Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5199954 — Property damage at 316 Jesmond Road, Karaka, RD 2, Papakura 2578
Decided 30 May 2025 · Published 30 May 2025 · Application 5199954
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- Barfoot & Thompson Limited must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $5,840.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The tenants’ claim for early termination of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
- Under section 45, a landlord must: a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; and c) comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
- The premises have not been provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. I award the tenant reasonable cleaning costs of $500.00.
- The attic above the garage was also not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I award the tenant $200.00 for 2 weeks’ loss of use of the storage space while the landlord’s tradespeople cleaned up the attic to get rid of dead rats and mice droppings during the first couple of weeks of the tenancy.
- The swimming pool has not been maintained to a usable state at the start of the tenancy. While the tenant is responsible for day-to-day maintenance and consumables, the landlord is responsible for providing written instructions, samples of chemicals to be used and ensuring that the pool water quality is adequate and the pool aesthetically pleasant for use at the start of the tenancy. I find that the pool had not been maintained to an adequate condition prior to Ms Yee’s involvement as property manager; the water quality was only chlorinated to the right balance from 11 April 2025 onwards. At the time the tenant vacated on 7 May 2025, the pool was still not cleaned properly in that unsightly sediments beneath the pool are still present.
- I award compensation to the tenant for loss of use of the pool for 17 weeks from the start of the tenancy in 11 December to 11 April 2025 calculated at $150 per week, and for loss of amenity due to unsightly sediments in pool for 4 weeks from 11 April to 7 May 2025 calculated at $50 per week.
- The tenant is entitled to a working intercom from the gate to the house. I award the tenant compensation for the unrepaired intercom for 21 weeks calculated at $30.00 per week for the loss of amenity and inconvenience suffered.
- The dishwasher did not work properly for 8 weeks, despite the earlier efforts of the tradespeople to repair it. I award the tenant compensation calculated at $50.00 per week. The dishwasher was subsequently replaced.
- The tenant endured plumbing issues during the first 4 weeks of their tenancy. I award the tenant compensation calculated at $100 per week for the inconvenience and loss of amenities.
- The landlord agrees to reimburse the costs of light bulbs replaced by the tenant.
- Finally, I order the reimbursement of a portion of the power charges incurred by the tenancy on the second meter because the tenant had not had properly use of the pool and pump.
- Despite the above issues ensured by the tenant at various times during the tenancy, only the swimming pool and intercom were not fully remedied at the time the tenant vacated the premises on 7 May 2025. Having regard to the nature and extent of the landlord’s breach, I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56 RTA. I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application for early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
- Only the amounts ordered are proved.