What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280025 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 5280025?

Compensation: Breach of Healthy Home…: $1,075.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of Healthy Home…: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failing to provide and…: $460.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $640.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280025?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280025?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12099017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280025 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 5280025?

Compensation: Breach of Healthy Home…: $1,075.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Breach of Healthy Home…: $1,600.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failing to provide and…: $460.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $640.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280025?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280025?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12099017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

42 Lakewood Avenue, Churton Park, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280025 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280025 — net $3,902.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness	$640.00	Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness
Compensation: Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of repair- leaking taps, non-working waste disposal unit a	$100.00	Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of repair- leaking taps, non-working waste disposal unit a
Compensation: Failing to provide and maintain working dishwasher	$460.00	Failing to provide and maintain working dishwasher
Compensation: Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard by failing to maintain central heating	$1,600.00	Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard by failing to maintain central heating
Compensation: Breach of Healthy Homes drainage standard by failing to maintain gutters	$1,075.00	Breach of Healthy Homes drainage standard by failing to maintain gutters
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,902.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,902.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Comprende Limited As Agent For Kamil Lakshman must pay [The tenant/s] $3,902.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Dixon representing the landlord.
This was a fixed term tenancy that started on 12 April 2024 and was due to end on 14 April 2025. However, the parties reached a mutual agreement to end the tenancy early on 2 March 2025.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord completed an inspection which was satisfactory and, as a result, they refunded the bond in full to the tenants.
The landlord has now filed an application for carpet cleaning costs after the tenancy ended. The tenants have filed a cross application for compensation for failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition and failing to comply with Healthy Homes standards.

Are the tenants liable for carpet cleaning costs?

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 (RTA).
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a statement from their contractor who attended the premises some time after the tenancy ended to assess it for maintenance work. While there, he states: “I was standing on the top step and noticed that my legs and shoes became covered in fleas. Prior to this I had been working inside the property, specifically in the lounge and bedrooms areas.”
The landlord had allowed the tenants to have a dog at the premises. They realised that they had not asked the tenants to provide proof of commercial carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy in accordance with clause 36 of the tenancy agreement which states: “As a condition of allowing a pet into the property you are required to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of your tenancy which must include the instruction ‘Pet Clean’ upon request to the professional carpet cleaning company....”
The landlord arranged professional carpet cleaning throughout the premises including pest control spraying for fleas, which cost $1,147. The landlord seeks this sum from the tenant on the basis that their dog likely caused fleas at the premises. The carpet cleaning invoice shows that the cleaning was done on 3 April and the pest spray was applied on 4 April, more than a month after the tenancy ended.
The tenants deny that their dog had fleas and note that the carpet cleaning took place a month after their tenancy ended so may have been caused by other factors. They also note that the landlord advised them that the property had been left in reasonable condition which is why their bond was refunded in full.
First, I comment that clause 36 of the tenancy agreement is unlawful and unenforceable because it requires the tenant to do more than is required by s40(1)(e) RTA. The tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but that does not mean that they must be commercially cleaned, regardless of the fact that pets have been allowed. Commercial cleaning would only be justified if it is necessary to restore the carpet to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Secondly, I accept that there is a lack of causation between the tenants’ (and their dog’s) occupation of the premises and cleaning for fleas a month after the tenancy ended. The tenants point out that there were rats (with rat bait traps throughout the house) and cockroaches at the premises which they reported to the landlord early in the tenancy by email dated 23 April 2024. Rats are known to carry fleas so, there is validity to the argument that this may explain the presence of fleas at the premises.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the tenants are responsible for fleas at the property discovered after the tenancy ended. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in reasonable condition?

The tenants complain that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair at the start of the tenancy with respect to several matters; and there was a failure to maintain the gutters and central heating system during the tenancy.
Under sections 45(1)(a) and (b) RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, a landlord must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). As this tenancy commenced on 12 April 2024, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement. The compliance date for this tenancy was 10 August 2024. Regulation 6 HHS provides that landlords must comply with the standards and ensure that all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order, and if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching any of the above 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 RTA. However, the tenants have not specifically made a claim for exemplary damages (as required by section 109 RTA). Therefore, where the landlord is in breach of their obligations, I can only consider compensation. Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
I am satisfied on the evidence including photos produced in evidence by the tenants that the following issues were present when the tenancy started: a. The interior of the premises was not clean with grease on the rangehood, oven and kitchen cupboards; dirt and grime on walls; dirty and dusty central heating vents; gib dust on the windows (following recent bathroom renovations); stains on the carpet; b. The exterior of the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy with mildew and moss on the cladding, soffit, and deck; and tree debris around the section; c. Rubbish and belongings had been left by the owner including an old safe; carpet off cuts; a broken mirror; broken whiteware including a dryer and washing machine inside, a fridge outside on the deck; gib and other old belongings were dumped under the house; a broken table and chairs was left outside; and old gas bottles were left on the section; d. The hot water tap in the laundry leaked and the tap in front of the garage leaked; e. The waste disposal was not working. When turned on it started smoking and leaking water under the sink; f. The heated towel rail did not work, but was fixed by the tenant; g. The left-hand garage door did not work; h. The bottom dishwasher drawer was missing a plug so could not be used; i. About half the lights in the house did not have working lightbulbs; j. Doors were hard to close and needed 3-5mm taken off the bottom to make then useable; k. The gas central heating system needed a service because there was a large amount of dust being expelled when it was turned on and it smelt; l. Outside gutters and downpipes were blocked causing rainwater to overflow.
The tenant reported the above issues to the landlord by email on 15 April 2024. In addition, the tenants recorded numerous areas of damage throughout the house to ensure that they would not be blamed for this damage at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord acknowledged the tenants’ email over a week later on 24 April and advised that the owner agreed to engage a cleaner to address the kitchen cleaning items. However, the tenants had already spent a full day cleaning the interior. Later they spent a further day addressing the exterior of the premises and grounds. This included moving all the old broken rubbish and belongings and stacking them on the section which the landlord collected 2-3 weeks later. Cleaning and rubbish removal
For failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish and belongings, I award the tenants $640 to compensate them for the work they did to clean and tidy the interior, the grounds and remove the rubbish and belongings. This equates to approximately $40/hour for both tenants over 2 days (8 hours each day). Hot water tap, waste disposal and lightbulbs
The hot water tap and waste disposal were fixed approximately 2 weeks after the tenancy started. The landlord did not provide the tenants with working lightbulbs until 31 May, almost 7 weeks after the tenancy began. While these are relatively minor issues that were fixed, they should have been checked and in working order at the start of the tenancy as they are all things for which the tenants are paying rent. I award the tenants a nominal amount for the loss of amenity and inconvenience over this period of $100 which I consider is reasonable. Towel rail, interior doors, garage door
The tenants manged to fix the towel rail. They also say that garage door was never fixed but they were still able to access the garage through the second door so this did not cause any great inconvenience. In relation to the interior doors being hard to open and close, the landlord advised that they did not think this needed repair. I consider these were all minor issues and I am not persuaded that they justify an award of compensation. They were also not the focus of the tenants’ application. Dishwasher
The bottom dishwasher drawer could not be used because it had a plug missing. This was not fixed during the tenancy. Again, this is a fixture for which the tenant is paying rent. For the loss of amenity and inconvenience over the 46 weeks that the tenancy ran, I award $460. Central heating
Despite complaining on 15 April 2024 that the gas central heating system was emitting dust and ought to be serviced, the landlord did not service the heating. On 4 November, the tenants advised the landlord that the heating system had stopped working and was showing a fault. By 13 November, the landlord booked a contractor to check the system. The contractor immediately advised that there was a problem with the motor running backwards which was a dangerous fire hazard. He disconnected the heating system immediately.
The landlord advised the tenants on 4 February 2025 (3 months after the heating system stopped working) that the owner had obtained a quote for $10,000 to replace the system which she considered was too high and she decided to obtain a second quote. The tenants say they also received a direct phone call from the owner telling them that she was not prepared to spend $10,000 on a replacement heating system and she would not be fixing it. Nothing was done to repair or replace the heating system during the remainder of the tenancy of approximately 16 weeks.
The tenants noticed that after the heating was disconnected, their gas bill reduced dramatically. They argue that the drop was significantly more than they would have expected. They believe that the heater had likely not been operating properly and efficiently before it broke down and was using more gas then it should. They say that their bills for gas went from almost $500/month to $150/month. They seek some compensation for the excessive gas bill. However, it is hard to assess what the extra cost may have been. Unfortunately, there was no evidence from a suitably qualified expert about the impact a faulty heating system would have on the gas bills.
Failure to provide any heating in the main living room is a serious breach of the HHS heating standard. The tenants noted that the 2024 summer months were in fact unseasonably cold in the Wellington region and they had no heating. The tenants were paying rent for a home that was supposed to meet HHS, and where it does not, that is a loss of amenity for which they are entitled to compensation. For the 16-week period that the tenants were without any compliant heating in the main living room, and taking into account that the landlords did not service or check the heating sooner when the tenants raised concerns at the start of the tenancy, I award the tenants $1,600. Blocked gutters
The landlord advised the tenants on 24 April 2024, that they were obtaining quotes for guttering. However, no work was done to unblock the gutters until 3 February 2025. The tenants report that the gutters were constantly overflowing. While, the gutters overflowing did not have the same impact as being without heating, failure to maintain the gutters is also a breach of the HHS drainage standard, and a loss of amenity for which the tenants are entitled to compensation. For the 43 weeks that the gutters were blocked, I award the tenants $1075.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280025 — net $3,902.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness	$640.00	Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of cleanliness
Compensation: Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of repair- leaking taps, non-working waste disposal unit a	$100.00	Failing to provide premises in reasonable state of repair- leaking taps, non-working waste disposal unit a
Compensation: Failing to provide and maintain working dishwasher	$460.00	Failing to provide and maintain working dishwasher
Compensation: Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard by failing to maintain central heating	$1,600.00	Breach of Healthy Homes heating standard by failing to maintain central heating
Compensation: Breach of Healthy Homes drainage standard by failing to maintain gutters	$1,075.00	Breach of Healthy Homes drainage standard by failing to maintain gutters
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,902.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,902.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Comprende Limited As Agent For Kamil Lakshman must pay [The tenant/s] $3,902.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Dixon representing the landlord.
This was a fixed term tenancy that started on 12 April 2024 and was due to end on 14 April 2025. However, the parties reached a mutual agreement to end the tenancy early on 2 March 2025.
After the tenancy ended, the landlord completed an inspection which was satisfactory and, as a result, they refunded the bond in full to the tenants.
The landlord has now filed an application for carpet cleaning costs after the tenancy ended. The tenants have filed a cross application for compensation for failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable condition and failing to comply with Healthy Homes standards.

Are the tenants liable for carpet cleaning costs?

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 (RTA).
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a statement from their contractor who attended the premises some time after the tenancy ended to assess it for maintenance work. While there, he states: “I was standing on the top step and noticed that my legs and shoes became covered in fleas. Prior to this I had been working inside the property, specifically in the lounge and bedrooms areas.”
The landlord had allowed the tenants to have a dog at the premises. They realised that they had not asked the tenants to provide proof of commercial carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy in accordance with clause 36 of the tenancy agreement which states: “As a condition of allowing a pet into the property you are required to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of your tenancy which must include the instruction ‘Pet Clean’ upon request to the professional carpet cleaning company....”
The landlord arranged professional carpet cleaning throughout the premises including pest control spraying for fleas, which cost $1,147. The landlord seeks this sum from the tenant on the basis that their dog likely caused fleas at the premises. The carpet cleaning invoice shows that the cleaning was done on 3 April and the pest spray was applied on 4 April, more than a month after the tenancy ended.
The tenants deny that their dog had fleas and note that the carpet cleaning took place a month after their tenancy ended so may have been caused by other factors. They also note that the landlord advised them that the property had been left in reasonable condition which is why their bond was refunded in full.
First, I comment that clause 36 of the tenancy agreement is unlawful and unenforceable because it requires the tenant to do more than is required by s40(1)(e) RTA. The tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, but that does not mean that they must be commercially cleaned, regardless of the fact that pets have been allowed. Commercial cleaning would only be justified if it is necessary to restore the carpet to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Secondly, I accept that there is a lack of causation between the tenants’ (and their dog’s) occupation of the premises and cleaning for fleas a month after the tenancy ended. The tenants point out that there were rats (with rat bait traps throughout the house) and cockroaches at the premises which they reported to the landlord early in the tenancy by email dated 23 April 2024. Rats are known to carry fleas so, there is validity to the argument that this may explain the presence of fleas at the premises.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the tenants are responsible for fleas at the property discovered after the tenancy ended. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in reasonable condition?

The tenants complain that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair at the start of the tenancy with respect to several matters; and there was a failure to maintain the gutters and central heating system during the tenancy.
Under sections 45(1)(a) and (b) RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, a landlord must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). As this tenancy commenced on 12 April 2024, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement. The compliance date for this tenancy was 10 August 2024. Regulation 6 HHS provides that landlords must comply with the standards and ensure that all installed or provided things are maintained in good working order, and if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the main living room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The 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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching any of the above 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 RTA. However, the tenants have not specifically made a claim for exemplary damages (as required by section 109 RTA). Therefore, where the landlord is in breach of their obligations, I can only consider compensation. Condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy
I am satisfied on the evidence including photos produced in evidence by the tenants that the following issues were present when the tenancy started: a. The interior of the premises was not clean with grease on the rangehood, oven and kitchen cupboards; dirt and grime on walls; dirty and dusty central heating vents; gib dust on the windows (following recent bathroom renovations); stains on the carpet; b. The exterior of the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy with mildew and moss on the cladding, soffit, and deck; and tree debris around the section; c. Rubbish and belongings had been left by the owner including an old safe; carpet off cuts; a broken mirror; broken whiteware including a dryer and washing machine inside, a fridge outside on the deck; gib and other old belongings were dumped under the house; a broken table and chairs was left outside; and old gas bottles were left on the section; d. The hot water tap in the laundry leaked and the tap in front of the garage leaked; e. The waste disposal was not working. When turned on it started smoking and leaking water under the sink; f. The heated towel rail did not work, but was fixed by the tenant; g. The left-hand garage door did not work; h. The bottom dishwasher drawer was missing a plug so could not be used; i. About half the lights in the house did not have working lightbulbs; j. Doors were hard to close and needed 3-5mm taken off the bottom to make then useable; k. The gas central heating system needed a service because there was a large amount of dust being expelled when it was turned on and it smelt; l. Outside gutters and downpipes were blocked causing rainwater to overflow.
The tenant reported the above issues to the landlord by email on 15 April 2024. In addition, the tenants recorded numerous areas of damage throughout the house to ensure that they would not be blamed for this damage at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord acknowledged the tenants’ email over a week later on 24 April and advised that the owner agreed to engage a cleaner to address the kitchen cleaning items. However, the tenants had already spent a full day cleaning the interior. Later they spent a further day addressing the exterior of the premises and grounds. This included moving all the old broken rubbish and belongings and stacking them on the section which the landlord collected 2-3 weeks later. Cleaning and rubbish removal
For failing to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish and belongings, I award the tenants $640 to compensate them for the work they did to clean and tidy the interior, the grounds and remove the rubbish and belongings. This equates to approximately $40/hour for both tenants over 2 days (8 hours each day). Hot water tap, waste disposal and lightbulbs
The hot water tap and waste disposal were fixed approximately 2 weeks after the tenancy started. The landlord did not provide the tenants with working lightbulbs until 31 May, almost 7 weeks after the tenancy began. While these are relatively minor issues that were fixed, they should have been checked and in working order at the start of the tenancy as they are all things for which the tenants are paying rent. I award the tenants a nominal amount for the loss of amenity and inconvenience over this period of $100 which I consider is reasonable. Towel rail, interior doors, garage door
The tenants manged to fix the towel rail. They also say that garage door was never fixed but they were still able to access the garage through the second door so this did not cause any great inconvenience. In relation to the interior doors being hard to open and close, the landlord advised that they did not think this needed repair. I consider these were all minor issues and I am not persuaded that they justify an award of compensation. They were also not the focus of the tenants’ application. Dishwasher
The bottom dishwasher drawer could not be used because it had a plug missing. This was not fixed during the tenancy. Again, this is a fixture for which the tenant is paying rent. For the loss of amenity and inconvenience over the 46 weeks that the tenancy ran, I award $460. Central heating
Despite complaining on 15 April 2024 that the gas central heating system was emitting dust and ought to be serviced, the landlord did not service the heating. On 4 November, the tenants advised the landlord that the heating system had stopped working and was showing a fault. By 13 November, the landlord booked a contractor to check the system. The contractor immediately advised that there was a problem with the motor running backwards which was a dangerous fire hazard. He disconnected the heating system immediately.
The landlord advised the tenants on 4 February 2025 (3 months after the heating system stopped working) that the owner had obtained a quote for $10,000 to replace the system which she considered was too high and she decided to obtain a second quote. The tenants say they also received a direct phone call from the owner telling them that she was not prepared to spend $10,000 on a replacement heating system and she would not be fixing it. Nothing was done to repair or replace the heating system during the remainder of the tenancy of approximately 16 weeks.
The tenants noticed that after the heating was disconnected, their gas bill reduced dramatically. They argue that the drop was significantly more than they would have expected. They believe that the heater had likely not been operating properly and efficiently before it broke down and was using more gas then it should. They say that their bills for gas went from almost $500/month to $150/month. They seek some compensation for the excessive gas bill. However, it is hard to assess what the extra cost may have been. Unfortunately, there was no evidence from a suitably qualified expert about the impact a faulty heating system would have on the gas bills.
Failure to provide any heating in the main living room is a serious breach of the HHS heating standard. The tenants noted that the 2024 summer months were in fact unseasonably cold in the Wellington region and they had no heating. The tenants were paying rent for a home that was supposed to meet HHS, and where it does not, that is a loss of amenity for which they are entitled to compensation. For the 16-week period that the tenants were without any compliant heating in the main living room, and taking into account that the landlords did not service or check the heating sooner when the tenants raised concerns at the start of the tenancy, I award the tenants $1,600. Blocked gutters
The landlord advised the tenants on 24 April 2024, that they were obtaining quotes for guttering. However, no work was done to unblock the gutters until 3 February 2025. The tenants report that the gutters were constantly overflowing. While, the gutters overflowing did not have the same impact as being without heating, failure to maintain the gutters is also a breach of the HHS drainage standard, and a loss of amenity for which the tenants are entitled to compensation. For the 43 weeks that the gutters were blocked, I award the tenants $1075.
As the tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280025 — Healthy homes at 42 Lakewood Avenue, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280025 — Healthy homes at 42 Lakewood Avenue, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for carpet cleaning costs?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in reasonable condition?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for carpet cleaning costs?

Did the landlord provide and maintain the premises in reasonable condition?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions