Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5220231 — Cleanliness at 12 Nelson Street, Hawarden 7385
Decided 1 Aug 2025 · Published 1 Aug 2025 · Application 5220231
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
- Healthy homes
Order
- Jonathon Michael Parker and Melanie Rose Plaskett to pay Jeffrey Alan Walker and Margaret Ann Walker $700.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,500.00 (6501293-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Jeffrey Alan Walker and Margaret Ann Walker: $700.00 Jonathon Michael Parker and Melanie Rose Plaskett: $800.00
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing. The landlords attended in person. The tenants attended by telephone.
- The landlords claim compensation, exemplary damages, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants claim compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches by the landlords of their obligations, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- This order follows the Tribunal’s directions order made on 27 May, following a case management hearing. The order deals only with the claims that were taken forward by the parties. Background
- This tenancy, which ran from August 2023 to March 2025, was of a relocated house. For practical purposes the tenants were the first tenants in the house. It was for a fixed term to August 2025, and it was ended early by consent of the parties.
- The landlords have had other rental properties which have been managed by Mr Walker. With this tenancy, Mrs Walker took over the management of it due to Mr Walker’s ill health.
- The tenancy appears to have been without any significant problems for the first year, but it became problematic after the landlords indicated that they intended selling the premises. To say that it became fractious is surely an understatement. Landlords’ Claims Outside Work
- The tenants admitted that they left the outside areas untidy and accepted the claim of $200 for the cost of tidying it. Cleaning
- The tenants also admitted that they did not leave the house reasonably clean and tidy. The landlords produced an invoice in the sum of $900 but some of that related to cleaning that is not the tenants’ responsibility. I find that the tenants should pay $500 for cleaning.
- The landlords also claimed the cost of carpet and window cleaning, the tenants disputed the claims. The landlords did not produce any photographic evidence in support of the claims and so they have failed to prove them. Damage
- The tenants accepted that they caused some minor damage to the premises. The landlords’ claimed that there was other damage to the premises during the tenancy but the evidence for that was unsatisfactory. There were no ingoing photographs, no joint condition report, and the evidence of the cost of remedial work was not specific.
- I asses the reasonable cost of repairing the wall damage that was admitted to be $200 and so I have awarded that. Electrician’s Cost
- The tenants complained about a faulty stove top and the landlords arranged for an electrician to attend. The landlords say that Mr Parker’s actions prevented the electrician from entering the premises and they were charged $180 for his time.
- The landlords gave the required notice for the electrician’s visit. Mr Walker attended with the electrician and Mr Parker objected to him being on the property. There was an angry confrontation some of which was recorded on Mr Walker’s mobile telephone and provided to the Tribunal. It shows Mr Parker forcefully ordering Mr Walker off the property and Mr Walker objecting.
- The landlords say that Mr Walker was entitled to be on the property, and it was not his intention to enter the house. They say that Mr Parker’s behaviour so troubled the electrician that he would not enter the house alone.
- It is difficult to know where the truth lies in all of this. What I can say is that Mr Walker was unwise to come to the premises and I don’t agree that he was entitled to remain on the property after Mr Parker ordered him to leave. Section 48 of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (the Act) does not apply to land but it does not follow that the landlords may enter land comprised in the tenancy as they please or remain on that land after the tenant has asked them to leave. The landlord has granted the tenant the right to occupy the land, and that right includes the right to exclude others from the land, including the landlord.
- I would say that both parties were wrong. Mr Parker’s behaviour was unreasonable and unnecessary, but it was provoked by Mr Walker’s actions. I therefore make no award in respect of this claim. Open Homes
- The landlords claim that the tenants were awkward in relation to open homes after the landlords had decided to sell the premises. The auction of the premises was unsuccessful, and they claim a proportion of the auction fees.
- For this claim to succeed I would expect the landlords to have produced evidence from the selling agent as to the tenants’ behaviour during the open homes and their opinion as to how that affected the sale of the premises. There was no such evidence.
- Without that evidence the claim cannot succeed and so I dismiss it. Anti-Social Behaviour
- The landlords claim that the tenants interfered with the reasonable peace comfort of privacy of neighbours of the premises. Such behaviour, if it amounts to harassment, is an unlawful act and would entitle the Tribunal to consider awarding exemplary damages against the tenants.
- For a claim such as this, evidence from the neighbours who were affected would be required. There was no such evidence and so the claim is dismissed. Smoke Alarms
- The parties gave evidence about the smoke alarms, and I found the evidence from both sides to be unsatisfactory in some respects.
- The tenants removed two alarms because they said they were malfunctioning. They did not immediately inform the landlords but waited until the next inspection. The landlords said that there was nothing wrong with one of the alarms.
- The landlords then sent a message to the tenants to say that they would arrange a visit from the Fire Service for advice and assistance as to what alarms to install and where to install them. They asked the tenants to state a convenient time for the visit, but the tenants did not respond.
- This all took place near the end of the tenancy. I find that there was fault on both sides. The tenants should have notified the landlords immediately there was a problem with the alarms and the landlords should have arranged for working alarms to be reinstalled promptly. The tenants should have responded to the landlords’ message about the Fire Service.
- For these reasons I have made no order on the landlords’ claim or the tenants’ claim. The Tenants’ Claims Tenancy Agreement
- The landlords prepared the tenancy agreement and the Healthy Homes compliance information that is required to accompany it. But they did not provide that information to the tenants. They sent a message to the tenants stating that they would send additional information if the tenants requested it.
- Under s13A of the Act landlords must provide a Healthy Homes Standards compliance statement and the detailed information required by the relevant regulations.
- Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00.
- 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.
- The Act does not give landlords the option of retaining the information and providing it if requested to do so. Mrs Walker said that she was inexperienced, and she did not fully understand what her obligations were. She said that she has now read the Act and does now understand them. That is not acceptable. The time to read and understand the Act, or simply to read and understand the information that is available from Tenancy Services, is before acting as a property manager, not afterwards.
- In my view there should be an award of exemplary damages here. It is a poor excuse to plead ignorance when that ignorance is a conscious choice. I accept that the house did comply with the standards and that is some mitigation. An award of $200 is sufficient in the circumstances. Healthy Homes Compliance
- I find that the premises were healthy homes compliant. The tenants produced little evidence to the contrary. The heat pump was not serviced during the tenancy but there was no evidence that it was not working properly.
- The main claim the tenants made was that there were unreasonable gaps in the premises resulting in draughts. There were some photographs that appeared to show some gaps, but I was not persuaded that they resulted in draughts.
- The tenants said that the landlords’ contractor painted the outside of the house with the windows shut and consequently they became sealed shut and unopenable. They said that they tried to free the windows using a scraper, but they were unsuccessful.
- The landlords asked the tenants to leave the windows open during the painting, but they declined to do so. They said that they sought advice from Tenancy Services, and they were told that they were not obliged to open the windows. I don’t know what advice Tenancy Services gave the tenants, but I do know what practical common sense is and I have a good idea what constitutes reasonable and sensible behaviour. Insisting on keeping the windows closed during painting is none of those things.
- The landlords said that the tenants kept the house closed and with curtains drawn during the tenancy and that the house was not ventilated adequately as a result. The tenants’ behaviour in relation to the windows tends to corroborate that. If the tenants wanted to keep the windows closed, they would have been better to refuse the painting outright. Allowing the painting with the windows closed and then complaining about the inevitable consequences of that is an unattractive position and I do not intend endorsing it by considering a claim against the landlords arising from it. Failure to Maintain
- The landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and must comply with any relevant legislation.
- On 27 May I ordered the tenants to provide, by 11 June, a list of alleged defects, when they became apparent and when they reported them to the landlords. They failed to provide any of those details before the main hearing. But they had a long list of defects that they wanted to discuss at the hearing. The Tribunal does not issue directions for its own amusement. Parties are expected to comply with them, and I would have been justified in not considering the tenants’ claims under this head at all because they failed to give proper notice of them. But consider them I will.
- I did not find the tenants’ evidence in relation to the alleged defects convincing is some respects. There were contradictions and some of the evidence seemed inherently unlikely.
- The tenants said that they complained to the landlords about various things and that their complaints were made face to face at inspection times and at other times. There were some written complaints, but they are few. The landlords denied receiving many of the complaints.
- I accept that after the landlords indicated that they intended selling the premises that the tenants’ behaviour tended towards them was truculent. They appeared to go out of their way to make things difficult for the landlords. I am not inclined to prefer the tenants’ evidence over the landlords’ evidence in these circumstances.
- Few complaints were recorded in writing, and those that were came very near the end of the tenancy by which time relations between the parties were dire. I find that this claim has not been proved. Other
- The tenants raised other complaints at the hearing, but I did not find their evidence in relation to them convincing and it is unnecessary to enumerate them here. Result
- Both sides have had modest success, and the bond will be split following the overall outcome. I make no award of filing fees. There are no applications for name suppression.