What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272019 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenants shall pay the Landlord $200.00 as listed in the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5272019?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272019?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12759459-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272019 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenants shall pay the Landlord $200.00 as listed in the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 5272019?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272019?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272019?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12759459-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25A Paddington Street, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272019 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272019. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$200.00		Repairs

Order

The Tenants shall pay the Landlord $200.00 as listed in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6407423-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Helio Investment And Holdings Ltd: $200.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $3,800.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord applied for refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tenants applied for breach of Healthy Home standards, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenants claims- Breach of Healthy Home Standards
[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] 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). [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard, HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The Tenants reported that the curtains in the downstairs bedroom were affected by mould and provided photographic evidence in support of this claim. They also noted a leaking gutter located outside the bedroom, which they believed was contributing to the mould growth on the curtains and was exacerbated by inadequate window ventilation. The Tenants state that they notified the Landlord of these concerns in November 2023 but felt the Landlord dismissed the issue, as he advised that the guttering issue was fine provided the leak occurred only during rainfall and did not penetrate the interior of the property. The Landlord did not arrange for an inspection of the guttering.
The Landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy no issues were raised concerning the Healthy Homes Standards or the condition of the downstairs curtains, which he asserts were in good order throughout the tenancy. He contends that if the Tenants allowed the curtain to hang or blow outside the window, this could have resulted in mould growth. According to the Landlord, the Tenants raised the issue only once in November 2023 and made no further complaints thereafter.
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.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case, I find that the Tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Landlord was in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The photographic evidence of mould on the curtains, together with the Tenants’ oral evidence regarding the leaking gutter, is insufficient to demonstrate non- compliance with the required standards. It is also relevant that, although the Tenants first raised these concerns in November 2023, no further complaints were made thereafter. If the gutter leak was of such significance the Tenants failed to continue notifying the Landlord, issue a 14-day notice to remedy or even seek a tradesperson themselves to inspect the issue. An independent Healthy Homes assessment would have strengthened the Tenants’ position however this was not provided by Tenants.
The claims are dismissed. Tenants claim for stress
The Tenants claim $500.00 for stress, time, and inconvenience. They say they were pressured to pay for repainting parts of the property and felt bullied by the Landlord in relation to repairing certain damage and cleaning the premises. They state that during the final inspection the Landlord was combative, pointing out minor dust issues, alleging that areas had been missed, and asserting that the ovens were not clean, despite the Tenants having cleaned the property thoroughly. The Landlord also identified marks and chipped paint on the walls and required the Tenants either to arrange repainting or to pay the Landlord’s contractor. The Tenants further state that the property was not clean at the start of the tenancy. They say they were required to take time off work to pursue the bond refund and prepare this case, and that they felt they were being used to improve the overall condition of the property.
The Landlord submits that during the final inspection he observed dusty skirting boards and some remaining rubbish, and that he was simply fulfilling his responsibilities in identifying these issues. He states that he was acting under instruction and was under considerable pressure from the property owner.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenants have not established that the Landlord caused them stress or inconvenience beyond what is ordinarily associated with the performance of a landlord’s duties. It is reasonable and expected that a landlord will assess the cleanliness and condition of the premises at the end of a tenancy, and the level of detail required during such inspections can be extensive. The Landlord’s comments about the cleanliness fall within the scope of a standard exit inspection, and I am not satisfied that the conduct described exceeds what could normally be expected in these circumstances.
The claim is dismissed. Landlords claims- wall repairs

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls?

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 following damage was identified as having occurred during the tenancy: damage to walls throughout the property. The Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report to establish that the dents and patched areas were not present prior to the commencement of the tenancy. However, the Tenants acknowledged that they had mounted two televisions and provided photographs of the patching work they carried out. They stated that this patching was consistent with what they had advised the Landlord they would do when installing the televisions, and that they did not undertake any further work such as repainting or colour matching as they had not agreed to do so at the start.
Section 42(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that if, on removing any fixture, the tenant causes damage to the premises, the tenant must inform the landlord immediately and, at the landlord’s option, either repair the damage or compensate the landlord for any reasonable costs incurred in repairing that damage.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenants were required to restore the walls to their original condition after removing the fixtures. While the Tenants stated that they informed the Landlord they would patch the walls, they did not repaint or colour match the affected areas as would have been necessary to return the walls to their prior state. As a result, I consider it appropriate to award the Landlord $200.00 for the cost of remedial work.
The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the Tenants have not disproved their liability for it.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As neither party has been substantially successful, name suppression is refused and both parties shall pay for their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5272019. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$200.00		Repairs

Order

The Tenants shall pay the Landlord $200.00 as listed in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6407423-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Helio Investment And Holdings Ltd: $200.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $3,800.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord applied for refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tenants applied for breach of Healthy Home standards, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenants claims- Breach of Healthy Home Standards
[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] 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). [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard, HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
The Tenants reported that the curtains in the downstairs bedroom were affected by mould and provided photographic evidence in support of this claim. They also noted a leaking gutter located outside the bedroom, which they believed was contributing to the mould growth on the curtains and was exacerbated by inadequate window ventilation. The Tenants state that they notified the Landlord of these concerns in November 2023 but felt the Landlord dismissed the issue, as he advised that the guttering issue was fine provided the leak occurred only during rainfall and did not penetrate the interior of the property. The Landlord did not arrange for an inspection of the guttering.
The Landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy no issues were raised concerning the Healthy Homes Standards or the condition of the downstairs curtains, which he asserts were in good order throughout the tenancy. He contends that if the Tenants allowed the curtain to hang or blow outside the window, this could have resulted in mould growth. According to the Landlord, the Tenants raised the issue only once in November 2023 and made no further complaints thereafter.
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.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
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. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case, I find that the Tenants have not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Landlord was in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. The photographic evidence of mould on the curtains, together with the Tenants’ oral evidence regarding the leaking gutter, is insufficient to demonstrate non- compliance with the required standards. It is also relevant that, although the Tenants first raised these concerns in November 2023, no further complaints were made thereafter. If the gutter leak was of such significance the Tenants failed to continue notifying the Landlord, issue a 14-day notice to remedy or even seek a tradesperson themselves to inspect the issue. An independent Healthy Homes assessment would have strengthened the Tenants’ position however this was not provided by Tenants.
The claims are dismissed. Tenants claim for stress
The Tenants claim $500.00 for stress, time, and inconvenience. They say they were pressured to pay for repainting parts of the property and felt bullied by the Landlord in relation to repairing certain damage and cleaning the premises. They state that during the final inspection the Landlord was combative, pointing out minor dust issues, alleging that areas had been missed, and asserting that the ovens were not clean, despite the Tenants having cleaned the property thoroughly. The Landlord also identified marks and chipped paint on the walls and required the Tenants either to arrange repainting or to pay the Landlord’s contractor. The Tenants further state that the property was not clean at the start of the tenancy. They say they were required to take time off work to pursue the bond refund and prepare this case, and that they felt they were being used to improve the overall condition of the property.
The Landlord submits that during the final inspection he observed dusty skirting boards and some remaining rubbish, and that he was simply fulfilling his responsibilities in identifying these issues. He states that he was acting under instruction and was under considerable pressure from the property owner.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenants have not established that the Landlord caused them stress or inconvenience beyond what is ordinarily associated with the performance of a landlord’s duties. It is reasonable and expected that a landlord will assess the cleanliness and condition of the premises at the end of a tenancy, and the level of detail required during such inspections can be extensive. The Landlord’s comments about the cleanliness fall within the scope of a standard exit inspection, and I am not satisfied that the conduct described exceeds what could normally be expected in these circumstances.
The claim is dismissed. Landlords claims- wall repairs

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls?

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 following damage was identified as having occurred during the tenancy: damage to walls throughout the property. The Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report to establish that the dents and patched areas were not present prior to the commencement of the tenancy. However, the Tenants acknowledged that they had mounted two televisions and provided photographs of the patching work they carried out. They stated that this patching was consistent with what they had advised the Landlord they would do when installing the televisions, and that they did not undertake any further work such as repainting or colour matching as they had not agreed to do so at the start.
Section 42(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that if, on removing any fixture, the tenant causes damage to the premises, the tenant must inform the landlord immediately and, at the landlord’s option, either repair the damage or compensate the landlord for any reasonable costs incurred in repairing that damage.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenants were required to restore the walls to their original condition after removing the fixtures. While the Tenants stated that they informed the Landlord they would patch the walls, they did not repaint or colour match the affected areas as would have been necessary to return the walls to their prior state. As a result, I consider it appropriate to award the Landlord $200.00 for the cost of remedial work.
The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the Tenants have not disproved their liability for it.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As neither party has been substantially successful, name suppression is refused and both parties shall pay for their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272019 — Property damage at 25A Paddington Street, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272019 — Property damage at 25A Paddington Street, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the walls?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.