What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307900 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay Watson Residential Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5307900?

Kevin Daly: $118.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307900?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Rubbish Removal.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12454027-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5307900 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay Watson Residential Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5307900?

Kevin Daly: $118.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5307900?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Rubbish Removal.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5307900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12454027-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

98 Apollo Parade, Milson, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5307900 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307900. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Kevin Daly	$118.99		Kevin Daly
Bond	$1,200.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to pay Watson Residential Limited As Agent For Kevin Daly $118.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5161847-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Watson Residential Limited As Agent For Kevin Daly: $118.99 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,081.01

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning the carpet and removal of a tyre following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and failure to inspect and maintain the gas heater. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction

In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

While this order may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. Landlord’s claims

The landlord claimed for the cost of cleaning the carpets and provided photographic evidence that they were grubby at the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy agreement provided a provision requiring the carpets to be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

Section 11 RTA provides that any provision of any agreement that purports to modify the provisions of the RTA shall be of no effect. Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA provides that a tenant shall leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord confirmed that the carpets were the same carpets throughout the 14-year tenancy. The landlord accepted that the condition of the carpet was caused by the ordinary use of the property by the tenant and her children and that no damage had been caused by her pets.

From an examination of the photographic evidence, the marks and general condition of the carpet are due to fair wear and tear. The tenant has no liability for fair wear and tear.

The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is therefore dismissed.

The landlord claimed for the cost of removing a single tyre left at the property. The tenant accepted liability for this claim and the amount claimed by the landlord is proven. The tenant’s claim: HHS

The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to comply with the HHS. See sections 45(1)(bb) and 138B RTA.

The tenancy began on the 21 April 2014. As this tenancy began before the 1 July 2021, the date of compliance with the HHS regulations was 1 July 2025.

As the landlord had no legal obligation to comply with the HHS until 1 July 2025 and the tenancy ended on 15 May 2025, the tenant’s claim must fail and is dismissed. The tenant’s claim: failure to maintain

The tenant claimed that the landlord was in breach of sections 45(1)(b) RTA.

Section 45(1)(b) RTA provides that the landlord shall “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes”.

Under section 40(1)(d) RTA a tenant has an obligation “to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs”. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

The tenant argued that the obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, included an obligation to have the gas heater annually inspected and certified as safe.

There is no explicit requirement in the HHS or the RTA for annual servicing or safety checks of gas heaters.

The extent of the landlord’s obligation to repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. The Court noted that the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. It follows that the landlord had no obligation to have the gas heater inspected and certified annually.

The tenant accepted that she did not notify the landlord of any defect in the gas heater throughout the tenancy and did not produce any evidence that a defect existed.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed. The tenant’s claim: failure to comply with legal requirements

The tenant claimed that the landlord was in breach of section 45(1)(c) RTA.

Section 45(1)(c) RTA provides that the landlord shall “comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises”.

The tenant claimed that the landlord had a legal obligation under Regulation 75A of the Gas (Safety and Measurement) Regulations 2010 (GSMR) to have the gas heater checked annually and failed to do so.

Regulation 75A GSMR provides: “(1) A landlord of residential premises must not provide any gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation under or in connection with a residential tenancy if the gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation is unsafe. (2) A landlord of residential premises must not allow any person to use a gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation provided by the landlord under or in connection with a residential tenancy if the gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation is unsafe. (3) For the purposes of subclauses (1) and (2), a gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation is deemed safe for the purposes of the residential tenancy at the commencement of the tenancy if it is assessed as not unsafe under NZS 5255. (4) A landlord of residential premises must provide the occupier with adequate instructions for the safe use of any gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation provided under or in connection with a residential tenancy. (5) A landlord commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a level 2 penalty who provides a gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation under or in connection with a residential tenancy, or allows another person to use a gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation that is provided under or in connection with a residential tenancy, knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the gas appliance, fittings, or gas installation is unsafe.”

Regulation 75A GSMR prohibits a landlord from providing a gas appliance that is unsafe. Regulation 75A(3) GSMR deems a gas installation safe if it is assessed as not unsafe under NZS 5255. There is no provision nor logical reason that a gas installation is deemed unsafe if such an assessment has not been completed.

There is no provision under Regulation 75A GSMR imposing on a landlord a legal obligation to undertake a safety assessment as claimed by the tenant, nor is there any provision deeming unsafe a heater that has not been checked annually.

Regulation 11 GSMR sets out when a gas appliance can be deemed unsafe. The landlord provided no evidence in support of the heater being deemed unsafe under the terms of that regulation.

Nor has the tenant provided any evidence that the gas heater was unsafe as that term is defined in Regulation 4 GSMR. Using that definition, the tenant has not provided evidence that there was a significant risk that a person may suffer serious harm, or that property may suffer significant damage, as a result of dangers arising from the use of the heater.

The tenant has not therefore persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has been in breach of Regulation 75A GSMR and section 45(1)(c) RTA.

The tenant’s claims are dismissed. Filing fee and suppression

Both the landlord and tenant have filed applications and each has incurred the cost of a filing fee. Under section 102(4) RTA, the Tribunal has a discretion to order one party to reimburse the other for the filing fee where it is just to do so. However, in this case, both parties have pursued claims, and neither party has been wholly or largely successful. Therefore, it is appropriate for each party to bear their own filing costs and no order for reimbursement will be made.

Section 95A RTA allows for the Tribunal to order name suppression for a party if that party is wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. As neither party have been wholly or substantially successful in their application, they are not entitled to suppression as a matter of right.

Accordingly, each party will bear their own filing fees and no suppression order is granted for either party.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5307900. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Kevin Daly	$118.99		Kevin Daly
Bond	$1,200.00