What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321179 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5321179?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $455.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321179?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615977-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321179 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5321179?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $455.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321179?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615977-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

141C East Belt, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5321179 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321179 — net $483.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bathroom vinyl less 65% depreciation	$455.00	Repairs: Bathroom vinyl less 65% depreciation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$483.00
Bond	$855.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$483.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321179 — net $483.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bathroom vinyl less 65% depreciation	$455.00	Repairs: Bathroom vinyl less 65% depreciation
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$483.00
Bond	$855.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$483.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $483.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $855.00 (3473937-006) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s]: $483.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $372.00
The tenant’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has made a cross application claiming that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) due to alleged failures to maintain and breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards particularly relating to draughts and ventilation. The tenant also claims reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties assisted the Tribunal by presenting their claims and supporting evidence in a coherent and logical way. Background
The tenancy began in 2016 with a different landlord. The current landlord purchased the property in 2021, and a change of landlord form was completed but the existing tenancy agreement from 2016 continued as a periodic tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act.
During the tenancy red hair dye was spilt on the bathroom floor permanently staining the vinyl.
The tenant accepted that she had caused the damage but considered that the flooring was old and not in good condition. She said that it had also been damaged by water leaks and needed to be replaced as a consequence of that.
She also said that the damage had been caused much earlier in the tenancy (2022) and she felt she should have been given an opportunity to attempt to clean it earlier if the landlord had proposed taking the cost out of her bond.
The landlord responded that the flooring was aged but in good order and it would not had to have been replaced but for the very obvious red dye. They said that the tenant had plenty of time to remove the dye if that was possible and that she had indicted when the damage was first discovered that she would try to do so. The landlord thought it was clear that they were displeased with the staining and that it would be revisited at the end of the tenancy.
Despite any misunderstanding, the tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and she has not disproved liability for it. She has also had ample opportunity to attempt to remedy the damage since it was first raised in an inspection in 2022.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenancy was over nine years in duration and the flooring was not new at the beginning of the tenancy. It does appear to be in reasonable condition for its age as the flooring specialist states in a letter provided. There is some deterioration, as the tenant points out, behind the toilet where there is a difficult join and where there is likely to be less airflow. It otherwise seems in reasonable order, although dated.
Vinyl in a rental property has a life span of approximately 10 years according to the Inland Revenue schedule. Other sources give slightly longer life spans. In these circumstances, I have awarded the landlord 35% of the replacement cost to allow for depreciation. The flooring is well over halfway through its life span.
The landlord made a number of other claims in their initial application, but these claims were withdrawn before or at the hearing.
The amount ordered is proved. Tenant claims
The applicant is required to establish her claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy but all private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025 and that is the compliance date for this tenancy.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) of the Act.
The landlord said that they had completed a Healthy Homes assessment personally when they purchased the property in 2021. They had found that the property was generally compliant at that time but for ceiling insulation which they topped up to above the required standard shortly after taking possession. They had also added a bathroom fan during the tenancy to comply with ventilation standards (2022).
The landlord provided supporting evidence of their calculations completed at the time which had also been reviewed and reaffirmed when the tenant requested a compliance statement towards the end of the tenancy.
The tenant supplied limited evidence to support her claim. She provided photographs showing that some windows did not close tightly and had unacceptable gaps. She also said that other windows had been nailed shut which meant there was insufficient ventilation.
The landlord provided photographs showing full views of most windows in the house, including those the tenant had said did not comply. These photographs show that the windows closed securely and had no unreasonable gaps.
The landlord provided evidence to show that the front windows were not nailed shut. The holes that the tenant thought were nails were ventilation holes and were apparent on all units in the block. They did not prevent the windows from opening and the widows were and still are operable.
The landlord’s painter gave evidence that he had painted those windows and that they were fully operable.
The tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the property does not comply with the Healthy Homes draught and ventilation standard or any other HHS requirements.
The claim for exemplary damages for alleged breaches of the HHS is dismissed as no breach is proved.
The tenant made a related claim for reimbursement for a pair of jeans which were found to be mouldy on packing the property for moving.
As there is no proven breach, the landlord cannot be liable for this cost and this claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, amongst other obligations; provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord had an acknowledged habit of leaving what was deemed non- urgent maintenance to inspections. The tenant said that limited inspections were carried out during the tenancy and that this combination of circumstances meant that some maintenance obligations were not completed in a timely way.
The maintenance items of most concern to the tenant were: a. Leaking toilet; b. Faulty back door lock; c. Oven issues x2; d. Smoke alarm issues; e. Kitchen light issues;
The landlord said that the toilet did not “leak” as such. There was a failed part in the cistern which meant that the toilet water would run fairly constantly into the bowl.
The tenant provided evidence that she had first complained of this on 30 October 2023.
The tenant did not refer to any water leaking into the bathroom itself in her message but when she messaged the landlord on 2 July 2024, she did refer to the noise of the running toilet worsening.
The toilet was repaired on 13 July 2024, nine months after it was initially raised.
The landlord acknowledged that this was a simple repair.
Whilst it should not have taken nine months for this simple repair to happen, it seems that the landlord fixed it less than two weeks after the tenant’s second reminder and the inconvenience to the tenant appears minor.
There is no evidence that this was mentioned to the landlord between the two dates referred to above.
The tenant had also raised the issue of the back door lock more than once, initially in late October 2022.
Although the lock was not replaced until March 2023, there was evidence provided that both the landlord and tenant had made temporary repairs by tightening the screws on the lock.
The landlord said that although he had replaced the lock, he did not actually think it was unworkable and only replaced it to appease the tenant.
Again, the replacement of the lock took longer than it should have (five months from first being raised) but both parties had made attempts at repairs according to the evidence provided and the tenant’s last complaint describes the door as “increasingly difficult to lock” rather than an emergency security issue. She also requests further repairs rather than a new lock.
I do not consider that this is an unreasonable delay. The landlord had no reason to suspect that the repair was urgent and the tenant’s last message relating to the lock did not convey that impression. The landlord had already fixed the lock so as far as they knew it was working until the tenant advised otherwise. The landlord provided the new lock seven days later.
The tenant advised the landlord that the oven was not working at all. It was repaired 11 days later. This is not an unreasonable delay.
On 21 March 2025 the tenant notified the landlord that the fan bake function on the oven was not working.
The landlord acknowledged that they neglected to repair this prior to the tenancy ending (on 1 August 2025) but confirmed that all other functions of the oven were in good working order.
The oven repairs should have been attended to in a more timely way but this was overlooked rather than intentional and it is unlikely that it was of huge significance to the tenant as there is no evidence that she mentioned it again before the tenancy ended. She was still able to use the oven on other settings.
The property had two smoke alarms, but the landlord removed one (in the living room) due to a fault raised by the tenant.
The landlord acknowledged that the alarm took longer to replace than it should have (over three months) but said that the other smoke alarm, outside the bedroom doors, ensured that the property remained complaint with relevant legislation.
There is no evidence that the property was non-compliant at any stage or that the missing smoke alarm caused any issue for the tenant or that it was a matter of any real significance given the continuing compliance with regulations. The additional smoke alarm was not necessary.
The kitchen light had been an issue at various times during the tenancy.
The tenant raised it in late October 2022 saying that the light was “dimming”. The landlord replied that the light may have a built-in dimmer and suggested a possible remedy.
The tenant raised issues about the kitchen light again in March 2023 referring to “weird flickering in light you replaced”.
Again, in late October 2023, the tenant messaged the landlord to say that the light has been completely out for over a month.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant had not mentioned that the light had failed completely before this date. They said that the light was fixed within a week of this message and that this light had been replaced previously during the tenancy (supported by the tenant’s message in paragraph 63 above).
The landlord provided evidence of a number of maintenance items that were addressed as a matter of urgency during the tenancy indicating that when urgent repairs were required, they attended to them with the appropriate timeliness.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If there have been any unreasonable delay in repairs, these were not intentional and caused limited harm to the tenant. No exemplary damages can or should flow in these circumstances and the tenant’s claim for damages for failures to maintain is dismissed.
It would clearly be preferable if the landlord had a better system for responding to tenant complaints and did not leave what they considered minor matters to inspections which were sporadic. The landlord acknowledged this at the hearing.
Various other matters were canvased by the parties at the hearing and in submissions but, as no claims arose from these matters, I have not felt the need to address them here. Filing fee
As [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321179 — Property damage at 141C East Belt, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321179 — Property damage at 141C East Belt, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.