What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5199960?

The tribunal order states: Hugh Chamberlain and Kate Butcher to pay Quan Shu $1,512.03 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5199960?

Water Rates: $606.54 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,728.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13461206-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5199960?

The tribunal order states: Hugh Chamberlain and Kate Butcher to pay Quan Shu $1,512.03 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5199960?

Water Rates: $606.54 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $390.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,728.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199960?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13461206-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2B Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5199960 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5199960 — net $1,512.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19/02/2025	$1,728.57		3. After the tenancy ended, the landlord claimed for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and compensation for replacing door locks, exit cleaning fees, damage t…
Lock/key replacement	$390.00		Lock/key replacement
Compensation: overpaid water rates		$606.54	18. The landlord claimed for $224.82 for water rates arrears.
Total award	$2,118.57	$606.54
Net award	$1,512.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,512.03

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5199960 — net $1,512.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19/02/2025	$1,728.57		3. After the tenancy ended, the landlord claimed for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and compensation for replacing door locks, exit cleaning fees, damage t…
Lock/key replacement	$390.00		Lock/key replacement
Compensation: overpaid water rates		$606.54	18. The landlord claimed for $224.82 for water rates arrears.
Total award	$2,118.57	$606.54
Net award	$1,512.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,512.03

Order

Hugh Chamberlain and Kate Butcher to pay Quan Shu $1,512.03 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,512.03 (3102957-019) to Quan Shu immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $487.97 (3102957-019) to Hugh Chamberlain and Kate Butcher immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 April 2026 in person. This was following a teleconference hearing on 25 July 2025.
The tenancy was from 28 April 2022 until 19 February 2025. 5199960, 52474912
After the tenancy ended, the landlord claimed for rent arrears, water rates arrears, and compensation for replacing door locks, exit cleaning fees, damage to walls, curtains, doors and window frames.
The tenant made a cross-application claiming for refund of the bond, and compensation and exemplary damages for the premises not meeting Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”), for the premises not being maintained to a reasonable standard and not complying with the New Zealand building laws.
The tenant raised issues with insulation, ventilation, heating, hot water cylinder, rubbish collection, oven, mould, smoke alarms, drainage and piping, and odour that resulting health and safety issues.
Given the complexity of the issues, the hearing was held in person instead of the teleconference.
I deal with the landlord’s application first. Landlord’s claims – rent arrears
In the original application, the landlord claimed for rent arrears of $2,200.00. The tenant disputed this as the tenant said that the first 2 weeks of the tenancy were agreed to be free of charge. The tenant did not have anything in writing to confirm this. The tenant said that it was verbally agreed at the beginning of the tenancy.
Another issue that the tenant raised was that the landlord had given 2 notices of rent increase sent one day apart. The first notice was sent to the tenant on 5 July 2024 stating that the rent was to increase from $600 to $630.00 effective from 3 September 2024. On the following day, the landlord sent another rent increase notice stating that the new rent was going to be $650.00 effective from 4 September 2024.
Section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) states that rules relating to rent increases. Subsection 3 says that a notice of an increase in rent lawfully given has the effect of varying the tenancy agreement in accordance with the terms of the notice.
If the first notice had been withdrawn by the landlord, there would have been no issues with the second notice being served on the following day.
However, there was nothing indicated with the second email with the second notice attachment stating that the first notice was to be withdrawn.
As the first notice was valid, it was binding on the parties.
Section 24(1)(e) of the RTA states that rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect. Therefore, the second rent increase notice is invalid. 5199960, 52474913
As the landlord did not withdraw the first notice, the rent increase takes effect from 3 September 2024 with the weekly rent being $630.00.
The tenant had no evidence to prove the initial 2 weeks of the tenancy being rent-free. The landlord did not agree that that had been the case. I do not find that the tenant has proven that there was an agreement of the first 2 weeks of the tenancy being rent free.
I find that the total rent arrears to 19 February 2025 is $1,728.57. I order the tenant to pay this to the landlord. Water rates arrears
The landlord claimed for $224.82 for water rates arrears.
However, it became clear that throughout the tenancy, the tenant was paying for the fixed water charges as well.
Under section 39 RTA, the landlord is responsible for all fixed water charges. I have calculated the fixed charges paid by the tenant for the entire tenancy. I have factored in the amount claimed by the landlord of the unpaid portion of the actual usage as well.
I find that the tenant has overpaid the water fixed charges of $606.54.
Accordingly, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant the overpaid fixed water charges. Damage claims
The landlord claimed for $390.00 to replace locks due to the tenant not returning the keys, $250.00 for the exit cleaning, and $1,565.00 for various damages.
The tenant had not left all the keys provided to the landlord on the last day of the tenancy. The tenant did return some keys but was after the end of the tenancy. The landlord had replaced the lock as the key was not returned. I find that the claim for the lock replacement is justified. I order the tenant to pay the landlord $390.00 as sought.
The tenant said that the exit cleaning was done to a reasonably clean standard. The photos provided by the landlord showed some dirty areas in the basin and its surroundings.
The tenant provided email records about a downpipe leak issue which was the cause of the basin not being left clean.
Having read the emails, I accept that the basin could not have been left any cleaner by the tenant. I dismiss the landlord’s cleaning for exit cleaning. 5199960, 52474914
The landlord’s claimed for damage to interior wall plastering, curtains, doors and window frames. Having seen the photos, I do not find that the damage to the premises was more than fair wear and tear.
I dismiss the landlord’s compensation claims for cleaning and damage. Tenant’s claims
Having dealt with the landlord’s application, I now consider the tenant’s cross- application.
The tenant claimed that the premises was not compliant with HHS. Specifically, that there was no insulation, that the extractor fans did not work, some of the windows were painted shut, there was no heating in the apartment as the fireplace was blocked by a rubbery/latex material and fires were not permitted by the Body Corporate. The tenant said that she believed that the hot water cylinder leaked under the bathroom floor making the room incredibly humid. The tenant said that this was worsened by frequent flooding in the bathroom that spilt into the hallway and was never resolved.
The tenant said that the premises did not have any smoke alarms installed. Mould was not removed.
The plumbing would block and the warm water and weather would regularly fill the entire house with swarms of drain flies from both the kitchen and the bathroom. The wastewater downpipe outside the bedroom window overflowed when other tenants moved into the building upstairs. The washing machine also did not work properly. The Body Corporate would issue letters frequently that admonished tenants for irresponsible drain usage. The asphalt that covered the carpark was eroding from human waste and harboured a variety of parasites.
The tenant said that she was not provided with a rubbish bin causing issues. There were 7 households that had to use 3 red rubbish bins. Initially there was private rubbish collection but that was changed midway through to Council rubbish collection.
The tenant said that when she raised issues about maintenance, the landlord did nothing to resolve any of the issues but instead asked the tenant to provide multiple quotes for each issue raised.
The oven never functioned.
The tenant also claimed that the premises was not provided in a reasonably clean state from the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant sought $80,500.00 as compensation being reimbursement of the rent and water charges from the start of the tenancy. 5199960, 52474915 HHS claims
There was a class action against the landlord under Tribunal order 4612609.
This address was looked at for HHS claims. However, no deficiencies were found for the HHS itself. Specifically, in relation to the insulation claim, the Tribunal already had found that ethe premises was a ground-floor concrete slab dwelling. There was no need for any insulation underfloor.
The landlord stated that the premises was compliant with HHS. The Tribunal order from before acknowledged no issues with the HHS.
The landlord said that the fireplace could be used. The tenant provided nothing to support the claim that the Body Corporate was stopping the tenant from using the fireplace.
I do not find that the tenant has proven his claim. This claim is dismissed. Smoke alarms
Regarding smoke alarms, the tenant claimed that there were no smoke alarms. The tenant had her mother come as a witness and the mother said that there were no smoke alarms when she was there and no signs of the smoke alarm holders. The landlord relied on the tenancy agreement confirming that there was at least one working smoke alarm in each bedroom or within three metres of each bedroom door and that all the smoke alarms were working at the start of the tenancy. This tenancy agreement had been signed by both parties.
More crucially, there was a photo of a smoke alarm holder provided as evidence. This showed that there was a holder for the smoke alarm but that there was no smoke alarm. The landlord claimed that there were smoke alarms provided at the beginning of the tenancy, but they must have been removed during the tenancy.
The photo of an empty holder does not prove that the smoke alarm was not provided. The tenancy agreement notes the existence of the smoke alarms at the beginning of the tenancy. Although I accept that the witness cannot be expected to remember every detail of the premises, there clearly was a smoke alarm holder that the witness denied as having seen. I do not find that the tenant has proven that there was no smoke alarm at the premises. This claim is dismissed. Rubbish bins
There was a private contractor to collect rubbish at the beginning of the tenancy but that got change to the Council bins during the tenancy. 5199960, 52474916
However, there were not enough bins for the number of apartments that used the bins. The landlord said that he had contacted the Council and the Council delivered one red and one blue bin when requested by the tenant. The tenant denied there being any delivery of the rubbish bins.
The tenant acknowledged that there was an issue as none of the bins were labelled with the apartment number 2B. This had caused tensions amongst the neighbours with the bins getting full and other occupants of the apartment block removing rubbish bags from the bins they considered as theirs.
The Body Corporate had issued warnings to the tenant asking for any significant amount of waste to be disposed at the local refuse transfer station rather than solely relying on the shared bins. This was an issue from around September and October in 2024.
It cannot be said that the landlord did not provide any bins for the tenant. Even the email from the Body Corporate notes that the bins were to be shared.
I do not find that there was a breach by the landlord of the RTA with this situation. Plumbing and other issues
The tenant provided evidence from November 2023 where the tenant emailed the landlord regarding a plumbing issue from the bathroom. The tenant again emailed on 12 October 2024 saying that the bathroom plumbing and leaks were still a problem. The tenant identified 2 separate leaks in the vertical pipe that drains the liquid from both the sink and from the washing machine. They were so bad that the tenant could not use the bathroom sink for about 3 months and have not been able to use the washing machine since before the plumber came. The tenant had to pay to wash clothes at a laundromat costing the tenant hundreds of dollars. The tenant also complained at the same time about the hot water running out in about 15 minutes at most and the tenant suspected that the hot water cylinder had been leaking as the power bills regularly exceeded $215 per month on average.
On 13 October 2024, the landlord replied back asking the tenant to get 2 quotes for each of the problems to see what could be sorted out. The tenant emailed asking the landlord for a phone call to discuss the issue.
There was no further evidence provided by the tenant regarding this.
The parties agreed that a contractor had come to attend to the plumbing issue at least once. The parties disagreed as to whether the issue had been resolved as a result.
The landlord said that there was minimal reporting of issues during the tenancy to the landlord. The landlord said that the more serious problems claimed 5199960, 52474917 through the Tribunal were not raised during their tenancy to the landlord. He said that the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to fix issues that were not reported.
The landlord said that the tenant lived at the premises for approximately three years which was inconsistent with the claims that the property was uninhabitable throughout the tenancy.
He said that he had attended to the issues when raised, and that he had asked for the tenant to get quotes as it was difficult to get access to the premises due to the tenant wanting to be present whenever any workers came.
Having seen the evidence presented, I do not find that the tenant has taken all reasonable steps to bring issues to the landlord’s attention and to escalate them as required.
There has not been sufficient evidence presented to prove the claims. There had not been any photos, videos, or 14-day notices to prove that the issues were serious to warrant full refund of the rent as claimed.
The witness came and described the state of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy as being quite poor. There were a dead bird, dead cockroaches and black mould in the ceiling. However, she also said that the premises “superficially looked fine”. This is admission that the premises was provided in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
More importantly than that, there were no photos or any correspondences to prove that the premises was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the beginning of the tenancy.
I do not find that the tenant has proven the claims to the required standard. Bond payment
The bond payment is enough to cover the amounts awarded for the parties. The Bond Centre will be directed to make the payments accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199960 — Rent arrears at 2B Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199960 — Rent arrears at 2B Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions