What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4566509?

The tribunal order states: Saeed Mohamed and Howa Mohamed to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Mt

How much money was awarded in case 4566509?

Compensation: Delay in installing he…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $740.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $753.65 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $422.86 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Shelving - Half Cost: $189.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Paintwork: $299.99 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Door: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $697.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4566509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4566509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10831770-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4566509?

The tribunal order states: Saeed Mohamed and Howa Mohamed to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Mt

How much money was awarded in case 4566509?

Compensation: Delay in installing he…: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $740.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $753.65 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $422.86 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Shelving - Half Cost: $189.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Paintwork: $299.99 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Door: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $697.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4566509?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4566509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10831770-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 7 Frost Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4566509 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4566509 — net $1,811.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$422.86		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Water rates to end of tenancy	$697.96		Water rates to end of tenancy
Repairs: Carpet insurance excess x3	$1,500.00		e for the damage to the downstairs carpet. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay $1500.00 being the insurance excesses for the carpet replacement in the bedroom…
Repairs: Kitchen bench insurance excess	$500.00		Repairs: Kitchen bench insurance excess
Lawns and Garden work: half cost	$192.50		Lawns and Garden work: half cost
Repairs: Paintwork	$299.99		Repairs: Paintwork
Repairs: Toilet seat and bathroom repairs	$230.00		Repairs: Toilet seat and bathroom repairs
Repairs: Bedroom shelving - half cost	$189.60		Repairs: Bedroom shelving - half cost
Repairs: Replace bedroom door	$172.50		Repairs: Replace bedroom door
Compensation: Reimburse pump repairs		$753.65	Reimburse pump repairs
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$740.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Delay in installing heat pump		$900.00	Delay in installing heat pump
Total award	$4,205.41	$2,393.65
Net award	$1,811.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,811.76

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4566509 — net $1,811.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to end of tenancy	$422.86		Rent arrears to end of tenancy
Water rates to end of tenancy	$697.96		Water rates to end of tenancy
Repairs: Carpet insurance excess x3	$1,500.00		e for the damage to the downstairs carpet. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay $1500.00 being the insurance excesses for the carpet replacement in the bedroom…
Repairs: Kitchen bench insurance excess	$500.00		Repairs: Kitchen bench insurance excess
Lawns and Garden work: half cost	$192.50		Lawns and Garden work: half cost
Repairs: Paintwork	$299.99		Repairs: Paintwork
Repairs: Toilet seat and bathroom repairs	$230.00		Repairs: Toilet seat and bathroom repairs
Repairs: Bedroom shelving - half cost	$189.60		Repairs: Bedroom shelving - half cost
Repairs: Replace bedroom door	$172.50		Repairs: Replace bedroom door
Compensation: Reimburse pump repairs		$753.65	Reimburse pump repairs
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$740.00	Failure to maintain
Compensation: Delay in installing heat pump		$900.00	Delay in installing heat pump
Total award	$4,205.41	$2,393.65
Net award	$1,811.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,811.76

Order

Saeed Mohamed and Howa Mohamed to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Mt Roskill as Agent for A & L Pala $1,811.76 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The remainder of the claims filed by both parties are dismissed.
Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 (3836523-008) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 September 2024. Mr Mohamed attended on behalf of both tenants, with the support of a friend. The owner attended by telephone from overseas. The property manager Ms Allen- Davis attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for the following: (a)Rent arrears to 12 December 2022 in the sum of $422.86 (b)Water arrears of $697.96 (c)Reimbursement of insurance excess totalling $2000.00 for carpet replacement in three bedrooms and the lounge/dining area (d)Reimbursement of insurance excess of $500.00 for replacement kitchen bench (e)Lawns and weeding - $385.00 (f)Electrical repairs and bulb replacement - $321.15 (g)Washing line replacement - $598.00 (h)Kitchen shelf replacement - 1/3 cost sought in the sum of $371.83 (i)Repair paintwork in stairwell - $299.99 (j)Replace broken shower door with curtain - $161.00 (k)Repair toilet seat, window latch and toilet roll holder - $230.00 (l)Repair bedroom shelving – ½ cost sought in the sum of $189.60 (m)Replace bedroom door - $172.50 (n)Service vertical blinds - $966.00 (o)Compensation for six weeks rent while repairs carried out (p)Refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing was adjourned on 21 December 2023 for further evidence to be filed by the landlord including evidence regarding the ages of the carpet, the washing line, the paintwork, the wardrobe shelves and the blinds and for the tenant to file a cross application.
The landlord has filed further evidence.
On 30 January 2024 the Tenant filed a cross application for: (a) Refund of payments made to landlord for repair of water pump in toilet (b) Breach of Healthy Homes Standards for heating and ventilation. (c) Compensation due to toilet pump breaking
The hearing has had two adjournments since December 2023 due to non- appearance of an interpreter. The Tribunal is grateful for the assistance of the Somali interpreter on 16 September 2024.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The parties agreed this tenancy began in October 2021 and ended on 12 December 2022. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed with these amounts, and they are ordered accordingly.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the exterior of the premises reasonably clean and tidy as the lawns were not recently mowed and the gardens needed weeding. The tenant disputed this and provided evidence that the lawns were mowed on 23 November 2022. The tenant further stated that even if he is liable for some lawn and garden work at the end of the tenancy it should not be the full amount claimed as the lawnmowing only cost him $30.00 and some work was done on trees that were landlord responsibility.
Having considered the exit photographs I find that the exterior lawns and gardens of the premises were overgrown at the end of the tenancy requiring both lawns and garden work to be done. Although the tenant did arrange lawn mowing this was more than 2 weeks before the tenancy ended, and the photographs show that at the end of the tenancy the lawns and gardens were not reasonably tidy. However, the landlord invoice for $385.00 was dated January 2023 and further growth would have occurred. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay half of the invoice in the sum of $192.50.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The landlord claims that damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy and seeks compensation for the repairs. I will consider each claim in turn: (a) Carpet damage. The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the carpet by causing henna stains in three bedrooms and the lounge/living area. The landlord seeks reimbursement of the insurance excess of $500.00 per room totalling $2000.00 for replacement of the carpet. In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and the insurance details. The tenant accepted that some stains were caused to the carpet but claimed that there was existing damage to the carpet and also that the downstairs carpet was damaged by sewerage overflow when the toilet pump broke multiple times. The landlord agreed that the toilet pump broke but stated the carpet was cleaned and disinfected afterwards. Having carefully considered the evidence including the photographs I find that the tenant is responsible for careless damage to the carpet in the three upstairs bedrooms requiring replacement, however, as there was existing damage to the lounge carpet and further damage caused during the tenancy as a result of the sewerage pump failure I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is solely responsible for the damage to the downstairs carpet. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay $1500.00 being the insurance excesses for the carpet replacement in the bedrooms. (b)Kitchen bench. The landlord seeks reimbursement of insurance excess of $500.00 for replacement of the laminate kitchen bench. In support of this claim the landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and the insurance details. The tenant claimed that there was existing damage to the kitchen bench. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the insurance excess for the kitchen bench. The photographs show that the bench was extensively damaged during the tenancy including pot heat burn marks and pink stains. I find that the tenant is responsible for careless damage to the benchtop during the tenancy and the tenant is ordered to pay the insurance excess of $500.00. (c)Electrical repairs and bulb replacement. The landlord seeks $321.15 for electrical repairs. The landlord provided an electrical invoice which stated that at the beginning of the tenancy all lights and the fan were checked and working. The exit inspection report records that the sensor light is not working and three light switches are faulty. The age of the lightbulbs that were not working was not provided. The tenant claimed that there was no damage caused to electrical fittings but that due to wear and tear some switches stopped working. He stated that he informed the property manager Rachel at the time but as she had recently called the electrician on another matter she said, “you should have told me earlier” and did not call the electrician again. The tenant tried to fix one of the switches himself but was not able to do this. Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that that the tenant or another occupant carelessly caused the electrical faults. Therefore, they form part of the landlord’s maintenance responsibility, and no compensation will be ordered. (d)Washing line replacement – The landlord sought $598.00 to replace the washing line which was broken. The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and an invoice for a new replacement. The tenant claimed that the washing line broke because a connection with a bolt rusted. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of the age of the washing line. Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant carelessly damaged the washing line and the damage was beyond fair wear and tear, therefore, no compensation will be ordered. (e)Kitchen shelf replacement – The landlord sought 1/3 of the cost of replacing the kitchen shelf under the sink in the sum of $371.83. Photographs and an invoice were provided. The entry inspection photographs show the kitchen shelf under the sink to be in a very poor state of repair with obvious water damage swelling the laminate shelves and the edge strip lifted. The entry report refers to previous leak damage. The landlord claimed that the damage worsened due to the tenant not reporting a leak under the sink. The tenant claimed that there was a small leak at the beginning of the tenancy and that the property manager Colin was aware of this but did not get it repaired and instead told the tenant to keep an eye on it. He stated that he used a bowl under the sink to try and catch the leak. He stated that he verbally raised the issue of the leak again with the property manager. The landlord provided an invoice dated 22 August 2022 to repair a water leak under the kitchen sink. The damage to the shelf is worse at the end of the tenancy, however, as it was in very poor condition at the beginning it is difficult to know if the further damage is carelessly caused or wear and tear on already water damaged shelving. Having considered the evidence including the poor condition of the shelf at the beginning of the tenancy, existing water damage and evidence of a further leak repair in August 2022, I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the shelf is beyond fair wear and tear. (f)Repair paintwork in stairwell – The landlord sought $299.99 for repairing the paintwork in the stairwell. The landlord provided before and after inspection photographs and an invoice for the repair. The landlord also provided evidence that the walls were repainted in 2020. Having considered the evidence of the damage on the stairwell walls I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the walls were carelessly damaged during the tenancy and order compensation in the sum of $299.99. (g)Replace broken shower door with curtain – The landlord sought $161.00 to remedy a broken shower door at the premises and replace it with a shower curtain. The entry inspection report shows the door in place but it cannot be seen whether it slides. The tenant claimed that the door did not slide from the beginning of the tenancy and came off when they tried to slide it. He stated that the door was left in the shower at the end of the tenancy, and this is shown in the exit photographs. Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for careless damage to the door. (h)Repair toilet seat, window latch and toilet roll holder – The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and an invoice for the repairs. The tenant stated that his children damaged the toilet seat and toilet roll holder. I find that the window latch was carelessly damaged also and order payment of the sum of $230.00 for the repairs. (i)Repair bedroom shelving – The landlord sought reimbursement of half of the cost of repairing shelving in a bedroom wardrobe in the sum of $189.60. The landlord provided evidence that the shelves were installed in 2020 together with entry inspection photographs showing the shelves to be in place. The exit inspection photographs show the shelves bent and falling down at the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not dispute that the shelves were broken. He stated that this was a result of them being poor quality but provided no evidence in support of this. Having considered the evidence and the extent of the damage caused I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the shelves were carelessly damaged and order the amount sought accordingly. (j)Replace bedroom door – The landlord provided photograph evidence that the door lock in bedroom 1 was broken. The tenant stated that his children had broken the door lock. The landlord sought reimbursement of half of the repair cost being $172.50. An invoice from Residential Property maintenance was provided. I am satisfied that the door was carelessly damaged and order the amount sought. (k)Service vertical blinds – The landlord sought the sum of $966.00 for servicing the vertical blinds at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that one blind has been broken and provided evidence that he had replaced this. He disputed that there was damage beyond fair wear and tear to the remainder of the blinds. The landlord was unable to confirm the age of the blinds. Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that there was damage to the blinds beyond fair wear and tear. (l)Compensation for rent while repairs carried out. The landlord sought compensation for six weeks rent while repairs were carried out following the end of the tenancy. As I have considered the landlord’s damages claims and found that the tenant is responsible for some damage but that other damage at the premises is wear and tear, I am not able to ascertain to what extent the tenant is responsible for the time to the complete the repairs. It is expected that landlords will need to do some maintenance in between tenancies, and this is part of running a rental property business. Accordingly, I find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for six weeks rent in compensation.

Did the landlord breach their obligations to maintain the premises?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord has obligations including that the landlord must: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the sanitation water pump in a reasonable state of repair and seeks reimbursement of the cost of repairing the pump on three occasions and compensation for over two weeks when the carpet was flooded.
The tenant stated that on four occasions during the tenancy the sanitation pump failed.
The first occasion was in December 2021 when the laundry flooded and waste water went out on to the downstairs carpet. The tenant stated that it took two weeks for the carpet to be dried and cleaned and in that time his family was not able to live in the house.
The landlord stated that they acted quickly and sought to repair the damage and clean and dry the carpets. The landlord provided evidence that they were notified on 2 December 2021 of the flood. The plumber attended the same day and repaired the sanitation pump. The landlord provided a copy of a work order to WOW carpet cleaning to remedy the water damage dated 3 December 2021. The landlord provided an invoice from WOW carpet cleaning dated 7 December 2021 to extract water and disinfect. The landlord stated that there was no evidence in their records that the tenant had notified them he was not able to live in the house. No photographs were provided of the condition of the premises at that time. I find that on this first occasion the landlord acted promptly to remedy the pump issue and there was no failure to maintain.
The tenant gave evidence that the pump broke on three further occasions in February, October and November 2022. On these occasions the landlord required the tenant to pay for the repair.
The tenant provided photographs taken in February 2022 showing that the overflow occurred in the toilet and water flowed from there to the carpet. The tenant stated that he was required to pay for this repair and the family needed to leave the premises for most of a week while the repair took place and the carpet was restored.
The landlord stated that there is a record on their property file that it was subsequently discovered that the second pump failure was due to the pump requiring replacement and that there was agreement to refund the tenant the cost of the repair but this was not done.
The landlord did not accept responsibility for the final two repairs on the basis these were caused by blockages which the landlord on advice from the plumber considered to be the tenant’s fault. I have considered the plumbing invoice dated 8 October 2022 which refers to a blockage that could not be seen, there was no record in the invoice of what caused the blockage. The tenant claimed that only toilet paper was used and this blocked the pump.
The work order provided by Barfoot and Thompson dated 1 November 2022 to Citywide plumbing asking them to investigate the pump records “I understand last time it was reported toilet paper was most likely the cause”. If the pump blocked while the toilet was being used in the usual manner this is a maintenance issue for the landlord. I am satisfied that the pump was blocked but I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant carelessly caused the blockage.
Therefore, the landlord is responsible to repair and maintain. The landlord has failed to reasonably maintain as the tenant has been required to pay for the repairs. I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant the cost of three pump repairs totalling $753.65 and to compensate the tenant for one week’s rent for the inconvenience caused due to the flooding.

Did the landlord fail to comply with the heating standard?

Saeed Mohamed and Howa Mohamed claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard by failing to provide a heat pump within the required time.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. As this tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement date which was 19 January 2022.
The landlord accepts that the heat pump was not installed within the required timeframe as it was not installed until 22 August 2022, seven months after the compliance date.
I find that the landlords committed an unlawful act due to the delay in installation.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord stated that the delay was not intentional but that the installation was not straight forward as they had to seek guidance from building professionals for advice on the placement of the external pump unit, avoiding placing the external pump unit near the downstairs bedroom windows for safety reasons, and avoiding any interferences with the existing gas lines and electricals inside the external walls of the house. The landlord stated that several quotes and installation options needed consideration and that the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions across NZ at the time did not help in installing the heap pump sooner. Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord did not commit an unlawful act intentionally so will not award exemplary damages.
However, the Tribunal may award compensation in the way of general damages for the effect on the tenant of the breach, these amounts are usually modest. The tenant stated that the premises were cold in particular during winter and the delay in installation affected the health of his family. I have considered these factors and find that an award of compensation is appropriate I order the landlord to pay compensation of $900.00 being $100.00 per month for the first five months from 19 January to 21 June and $200.00 per month for the colder months from 22 June to 22 August.

Did the landlord breach the ventilation standard?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) by failing to comply with the HHS ventilation standard as there were not extractor fans in all bathrooms.
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.
The landlord claimed that the premises had a compliant bathroom extractor fan in bathroom 1 and were exempt from having a bathroom extractor fan in bathrooms 2 and 3 as there was no possible way to fit an extractor fan unit in these bathrooms. A copy of a Healthy Homes Assessment dated 23 February 2021 was provided.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was exempt from providing an extractor fan in bathrooms 2 and 3 and therefore not in breach of the Healthy Homes standards. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have had partial success with their applications, I make no order for reimbursement of either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4566509 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Frost Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4566509 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 7 Frost Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach their obligations to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the heating standard?

Did the landlord breach the ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord breach their obligations to maintain the premises?

Did the landlord fail to comply with the heating standard?

Did the landlord breach the ventilation standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions