How much money was awarded in case 5233731?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Plumbing Fee To Unblock Kitchen Drai…: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12069736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5233731?

Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Plumbing Fee To Unblock Kitchen Drai…: $155.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233731?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12069736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Manna Place, West Melton, RD 5, West Melton 7675 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233731 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233731 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 5233731 — net $351.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 January 2025	$520.00		Rent arrears to 21 January 2025
Plumbing fee to unblock kitchen drain	$155.25		Plumbing fee to unblock kitchen drain
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy - failure to		$1,000.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy - failure to
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$675.25	$1,027.00
Net award		$351.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$351.75

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $351.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative/s] represented the landlord and the owner who is currently overseas.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the alleged failure by the landlord to repair and maintain the septic system and compensation for her emotional stress, and her bond.

Both parties provided documentary evidence. I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal including the evidence given by the parties.

The tenant had a witness (her boarder) whom she wanted to give evidence. I overlooked that. When she mentioned it after the hearing ended, I offered to reconvene the hearing, but she confirmed that she was happy for the hearing to end without her witness giving evidence. Background

The tenancy started on 11 October 2019 and ended on 21 January 2025. So, it was a long tenancy by New Zealand standards.

Initially the tenancy was managed by another property management firm. [The landlord’s representative/s] began to manage the tenancy at the end of 2023.

So, for the period in question, the tenant had communications with her former property manager, her current property manager, and [The owner/s]. He was the person with whom she had contact during the whole tenancy.

The tenant experienced on-going issues with drainage from the shower and toilet during the tenancy and with the septic tank system.

After the tenancy ended (and it seems in response to the landlord’s claims against her) the tenant lodged her application, disappointed that the landlord would make claims after such a long tenancy.

After she made her application, the landlord made its application for rent arrears and compensation. Issues

The Tribunal must determine the following issues: •Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the drainage and the septic tank? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and for emotional harm for the events at the end of the tenancy? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage? Relevant law

Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

Section 85 RTA is important in this case so I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Compensation and exemplary damages

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion Has the tenant proved a claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the septic tank?

The tenant expressed this part of the claim as a claim for a breach of the HHS. I explained that the breach was in fact a failure to repair and maintain. The HHS are specific to heating, insulation, ventilation, and drainage from guttering into a proper wastewater system. Both are breaches of the landlord’s section 45 RTA responsibilities though.

The tenant gave evidence of the on-going disruption she experienced due to drainage issues from the shower and the toilet and with the septic tank, that overflowed. She said even though the landlord had the tank cleaned and inspected (more than once) the problems would return within months.

[The landlord’s representative/s] said her firm was unaware of the on-going problems.

It is clear from the evidence the tenant provided that the owner was aware of problems with the septic tank.

For the Tribunal to award exemplary damages, however, there must be an intentional action by the party against whom exemplary damages are claimed. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 That means, the party must turn their mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.

The landlord (the previous property manager and the owner) took some actions to try and remedy the septic tank issues. The evidence is less clear about the drainage. The Tribunal does not find that there was an intentional failure to do any repairs and maintenance.

Also, given the length of the tenancy, the tenant could have applied for a work order at any time during the more than 5 years the tenancy lasted.

The application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and for emotional harm for the events at the end of the tenancy?

The first part of the tenant’s application for compensation is for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the on-going drainage and septic tank issues.

Unlike exemplary damage, compensation recognises loss; it is not punitive.

I accept form the tenant’s evidence that she did experience a loss of enjoyment of her tenancy over a longer period due to the septic tank continuing to disgorge its consents causing odour and ponding and preventing her from using the clothesline in that area.

While the current landlord only took over management of the tenancy in late 2023, so their knowledge of the issues was less, they are the agent for the owner who was the one constant person the tenant had contact with despite the change in property managers.

I find that the tenant suffered a loss of enjoyment of her tenancy due to the drainage and septic tank malfunctioning over time. For this loss of enjoyment, I award her compensation of $1,000.00. This takes into account that the tenant could have applied for a work order at any time during the more than 5 years the tenancy lasted.

The second part of the tenant’s application for compensation relates to her stress and emotional distress.

The tenant’s emotional distress at the landlord’s application is understandable. She was a tenant for more than 5 years, and a careful one. Later, I will refer to the reference the landlord gave her confirming that.

The Tribunal is somewhat puzzled by the landlord’s claim. The rent arrears issue could have been resolved by agreement. Given the context – the length of the tenancy; an acknowledged careful tenant; and the sale of the premises – the landlord (the owner) could have decided to accept these costs as usual business-related expenses after a long-term tenancy, rather than pursue the tenant, causing her a degree of emotional distress.

However, the Tribunal cannot award the tenant compensation because the landlord was able to make this application, as hurtful as the tenant found it.

Compensation is not awarded for hurt feelings; it compensates loss following a proven breach of a statutory responsibility. I must dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation for stress and emotional harm as there was no breach by the landlord for their actions at the end of the tenancy or in making the application.

Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. I have allowed that claim, marked *, by consent.

Has the landlord proved claims for cleaning and the repair of damage?

Cleaning and carpet cleaning

The landlord has claimed $1,081.00 for cleaning. The only narration in the invoice is ‘Bond clean/pre-sale clean’. The premises are currently on the market for sale and are apparently under a conditional offer.

At the end of a tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish - see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.

Whether a tenant has met that statutory responsibility is not decided on the subjective opinion of either party but on the Tribunal’s objective assessment of the evidence.

Both parties provided photographic evidence which I have considered.

While the photos show that some cleaning was required, I am not persuaded that the tenant failed to meet her statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean.

Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies. And in this case, it is likely that the landlord would have had the premises thoroughly cleaned prior to sale. For that reason, the cleaning invoice refers to a pre-sale clean.

Even if the tenant were responsible for some cleaning, the invoice is not sufficiently detailed for me to determine how much of the invoice should be her responsibility. A ‘best guess’ is not sufficient. I dismiss this claim.

The tenant produced evidence that she had the carpets cleaned every 3 months during the tenancy and before she vacated the premises.

Generally, when pets are kept inside for any period, the Tribunal considers it reasonable for a landlord to have the carpets professionally cleaned to ensure that future tenants are not exposed to pet allergens.

Despite the tenant’s cleaning, the landlord had the carpets cleaned again. The invoice narrates ‘vacuum pet hair; steam clean heavy deodorise (dog smell) and treat all stains in carpet’.

Ordinarily, the Tribunal would have allowed this claim.

The tenant gave evidence that she and the owner shared the cost of laying good second-hand carpet in the bedrooms – she outlaid $500.00, and the landlord gave her the same amount; the total cost was $1,000.00. She said the stain shown on the carpet in the landlord’s photos was in the wardrobe, where the carpet was not replaced.

Earlier, I referred to section 85 RTA which directs the Tribunal to determine each dispute taking account of the substantial merits and justice of the case.

The landlord received a benefit from the tenant. A tenant is not responsible for the cost of carpet replacement, even a shared cost. It would be unfair to now require her to pay for additional carpet cleaning when she previously contributed to the cost of purchasing and laying carpets in the bedrooms. I dismiss this claim. The repair of 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.

The landlord has claimed for the cost of repairing damage to windowsills and the replacement of repair cost of 6 doors. The landlord claims that the tenant’s dogs caused this damage.

I dismiss this clam for the following reasons. First, the tenant gave evidence that the damage was present at the start of the tenancy. No pre-tenancy photos were produced to refute that evidence.

Second, the windowsills are clearly affected by moisture damage. They would have required repair anyway.

Third, the damage has not been repaired, yet the tenancy ended more than 5 months ago. The premises are on the market for sale.

Fourth, despite 3-monthly inspections the tenant said that repair issues were never raised with her. She was always told that she kept the premises well.

Fifth, the owner of the premises (also a landlord by definition) provided a reference check for the tenant on or about 23 December 2024, about 1 month before the tenancy ended. He said: No rent problems no issues with regard to cleanliness. She maintained a large section, her dogs were not an issue to the neighbours, nor did they cause any damage.

I dismiss this claim as I do not find it proved.

I allow the landlord’s claim for the plumbing repair to unblock the kitchen gulley trap/drain. The invoice narrates that the blockage was due to the build-up of fat. That is a careless action for which the tenant is responsible. Result

The tenant’s application for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain and repair the septic tank and drainage is dismissed.

I award the tenant compensation of $1000.00 for her loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the on-going drainage and septic tank issues.

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is allowed by consent.

The landlord’s claim for cleaning, carpet cleaning, and repairs is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for the cost of unblocking the kitchen drain due to fat build up is allowed.

The bond will be paid to the tenant.

The landlord must pay the tenant $351.75. Name suppression

Both parties sought name suppression. As both parties have succeeded in part, they are each entitled to a name suppression order – see section 95A RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233731 — net $351.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 January 2025	$520.00		Rent arrears to 21 January 2025
Plumbing fee to unblock kitchen drain	$155.25		Plumbing fee to unblock kitchen drain
Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy - failure to		$1,000.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment of tenancy - failure to
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$675.25	$1,027.00
Net award		$351.75
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$351.75