What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256647 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5256647?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256647?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256647?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12477616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256647 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5256647?

Cleaning: $495.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $120.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,150.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256647?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256647?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12477616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5256647 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5256647 — net $3,042.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for clearing and disposing of previous tenant's trampoline and bbq (by consent	$120.00	Compensation for clearing and disposing of previous tenant's trampoline and bbq (by consent
Exemplary damages for incomplete insulation statement	$250.00	Exemplary damages for incomplete insulation statement
Compensation for breach of insulation regulations	$1,150.00	Compensation for breach of insulation regulations
Compensation for cleaning up after flooding on multiple occasions	$495.00	Compensation for cleaning up after flooding on multiple occasions
Compensation for invalid notice to terminate the tenancy	$1,000.00	Compensation for invalid notice to terminate the tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,042.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,042.00

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Choi attended on behalf of the landlord.

This hearing concerns the tenancy of a standalone lifestyle property of approximately 8000m 2 situated in Flat Bush. The house property was constructed in approximately 1910 and was moved onto the current site at a much later date. There is an attached double garage.

The tenancy began on 19 February 2024 and ended on 10 March 2025. Rent was $1150 per week. The tenant was the only party named on the tenancy agreement but he lived in the property with his wife, son and grandson.

The tenant has filed claims in respect of the following issues: a. Healthy homes and maintenance issues: i. The insulation statement included in the Tenancy Agreement was inaccurate ii. The ceiling and underfloor insulation were in poor condition iii. There was no ground moisture barrier iv. There were draughts due to an open fireplace and permanent window opening in the laundry v. There was no heat pump and the gas heating system was non- compliant vi. There were drainage issues which led to the garage being flooded nine times vii. The landlord failed to remove a tree and fill an opening under the house as part of moving the gas cylinders viii. The septic tank was blocked due to overflow from building works ix. There was no lock on the garage and a large gap at the bottom of the door x. They had to dispose of rubbish including a trampoline and BBQ b. Breach of quiet enjoyment due to contractors attending at the property to do maintenance, and at times unannounced; and c. Unlawful termination. Onus and evidence

As with all claims that come before the Tribunal, the onus is on the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). As this is a claim by the tenant, the tenant bears the onus to prove their claim.

A very large amount of evidence was filed in this proceeding and presented at the hearing, which occupied one full day. I thank both parties for submitting such well organised evidence. For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence presented but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence in making this decision. Healthy Homes standard and maintenance issues

Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that landlords must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property.

In addition to the obligation to maintain, landlords must also comply with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) introduced in 2020. These standards require the landlord to comply the following standards: a. Heating (the main living room must have a fixed hearing device that can heat the room to at least 18 degrees) b. Insulation (Ceiling and underfloor insulation must meet minimum R-value requirements) c. Ventilation (kitchens and bathrooms must have extractor fans and all habitable rooms must have windows that can be opened) d. Moisture Ingress and Drainage (properties must have efficient drainage, guttering, downpipes and a ground moisture barrier if there is an enclosed subfloor space. e. Draught Stopping (there must not be any unreasonable gaps or holes) Insulation

The tenant said the tenancy agreement included a statement that the property would comply with the Healthy Homes Standards, but in fact it was not compliant. He acknowledged that the house was old and single glazed but said that it was particularly cold.

He said that there was an “insulation statement” but that it in fact contained no information about what insulation was present.

The tenant said that he went under the house on 2 July 2024 and discovered that the underfloor insulation was in poor condition and much of it was falling out or had fallen out completely.

The tenant issued a 14-day notice on 15 July 2024 advising the landlord of a large number of maintenance issues, including the underfloor insulation.

The tenant said that he accessed the ceiling cavity the next day on 16 July 2024 and discovered that the insulation was non-compliant and was in poor condition.

The tenant produced photos showing the condition of the ceiling and underfloor insulation.

Ms Choi said that the landlord had believed that the house had an adequate level of insulation when tenanting the house, but that the tenancy began on 19 February 2024 landlord had 120 days to comply, which gave a compliance date of 18 June 2024.

The landlord said that they took immediate action after the tenant wrote to them expressing concern, attended the property with a contractor on 17 July 2024 to check and quote for remedial work and that on 25 July 2024 the ceiling and underfloor insulation had been upgraded.

I accept the landlord’s submission that the HHS compliance date for this property was 18 June 2024. However the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 required landlords have ceiling and underfloor insulation installed (where reasonably practicable) by 1 July 2019. The HHS increased the R-value of the insulation required but the obligation to provide insulation and to provide the tenant with information about the insulation existed well before the start of the tenancy.

I accept that he landlord took immediate steps as soon as they became aware of the situation and that the property was compliant with both the earlier 2016 regulations and the HHS by 25 July 2024.

In my view however the property did not comply with the 2016 regulations when the tenancy began on 19 February 2024 as the underfloor insulation had fallen out in a number of places and was in poor condition and the ceiling insulation did not cover the entire area and was in very poor condition also.

The property did not comply for a period of approximately five months. I accept the tenant’s submissions that the property was colder and more damp than it otherwise would have been.

The tenant is entitled to some compensation for the breach. I consider that an appropriate amount is $1,150 which represents approximately $50 per week for that period.

The landlord has also breached their obligations to provide an accurate insulation statement.

A landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information 1 : a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed. 1 Section 13A(1B) RTA

Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so 2 .

Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00 3 . See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord should have taken steps to obtain accurate information and provide that to the tenant. By failing to do so they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if it is satisfied that 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord completed the insulation statement without making enquiries about the insulation present in the property. They have done so intentionally. It is essential that landlords provide tenants with this information so that they know whether the property complies with the regulations. It is in the public interests for tenants to have this information.

It is usual in the Tribunal to award approximately 1/3 of the maximum amount in respect of a first breach by a landlord. I therefore award exemplary damages in the sum of $250. Ground moisture-barrier

The tenant said that when they went under the house to look at the underfloor insulation they discovered that there was no ground moisture barrier. They said that, in addition to the poor insulation, this likely contributed to dampness and mould in the property.

The tenant produced photos of the under house area and photos showing condensation on windows.

The landlord said that the underfloor is not fully enclosed (there are slats providing airflow around the perimeter) but at the request of the tenant they installed a ground moisture barrier on 25 July 2024. The landlord provided photos of the underfloor area and evidence of the work done. 2 See section 13A(1B) and (1C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Having reviewed all of the evidence I accept that a ground moisture barrier was not required as the underfloor is not fully enclosed.

In any event, a ground moisture barrier was installed only very shortly after the date of HHS compliance.

I note for completeness that the tenant raised issues regarding moisture at the property generally and said that the DVS unit installed at the property was ineffective and that there was mould in the laundry and mould in the family room due to blocked guttering.

I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved on the balance of probabilities that the mould was caused by blocked guttering. There is simply not enough evidence for me to make this finding. The property was not required to have a DVS system and while I accept that the tenant may not have found that it effective I do not find it proved that it was not properly maintained 4 . Draughts due to uncovered fireplace and window opening

The tenant said the property was cold and draughty as the fireplace was not sealed and there was a high up window in the laundry that was permanently open (by design).

The landlord said that the open fireplace and the opening in the laundry are part of the original design of the house. However, after receipt of the 14 day notice form the tenant the landlord arranged for these to be covered, and the work was completed by 28 July 2024.

The draughts identified by the tenant should have been resolved by 24 June 2024, but were not remedied until approximately one month later. This is a breach by the landlord but I consider this breach to be minor and no compensation is required. Heating

The tenant said that there was no heat pump, that the central heating system was non-compliant, and by the end of the tenancy was not working properly.

The landlord said that the central hearing system did comply. They said that the central hearing system ran off gas cylinders and there were issues with the tenant’s supplier which meant they had to move the location of the gas cylinders and there was no heating while this was done. The landlord explained that the previous occupant had used a different supplier with no issues.

The landlord said that they moved the gas cylinder location at a cost of nearly $4,000. They said the work took some time as initially it was thought that the issue could be solved by moving the outdoor unit for the central heating by one 4 I note that at the request of the tenant the landlord had the DVS system serviced and the filter changed on 27 June 2024 metre (which they did) but the gas cylinders had to be moved anyway. The work took place over a period of approximately two months.

The landlord produced a healthy homes report completed the week the tenant left the property, confirming that (without any changes or upgranding) the central hearing system met the HHS.

Having reviewed all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant has proved that the landlord has not complied with the heating standard. I accept the landlord’s healthy homes report stating that the central heating system complied. The work all appears to have been done before the HHS compliance date. Drainage issues and flooding

[The tenant/s]moisture ingress and drainage standard and has failed to maintain the garage as there were 9 different flooding events between 24 March 2024 and 2 September 2024.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains (in addition a ground moisture barrier, as discussed above).

The tenant provided dated photos showing fairly extensive flooding in the garage together with photos showing the downpipes directed into the garden. The tenant said that the landlord came up with various solutions but these were fairly makeshift or inappropriate and did not solve the issue.

The tenant said that they were storing items for their business in their garage for which they have claimed insurance (which they do not claim for) but said that they also lost personal items and had to pay a contents insurance excess of $300, which they seek tor recover from the landlord.

The tenant also said that they were never offered any assistance and that cleaning up on each occasion took up a considerable amount of time. The tenant provided a detailed list of the dates of each flooding event and the time taken to clean up on an hourly basis, charged out at $40 per hour.

A garage is not a “habitable space” and so the HHS do not apply to the garage. The landlord does still have an obligation to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair however, and this includes the garage.

This was a large rural property with a large garage and this was obviously an appealing feature for the tenant. I accept that there have been various flooding events in Auckland from time to time but nine flooding events over a period of six months indicates a repair and maintenance issue.

The tenant spent some time at the hearing setting out potential causes (such as drainage being re-directed and the building of a retaining wall) but I do not think it is necessary for the Tribunal to identify the reason for the flooding to determine that the property was not in a reasonable state of repair.

I do not consider that the tenant is entitled to the excess amount for their personal items, as these were not items that would ordinarily be stored in a garage. Loss must be foreseeable. The landlord could not have known that the tenant would be storing personal items in the garage.

I do however consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation for the time spent cleaning up on each occasion. Some of the time spent cleaning up was due to the tenant storing goods in the garage, which is not the landlord’s responsibility, but the tenant still needed to clean out the garage and mop up on each occasion. I consider that half of the hours claimed are reasonable, at a charge out rate of $30 per hour 5 . I therefore order compensation in the amount of $495. Failure to fill in opening under house and remove tree

The tenant also claimed compensation for filling in an opening under the house (when the central heating system was moved) and removing vegetation that was required when the gas cylinders for the central heating system were finally relocated. The tenant said that the contractor never came back to do these jobs.

The landlord said that they had engaged a contractor to do the work and were never told by the tenant that they had not finished the job. They said that if the tenant had informed them they would have required the contractor to return to finish the job.

This claim is not proved. Septic tank blocked due to building works

The tenant said that all of the drainage issues and associated building works from the garage caused clay and other debris to get into the septic tank system which caused it to overflow onto the driveway.

The tenant said that the resulting mess was terrible and his grandson could not play outside.

The landlord said that this is an old property and was caused by old broken pipes and that the landlord dealt with this on an urgent basis. The landlord producd an invoice for an urgent call out on 2 September 2024, and further attendances on 9 September and 18 September 2024.

Having reviewed the evidence I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the septic tank issue was caused the landlord. The report from the contractor identifies that a section of pipe was broken and had sunk leading to a displaced 5 This is the hourly rate most commonly used in the Tribunal unless the party claiming compensation has particular expertise in the task for which compensation is claimed joint. The report also noted that the grade of the drain system is poor and almost flat/slightly reverse-graded causing occasional backfilling and that the drain will require regular unblocking if replacement is not feasible.

This claim is not proved. No lock on garage and gap at bottom of door

The tenant said that there was no lock on the side door to access the garage and that the door did not reach the floor, with a gap of approximately 10cm at the bottom.

Section 46(1) RTA requires landlords to provide and maintain such locks and other security devices as are necessary to ensure the premises are reasonably secure.

The landlord said that this is a rural property down a long drive with a locked gate and so it is debatable whether a lock is required to make the garage secure. The also landlord said that the garage is not a habitable space and so the gap at the bottom of the door was acceptable.

Nevertheless, the landlord said that they sought a quote for a replacement door on 17 July 2024, but the contractor was also quoting for other work on the property and did not end up quoting for the door and this issue was missed by the landlord due to oversight.

I consider that the gap at the bottom of the door was acceptable as the garage was not a habitable space. I do however consider that the garage door should have had a lock.

As there has been no loss however I decline to make any award for compensation. Rubbish disposal

The landlord agreed that the tenant had spent time and energy removing the trampoline and bbq. They agreed to compensate the tenant for the amount sought. I therefore order compensation in the amount of $120 by consent. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

The tenant said that they had to deal with multiple contractors during the tenancy, many of whom turned up without warning. They said that the work around the septic tank meant that the driveway and area out from the garage was unusable while this work was going on.

The landlord said that the tenant identified a large number of maintenance issues all of which had to be investigated and the contractor who attended when the septic tank overflowed had to attend urgently and that it inevitably took some time to do all the necessary work.

There is often a tension between the need to do maintenance and tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property. The tenant served the landlord with a 14 day notice identifying 35 different maintenance items. The landlord has then attempted to comply with their obligations by instructing a number of contractors. I do accept that it would be frustrating for the tenant to have to coordinate with contractors, particularly in circumstances where they have not always attended at the time that they had arranged with the tenant.

In my view however, given the age of the property and the large number of maintenance issues, together with the urgency of some of these issues (for example the septic tank), I do not consider that there has been any breach of the tenant’s right quiet enjoyment by the landlord.

This claim is not proved. Termination of tenancy

This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 19 February 2024. The fixed term was due to expire on 28 February 2025.

The tenant said that the Ms Choi spoke with him on 5 February 2025 and said that the landlord would not be renewing the fixed term as they intended to sell the property and that tenancy would end on the expiry of the fixed term.

The tenant said that he was shocked to be given such short notice. He said that they had three sheep grazing on the property, a cat and a dog, and their grandson was enrolled at the local primary school.

The tenant said that he rang Tenancy Services who explained that because of the dates that his tenancy began and ended the landlord was required to give him 90 days notice. He said that he asked the landlord for more time and the landlord offered an extended date to 10 March 2025. The tenant said that he was under such stress that he agreed and began looking for a new place as soon as possible.

The tenant said that the move was incredibly stressful as his grandson [has a health condition] and he was unable to find another tenancy in the same school zone. His grandson did not adjust to his new school and is now home schooled. The tenant said that they had to give away their sheep. He said that he accepted a tenancy that was not ideal for his family’s circumstances but felt he had no other option due to the short notice period given.

The law on termination of fixed term tenancies has recently changed. Previously, a tenant could give notice to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term, provided that they did so within specified time periods. Landlords could not give notice, and so if the tenant did not give notice the tenancy automatically became a periodic tenancy 6 .

On 30 January 2025 the law changed so that now either party can give notice to end the fixed term tenancy, as long as they give notice between 90 and 21 days before the expiry of the fixed term.

The previous law however still applies to fixed term tenancies that expire on or before 30 April 2025. The previous law therefore applied to this tenancy and this tenancy would have become a periodic tenancy. The landlord could still have given notice as they were selling the property, but the notice period would have been 90 days 7 .

The landlord said that they made a genuine mistake when giving notice for this tenancy. Ms Choi said that she was unaware that the new law only applied to fixed term tenancies ending after 30 April 2025.

The notice given by the landlord to terminate the tenancy was invalid. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.

While I accept that the landlord has made a genuine mistake, the mistake led to a great deal of stress and confusion for the tenant. He sought advice from Tenancy Services and was told that the landlord was unable to simply give notice to end the fixed term. The unexpected move, with much shorter notice than would otherwise have been the case, has caused considerable disruption and expense. I do note that the landlord agreed to allow slightly longer time but this was still far short of the 90 days that the tenant should have had.

It is difficult to quantify compensation precisely but having heard from the tenant about the difficulties experienced and the additional expenses involved in moving at short notice, I consider compensation in the amount of $1,000 to be appropriate.

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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I do not consider that it would be just to make an award for exemplary damages in these circumstances. I accept that the landlord’s breach was unintentional. Filing fee and name suppression

Because [The applicant/s] has succeeded to a significant degree with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00. 6 Section 60A RTA 7 Section 51(2)(a) RTA

The tenant sought an order for name suppression and is entitled to an order as the substantially successful party.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5256647 — net $3,042.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for clearing and disposing of previous tenant's trampoline and bbq (by consent	$120.00	Compensation for clearing and disposing of previous tenant's trampoline and bbq (by consent
Exemplary damages for incomplete insulation statement	$250.00	Exemplary damages for incomplete insulation statement
Compensation for breach of insulation regulations	$1,150.00	Compensation for breach of insulation regulations
Compensation for cleaning up after flooding on multiple occasions	$495.00	Compensation for cleaning up after flooding on multiple occasions
Compensation for invalid notice to terminate the tenancy	$1,000.00	Compensation for invalid notice to terminate the tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,042.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,042.00