What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5271228 about?

The tribunal order states: Wei Ma (also known as Vivian Ma) and Jianchen Wang to pay Murray Rout

How much money was awarded in case 5271228?

Cleaning: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $74.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271228?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12550415-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5271228 about?

The tribunal order states: Wei Ma (also known as Vivian Ma) and Jianchen Wang to pay Murray Rout

How much money was awarded in case 5271228?

Cleaning: $724.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $74.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271228?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12550415-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 28 Beach Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271228 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5271228 — net $798.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$724.50	Cleaning
Water rates to 2 May 2025	$74.23	2. The landlords have applied for water rates arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
Net award	$798.73
Bond	$3,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$798.73

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5271228 — net $798.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$724.50	Cleaning
Water rates to 2 May 2025	$74.23	2. The landlords have applied for water rates arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
Net award	$798.73
Bond	$3,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$798.73

Order

Wei Ma (also known as Vivian Ma) and Jianchen Wang to pay Murray Rout and Tania Morgun $798.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 (6077660-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Murray Rout and Tania Morgun: $798.73 Wei Ma (also known as Vivian Ma) and Jianchen Wang $2,241.27

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ma confirmed that Mr Wang was aware of the proceedings, that he is her husband and that she represented him as well as herself at today’s hearing.
The landlords have applied for water rates arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation/exemplary damages/general damages, reimbursement of the application fee and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. LANDLORDS’ CLAIMS

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 2 May 2025. The landlord provided a water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants did not dispute this debt.

Did the tenanst 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlords’ say the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenants deny this.
The landlord produced photographic evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities that the premise was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state and that the carpets required cleaning, the kitchen required extensive cleaning as did the bathroom. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the photographic evidence proves the landlords claim for cleaning costs.
The amount ordered is proved.

Are the tenanst 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Scuff marks on the walls from furniture being moved; b. Mould on the ceilings and walls that required cleaning and painting over.
The landlords say this damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlords do not have any entry inspection photographs that prove this damage was done during the tenancy, only exit inspection photographs. They rely on a checklist signed by Ms ma at the beginning of the tenancy that records a few stains on the carpet and no marks of concern on the walls.
Ms Ma denies making these marks and says that no issues about damage were raised with her during the exit inspection. Further, she says that she lived in the house for 4 years without any routine property inspections and any small marks are fair wear and tear to be expected in a tenancy of that length.
I am not satisfied that the evidence produced by the landlords proves on the balance of probabilities that the damage complained of occurred during the tenancy and, if it did, I am also not satisfied that this damage could be considered careless or intentional damage. I dismiss the landlords claim accordingly.

Are the tenants liable for lost rent?

The landlords claim they sent the tenants emails about the premises not being lefty in a reasonably clean state at the end of the tenancy and giving them time to remedy the breach. They say they were unable to proceed with the cleaning due to giving the tenants a chance to remedy this breach but the tenants never replied at all. This led to two weeks delay in being able to relet the premise. The landlords are seeking $1,630.00 for the two weeks lost rent.
Once a landlord has vacant possession of the premise, they are not required to give a tenant an opportunity to remedy any breaches. They are entitled to have any damages fixed and any cleaning done and to make a claim against the tenant for the reasonable cost of this remediation work.
The choice to give the tenants two weeks to undertake the cleaning required to bring the premise up to a reasonably clean condition was the landlords and they cannot then seek to pass the cost of that choice on to the tenants. The landlords’ claim is dismissed accordingly. TENANTS’ CLAIMS Has the landlord breached its section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) obligations to the tenant?
The tenants claim that the landlords have breached their obligations under section 45(1)(b), (bb) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 2 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 3 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 4 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 5 .
Under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, a landlord must also comply with all the healthy homes standards.
Section 45(1)(c) of the RTA requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Breaching any of these s45(1) obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 4 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31].
General damages may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants. Failure to maintain
Ms Ma gave evidence the landlords failed to investigate and repair defects with the property brought to their attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in all the circumstances. A. Leaks, dampness and mould
Ms Ma confirmed that around June/July 2023 the upstairs ceiling in the corridor developed a hole and pieces of the ceiling fell on the tenant’s head. She stated that at the same time the garage wall also developed leaks during heavy rain on one occasion and the washing machine socket stopped working. The tenant confirmed the landlords fixed the washing machine socket themselves and fixed the hole in the ceiling within a month.
The tenants say the ceiling looked good after the repair but that they were concerned the landlords were not builders and so questioned whether the source of the problem had been properly investigated and remediated. The tenants say they were not surprised when the corridor ceiling cracked again after a couple of months. Ms Ma says she reported this issue in a phone call but can’t recall when the phone call was. She confirmed she never sent any text message or email to the landlord about this issue.
Ms Ma says over the next six months the corridor ceiling cracked more and more and the ceiling in her daughter’s room started to show signs of mould but there were no visible leaks. Ms Ma says she tried to clean her daughter’s bedroom ceiling but the mould kept coming back. Ms Ma also stated that water started to leak into the house from the corridor a year after the initial repair of the corridor cracks and at the same time her daughter’s room got damper.
Ms Ma initially said she can’t remember if she reported the leaks and mould and she decided at the time to just leave it as she didn’t want to fight about it. Ms Ma then changed her evidence to say she gave the landlord a phone call to say the ceiling was leaking again but they didn’t come to investigate and that she never followed this call up with a text or email as she did not want to force the landlords’ to repair their own house.
In response, the landlords denied Ms Ma’s allegations. They say the only time she reported a leak was in July 2022 by text message. The parties confirmed the landlords’ came and investigated the issue, they did not find a hole, only a stain on the ceiling and did not find any leaks. The landlords confirmed the stain on the ceiling had been caused by the range hood ventilation duct failing. The flexible duct was replaced and the landlords’ thought the problem was rectified. They painted the ceiling when it dried out. The landlords say they have not heard anything further about any ceiling leaks or issues since this repair in 2022 until the tenants notified them on 4 April 2025 about a leak in the corridor.
After being notified about the leak, the landlords say they informed the tenants they would wait to check this issue out until the next time there was heavy rain, as it was not leaking all the time, and it would be easier to identify the source while it was leaking. They say the next heavy rain was on 17 August 2025 and they contacted the tenants to ask permission to come and investigate the leak. The tenants confirmed the ceiling was not leaking that day at all and had not leaked since 4 April 2025 when they reported it.
The landlords stated on 24 April 2025 there was a visit from a council compliance officer that confirmed he was acting on fence call. The landlords confirmed the premise was never on the council list but that there had been some clear roofing flying round the area, but it was not from the landlord’s unit. The Council could not find any issues and the landlord produced evidence the Council case was closed.
The tenants mentioned the leak again the week before they moved out and the landlords decided to have the issue fully investigated after the tenants had moved out.
After the tenancy ended, the landlords stated they had the leak issue fully investigated and no leaks were found. Additionally, the landlords have been unable to identify any reason for mould in master bedroom other than the room not being regularly ventilated. They confirm there was a strip of light grey mould along the ceiling on the edge of the bedroom wall on the north easter façade. The landlords cleaned this strip of mould once with water and bleach and it has not returned. The landlords reiterated the ceiling has been checked and there were no leaks found.
I find that the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities because there is no evidence the tenants have reported any mould issues to the landlords at all and no evidence to prove the tenants raised the issue of a leak between July 2022 and 4 April 2025. Further, after the leak was raised on 4 April 2025, the landlords took practicable steps to investigate the issue in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances. I dismiss the tenants claims accordingly and the tenants’ associated claims for general damages and reimbursement of the costs of finding new accommodation.
The tenants have also failed to provide sufficient evidence prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was aware the premise was damp and mouldy and that there was any breach of 45(1) (c) of the RTA, specifically a breach of regulation 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 that “every house shall be free from dampness”. This claim is also dismissed accordingly. Healthy Homes Standards Compliance
The tenants claim the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
Tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2019 and before 1 July 2021 are not required to meet all the healthy homes standard until 1 July 2025, but must comply with the Smoke Alarms and Insulation Regulations set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 1 January 2021 and rolled over into a periodic tenancy at the end of the first 12 months of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement had Mr Wang added as a party on 5 November 2024, but the tenancy agreement has never been renewed. As such, the landlords were required to comply with the insulation standard by 1 July 2019 and all the remaining healthy homes’ standards by 1 July 2025.
The tenants’ claim was that the premise failed to meet the moisture and drainage standard. The tenancy ended on 2 May 2025 and the premise was not required to meet the moisture and drainage standard until 1 July 2025.
For the reasons set out above, I find that the tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities and dismiss it accordingly.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA provides for reimbursement of the filing fee to applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in their claims.
The landlords’ have substantially succeeded with their claim but confirmed during the hearing they were not seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims. Their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271228 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 28 Beach Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271228 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 28 Beach Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Are the tenanst responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants liable for lost rent?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Are the tenanst responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants liable for lost rent?

OTHER CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions