.06 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184611?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197397-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Riverlea Road, Whenuapai, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184611 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5184611 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184611 — net $112.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2025	$9,948.00		Rent arrears to 12 January 2025
Water rates	$98.06		Water rates
Rubbish removal	$566.37		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$2,400.00	Loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: section 45		$5,400.00	section 45
Total award	$11,112.43	$7,800.00
Net award	$112.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$112.43

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 $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

[The tenant/s] as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person and was assisted by a mandarin interpreter. The tenant attended by telephone as she is no longer residing in Auckland.

There were two hearings. The first hearing was on 17 February 2025. That hearing was adjourned to enable the tenant to file a cross application and for the landlord to file evidence in support of her claim.

The second hearing was held on 18 July 2025.

The tenancy was to commence on 20 November 2023 as recorded in the tenancy agreement signed by the parties on 3 November 2023. The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 19 January 2025. The parties agreed for the tenancy to end on 12 January 2025.

The tenant did not move into the premises until 27 November 2023 because the premises were not ready to be lived in on 20 November 2023. Landlord application

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. According to the rent summary the last rent payment made by the tenant was on 18 December 2024.

The landlord claimed for unpaid water rates. The January 2025 invoice submitted by the landlord includes a period when the tenant was not living there as she moved out on 12 January 2025. There is no way to determine what water the tenant used during January 2025 therefore that invoice is not included in the amount ordered.

The landlord applied for rubbish removal in respect of two couches that remained at the premises after the tenancy ended. The costs claimed are awarded.

The landlord claimed for cleaning after the tenancy ended. The landlord submitted some photographs showing further cleaning required for the shower, toilet, deck and wooden flooring. The photographs also showed staining on the carpet but photographs of the carpet before the tenancy were not clear and therefore, I could not be sure that the staining of the carpet occurred during this tenancy.

The tenant produced photographs showing that many areas of the premises were reasonably clean.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states 1 that “the tenant shall on the termination of the tenancy leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.”

Given the evidence submitted I conclude that some further cleaning was required at the end of the tenancy but not as much as sought by the landlord. I have therefore reduced the claim to $500.00. Tenant application

The tenant applied for bond refund, compensation and exemplary damages.

The compensation claimed by the tenant is in relation to loss of amenity. On 2 December 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that there was flooding at the back door. It appears that the septic tank was flooding. The tenant has produced photographs of the flooding.

The landlord knew that the septic tank needed to be replaced because a quote was obtained on the day that the tenancy was due to start. The landlord said that the septic tank was old and needed to be upgraded and would sometimes block. The tenant says that former tenants had advised her that they also had issues with the septic tank.

Due to the flooding the tenant was not able to use the toilet, shower, kitchen or laundry as the drainage from all of these would go to the septic tank. The landlord arranged for the septic tank to be replaced. The landlord produced a photograph of the septic tank being installed. That photograph was taken on 7 December 2024. The landlord said that the installation and testing was complete on 9 December 2024.

For a period of time during the tenancy the tenant was unable to use the toilet, and even though the landlord provided a Portaloo on 5 December 2024, the use of that was still an inconvenience for the tenant and her family. The tenant was also unable to use the shower, laundry and kitchen for a period of time. To cope with the situation the tenant and her family did not shower and instead used wet wipes to clean themselves. The tenant set up an outside kitchen on the deck as if they were camping and either used the toilet at the service station or dug a hole in the yard until the Portaloo was delivered.

While the tenant took steps to manage the situation for her and her family, she had a loss of amenity that she should be compensated for.

In addition, the tenant was not able to use two of the three bathrooms from mid- June 2024 because the wastes were not draining. The tenant advised the 1 Section 40(1)(e) landlord of this. During this period the tenant was paying full rent for the property. I consider that compensation of $2,400.00 is reasonable in the circumstances.

The tenant claims exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain, the landlord’s failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and for breaches of the Healthy Homes standards and the smoke alarm regulations.

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, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord failed to maintain the premises, failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state, and failed to comply with the Healthy Homes standards. 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 landlord failed to maintain the premises in relation to many issues raised by the tenant.

The tenant referred to a bad smell that she advised the landlord about. The landlord did not investigate the problem properly and instead reached the view that the smell was because the home was not kept clean by the tenant. The tenant said that the house behind her also used the septic tank and the pipes from that house were blocked. The landlord denied this and said that the house was abandoned because there was no power or water to that house. At first the landlord said that no one lived there but later acknowledged that the house was used by “Steven” the person who grew vegetables in the green houses on the same block. The landlord later said that no one knew where the smell came from. That issue was never resolved.

The tenant also referred to an incident where the drainpipe split, and water was gushing out. She said that she phoned and texted the landlord many times before she received a response.

In relation to the door the tenant had complained to the landlord that the slidding door rattled and on one occasion the large glass door had fallen out of the track. The tenant emailed the landlord about this on 3 December 2024. The previous tenants had also said that this happened when they lived in the premises. The landlord responded by saying “You shake the sliding door vigorously, which will cause it to fall off easily.”

The tenant had asked for a handle with a lock so that the premises could be secured but this never happened. At the hearing the landlord said that the door was fixed after the tenancy ended when the premises were renovated.

The tenant had complained about the dishwasher not working properly. She said in the email dated 3 December 2024 that the person who came to fix it told the tenant to sock the dishes in hot water for an hour before putting them in the dishwasher. The tenant was unable to use the dishwasher throughout the tenancy. The landlord said that she had sent someone to look at the dishwasher and he said there was no problem. She acknowledged that it was an old model. Later the landlord acknowledged that she sent an electrician to look at the dishwasher instead of a plumber because it is an electrical appliance.

The landlord is responsible for providing the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. This applies to inside and outside the premises.

I note from the photograph produced by the landlord in relation to the septic tank that the outside grass area was not mown when the photograph was taken and therefore would not have been in a tidy state when the tenancy commenced. At first the landlord said that the lawn was mown after replacing the septic tank, but it turned out that the lawn was mown by the tenant and it took two days.

The tenant produced a letter from her friend, Kathryn Booth. Ms Booth was present when the tenant moved into the premises and in November and December 2024. The letter described the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy including that some curtains were full of mould and smelt, there were cobwebs inside and outside the lawns were a mess being long and filled with rubbish. She says that when she returned in 2024 the septic tank issues were still happening and the pipes and drains were still backing up.

The landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes heating standard.

Compliance dates for the Healthy Homes Standards vary depending on the tenancy. For tenancies such as this one that started between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 the premises must comply within 120 days of the start of the tenancy. The compliance date for this tenancy is 19 March 2024.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/

The landlord said it wanted to install a heater downstairs but claims that the tenant wouldn’t let them because she wanted it upstairs. The landlord said that the heat pump was installed downstairs after the tenancy ended.

I do not accept that the tenant is able to refuse to have a heater installed. In any event, the landlord just needed to give notice pursuant to section 48(2)(cb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to carry out this task.

The landlord knew it was in breach of the regulations but has tried to blame this on the tenant. The tenant had spent the whole tenancy without heating. It is in the public interest for landlord’s to provided premises that have heating as the legislation requires.

In relation to the smoke alarms the tenant says that they were faulty. She had requested that they were replaced. She said that the alarms would beep and go off about a month after the tenancy started.

The landlord acknowledged that the smoke alarms were changed to 10-year alarms because the 9 volt battery ones were too old. She knew that the new law was coming in and the tenant had mentioned that the smoke alarms were beeping.

While the tenant had complained about the smoke alarms it seems that the landlord acted to replace them. It is therefore not clear that the landlord breached the regulations in relation to the smoke alarms.

The landlord has breached section 45 in relation to not providing the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy, not maintaining the premises and not complying with the Healthy Homes standards in relation to the heating standard. The landlord knowingly breached section 45 and this had a significant impact on the tenant. It is in the public interest for landlords to comply with all legislation and regulations that impact on the health, safety and enjoyment of the premises by the tenant.

Given the extent of the breaches I determine that an award of 75% of the maximum award is warranted. I therefore award the tenant $5,400.00 in exemplary damages.

As both parties have had significant success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the parties names as sought.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5184611 — net $112.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2025	$9,948.00		Rent arrears to 12 January 2025
Water rates	$98.06		Water rates
Rubbish removal	$566.37		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$2,400.00	Loss of amenity
Exemplary damages: section 45		$5,400.00	section 45
Total award	$11,112.43	$7,800.00
Net award	$112.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$112.43