What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5399655?

The tribunal order states: Emma Craig and Alton Craig as Trustees of the A & E Craig Family Trust must

How much money was awarded in case 5399655?

Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Interference with quie…: $4,675.00 awarded to tenant; Heat Pump Remote: $59.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,054.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399655?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13676559-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5399655?

The tribunal order states: Emma Craig and Alton Craig as Trustees of the A & E Craig Family Trust must

How much money was awarded in case 5399655?

Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Interference with quie…: $4,675.00 awarded to tenant; Heat Pump Remote: $59.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,054.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399655?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13676559-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Haineswood Lane, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399655 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399655 — net $2,396.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 January 2026	$1,054.29		Rent arrears to 14 January 2026
Carpet Cleaning	$165.00		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet damage	$500.00		Carpet damage
Painting	$500.00		Painting
Heat pump remote	$59.00		Heat pump remote
Compensation: Interference with quiet enjoyment		$4,675.00	Interference with quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,278.29	$4,675.00
Net award		$2,396.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,396.71

All parties attended the hearing. The landlords attended by telephone. The tenants attended in person. The landlords’ agent for the last few months of the tenancy also attended.

The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation and payment from the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have applied for compensation relating to the condition of the premises while construction work was undertaken during the tenancy. Rent

The tenancy ended on 14 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records, and the parties agreed that the arrears owing are $1,054.29. The Landlords’ Other Claims Law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and leave all chattels belong to the landlord.

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

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).

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. Carpet

Carpet on the living area was stained during the tenancy. The tenants accepted responsibility for the stain but said that they had the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy and they should not have to pay for cleaning the carpet again.

The landlord employed a professional carpet cleaner to remove the stain at a cost of $165 and produced the invoice. Unfortunately, the stain could not be removed, and they claim the cost of the carpet cleaner and the cost of replacing the carpet limited to $500 being their insurance excess.

It was reasonable for the landlords to try to remove the stain. Indeed, they could have been criticised if they had not done so. The cleaning that the tenants did does not relieve them of liability for staining.

The staining is beyond fair wear and tear, and it was reasonable for the landlords to replace the carpet. The stain was large and obvious.

The cost of replacing the carpet was $1,990. The carpet was in place when the landlords bought the premises in 2020, but they could not say when it was installed. It appears to have been in good condition and there would be no justification for applying betterment to reduce the claim to below $500. The landlords are trying to sell the premises, but they did not replace other carpet and there is no reason to think that they would have replaced the carpet in any event.

I have therefore awarded the claims in full. Painting

The landlords claim $500 insurance excess in relation to the cost of painting some walls and ceilings of the premises. They say that the tenants touched up areas of the premises, but they used the wrong shades and finish of paint, and the result was visibly unsatisfactory. The cost of painting the affected areas was considerably more than $500.

The tenants said that it was the contractors working on the premises who touched up the paintwork after damaging the premises during the construction work. The landlords contested that.

I am satisfied that the contractors did not touch up the paintwork that the landlords’ claim relates to. There were areas of the premises that were damaged by the building work, but it was confined to openings such as windows and doors. Also, the landlords employed professional painters, and it is unlikely that they would have used the wrong paint.

I find, therefore, that the tenants have not disproved liability for the paint damage and that they are liable for the insurance excess. It is fortunate, in my view, that the landlords’ insurers applied just one excess. Heat Pump Remote

There were two remotes at the start of the tenancy and only one was left at the premises at the end. The tenants accepted responsibility and so I have awarded the cost of a replacement in the sum of $59. The Tenants’ Claim Law

In the tenants’ application they refer to the landlords’ healthy homes obligations. Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), a landlord’s obligations include providing and maintaining the premises in a reasonable state of repair, complying with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety and complying with Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).

As well, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

The Act also provides for the abatement (reduction) of rent where part or all the premises become uninhabitable.

There is no dispute that the construction work that the landlords undertook to the premises during the tenancy caused the tenants discomfort and diminished their enjoyment of the premises. Therefore, any or all these obligations could be applied in this case. The issue is not whether the tenants are entitled to some compensation in relation to the construction work, plainly they are, it is whether the rent reduction that the landlords gave was sufficient and if not, what compensation is sufficient? Background

The landlords bought the premises in 2020 and lived in them for two years before moving away.

They came to sell the premises in March 2024 and discovered that the recladding of the premises that was done after the Canterbury Earthquakes did not have building consent. They were undecided as to what to do about it until after they rented the premises to the tenants in July 2024.

After they decided to reclad the premises, they obtained a building consent and then in March 2025 they wrote to the tenants regarding the proposed work and proposed a rent reduction from $860 per week to $800 per week from 22 April to 3 June. At that time, it was expected that the work would be completed in seven weeks.

That estimate proved to be optimistic. The work was not completed until October. So instead of seven weeks, it took 25 weeks. Some of that delay was due to an unforeseen defect that needed to be fixed and required another consent and some of it was due to bad weather. The tenants said that there were periods of time simply when no-one was in site. The cause of the delay is not relevant to my decision.

From 11 June the landlords reduced the rent further to $700 per week. It remained at that level until 8 October when it went back to $860 per week.

The total rent reduction amounted to $3,200. At the full rent for the 25-week period of the work the total rent payable would have been $21,500. The average rent reduction for the period was therefore approximately 15%. The Work and Its Effect on the Tenants

The work consisted of a complete reclad of a substantial two-story house. The house was fully scaffolded. The tenants described how windows and a door were removed. The door was removed for a week, two windows upstairs in the hall and a bathroom were removed for two weeks and two windows downstairs in the laundry and toilet were removed for one and a half months.

They were without the use of the family bathroom and the downstairs toilet for the duration of the work and the window openings were covered with polyethene which Mr Coburn had to adjust and refix from time to time to keep the rain out. Self evidently this arrangement was not effective at keep the cold out and the warmth in during those winter months.

There was also the disruption, inconvenience, loss of privacy and loss of use caused by the contractors and their equipment being on site during the work.

I am perplexed by how accommodating the tenants were of this interference with their enjoyment of the premises. Many tenants would not have allowed the work to proceed at all during their tenancy. My impression is that the landlords proposed the rent reductions, and the tenants simply accepted them without demur. It is not a case of the parties negotiating and agreeing a rent reduction with full knowledge of the implications of the work on the tenants’ living conditions.

The landlords submitted that the tenants did not complain about their living conditions during the work. But there was evidence that they did do so. There was, for example, a text message on 10 July about their high power bills which the landlords did not show any concern for. It was also accepted that there were telephone conversations between the parties concerning the work and the time it was taking.

In any case, I don’t see that any lack of complaints from the tenants about their living conditions is of much relevance. The landlords were committed to getting the work done and it should have been obvious to them how it was affecting the tenants. If they were not aware, I would call that wilful blindness.

I asked the landlords what they would have done if the tenants had refused to allow the work during the tenancy. They indicated that one option would have been to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term on 30 July 2025 and then to carry out the work when the premises were unoccupied. They could also have allowed the tenancy to continue as a periodic tenancy and given a 90-day termination notice when they were ready to carry out the work. Either way they would been without rent for the duration of the work.

It seems to me that the landlords want their cake and to eat it. They wanted to do the work at the same time as receiving a considerable amount of rent from the tenants. That suited the landlords, and it might have suited the tenants if the rent reduction was commensurate with the deleterious effects of the work on them. In my view it wasn’t. Remedy

I find that the rent reduction was manifestly insufficient to compensate the tenants for the adverse effects of the work on them and they are entitled to additional compensation.

There is no science or formula to assessing compensation in this type of case. But I start with the loss of amenity that the tenants suffered. They were without use of a family bathroom and downstairs toilet. Their use of the outside of the premises was also severely diminished. In terms of a rent abatement a fair reduction is 25% of the rent. Over 25 weeks that amounts to $5,355. The tenants received $3,200 leaving a shortfall of $2,175.

In addition, the tenants suffered discomfort, inconvenience and loss of privacy. They are entitled to be compensated for that as well. A fair amount in $100 per week. That amounts to $2,500. Together with the $2,175 further rent abatement I find that an award of $4,675 compensation is appropriate. Result

After setting off the awards against each other, the landlords must pay the tenants $2,356.71 and the bond must therefore be paid to the tenants. Filing Fees

Both sides have had success and so I make no order for payment of filing fees. Suppression

There is no compelling reason for name suppression and so I decline to order any.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399655 — net $2,396.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 January 2026	$1,054.29		Rent arrears to 14 January 2026
Carpet Cleaning	$165.00		Carpet Cleaning
Carpet damage	$500.00		Carpet damage
Painting	$500.00		Painting
Heat pump remote	$59.00		Heat pump remote
Compensation: Interference with quiet enjoyment		$4,675.00	Interference with quiet enjoyment
Total award	$2,278.29	$4,675.00
Net award		$2,396.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,396.71