What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318619 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 5318619?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Driveway And Steps: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318619?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13137102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318619 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 5318619?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Driveway And Steps: $520.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318619?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13137102-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 Waiheke Road, Onetangi, RD 1, Waiheke Island 1971 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318619 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

30 Waiheke Road, Onetangi, RD 1, Waiheke Island 1971 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318619 — Smoke alarms | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318619 — net $85.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Smoke alarm	$135.00		Smoke alarm
Compensation: Driveway and steps		$520.00	Driveway and steps
Total award	$435.00	$520.00
Net award		$85.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$85.00

Claims and awards for application 5318619 — net $85.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Smoke alarm

Amount: $135.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Smoke alarm

Compensation: Driveway and steps

Amount: $520.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Driveway and steps

Total award

Landlord $435.00 · Tenant $520.00

Net award

Tenant $85.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $85.00

Dismissed claims

Compensation — as it is unproven. COOK-TOP:
Property Damage — COOKTOP
Property Damage — WATER DAMAGE TO KITCHEN FLOOR AND CABINETS

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
San Sebastian Investments Ltd As Agent For The Zdravo Marijo Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $85.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond has been released to the tenant by the bond centre, I therefore make no order in respect of the bond.
The tenant has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant effectively seeks to offset any monetary order against him in favour of the landlord. The tenant indicated at the commencement of the hearing that he seeks an order whereby neither party has to pay the other any money. I have however ordered that the landlord pay compensation to the tenant, to properly reflect the findings in respect of the tenant’s claim. Whether he chooses to enforce the order is a matter for him to decide.
The tenancy commenced in 2019 and ended in June 2025.
The original tenants were [The tenant/s] (FZ) and [The tenant/s] (PS). A variation of the tenancy was executed in July 2022 stating that FZ was leaving as a tenant and the tenant named in this application, (who I will refer to as the tenant) was the only remaining tenant. On that basis I am satisfied that the tenant was the only tenant at the end of the tenancy. The tenant was able to provide a change of tenants bond form removing PS as a tenant in 2021. The change of tenants is relevant to the issue of liability, and I address this further below. I also note that it appears that on the evening before the first hearing of this matter the landlord emailed a request to add FC as a party to the proceedings. I note however, that was not raised at the first hearing, before or at the second hearing. Accordingly, the only tenant named in this claim is the sole tenant at 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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 10 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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

THE CLAIMS

As referred to above, in this case the tenant signed a variation of tenancy on 7 July 2022. The variation records: Tenancy variation terms and conditions - The landlord and tenant agree to the variation of the existing tenancy agreement, that all other provisions of the existing tenancy agreement remain the same except for the change in term. All tenants on the original tenancy agreement must sign this agreement. If the existing tenancy agreement is being varied, e.g. an existing tenant is leaving or a new tenant is joining, the landlord hereby agrees that rather than end the tenancy and start a new one, to permit this variation by consenting to the current tenants changing in name and / or number. The parties agree, the variation is subject to the conditions set out herein. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Liability - The remaining (including any new tenants that have joined), tenants acknowledge that they are jointly and severally bound in liability to the landlord and they assume liability for the rented property’s condition and the report detailing it’s entry condition and any current condition and for all covenants contained in the existing tenancy agreement. All parties agree that the leaving / outgoing tenants are only released from liability after all parties have signed this document and the leaving / departing tenants have permanently vacated the tenancy premises.
The Tribunal records from the outset that the landlord’s practice was untidy. When one tenant leaves and is replaced by another tenant there should be a signed variation of the tenancy agreement to record the new parties. However, when all the tenants leave (even if over time) and the remaining tenants are totally different from the original tenants, there should be a new tenancy agreement. That said, the parties agreed that there was a residential tenancy between them; they disagree about the commencement date of the tenancy. In addition, this poor practice has resulted in misunderstandings about the parties respective rights and responsibilities.
The tenant says his tenancy commenced on 7 July 2022 when he entered the variation of the tenancy.
The landlord says the tenancy commenced on 18 August 2019 when the original tenancy agreement was signed, and the tenant is liable for all of the tenant’s obligations since that time.
In circumstances where a variation agreement states the new (and remaining) tenants accept liability for the properties condition it is clearly essential that details of that liability is clearly communicated to the new tenant/s. The landlord did not produce any evidence that it had made the tenant in this case aware that he was accepting liability for specific damage that appears may have been caused before his arrival.
I consider that it would be unfair and inequitable to find this tenant is liable for damage from prior to his tenancy commencing. Finding that the tenant is liable for damage or claims from before his tenancy commenced would result in injustice. I consider that the tenant is only liable for handing back the premises in the same condition he was given in it, less fair wear and tear.
Against that background, I address the landlord’s claims.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claims $730 for cleaning of the premises. An invoice was provided in support off the claim. The invoice says the services that were provided were removal of rubbish to the exterior and a deep clean was undertaken, including cleaning the walls, ceilings, skirting boards, vacuuming, the bathroom and kitchen and pantry, light fitting switches and door handles and window cleaning. The landlord says the property was unclean throughout.
The tenant did not dispute the property was unclean but says that the house was in that state from the beginning of his tenancy. The tenant did not provide any photographs of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy or when he came into the tenancy. The landlord has not provided sufficient wide-shot photographs from throughout the premises and has not provided pre-tenancy photographs or photographs from when the tenant took over the premises to assist in determining this claim.
I also note that the reasonably clean standard does not mean the premises must be spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 12 There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
I accept that some cleaning was required and on reviewing the photographs I accept the oven needed a clean and a cupboard was very dirty. Insufficient evidence has been provided in support of all the tasks the cleaner undertook and the tenant is not responsible for undertaking a deep clean as has occurred here. In considering all the above matters I consider the tenant should compensate the landlord for part of the cleaning and I consider $100 is reasonable and that is the amount ordered for cleaning.
The landlord claims compensation for rubbish removal being $164 for the refuse fee, $45 for a trailer and $105 for labour. The landlord provided receipts and invoices in support of the claim.
The tenant accepted that he left some rubbish at the premises but also says that there was rubbish present at the commencement of his tenancy. The landlord did not have a pre-tenancy inspection report and inspection reports from during the tenancy to refute this. The tenant produced an email from the landlord’s previous property manager which confirms that the previous tenant left the bulk of the rubbish. In the circumstances I am unable to assess what rubbish might have been present at the start of this tenant’s tenancy and what relates to this tenant. In the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report I consider the landlord has not proven that the tenant is responsible for all of the removal of the rubbish. In the circumstances where the tenant has acknowledged leaving some rubbish, of which I consider it like some of which was his, I will order compensation of $200 to reasonably compensate the landlord for removing this tenant’s rubbish. 12 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

DAMAGE CLAIMS

The landlord’ s insurance excess is $1,100

BROKEN WINDOW

The landlord says a window was broken during the tenancy. The landlord claims $483 to repair the window. A quote from a glazier was provided in support of the claim. The tenant acknowledged that a window was broken during the tenancy but says he is unsure how it happened and suggested it may have happened in a storm by a tree falling. The landlord did not provide a photograph of the broken window or an invoice in support of the claim. In the circumstances I find that insufficient evidence has been provided in support of the claim and in any event the tenant has disproved liability by saying the damage was caused by a tree in a storm, which would mean the damage was neither intentional nor careless. The claim for the window damage is dismissed.

COOKTOP

The landlord claims $599 to replace the cook top. A Trade depot receipt from May 2025 was provided in support of the claim. Photographs of the damaged cook-top were submitted by both parties. The landlord says the broken cooktop was installed new in 2018 and was damaged during the tenancy.
The tenant says the cooktop was damaged before he moved in, and he considered the replacement of the cooktop to have been a maintenance issue. For the reasons I have set out above in terms of this tenant’s liability the claim in respect of the cook-top is dismissed.
However, I note that if I am wrong in my assessment of the tenant’s liability the IR265 (General depreciation rates) provide that ovens have an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years. Therefore, at the end of the tenancy this cook-top likely had 1 year before it exceeded its estimated useful lifespan, and any sum awarded for compensation would have been nominal to reflect betterment and depreciation.

CURTAIN REPLACEMENT

The landlord claims $152 compensation for the replacement of the curtains. The landlord says curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the curtains would have been 10 years old at the end of the tenancy. No pre-tenancy inspection photographs were provided in support of the claim, or inspection photographs from during the tenancy.
The tenant says he did not remove any curtains.
In the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report confirming that curtains were present in the premises at the start of the tenancy I find the landlord has not proven the claim. In addition, the IR265 (General depreciation rates) provide that curtains have an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years; therefore, the curtains, if any, would have exceeded their estimated useful lifespan at the end of the tenancy. The claim for curtain replacement is therefore dismissed.

WALL DAMAGE

The landlord provided a photograph of a hole in the wall that the landlord says was caused during this tenancy. The landlord claims compensation for wall damage of $65. The landlord said the claim is for his time and materials to repair a hole in the wall. The landlord did not provide any time records or receipts for products used for undertaking the repair.
The tenant says he was unaware of the damage and could not say how it was caused.
In the absence of any supporting evidence in the way of time records or receipts I am not satisfied the landlord has proven a loss and the claim for the wall damage is dismissed.

WATER DAMAGE TO KITCHEN FLOOR AND CABINETS

The landlord claims $1200 compensation for water damage to kitchen cabinets and flooring. The landlord did not provide any quotes or invoice in support of the claim. The landlord provided some photographs of the damage which he says was caused during the tenancy. The landlord did not provide a pre-tenancy inspection report.
The tenant disputes the claim and says the water damage was a maintenance issue the landlord failed to address.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence as to when the damage occurred and whether it occurred from when the tenancy commenced for this tenant. In the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report I am not satisfied that this damage was caused by this tenant. I therefore consider the landlord has not established that this tenant is liable for the damage.
If I am wrong in that finding, in the absence of any supporting evidence in the way of any quotes I am not satisfied the landlord has proven a loss and the claim for the wall damage is dismissed.

SMOKE ALARM REPLACEMENT

The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms. A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. 13 The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms. 13 See section 40(2)(ab) RTA.
The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of a smoke alarm of $135. An invoice was provided in support of the claim and notes that one new smoke alarm was installed. The tenant acknowledged removing one smoke alarm in the kitchen. The landlord claims the cost of one smoke alarm, and I find that claim proven. $135 is ordered for the replacement smoke alarm. TENANT’S CLAIMS

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards. The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 14 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, 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 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. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard. There was no claim in respect of the heating, insulation, draught stopping standard, and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case I consider that the tenancy commenced in 2019 however this tenant’s liability in relation to the tenancy commenced when they entered into the variation of the tenancy. In this case, I consider the compliance date was 1 July 2025 and the claim in respect of the HHS is dismissed. LANDLORD’S RESPONSIBILITIES
The tenant is entitled to vacant possession of premises. 15 The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 16 and provide and 14 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 15 See s 37 RTA. 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. 17
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 18 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 19 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 20 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.
I note here that there is a process in place so that tenants do not have to put up with maintenance failures. The process is not to wait until the end of the tenancy and claim compensation for years of neglect or neglect from years prior. The process is to give a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy the breach and then claim in the Tribunal if the problems are not rectified
I also note where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of the RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. This means that the tenant must limit their compensation claims by promptly requesting remedial work and if necessary, applying to the Tribunal for assistance. 21
Finally, I note that Tribunal takes a cautious approach to claims filed after the tenancy has ended, because had the matters truly been of concern the Tribunal would have expected prompt action to address the concern. This case 16 See section 45 (1) (a) RTA 17 See section 45 (1)(b) RTA 18 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 19 Section 40(1)(d). 20 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 21 Section 49 RTA – Mitigation of damage or loss. RUBBISH AT COMMENCEMENT OF TENANCY:
The tenant says the landlord breached their obligations by not disposing of rubbish from the previous tenants. The tenant provided correspondence from 2023 when shows he attended to some of the rubbish removal during the tenancy.
The landlord says that the tenant assumed responsibility for the rubbish left at the premises when he signed the variation of tenancy.
The landlord’s property manager’s correspondence confirmed that there was rubbish at the commencement of this tenancy, however the correspondence indicates the property manager may have reimbursed the tenant for rubbish removal and there is no evidence of ongoing correspondence about this concern. I find that tenant has not proven a loss for which they should be compensated for in respect of rubbish. FLOORING:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not maintaining the flooring. The tenant provided photographs of the lino flooring which is peeling.
The landlord says that the tenant caused or assumed liability for the water damage to the flooring (which I address in detail above under the landlord’s floor damage claim). In addition, the landlord says that the lino flooring was damaged by excessive water when cleaning.
There is no evidence that the tenant notified the landlord that the flooring required maintenance, and I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that this was an inconvenience during the tenancy for which he should be compensated for. The claim for compensation in respect of the flooring is dismissed as it is unproven. COOK-TOP:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not replacing the damaged cook top.
The landlord says that the tenant caused or assumed liability for the cook top (which I address in detail above under the landlord’s cooktop claim). In any event the landlord did replace the cook top near the end of the tenancy. This did mean the tenant did not have a full working cook-top for approximately 5 months.
In the circumstances where there was a lack of clarity about responsibility for the cook-top damage, and where I have found the tenant is not liable for the replacement cook-top I do not consider it would be fair to further order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for the replacement of the cook-top. In the circumstances the tenant should have served the landlord with a 14-day notice to replace the cook-top or filed a claim in the Tribunal when the issue arose, to mitigate against any inconvenience the tenant now claims compensation for. The tenant’s claim in respect of the cook-top is dismissed. WATER PUMP:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not promptly repairing the water pump which resulted in increased electricity costs. I am unclear of the actual duration the water pump was in need of repair given the email correspondence indicates there was issues with the pump over a number of months from April 2023 to October 2023, but that it may have been repaired then failed again.
The landlord said that the water pump was repaired and could have been turned off at night.
The claim in respect of the pump is dismissed because I accept the water pump was repaired when concerns arose with respect to it and the tenant did not mitigate any claimed loss by bringing a claim to the Tribunal promptly to address the matter if it was a persistent issue. THE DECK:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not promptly maintaining the deck. The landlord says that the deck was maintained.
Because there is insufficient evidence about the extent and duration that the deck required maintenance and insufficient evidence that the landlord did not promptly attend to the maintenance of the deck, I consider the tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to maintain the deck. In addition, any claimed loss could have been mitigated by the tenant bringing a claim to the Tribunal. For these reasons the claim in respect of the deck is dismissed. TREE ON DRIVEWAY:
The tenant says that a tree fell on the driveway, and he should be compensated for effectively the lack of access that resulted from the tress falling. The landlord says they paid the tenant (it appears by reducing the rent) for the prompt tree removal. I find that tenant has not established that this event was a breach of the landlord’s responsibilities in respect of maintenance. DRIVEWAY AND STAIRS:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not maintaining the driveway and steps to the home.
The tenant provided an email from May 2023 from the property manager to the landlord which says: • Driveway and steps to house - quotes being sourced to improve this access, the driveway is pitted with erosion, I will not drive my car down it. Images included of the good condition at our first inspection in August
The steps are still sturdy but the earth has fallen away surrounding them, and moved beneath, (evident from first inspection video) the tenants have been complaining about this for over a year now. With additional visible fall during the recent storms. I will begin obtaining quotes for you to improve their access.
The landlord says that the driveway was still accessible but acknowledged it could have had more metal and disputes compensating the tenant for the stairs.
I accept that the state of the driveway and the stairs would have caused inconvenience to the tenant for at least a period of two years and I will allow compensation at a nominal rate of $5 per week for a period of 2 years to reflect that inconvenience, but also reflect that the tenant did not formally address the concern by filing a claim in the Tribunal for the matters to be addressed. The amount ordered is $5 x 104 weeks = $520, which I consider fairly compensates the tenant for the breach, taking into account the nature, duration and effect of the breach.

FILING FEE

Both parties have been partly successful in the claims. Awarding each the application filing fee would cancel each other out, therefore I decline to reimburse either party the filing fee. 22

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 23
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 24
The landlord did not seek name suppression. 22 See section 102 of the RTA. 23 See section 95A (1) RTA. 24 See s 95A (4) and (5) RTA.
The tenant applied for name suppression and as the tenant has been substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claim and I consider there is no public interest in publishing the tenant’s name, I allow name suppression for the tenant and the previous tenants referred to in the order.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318619 — net $85.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$200.00		Rubbish removal
Smoke alarm	$135.00		Smoke alarm
Compensation: Driveway and steps		$520.00	Driveway and steps
Total award	$435.00	$520.00
Net award		$85.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$85.00

Claims and awards for application 5318619 — net $85.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Smoke alarm

Amount: $135.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Smoke alarm

Compensation: Driveway and steps

Amount: $520.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Driveway and steps

Total award

Landlord $435.00 · Tenant $520.00

Net award

Tenant $85.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $85.00

Dismissed claims

Compensation — as it is unproven. COOK-TOP:
Property Damage — COOKTOP
Property Damage — WATER DAMAGE TO KITCHEN FLOOR AND CABINETS

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Rubbish Removal Replace Smoke Alarms Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
San Sebastian Investments Ltd As Agent For The Zdravo Marijo Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $85.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond has been released to the tenant by the bond centre, I therefore make no order in respect of the bond.
The tenant has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant effectively seeks to offset any monetary order against him in favour of the landlord. The tenant indicated at the commencement of the hearing that he seeks an order whereby neither party has to pay the other any money. I have however ordered that the landlord pay compensation to the tenant, to properly reflect the findings in respect of the tenant’s claim. Whether he chooses to enforce the order is a matter for him to decide.
The tenancy commenced in 2019 and ended in June 2025.
The original tenants were [The tenant/s] (FZ) and [The tenant/s] (PS). A variation of the tenancy was executed in July 2022 stating that FZ was leaving as a tenant and the tenant named in this application, (who I will refer to as the tenant) was the only remaining tenant. On that basis I am satisfied that the tenant was the only tenant at the end of the tenancy. The tenant was able to provide a change of tenants bond form removing PS as a tenant in 2021. The change of tenants is relevant to the issue of liability, and I address this further below. I also note that it appears that on the evening before the first hearing of this matter the landlord emailed a request to add FC as a party to the proceedings. I note however, that was not raised at the first hearing, before or at the second hearing. Accordingly, the only tenant named in this claim is the sole tenant at 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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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 1 , 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.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 2 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the nature, duration and effect of the breach when deciding to award compensation.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 3 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 4 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 5 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. 4 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 5 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 6
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). 7 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). 8 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 9
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. 10 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. 11
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

THE CLAIMS

As referred to above, in this case the tenant signed a variation of tenancy on 7 July 2022. The variation records: Tenancy variation terms and conditions - The landlord and tenant agree to the variation of the existing tenancy agreement, that all other provisions of the existing tenancy agreement remain the same except for the change in term. All tenants on the original tenancy agreement must sign this agreement. If the existing tenancy agreement is being varied, e.g. an existing tenant is leaving or a new tenant is joining, the landlord hereby agrees that rather than end the tenancy and start a new one, to permit this variation by consenting to the current tenants changing in name and / or number. The parties agree, the variation is subject to the conditions set out herein. 6 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 7 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 8 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 10 See section 49B(1) RTA. 11 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Liability - The remaining (including any new tenants that have joined), tenants acknowledge that they are jointly and severally bound in liability to the landlord and they assume liability for the rented property’s condition and the report detailing it’s entry condition and any current condition and for all covenants contained in the existing tenancy agreement. All parties agree that the leaving / outgoing tenants are only released from liability after all parties have signed this document and the leaving / departing tenants have permanently vacated the tenancy premises.
The Tribunal records from the outset that the landlord’s practice was untidy. When one tenant leaves and is replaced by another tenant there should be a signed variation of the tenancy agreement to record the new parties. However, when all the tenants leave (even if over time) and the remaining tenants are totally different from the original tenants, there should be a new tenancy agreement. That said, the parties agreed that there was a residential tenancy between them; they disagree about the commencement date of the tenancy. In addition, this poor practice has resulted in misunderstandings about the parties respective rights and responsibilities.
The tenant says his tenancy commenced on 7 July 2022 when he entered the variation of the tenancy.
The landlord says the tenancy commenced on 18 August 2019 when the original tenancy agreement was signed, and the tenant is liable for all of the tenant’s obligations since that time.
In circumstances where a variation agreement states the new (and remaining) tenants accept liability for the properties condition it is clearly essential that details of that liability is clearly communicated to the new tenant/s. The landlord did not produce any evidence that it had made the tenant in this case aware that he was accepting liability for specific damage that appears may have been caused before his arrival.
I consider that it would be unfair and inequitable to find this tenant is liable for damage from prior to his tenancy commencing. Finding that the tenant is liable for damage or claims from before his tenancy commenced would result in injustice. I consider that the tenant is only liable for handing back the premises in the same condition he was given in it, less fair wear and tear.
Against that background, I address the landlord’s claims.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claims $730 for cleaning of the premises. An invoice was provided in support off the claim. The invoice says the services that were provided were removal of rubbish to the exterior and a deep clean was undertaken, including cleaning the walls, ceilings, skirting boards, vacuuming, the bathroom and kitchen and pantry, light fitting switches and door handles and window cleaning. The landlord says the property was unclean throughout.
The tenant did not dispute the property was unclean but says that the house was in that state from the beginning of his tenancy. The tenant did not provide any photographs of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy or when he came into the tenancy. The landlord has not provided sufficient wide-shot photographs from throughout the premises and has not provided pre-tenancy photographs or photographs from when the tenant took over the premises to assist in determining this claim.
I also note that the reasonably clean standard does not mean the premises must be spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 12 There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
I accept that some cleaning was required and on reviewing the photographs I accept the oven needed a clean and a cupboard was very dirty. Insufficient evidence has been provided in support of all the tasks the cleaner undertook and the tenant is not responsible for undertaking a deep clean as has occurred here. In considering all the above matters I consider the tenant should compensate the landlord for part of the cleaning and I consider $100 is reasonable and that is the amount ordered for cleaning.
The landlord claims compensation for rubbish removal being $164 for the refuse fee, $45 for a trailer and $105 for labour. The landlord provided receipts and invoices in support of the claim.
The tenant accepted that he left some rubbish at the premises but also says that there was rubbish present at the commencement of his tenancy. The landlord did not have a pre-tenancy inspection report and inspection reports from during the tenancy to refute this. The tenant produced an email from the landlord’s previous property manager which confirms that the previous tenant left the bulk of the rubbish. In the circumstances I am unable to assess what rubbish might have been present at the start of this tenant’s tenancy and what relates to this tenant. In the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report I consider the landlord has not proven that the tenant is responsible for all of the removal of the rubbish. In the circumstances where the tenant has acknowledged leaving some rubbish, of which I consider it like some of which was his, I will order compensation of $200 to reasonably compensate the landlord for removing this tenant’s rubbish. 12 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

DAMAGE CLAIMS

The landlord’ s insurance excess is $1,100

BROKEN WINDOW

The landlord says a window was broken during the tenancy. The landlord claims $483 to repair the window. A quote from a glazier was provided in support of the claim. The tenant acknowledged that a window was broken during the tenancy but says he is unsure how it happened and suggested it may have happened in a storm by a tree falling. The landlord did not provide a photograph of the broken window or an invoice in support of the claim. In the circumstances I find that insufficient evidence has been provided in support of the claim and in any event the tenant has disproved liability by saying the damage was caused by a tree in a storm, which would mean the damage was neither intentional nor careless. The claim for the window damage is dismissed.

COOKTOP

The landlord claims $599 to replace the cook top. A Trade depot receipt from May 2025 was provided in support of the claim. Photographs of the damaged cook-top were submitted by both parties. The landlord says the broken cooktop was installed new in 2018 and was damaged during the tenancy.
The tenant says the cooktop was damaged before he moved in, and he considered the replacement of the cooktop to have been a maintenance issue. For the reasons I have set out above in terms of this tenant’s liability the claim in respect of the cook-top is dismissed.
However, I note that if I am wrong in my assessment of the tenant’s liability the IR265 (General depreciation rates) provide that ovens have an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years. Therefore, at the end of the tenancy this cook-top likely had 1 year before it exceeded its estimated useful lifespan, and any sum awarded for compensation would have been nominal to reflect betterment and depreciation.

CURTAIN REPLACEMENT

The landlord claims $152 compensation for the replacement of the curtains. The landlord says curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the curtains would have been 10 years old at the end of the tenancy. No pre-tenancy inspection photographs were provided in support of the claim, or inspection photographs from during the tenancy.
The tenant says he did not remove any curtains.
In the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report confirming that curtains were present in the premises at the start of the tenancy I find the landlord has not proven the claim. In addition, the IR265 (General depreciation rates) provide that curtains have an estimated useful lifespan of 8 years; therefore, the curtains, if any, would have exceeded their estimated useful lifespan at the end of the tenancy. The claim for curtain replacement is therefore dismissed.

WALL DAMAGE

The landlord provided a photograph of a hole in the wall that the landlord says was caused during this tenancy. The landlord claims compensation for wall damage of $65. The landlord said the claim is for his time and materials to repair a hole in the wall. The landlord did not provide any time records or receipts for products used for undertaking the repair.
The tenant says he was unaware of the damage and could not say how it was caused.
In the absence of any supporting evidence in the way of time records or receipts I am not satisfied the landlord has proven a loss and the claim for the wall damage is dismissed.

WATER DAMAGE TO KITCHEN FLOOR AND CABINETS

The landlord claims $1200 compensation for water damage to kitchen cabinets and flooring. The landlord did not provide any quotes or invoice in support of the claim. The landlord provided some photographs of the damage which he says was caused during the tenancy. The landlord did not provide a pre-tenancy inspection report.
The tenant disputes the claim and says the water damage was a maintenance issue the landlord failed to address.
The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence as to when the damage occurred and whether it occurred from when the tenancy commenced for this tenant. In the absence of a pre-tenancy inspection report I am not satisfied that this damage was caused by this tenant. I therefore consider the landlord has not established that this tenant is liable for the damage.
If I am wrong in that finding, in the absence of any supporting evidence in the way of any quotes I am not satisfied the landlord has proven a loss and the claim for the wall damage is dismissed.

SMOKE ALARM REPLACEMENT

The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms. A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. 13 The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms. 13 See section 40(2)(ab) RTA.
The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of a smoke alarm of $135. An invoice was provided in support of the claim and notes that one new smoke alarm was installed. The tenant acknowledged removing one smoke alarm in the kitchen. The landlord claims the cost of one smoke alarm, and I find that claim proven. $135 is ordered for the replacement smoke alarm. TENANT’S CLAIMS

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards. The RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) 14 The HHS provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, 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 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. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The tenant says the premises did not comply with the ventilation standard. There was no claim in respect of the heating, insulation, draught stopping standard, and moisture ingress and drainage standards.
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case I consider that the tenancy commenced in 2019 however this tenant’s liability in relation to the tenancy commenced when they entered into the variation of the tenancy. In this case, I consider the compliance date was 1 July 2025 and the claim in respect of the HHS is dismissed. LANDLORD’S RESPONSIBILITIES
The tenant is entitled to vacant possession of premises. 15 The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness 16 and provide and 14 See Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA 15 See s 37 RTA. 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. 17
The extent of the landlord’s obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair was considered in the decision of Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 18 The Court noted that there was no absolute liability or responsibility obligation, so the landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage. The tenant has to notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, or of the need for repair. 19 Once notified, the landlord is obliged to repair within a reasonable time.
In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd 20 the Court stated: [15] I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under s.45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances; and as to what that time is, I think, 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 may be.
I note here that there is a process in place so that tenants do not have to put up with maintenance failures. The process is not to wait until the end of the tenancy and claim compensation for years of neglect or neglect from years prior. The process is to give a 14-day notice to the landlord to remedy the breach and then claim in the Tribunal if the problems are not rectified
I also note where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of the RTA, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. This means that the tenant must limit their compensation claims by promptly requesting remedial work and if necessary, applying to the Tribunal for assistance. 21
Finally, I note that Tribunal takes a cautious approach to claims filed after the tenancy has ended, because had the matters truly been of concern the Tribunal would have expected prompt action to address the concern. This case 16 See section 45 (1) (a) RTA 17 See section 45 (1)(b) RTA 18 Barfoot & Thompson v Casey CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007. 19 Section 40(1)(d). 20 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 21 Section 49 RTA – Mitigation of damage or loss. RUBBISH AT COMMENCEMENT OF TENANCY:
The tenant says the landlord breached their obligations by not disposing of rubbish from the previous tenants. The tenant provided correspondence from 2023 when shows he attended to some of the rubbish removal during the tenancy.
The landlord says that the tenant assumed responsibility for the rubbish left at the premises when he signed the variation of tenancy.
The landlord’s property manager’s correspondence confirmed that there was rubbish at the commencement of this tenancy, however the correspondence indicates the property manager may have reimbursed the tenant for rubbish removal and there is no evidence of ongoing correspondence about this concern. I find that tenant has not proven a loss for which they should be compensated for in respect of rubbish. FLOORING:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not maintaining the flooring. The tenant provided photographs of the lino flooring which is peeling.
The landlord says that the tenant caused or assumed liability for the water damage to the flooring (which I address in detail above under the landlord’s floor damage claim). In addition, the landlord says that the lino flooring was damaged by excessive water when cleaning.
There is no evidence that the tenant notified the landlord that the flooring required maintenance, and I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that this was an inconvenience during the tenancy for which he should be compensated for. The claim for compensation in respect of the flooring is dismissed as it is unproven. COOK-TOP:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not replacing the damaged cook top.
The landlord says that the tenant caused or assumed liability for the cook top (which I address in detail above under the landlord’s cooktop claim). In any event the landlord did replace the cook top near the end of the tenancy. This did mean the tenant did not have a full working cook-top for approximately 5 months.
In the circumstances where there was a lack of clarity about responsibility for the cook-top damage, and where I have found the tenant is not liable for the replacement cook-top I do not consider it would be fair to further order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for the replacement of the cook-top. In the circumstances the tenant should have served the landlord with a 14-day notice to replace the cook-top or filed a claim in the Tribunal when the issue arose, to mitigate against any inconvenience the tenant now claims compensation for. The tenant’s claim in respect of the cook-top is dismissed. WATER PUMP:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not promptly repairing the water pump which resulted in increased electricity costs. I am unclear of the actual duration the water pump was in need of repair given the email correspondence indicates there was issues with the pump over a number of months from April 2023 to October 2023, but that it may have been repaired then failed again.
The landlord said that the water pump was repaired and could have been turned off at night.
The claim in respect of the pump is dismissed because I accept the water pump was repaired when concerns arose with respect to it and the tenant did not mitigate any claimed loss by bringing a claim to the Tribunal promptly to address the matter if it was a persistent issue. THE DECK:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not promptly maintaining the deck. The landlord says that the deck was maintained.
Because there is insufficient evidence about the extent and duration that the deck required maintenance and insufficient evidence that the landlord did not promptly attend to the maintenance of the deck, I consider the tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to maintain the deck. In addition, any claimed loss could have been mitigated by the tenant bringing a claim to the Tribunal. For these reasons the claim in respect of the deck is dismissed. TREE ON DRIVEWAY:
The tenant says that a tree fell on the driveway, and he should be compensated for effectively the lack of access that resulted from the tress falling. The landlord says they paid the tenant (it appears by reducing the rent) for the prompt tree removal. I find that tenant has not established that this event was a breach of the landlord’s responsibilities in respect of maintenance. DRIVEWAY AND STAIRS:
The tenant says the landlord has breached their obligations by not maintaining the driveway and steps to the home.
The tenant provided an email from May 2023 from the property manager to the landlord which says: • Driveway and steps to house - quotes being sourced to improve this access, the driveway is pitted with erosion, I will not drive my car down it. Images included of the good condition at our first inspection in August
The steps are still sturdy but the earth has fallen away surrounding them, and moved beneath, (evident from first inspection video) the tenants have been complaining about this for over a year now. With additional visible fall during the recent storms. I will begin obtaining quotes for you to improve their access.
The landlord says that the driveway was still accessible but acknowledged it could have had more metal and disputes compensating the tenant for the stairs.
I accept that the state of the driveway and the stairs would have caused inconvenience to the tenant for at least a period of two years and I will allow compensation at a nominal rate of $5 per week for a period of 2 years to reflect that inconvenience, but also reflect that the tenant did not formally address the concern by filing a claim in the Tribunal for the matters to be addressed. The amount ordered is $5 x 104 weeks = $520, which I consider fairly compensates the tenant for the breach, taking into account the nature, duration and effect of the breach.

FILING FEE

Both parties have been partly successful in the claims. Awarding each the application filing fee would cancel each other out, therefore I decline to reimburse either party the filing fee. 22

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 23
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 24
The landlord did not seek name suppression. 22 See section 102 of the RTA. 23 See section 95A (1) RTA. 24 See s 95A (4) and (5) RTA.
The tenant applied for name suppression and as the tenant has been substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claim and I consider there is no public interest in publishing the tenant’s name, I allow name suppression for the tenant and the previous tenants referred to in the order.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

THE CLAIMS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

DAMAGE CLAIMS

BROKEN WINDOW

COOKTOP

CURTAIN REPLACEMENT

WALL DAMAGE

WATER DAMAGE TO KITCHEN FLOOR AND CABINETS

SMOKE ALARM REPLACEMENT

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

THE CLAIMS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

DAMAGE CLAIMS

BROKEN WINDOW

COOKTOP

CURTAIN REPLACEMENT

WALL DAMAGE

WATER DAMAGE TO KITCHEN FLOOR AND CABINETS

SMOKE ALARM REPLACEMENT

HEALTHY HOMES STANDARDS

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions