What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5241132?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 () immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 5241132?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,365.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241132?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241132?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12246948-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5241132?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 () immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 5241132?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,365.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241132?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241132?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12246948-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Dainton Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241132 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

3 Dainton Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241132 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241132. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$1,365.00	Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs	$200.00	Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs
Repairs to wall in master bedroom	$150.00	Repairs to wall in master bedroom
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5241132. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Amount: $1,365.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs

Repairs to wall in master bedroom

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to wall in master bedroom

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 () immediately apportioned as follows: Eijen Nanayakkara and Chamara Jayashakthi Nanayakkara: $1,842.00 Visionwest Community Trust: $958.00
The landlord’s claims for damages to the neighbour’s wall, damage to the downstairs linoleum floor and compensation for methamphetamine contamination are dismissed.
The tenant’s claims for failing to maintain and breach of the Healthy Homes’ Standards, ventilation standard are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Nanayakkara represented the landlord and Mr Lee represented the tenant, Vision West.
The agreement between the parties was a residential tenancy agreement and both parties agreed to the claims being dealt with in the Tenancy Tribunal in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”).
The tenant Vision West, sublet the premises to “the occupants” who were not a party to the claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for damage to a bedroom wall, damage to a neighbour’s exterior wall, damage to the linoleum floor covering upstairs and downstairs, cleaning costs, remediation costs for methamphetamine damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes’ Standards (“HHS”) ventilation standard and for failing to maintain with regard to light fittings.

How much is owed for outstanding rent arrears?

The parties agreed the tenancy began on 25 January 2023 and ended on 1 May 2025, meaning the tenancy lasted just over two years and three months.
On 2 October 2024 the landlord informed the tenant that the weekly rent would be increasing from $700.00 to $765.00, effective 2 December 2024. The landlord said they were entitled to increase the rent in accordance with the agreement they had with the tenant, and this was the first increase they sought since the tenancy began. The landlord has calculated that the tenancy lasted a further 21 weeks after the December 2024 rent increase, meaning the landlord is now in arrear by $1,365.00.
The tenant stated that they referred the proposed increase to the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development, (“MHUD”), from whom they need approval before they can increase the rent. MHUD refused to approve the rent increase as they considered it unreasonable on the basis that the property was already in the upper quartile for rental properties.
On 7 October 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that MHUD did not approve the rent increase. The rent increase was not paid by the tenant, and no further correspondence on the matter was entered into by either party before the end of the tenancy in May 2025.
The tenant is not claiming that the rent increase was unlawful or that it breached either the agreement, or procedures in place in the agreement for rent increases.
The tenant provided an opinion of what they considered the market rate was in October 2025, but this information was not supported by any evidence and is not relevant to a claim for rent arrears.
The responsibility for paying the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement falls to the tenant; See RTA section 40.
A landlord may increase the rent under the RTA section 24(3) which says notice of an increase in rent lawfully given under this section shall, unless it is withdrawn by the landlord, have the effect of varying the tenancy agreement in accordance with the terms of the notice. The notice was not withdrawn by the landlord.
Challenging a rent increase in the Tribunal is available to the tenant under the RTA section 25. The tenant did not seek to avail themselves of this remedy.
A tenant does not have a lawful right to unilaterally refuse a rent increase.
I determine that the tenancy agreement was lawfully varied by the notice given by the landlord to increase rent. This rent increase notice complied with requirements of the RTA section 24 and was not withdrawn by the landlord.
It therefore follows that the rent increase was lawful, the tenant has been required to pay the rent increase, and because they have not paid it, they are in arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided some close-up photographs that show specific areas that have been poorly cleaned; the cupboard with the rubbish bins has many dead insects in it, one of the stove top gas-hobs still has food on it, the oven looks moderately but not totally cleaned, and a bathroom drawer has lots of hair and dust in it.
The tenant said that they had two professional cleaning companies clean the property, and that the property was returned better than it was delivered at the start of the tenancy.
Neither of these factors affects the standard of reasonably clean and tidy that is required from the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said they have 800 photographs from the end of the tenancy, but they did not produce any to show that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the property needed some extra work to get it to a standard of reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. A responsible landlord will usually conduct a more thorough clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of an outgoing tenant.
The landlord is claiming $460.00 for cleaning. I find this amount excessive based on the information that was put before me, and I award what I consider a reasonable amount to meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy.
The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the tenant caused damage to the linoleum floor covering (“lino”), the master bedroom wall and a neighbour’s exterior wall. Linoleum floor
The parties agree that during this tenancy the occupants caused damage to the linoleum floor in two bedrooms. The landlord also claims that damage was caused to the linoleum floor downstairs.
The linoleum floor consists of panels with a decorative wood grain. Five of them in each bedroom have been damaged with deep cuts. The parties both said they believed the damage may have been caused by furniture being dragged across the floor.
The landlord said the flooring was two years old at the start of the tenancy, which means it is more than four years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord believes the damage is careless damage. The damage has not been repaired. New tenants have moved into the property. No suggestion was made that the damage to the floor has affected the rent for the new tenancy. The landlord is concerned that if water was to be spilt, it could pass through the cuts in the linoleum and damage the flooring material below.
The landlord is claim $2,300.00 compensation to replace the linoleum, but concedes the damage will be covered by his insurance. The insurance excess is $500.00 per claim, and the landlord said one amount of excess will cover the whole claim.
The tenant believes the damage is fair wear and tear.
I do not consider deep cuts to flooring to be fair wear and tear. I determine the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However I do not consider there is any real possibility of so much water getting through the linoleum as to cause damage to the floor. In the circumstances I consider replacing the linoleum floor would be an excessive remedy. That is not to say the landlord should not be compensated for their loss, but I consider the value of the loss to be significantly less than $2,300.00 or even $500.00. I have awarded a lesser amount which I consider reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord claims the linoleum flooring downstairs has been damage by the tenant. Photographs by the landlord show the edges of the linoleum panels disintegrating or fraying. The landlord suggested the occupant’s pet cat may have urinated on the linoleum causing the damage.
The tenant stated there is no evidence in support of the pet cat urinating downstairs or any other information that suggests careless use.
On this point I agree with the tenant: the damage does not appear to me to indicate any careless use. The damage is slightly curious in that it is only on the edge of the panels, but I am not satisfied it has been proved that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Interior walls
The landlord claims that during the tenancy damage was caused when the occupants mounted a television to the bedroom wall.
The landlord produced photographs that show five holes that have been roughly filled, but not finished or painted. The landlord said the room was last painted in 2020.
The landlord is claiming $500.00 for insurance excess for the repairs.
The tenant accepted causing the damage but points out that the wall has not yet been fixed and was in worn condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
I determine the damage is intentional damage.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
I consider $300.00 is a reasonable sum to repair and repaint the wall, and 50% of the repairs should be paid by the tenants. Neighbour’s wall
The landlord is claiming for damage to the monolithic cladding of the neighbour’s house wall.
There was some confusion in the evidence for this claim with the landlord claiming the wall was his wall, even though it is not part of his house.
The owner of the house in question, Ms De Souza gave evidence that her house is a stand-alone house, and this is confirmed by photographs.
I am satisfied the wall is not part of the landlord’s house and therefore not covered by the tenancy agreement. Because of this any claim for damages do not fall under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986.
This claim is not proved. Remediation costs for methamphetamine contamination
At the beginning of the of the tenancy the landlord conducted a baseline methamphetamine test which showed no methamphetamine contamination. At the end of the tenancy the landlord conducted another methamphetamine test which showed a very slight amount of methamphetamine contamination of
38μg/100cm2.
The landlord accepts the level is very low, but says that if he sells the property he will have to disclose this information and it may affect potential purchasers.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third- hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time, (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach.
The level of contamination is below the level to which remediation is currently recommended. Furthermore the landlord’s claim is based on speculation; currently he has suffered no loss as a result of the “contamination”, and it is quite possible he never will.
This claim is not proved. Tenant’s claims Healthy Homes Ventilation Standard
Visionwest Community Trust claims that 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 (HHS). Visionwest Community Trust considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant acknowledges the bathrooms have extraction fans but says they did not work for the duration of the tenancy. The tenant first requested the landlord remedy the problem in July 2024, and then several more letters requiring remediation were sent.
The tenant stated that the occupants had mentioned orally that the fans were not working, but had not put any complaint in writing.
The landlord’s response was that each of the fans was activated by first pressing an RCD switch in the one of the bathrooms. He acknowledged he had been advised by the tenant of the fans “not working” but had explained the need to press the RCD switch first. The tenant said he had been unable to locate the RCD switch. The landlord produced a photograph of a very common style RCD switch above the towel rail in one of the bathrooms.
This is a problem about the location of a switch and how to activate it. The tenant said he took-over managing the tenancy after it had started. This opens the door to the possibility that the original tenancy manager was advised of the switch but failed to pass this information on to the current tenancy manager.
I determine the premises had working extractor fans installed, their operation though slightly unusual was not complex or difficult, and therefore the landlord was not in breach of the HHS ventilation standard.
This claim is not proved. Failure to Maintain RTA, s45
Visionwest Community Trust claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant states the landlord breached this obligation because several of the recessed light fittings in the ceiling had a tendency to drop from the ceiling.
No written complaint was received from the occupants but the tenant says it was mentioned by the occupants in passing during an inspection.
The tenant says they advised the landlord of this in writing in July 2024 but the landlord was tardy in remedying the problem.
The landlord said that the problem was extremely minor and that the problem was remedied when his father visited the property and simply pushed the lights back up into the ceiling.
It is worth mentioning here that the tenant is in a position whereby they claim they are tenancy managers but not property managers. This means that whereas they manage the tenancy concerning the occupants, they do not manage the property inasmuch as engaging contractors.
I understand that Vision West has a tenancy agreement with the landlord in which they are described as a “tenant”. However Vision West also conducted quarterly inspections of the premises, and provided this information to the landlord, something that is highly unusual for a tenant. The landlord pointed out this service is set out in Vision West’s advertising material. This is a property manager’s function.
Vision West’s claim that they are not a property manager is disingenuous and at least a partial fiction; their function as an intermediary between the owner and the tenanting occupants involves some property management. This is not negated by the current Tenancy Agreement being insufficient to give them a title which distinguishes them from most other tenants who are the occupants of the premises and provide no tenancy management or property management function.
In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. The complaint from the tenant is at the very minor end of maintenance, and in my view did not justify professional remediation; it was something an occupant might have taken on themselves to remedy, and failing that, Vision West who the landlord had contracted with to at least perform rudimentary property manager functions, should have taken a commonsense approach and remedied it themselves by simply pushing the lights back into place.
This claim is not proved.
Because Chamara Jayashakthi Nanayakkara, Eijen Nanayakkara has substantially succeeded with their claims and Vision West has not, I must order the filing fee be reimbursed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241132. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$1,365.00	Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs	$200.00	Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs
Repairs to wall in master bedroom	$150.00	Repairs to wall in master bedroom
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards for application 5241132. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Amount: $1,365.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to end of tenancy

Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to linoleum floor upstairs

Repairs to wall in master bedroom

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to wall in master bedroom

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 () immediately apportioned as follows: Eijen Nanayakkara and Chamara Jayashakthi Nanayakkara: $1,842.00 Visionwest Community Trust: $958.00
The landlord’s claims for damages to the neighbour’s wall, damage to the downstairs linoleum floor and compensation for methamphetamine contamination are dismissed.
The tenant’s claims for failing to maintain and breach of the Healthy Homes’ Standards, ventilation standard are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Nanayakkara represented the landlord and Mr Lee represented the tenant, Vision West.
The agreement between the parties was a residential tenancy agreement and both parties agreed to the claims being dealt with in the Tenancy Tribunal in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”).
The tenant Vision West, sublet the premises to “the occupants” who were not a party to the claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for damage to a bedroom wall, damage to a neighbour’s exterior wall, damage to the linoleum floor covering upstairs and downstairs, cleaning costs, remediation costs for methamphetamine damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes’ Standards (“HHS”) ventilation standard and for failing to maintain with regard to light fittings.

How much is owed for outstanding rent arrears?

The parties agreed the tenancy began on 25 January 2023 and ended on 1 May 2025, meaning the tenancy lasted just over two years and three months.
On 2 October 2024 the landlord informed the tenant that the weekly rent would be increasing from $700.00 to $765.00, effective 2 December 2024. The landlord said they were entitled to increase the rent in accordance with the agreement they had with the tenant, and this was the first increase they sought since the tenancy began. The landlord has calculated that the tenancy lasted a further 21 weeks after the December 2024 rent increase, meaning the landlord is now in arrear by $1,365.00.
The tenant stated that they referred the proposed increase to the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development, (“MHUD”), from whom they need approval before they can increase the rent. MHUD refused to approve the rent increase as they considered it unreasonable on the basis that the property was already in the upper quartile for rental properties.
On 7 October 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that MHUD did not approve the rent increase. The rent increase was not paid by the tenant, and no further correspondence on the matter was entered into by either party before the end of the tenancy in May 2025.
The tenant is not claiming that the rent increase was unlawful or that it breached either the agreement, or procedures in place in the agreement for rent increases.
The tenant provided an opinion of what they considered the market rate was in October 2025, but this information was not supported by any evidence and is not relevant to a claim for rent arrears.
The responsibility for paying the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement falls to the tenant; See RTA section 40.
A landlord may increase the rent under the RTA section 24(3) which says notice of an increase in rent lawfully given under this section shall, unless it is withdrawn by the landlord, have the effect of varying the tenancy agreement in accordance with the terms of the notice. The notice was not withdrawn by the landlord.
Challenging a rent increase in the Tribunal is available to the tenant under the RTA section 25. The tenant did not seek to avail themselves of this remedy.
A tenant does not have a lawful right to unilaterally refuse a rent increase.
I determine that the tenancy agreement was lawfully varied by the notice given by the landlord to increase rent. This rent increase notice complied with requirements of the RTA section 24 and was not withdrawn by the landlord.
It therefore follows that the rent increase was lawful, the tenant has been required to pay the rent increase, and because they have not paid it, they are in arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided some close-up photographs that show specific areas that have been poorly cleaned; the cupboard with the rubbish bins has many dead insects in it, one of the stove top gas-hobs still has food on it, the oven looks moderately but not totally cleaned, and a bathroom drawer has lots of hair and dust in it.
The tenant said that they had two professional cleaning companies clean the property, and that the property was returned better than it was delivered at the start of the tenancy.
Neither of these factors affects the standard of reasonably clean and tidy that is required from the tenant at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said they have 800 photographs from the end of the tenancy, but they did not produce any to show that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the property needed some extra work to get it to a standard of reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. A responsible landlord will usually conduct a more thorough clean between tenancies, but this is not the standard required of an outgoing tenant.
The landlord is claiming $460.00 for cleaning. I find this amount excessive based on the information that was put before me, and I award what I consider a reasonable amount to meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy.
The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the tenant caused damage to the linoleum floor covering (“lino”), the master bedroom wall and a neighbour’s exterior wall. Linoleum floor
The parties agree that during this tenancy the occupants caused damage to the linoleum floor in two bedrooms. The landlord also claims that damage was caused to the linoleum floor downstairs.
The linoleum floor consists of panels with a decorative wood grain. Five of them in each bedroom have been damaged with deep cuts. The parties both said they believed the damage may have been caused by furniture being dragged across the floor.
The landlord said the flooring was two years old at the start of the tenancy, which means it is more than four years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord believes the damage is careless damage. The damage has not been repaired. New tenants have moved into the property. No suggestion was made that the damage to the floor has affected the rent for the new tenancy. The landlord is concerned that if water was to be spilt, it could pass through the cuts in the linoleum and damage the flooring material below.
The landlord is claim $2,300.00 compensation to replace the linoleum, but concedes the damage will be covered by his insurance. The insurance excess is $500.00 per claim, and the landlord said one amount of excess will cover the whole claim.
The tenant believes the damage is fair wear and tear.
I do not consider deep cuts to flooring to be fair wear and tear. I determine the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
However I do not consider there is any real possibility of so much water getting through the linoleum as to cause damage to the floor. In the circumstances I consider replacing the linoleum floor would be an excessive remedy. That is not to say the landlord should not be compensated for their loss, but I consider the value of the loss to be significantly less than $2,300.00 or even $500.00. I have awarded a lesser amount which I consider reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord claims the linoleum flooring downstairs has been damage by the tenant. Photographs by the landlord show the edges of the linoleum panels disintegrating or fraying. The landlord suggested the occupant’s pet cat may have urinated on the linoleum causing the damage.
The tenant stated there is no evidence in support of the pet cat urinating downstairs or any other information that suggests careless use.
On this point I agree with the tenant: the damage does not appear to me to indicate any careless use. The damage is slightly curious in that it is only on the edge of the panels, but I am not satisfied it has been proved that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Interior walls
The landlord claims that during the tenancy damage was caused when the occupants mounted a television to the bedroom wall.
The landlord produced photographs that show five holes that have been roughly filled, but not finished or painted. The landlord said the room was last painted in 2020.
The landlord is claiming $500.00 for insurance excess for the repairs.
The tenant accepted causing the damage but points out that the wall has not yet been fixed and was in worn condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
I determine the damage is intentional damage.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
I consider $300.00 is a reasonable sum to repair and repaint the wall, and 50% of the repairs should be paid by the tenants. Neighbour’s wall
The landlord is claiming for damage to the monolithic cladding of the neighbour’s house wall.
There was some confusion in the evidence for this claim with the landlord claiming the wall was his wall, even though it is not part of his house.
The owner of the house in question, Ms De Souza gave evidence that her house is a stand-alone house, and this is confirmed by photographs.
I am satisfied the wall is not part of the landlord’s house and therefore not covered by the tenancy agreement. Because of this any claim for damages do not fall under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986.
This claim is not proved. Remediation costs for methamphetamine contamination
At the beginning of the of the tenancy the landlord conducted a baseline methamphetamine test which showed no methamphetamine contamination. At the end of the tenancy the landlord conducted another methamphetamine test which showed a very slight amount of methamphetamine contamination of
38μg/100cm2.
The landlord accepts the level is very low, but says that if he sells the property he will have to disclose this information and it may affect potential purchasers.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels and interpretation of standards. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third- hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time, (see Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach.
The level of contamination is below the level to which remediation is currently recommended. Furthermore the landlord’s claim is based on speculation; currently he has suffered no loss as a result of the “contamination”, and it is quite possible he never will.
This claim is not proved. Tenant’s claims Healthy Homes Ventilation Standard
Visionwest Community Trust claims that 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 (HHS). Visionwest Community Trust considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant acknowledges the bathrooms have extraction fans but says they did not work for the duration of the tenancy. The tenant first requested the landlord remedy the problem in July 2024, and then several more letters requiring remediation were sent.
The tenant stated that the occupants had mentioned orally that the fans were not working, but had not put any complaint in writing.
The landlord’s response was that each of the fans was activated by first pressing an RCD switch in the one of the bathrooms. He acknowledged he had been advised by the tenant of the fans “not working” but had explained the need to press the RCD switch first. The tenant said he had been unable to locate the RCD switch. The landlord produced a photograph of a very common style RCD switch above the towel rail in one of the bathrooms.
This is a problem about the location of a switch and how to activate it. The tenant said he took-over managing the tenancy after it had started. This opens the door to the possibility that the original tenancy manager was advised of the switch but failed to pass this information on to the current tenancy manager.
I determine the premises had working extractor fans installed, their operation though slightly unusual was not complex or difficult, and therefore the landlord was not in breach of the HHS ventilation standard.
This claim is not proved. Failure to Maintain RTA, s45
Visionwest Community Trust claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant states the landlord breached this obligation because several of the recessed light fittings in the ceiling had a tendency to drop from the ceiling.
No written complaint was received from the occupants but the tenant says it was mentioned by the occupants in passing during an inspection.
The tenant says they advised the landlord of this in writing in July 2024 but the landlord was tardy in remedying the problem.
The landlord said that the problem was extremely minor and that the problem was remedied when his father visited the property and simply pushed the lights back up into the ceiling.
It is worth mentioning here that the tenant is in a position whereby they claim they are tenancy managers but not property managers. This means that whereas they manage the tenancy concerning the occupants, they do not manage the property inasmuch as engaging contractors.
I understand that Vision West has a tenancy agreement with the landlord in which they are described as a “tenant”. However Vision West also conducted quarterly inspections of the premises, and provided this information to the landlord, something that is highly unusual for a tenant. The landlord pointed out this service is set out in Vision West’s advertising material. This is a property manager’s function.
Vision West’s claim that they are not a property manager is disingenuous and at least a partial fiction; their function as an intermediary between the owner and the tenanting occupants involves some property management. This is not negated by the current Tenancy Agreement being insufficient to give them a title which distinguishes them from most other tenants who are the occupants of the premises and provide no tenancy management or property management function.
In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises. The complaint from the tenant is at the very minor end of maintenance, and in my view did not justify professional remediation; it was something an occupant might have taken on themselves to remedy, and failing that, Vision West who the landlord had contracted with to at least perform rudimentary property manager functions, should have taken a commonsense approach and remedied it themselves by simply pushing the lights back into place.
This claim is not proved.
Because Chamara Jayashakthi Nanayakkara, Eijen Nanayakkara has substantially succeeded with their claims and Vision West has not, I must order the filing fee be reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241132 — Rent arrears at 3 Dainton Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241132 — Rent arrears at 3 Dainton Place, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding rent arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding rent arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions