What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483805 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5483805?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483805?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13473283-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483805 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5483805?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483805?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13473283-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 83 Luanda Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5483805 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483805 — net $2,630.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$550.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$220.00		Lock/key replacement
Exemplary damages		$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$970.00	$3,600.00
Net award		$2,630.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,630.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Naz Property Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,630.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 18 August 2023 and concluded on 23 September 2024 by way of a 90-day notice issued by the landlord.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and failure to maintain.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of a) $850.00 for cleaning b) $550.00 for carpet cleaning. c) $220 for lock and key replacement. d) $1800.00 for roof repairs. Issues for determination:
The issues I must determine are a) whether the landlord, failed to maintain the property, and breached the Healthy Homes Standards and if so whether exemplary damages are appropriate? b) Whether the tenant is liable for the cleaning, carpet cleaning, lock replacement, and roof repair.

Did the landlord breach section 45 and is exemplary damages appropriate?

S45(1)(a) failure to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness

The tenant states that the landlord provided the property in a condition where there was a large amount of overgrowth and rubbish at the rear of the property, in a section behind the garage. They provided undated photos showing this overgrowth and rubbish, and during the hearing, when questioned about the timing of this condition, they played a video dated 27 August 2023, which was shortly after the commencement of the tenancy. The property manager representing the landlord viewed that video and confirmed that it was an accurate depiction.
The remaining photos of the property, as reflected in the pre-inspection report, show that the property was otherwise in a tidy state. I accept that the area behind the garage was not reasonably clean and that this was a breach, albeit a minor one, of the landlord’s obligations under s 45(1)(a) to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness. S45(1)(b) failure to maintain
The tenant states that the landlord failed to maintain the property. She did not provide any evidence that she had sought maintenance or that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to respond. She has provided a photo of an area in the roof cavity showing moisture; however, it is not clear how this arose or whether this issue was ever communicated to the landlord. A landlord is required to take reasonable steps to remedy an issue once notified of it, and in the absence of a complaint or any special circumstances, no breach is established. S45(1)(bb) failure to comply with the healthy homes standards
The tenant says that the property was not Healthy Homes compliant. Based on the tenancy commencement date of 18 August 2023, the landlord had 120 days to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. That period expired on 16 December 2023.
The property manager who represented the owner at today’s hearing, and who managed the property for the latter part of the tenancy, Mr Tai Dusevich, told me that the reason the property was not compliant was that the landlord was elderly and was not aware of his obligations. He also told me that the owner is a property investor with multiple residential tenancies which undermines his earlier statement. In any case ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.
Mr Duzevich told me that he assists the owner with letting and had advised him to seek Healthy Homes compliance for all his property in early 2024. He says the owner accepted that advice and so on 12 April 2024, he arranged a Healthy Homes inspection which confirmed non-compliance with the heating and ventilation standards.
He said that during that inspection he suspected methamphetamine use because of the way the tenant was speaking.
Subsequently, meth testing was arranged on 3 May 2024 by Forensic Specialists Limited, which carried out a composite test of 10 samples showing a result of
4 micrograms per square centimetre.
Mr Duzevich told me he cannot be sure that the methamphetamine contamination was attributable to the tenant. He said that, after discussion with the landlord, the tenancy was continued because of the landlords concern for the tenant, who is a single mother.
However, he also told me that the reason the landlord did not proceed with seeking Healthy Homes compliance at that time was that they did not wish to invest money into the property because of concerns about meth use at the property.
There is no evidence before me that those concerns justified the failure to comply. While the inspection report notes some issues with tidiness, there is no evidence of damage or misuse that would excuse healthy homes non-compliance for the remainder of the tenancy.
The property manager said he stands by his advice not to make the necessary investment to achieve compliance and that he did not apologise for it, as he considered he was acting in the interests of the landlord.
Mr Duzevich confirmed there was no pre tenancy meth testing done at the property. Pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing is necessary to attribute liability to a tenant. This position is confirmed in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak[2021] NZDC 15210, Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, and Landlord v Reardon [2022] NZTT 4322786.
Furthermore there was no actual evidence of methamphetamine use and the property manager confirmed that after the testing results were received showing a positive result the landlord wanted to continue with the tenancy.
As such, the landlord’s position that the methamphetamine testing justified both their claim and their failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards has no proper basis.
Having established the breach, I turn to whether exemplary damages are appropriate.
In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732, Cooke P described exemplary damages as “exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others” and “punitive because they are meant to punish.” He likened them to a fine, though they are paid to the affected party.
The Residential Tenancies Act designates certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded. This reflects a policy choice to uphold minimum standards within the residential tenancy market.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not comply with the heating and ventilation standards. I am also satisfied that the explanation provided, namely concern about methamphetamine use, was not established or a valid defence.
The landlord only sought the compliance report approximately 8 months into the tenancy and four months after they were obliged to comply and then continued the tenancy for a further five months without remedying the breach. The property manager says that the landlord was justified in their non-compliance due to concerns about the tenants behaviour.
The above circumstances show that the breach was intentional and I am satisfied that the non-compliance affected the tenants ability to fully enjoy the property for which she was paying rent. Furthermore there is a high public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the minimum standards required under the residential tenancies act.
In these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to award 50% of the maximum available in exemplary damages.
$3,600.00 is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning and carpet cleaning?

The tenant is required under s 40(1)(e)(iii) at the conclusion of the tenancy to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
I am satisfied that the exit inspection shows the property was largely in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with some areas of concern for which cleaning is justified.
The photos in the inspection reports are taken from a distance. While there are some areas requiring attention, these are minor.
Furthermore, The invoice also details that additional cleaning was undertaken to remove methamphetamine contamination from the property and as established above the methamphetamine decontamination costs are not recoverable, as contamination cannot be attributed to the tenant.
In these circumstances, I consider a contribution of $200.00 towards cleaning is appropriate.
In relation to carpet cleaning, the landlord has provided photos showing staining in multiple areas. The tenant had both a rabbit and a cat at the property, and the landlord says there were strong odours.
While a landlord cannot require carpet cleaning as a matter of course, it may be recoverable where it is reasonably necessary.
Given the presence of pets and the photographic evidence of staining, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that carpet cleaning was required. The sum of $550.00 is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the lock replacement costs?

In relation to the lock replacement, the tenant accepts that they replaced the locks in September 2024 without the landlord’s consent. While they say this was because the locks were defective, they did not raise this with the landlord or give the landlord the opportunity to remedy the issue.
The landlord incurred a cost to secure the property at the end of the tenancy as they were not satisfied that the tenants repair made the door sufficiently secure to a tradesperson standard.
I find that cost reasonable, and $220.00 is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the roof repair invoice?

The landlord seeks $1,800.00 for roof repairs, alleging that damage was caused by the tenants installation of an aerial.
The tradesperson, Mr Luys Tiscoski, gave evidence that the damage to the roof tiles was caused by people throwing rocks at the roof. When it was put to him that the landlord claimed the damage was caused by the tenants aerial installation, he denied that. He maintained that position even when referred to his invoice.
He also said that the roof tiles regularly required repair and that he had carried out repairs both before and after the tenancy.
As such, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage to the roof was caused by careless or intentional acts of the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Suppression:
The tenant has been largely successful in their application, and I grant their application for suppression. Filing fee:
Each party is to bear their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483805 — net $2,630.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$550.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$220.00		Lock/key replacement
Exemplary damages		$3,600.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$970.00	$3,600.00
Net award		$2,630.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,630.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants name and identifying details.
Naz Property Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,630.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 18 August 2023 and concluded on 23 September 2024 by way of a 90-day notice issued by the landlord.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and failure to maintain.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of a) $850.00 for cleaning b) $550.00 for carpet cleaning. c) $220 for lock and key replacement. d) $1800.00 for roof repairs. Issues for determination:
The issues I must determine are a) whether the landlord, failed to maintain the property, and breached the Healthy Homes Standards and if so whether exemplary damages are appropriate? b) Whether the tenant is liable for the cleaning, carpet cleaning, lock replacement, and roof repair.

Did the landlord breach section 45 and is exemplary damages appropriate?

S45(1)(a) failure to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness

The tenant states that the landlord provided the property in a condition where there was a large amount of overgrowth and rubbish at the rear of the property, in a section behind the garage. They provided undated photos showing this overgrowth and rubbish, and during the hearing, when questioned about the timing of this condition, they played a video dated 27 August 2023, which was shortly after the commencement of the tenancy. The property manager representing the landlord viewed that video and confirmed that it was an accurate depiction.
The remaining photos of the property, as reflected in the pre-inspection report, show that the property was otherwise in a tidy state. I accept that the area behind the garage was not reasonably clean and that this was a breach, albeit a minor one, of the landlord’s obligations under s 45(1)(a) to provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness. S45(1)(b) failure to maintain
The tenant states that the landlord failed to maintain the property. She did not provide any evidence that she had sought maintenance or that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to respond. She has provided a photo of an area in the roof cavity showing moisture; however, it is not clear how this arose or whether this issue was ever communicated to the landlord. A landlord is required to take reasonable steps to remedy an issue once notified of it, and in the absence of a complaint or any special circumstances, no breach is established. S45(1)(bb) failure to comply with the healthy homes standards
The tenant says that the property was not Healthy Homes compliant. Based on the tenancy commencement date of 18 August 2023, the landlord had 120 days to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. That period expired on 16 December 2023.
The property manager who represented the owner at today’s hearing, and who managed the property for the latter part of the tenancy, Mr Tai Dusevich, told me that the reason the property was not compliant was that the landlord was elderly and was not aware of his obligations. He also told me that the owner is a property investor with multiple residential tenancies which undermines his earlier statement. In any case ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.
Mr Duzevich told me that he assists the owner with letting and had advised him to seek Healthy Homes compliance for all his property in early 2024. He says the owner accepted that advice and so on 12 April 2024, he arranged a Healthy Homes inspection which confirmed non-compliance with the heating and ventilation standards.
He said that during that inspection he suspected methamphetamine use because of the way the tenant was speaking.
Subsequently, meth testing was arranged on 3 May 2024 by Forensic Specialists Limited, which carried out a composite test of 10 samples showing a result of
4 micrograms per square centimetre.
Mr Duzevich told me he cannot be sure that the methamphetamine contamination was attributable to the tenant. He said that, after discussion with the landlord, the tenancy was continued because of the landlords concern for the tenant, who is a single mother.
However, he also told me that the reason the landlord did not proceed with seeking Healthy Homes compliance at that time was that they did not wish to invest money into the property because of concerns about meth use at the property.
There is no evidence before me that those concerns justified the failure to comply. While the inspection report notes some issues with tidiness, there is no evidence of damage or misuse that would excuse healthy homes non-compliance for the remainder of the tenancy.
The property manager said he stands by his advice not to make the necessary investment to achieve compliance and that he did not apologise for it, as he considered he was acting in the interests of the landlord.
Mr Duzevich confirmed there was no pre tenancy meth testing done at the property. Pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing is necessary to attribute liability to a tenant. This position is confirmed in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak[2021] NZDC 15210, Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, and Landlord v Reardon [2022] NZTT 4322786.
Furthermore there was no actual evidence of methamphetamine use and the property manager confirmed that after the testing results were received showing a positive result the landlord wanted to continue with the tenancy.
As such, the landlord’s position that the methamphetamine testing justified both their claim and their failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards has no proper basis.
Having established the breach, I turn to whether exemplary damages are appropriate.
In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] 1 NZLR 732, Cooke P described exemplary damages as “exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others” and “punitive because they are meant to punish.” He likened them to a fine, though they are paid to the affected party.
The Residential Tenancies Act designates certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded. This reflects a policy choice to uphold minimum standards within the residential tenancy market.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not comply with the heating and ventilation standards. I am also satisfied that the explanation provided, namely concern about methamphetamine use, was not established or a valid defence.
The landlord only sought the compliance report approximately 8 months into the tenancy and four months after they were obliged to comply and then continued the tenancy for a further five months without remedying the breach. The property manager says that the landlord was justified in their non-compliance due to concerns about the tenants behaviour.
The above circumstances show that the breach was intentional and I am satisfied that the non-compliance affected the tenants ability to fully enjoy the property for which she was paying rent. Furthermore there is a high public interest in ensuring that landlords comply with the minimum standards required under the residential tenancies act.
In these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to award 50% of the maximum available in exemplary damages.
$3,600.00 is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning and carpet cleaning?

The tenant is required under s 40(1)(e)(iii) at the conclusion of the tenancy to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
I am satisfied that the exit inspection shows the property was largely in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with some areas of concern for which cleaning is justified.
The photos in the inspection reports are taken from a distance. While there are some areas requiring attention, these are minor.
Furthermore, The invoice also details that additional cleaning was undertaken to remove methamphetamine contamination from the property and as established above the methamphetamine decontamination costs are not recoverable, as contamination cannot be attributed to the tenant.
In these circumstances, I consider a contribution of $200.00 towards cleaning is appropriate.
In relation to carpet cleaning, the landlord has provided photos showing staining in multiple areas. The tenant had both a rabbit and a cat at the property, and the landlord says there were strong odours.
While a landlord cannot require carpet cleaning as a matter of course, it may be recoverable where it is reasonably necessary.
Given the presence of pets and the photographic evidence of staining, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that carpet cleaning was required. The sum of $550.00 is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the lock replacement costs?

In relation to the lock replacement, the tenant accepts that they replaced the locks in September 2024 without the landlord’s consent. While they say this was because the locks were defective, they did not raise this with the landlord or give the landlord the opportunity to remedy the issue.
The landlord incurred a cost to secure the property at the end of the tenancy as they were not satisfied that the tenants repair made the door sufficiently secure to a tradesperson standard.
I find that cost reasonable, and $220.00 is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for the roof repair invoice?

The landlord seeks $1,800.00 for roof repairs, alleging that damage was caused by the tenants installation of an aerial.
The tradesperson, Mr Luys Tiscoski, gave evidence that the damage to the roof tiles was caused by people throwing rocks at the roof. When it was put to him that the landlord claimed the damage was caused by the tenants aerial installation, he denied that. He maintained that position even when referred to his invoice.
He also said that the roof tiles regularly required repair and that he had carried out repairs both before and after the tenancy.
As such, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage to the roof was caused by careless or intentional acts of the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Suppression:
The tenant has been largely successful in their application, and I grant their application for suppression. Filing fee:
Each party is to bear their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483805 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 83 Luanda Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483805 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 83 Luanda Drive, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach section 45 and is exemplary damages appropriate?

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning and carpet cleaning?

Is the tenant liable for the lock replacement costs?

Is the tenant liable for the roof repair invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach section 45 and is exemplary damages appropriate?

Is the tenant liable for the cleaning and carpet cleaning?

Is the tenant liable for the lock replacement costs?

Is the tenant liable for the roof repair invoice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions